|
|
|
Euro-DNA Nations  The DNA Nations - 2020 Update A reading through of this update of a preliminary document of the DNA Nations concept to provide the basic specificatory structure to follow up for those who care for the curation of our diverse kinds of people. While our focus is on European peoples, curation for the preservation of our kinds - genus, species - and potential coordination on the basis of genetics, the concept does not preclude negotiating with mixed kinds, does not prescribe violence, exploitation in any way shape or form and does not preclude non-Europeans from curating their kinds for preservation and working out the means for their coordination with European kinds as well The DNA Nations - 2020 UpdateAn implicit union of unions and coalitions thereof based on DNA criteria. Euro-DNA Nations James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes sovereignty through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (for example, regarding laws which prohibit realtors from mentioning race to buyers or sellers). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities should be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association. This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Rather than trying to overthrow the the liberal zeitgeist of our epoch, Bowery maintains that we ought to hold liberals to their principles. We will respect and grant their valuation of freedom to go/and or be associated with whom they like and we as European peoples expect the same freedom of choice to go/ and or associate with whom we like. As far as European Americans and other European diaspora go, Bowery has, since his initial proposal for the laboratory of the states platform, concluded that rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are more optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes. I would argue that the initial state is rather a step toward unionization – a virtual and rules based association, though not made formal as a political action group to begin, just an informal union of unions based on voluntary DNA groupings. This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen state/county-sized ecologies of European diaspora derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses WN on the task of coordination. We wouldn’t really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence. There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a nation of European descended peoples is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, nations of European peoples are to hold up to the growing power of China, they will need to be large. Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller States/Counties, both freely chosen human ecologies and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing a mutual larger manifestation as well. By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing autonomous, sovereign nations of European peoples, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other WN nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front. There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of sovereignty for European peoples. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship. Nor does it mean antagonizing non-Europeans. We may extend the DNA Nation concept and its freedom of association to them as well. But just as the conscientious are concerned for the preservation of genus and species, pervasive ecology, so too is it perfectly legitimate to look after our European kind. For whom it may concern, the indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always). However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, WN would seek to re-establish our traditional territories as European, particularly those in Europe, but would also seek to secure sovereign territory in North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims. Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate WN of in its largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory. The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for sovereignty from non-native European coercion, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction. Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible. If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this union of unions that is the Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular category/union as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership. The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.
Daniel Sienkiewicz Prior Version James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes separatism through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (see Note 1 below). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities would be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association. Rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are apparently optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes. The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as serious criminal offenders.
This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.
This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.
We wouldn’t really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.
There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large.
Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well.
Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism.
By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.
There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.
The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).
However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.
Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.
The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.
Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.
If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.
The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.
Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
Premature to talk of land based discrimination It’s been a while since I’ve re-visited the Euro DNA Nations article, and upon discussion, moving through the article with Ecce lux, I’ve come to realize that it is premature to talk about states, counties, nations and exclusion on their basis. At this point, establishing a common ground and coordination in DNA is what we need to focus on. And with that, for example, if one wants to discriminate for/or against, say, “communists” or Christians, they may do so in correspondence with their DNA associations. It was premature for me to say to Ecce that his wanting to discriminate against ‘communists’ is a matter for county and state prerogatives. At this point, rather, it is through correspondence of genetic grouping that we might decide which ideologies, religions, etc., that we do not want to associate with - in Ecce’s case, he and his genetic fellows would choose not to associate with those deemed communist. There is no need to be so inflexible and put-off that kind of choice for the laborious and speculative prospect of organizing a county or state to your liking. That would, in fact, belie the nifty facility of DNA coordination as the fundamental basis, defeating much of its purpose - one of its best features being its flexibility and immediately ready implementation. Comments:3
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 08:48 | # .. what you talk about isn’t Leftism for Whites. It is imposed liberalism upon Whites. 4
Posted by Silver on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:03 | # Good stuff, Daniel. Work along these lines should have begun decades ago. The reason it hasn’t can be attributed, I believe, to some form of the “four fallacies” I outlined, which in turn results in a “Gresham’s Law of racialism” effect—bad racialism driving out good. Hanger, if leftists thought that way they never would have achieved what they have. 6
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:59 | # Too bad “Clamoring for war against Syria Part 4”, complete with its tabloidish imagry, could not have waited another day. I wouldn’t begrudge the significance of its discussion, but in being forefronted after just a few hours of this being posted, it buries this discussion some. 7
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:14 | # Daniel, I’ve made the story the top for a few days. As is known, it is my belief that The Laboratory of the States (strategically targeting counties in the face of globalist hollowing out of the nation states and their enslaved clients such as the several States of the United States) will help continue the process begun by the opening of land made possible by the New World: Re-discovering who we are. There are different modes of preservation: 1) The obvious aspects preserved endemic to indigenous lands. Examples of the former are well known and regarded. Examples of the latter are less well-recognized: For example, one of the main Gaelic language schools was preserved in Canada while in Great Britain Gaelic was deliberately attacked. Some traditions were also transmitted to the Appalachian Mountains in the US that were lost among the Scots and Irish that remained. Re-discovery is another feature of frontiers: As Man encounters Nature directly it brings forth essentials. For example, it is my belief the folks associated with Sovereign Press rediscovered some key aspects of the eugenic culture that produced Euroman’s unique individualism and that this rediscovery was a direct result of being left to go relatively “feral”. Of course, the results of going “feral” are not always, nor even usually, desirable since so much cultural damage has been done. One needn’t share my opinion of the merits of the Sovereign Press folks to see how allowing freedom of association—radical freedom of association—may be necessary to allow recovery of what might be called “genetic memory” of eugenic culture. 9
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:59 | # ...I should say this, that in re-editing, the word “control” sneaked-in there, for better or worse - as in, “controlling” territory. My original version stated the objective as “covering” territory. I’m not sure how much that word’s introduction had you emphasizing the potential value of “feralness”, but I see your point, nevertheless. 10
Posted by ffss on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:35 | # Well, this is dumb—and already explicitly banned by the EU in all Member States, if not already enforced against by the security forces as in all Western countries. Are Americans so broken and deracinated that they think the proper pieces of paper for a weird cult are the issue, or that they will pull a fast one on the hostile elites who would apply beep-boop-beep libertarian “logic” and think it beyond their remit to crush such a movement? If so, you should have specified the planet where you think your ideas should be considered. No wonder Silver thinks them brilliant. 11
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:58 | # You wish it was dumb, FFSS, then your cynicism would seem to have merit. But you haven’t bothered to understand it, so it does not matter what you think. 12
Posted by ffss on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:42 | # Oh, I understand it. Using genome testing or similar criteria for such group membership has been pre-empted and banned in the EU (evidently as a move against less dumber nationalist purposes). I am not as cynical as to claim “explicit Whiteness does not work”, the ultimate sort of defeatism by any measure, though this may very well be true for broken liberal Americans who would come up with your horseshit. 13
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:53 | # Posted by ffss on July 14, 2012, 12:42 PM | # Oh, I understand it. Using genome testing or similar criteria for such group membership has been pre-empted and banned in the EU (evidently as a move against less dumber nationalist purposes). I am not as cynical as to claim “explicit Whiteness does not work”, the ultimate sort of defeatism by any measure, though this may very well be true for broken liberal Americans who would come up with your horseshit. No you don’t understand it, FFSS. Because there is no membership - there is an expressed wish, only. The notion is conceived with oppressive laws against White association in mind. You don’t want to believe in its possibility (nor care that it is voluntary - neither you nor anyone else has to participate), you only want to bemoan the loss of Nazi Germany. I thought we agreed that you were going to go somewhere where you could endlessly bemoan WWII and not bother with this anymore?
14
Posted by Ulf on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:29 | #
Isn’t this basically the same thing Nazi Germany would have accomplished? The Nazis wanted to leave Western Europeans and North Americans alone and relatively autonomous. They wanted greater living space for Germans in the east, but this wouldn’t have entailed the wholesale destruction of the Slavs. Much of that land to the east had been Germanic territory in the past when it was occupied by the Ostrogoths. And it wouldn’t be that unjustified given that they would have been expending the blood and treasure to secure territory for others. 15
Posted by ffss on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:39 | # I apologise for being sceptical of your whisper-based implicit white nationalism. Upon further consideration, this clearly has a good shot of defeating the extant security apparatus of, e.g., the United States. 16
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:59 | # Ulf on July 14, 2012, 01:29 PM | # You don’t want to believe in its possibility (nor care that it is voluntary - neither you nor anyone else has to participate), you only want to bemoan the loss of Nazi Germany. “Isn’t this basically the same thing Nazi Germany would have accomplished?” Germans are probably still the largest group in America (more than English). It’s far better now to cooperate toward the securing of German ecologies in other contents (as well) than re-fighting WWII. There are much more productive things to talk about now. Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, places in Brazil, Argentina, etc. 17
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:01 | # Posted by ffss on July 14, 2012, 01:39 PM | # I apologise for being sceptical of your whisper-based implicit white nationalism. Upon further consideration, this clearly has a good shot of defeating the extant security apparatus of, e.g., the United States. Ok. No sweat. I’ll take that at face value. 18
Posted by Ulf on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:26 | #
The stated aims are different. But I meant in effect.
Why do you say they had a “pathogen”? Because they made war? “Symbiosis” doesn’t simply mean lack of conflict or war. 19
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:38 | # Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 02:26 PM | # It is very dissimilar from the aims of Nazi Germany. The stated aims are different. But I meant in effect.
Why do you say they had a “pathogen”? Because they made war?
To me it does. I like a Europe with the nations it has now. The sizes and shapes are fine to me. Maybe the Basques and others could use their territories defined a little more clearly..and certainly satellite nations for Europeans elsewhere is a desirable aim..
20
Posted by Ulf on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:27 | # You’re the one talking about the actual war. So the effect would be even more drastic and depart further than the effect of the Nazis - which would be to keep most European populations and the Anglosphere more or less in place? How would you prevent conflict or war without a dominant power or state? In which case we’re back to the Nazi example where Nazi Germany is the dominant European power and state and keeps European populations generally in place. 21
Posted by Silver on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:28 | # Himmler,
I commended the kind of thinking taking place here, not this very plan specifically (it’s still so vague it doesn’t even qualify as a plan). But by thinking alone these lines clearer objectives and plans of actions may present themselves. I don’t know what planet you’re on, but back on Earth it’s pretty clear that at this stage of liberal society’s evolution naked racial appeals to whites don’t appear to accomplish very much. Even worse, they backfire. Just as some things about human nature remain true whether liberals want to acknowledge them or not, some things remain true about racialism whether diehard nazis want to acknowledge them or not. Surely someone as versed as your good self in nazi history will remember that the nazis barely achieved electoral victory even while operating under historically optimal conditions. We all saw what followed. As Dubya might have put it, fool me once shame on me, fool me twice…well there’s not gonna be any getting away with that stunt again. And the reason isn’t merely “brainwashing,” though that of course figures prominently. A huge part of the reason is also that even people with strong racial feelings rebel against having the supposed implications of their feelings spelled out to them. Their reaction, both in my own experience and from what I’ve read, is along the lines, “well, fuck, hang on, I don’t hate these people that much!!”, followed later by reflection and a diminished—not augmented—sense of racial identity, or at least a diminished political racial will. Hence the necessity of proceeding slowly and cautiously. Slowly and cautiously is what the thinking outlined in the post you mock would accomplish. People would have something to be for, with real and measurable objectives to pursue. The traditional approach merely amps up racial feeling and arms people with facts, leaving those few who can be reached in this way all dressed up with no place to go. But what do I know? Maybe another thirty years of intense revisionism coupled with intimate knowledge of the biology and evolutionary psychology of honey bees is what is actually needed.
22
Posted by Silver on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:45 | #
I hate nazis. What Kevin MacDonald says of Jews—that no communication is possible—is even more true of nazis. Their racial hatred, their spite and loathing, is off the charts and drives them insane. They lack all ability to communicate with out-groups and I can’t imagine any out-group wanting to communicate with them. That said, I’ll grant that others could quite possibly have benefited from nazi expansionism and that the price of territory may well have been worth paying—in fact, may even have been a trifle. Unfortunately, the nazis failed to make it a priority to secure the cooperation necessary to achieve such grand designs. Imo, it’s not so late yet to make learning something from this mistake pointless.
23
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:45 | # Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 03:27 PM | # You’re the one talking about the actual war. No I am not. And I will stop talking about it.
No. It would be aimed at maintaining and extending all discreet European populations. With the addition of some blended European categories. How would you prevent conflict or war without a dominant power or state? In which case we’re back to the Nazi example where Nazi Germany is the dominant European power and state and keeps European populations generally in place. It is you who cannot conceive of anything but Nazis being the leaders… Where is Norman Lowell, somebody… Help! 24
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:48 | # I commended the kind of thinking taking place here, not this very plan specifically (it’s still so vague it doesn’t even qualify as a plan).
This stuff about who will be in charge is jumping the gun. 25
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:16 | # Regarding clarity, there was a change made in the editing that I should not have let go. Specifically, this sentence:
This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.
When in fact there are three matters of coordination that the piece is concerned with: freedom from association for Whites (within the life span) the ancient European territories and native inhabitants and a large enough nation to provide for a sufficient economy. I did not have Germany in mind, but a more neutral and optimal conglomerate DNA “nation” of Europeans.
26
Posted by Ulf on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:24 | # You can’t seem to rationally discuss the Nazis because of your insecurities. This isn’t even about the Nazis and their particularities per se. Their example is relevant because their general, practical effect would have been somewhat similar to that of an overarching power ruling over various populations. If talk of the Nazis makes you uncomfortable, we can look at other historical examples like the Catholic Church. 27
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:50 | # Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 04:24 PM | # You can’t seem to rationally discuss the Nazis because of your insecurities. This isn’t even about the Nazis and their particularities per se. Their example is relevant because their general, practical effect would have been somewhat similar to that of an overarching power ruling over various populations. If talk of the Nazis makes you uncomfortable, we can look at other historical examples like the Catholic Church. You don’t know my motives. It is not insecurities that has me not wanting to discuss the Nazis, it is the obviously poor example that they provided as opposed to what might inspire trust, confidence and cooperation. But you’re right that it is not about the Nazis. You and ffss brought them up and I wish you had not. They are irrelevant enough - no thanks to their over arching power rule; they didn’t manage to think in terms of symbiosis as opposed to superiority, dominance, master slave, etc. When I failed to be specific, I did not realize that the Nazi model would be proposed to fit the bill. I think talk of the Nazis makes most people uncomfortable for good reason. Besides, most would think of it as a decidedly losing hand for WN leadership - again, for good reason. Personally, I’d rather not talk about Catholic Church. Christianity of any kind may be more disastrous than anything for Whites. I know, I know, you are talking about its structure… Well, let me let the cat out of the bag…when it came to the White nation big enough to have a sufficient economy, Mike had in mind a White American nation, but I wanted to leave it a little more open ended than that for strategic reasons - because frankly, its Whites that I care about. If America is White, fine. If not, well, sorry, I have no allegiance…and would look for some other way and place to structure the great White nation - but definitely not Germans and Germans only despite their economic and other prowess - the historic evidence is clear that there needs to be some balance.
28
Posted by Ulf on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:14 | #
You said your definition of “symbiosis” is lack of conflict or war. You also said that discrete and blended European populations should be maintained and extended, and that Germans (and presumably any other group) shouldn’t dominate. You don’t think that would require some sort of dominant authority? 29
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:37 | # daniel, “This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.” it is. Also “control” -> “cover”. 30
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:49 | # Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 05:14 PM | # They are irrelevant enough - no thanks to their over arching power rule; they didn’t manage to think in terms of symbiosis as opposed to superiority, dominance, master slave, etc. You said your definition of “symbiosis” is lack of conflict or war. You also said that discrete and blended European populations should be maintained and extended, and that Germans (and presumably any other group) shouldn’t dominate. You don’t think that would require some sort of dominant authority? First of all, this essay does not propose an administrative authority yet. It proposes genetic categories of Europeans, some more distinct, some blended. It suggests that a separatist nation based on DNA can be a means to coordinate three goods: individually, freely chosen white human ecologies, the ancient human ecologies of Europe and the DNA nation having a size big enough to provide sufficient economy for space travel, to hold up to China, etc. I said nothing about a governing power. That is premature. I might only reluctantly sketch - because it is premature and not the subject of this essay - that the initial notion was prompted by a hope for a White state in north America large enough to do x, y and z… Wherever it is, I would hope that it be comprised by different kinds of native Europeans, representing their vested interests as a mutual concern. 31
Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:10 | # Posted by James Bowery on July 14, 2012, 05:37 PM | # daniel, “This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.” it is. Also “control” -> “cover”. Thanks, Jim That sentence is better there. Regarding the sentence that uses the word control, I did rewrite it a bit (from how it had been edited), softening it into a goal. “it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate the goal of controlling a protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory” It could stay that way if it is too much trouble, but the original may have been better. The original version was like this (no mention of control): it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory. 32
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 06:41 | # Bowery, while controlling for physical prowess, at around what IQ level do you believe killing efficiency would begin to plateau out or decline within the rules of single deadly combat as you define them? 33
Posted by daniel on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 10:24 | # Upon farther clarification, there should be no objections, of course, to participation from Germans among leadership groups concerning the well being of Whites overall. Just as obviously, they should not be the only participants among White leadership. 34
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:51 | # All very well but…American identity has always had at the heart of its being a model of identity which is hybrid, non-autochthonous, deracinated etc. It’s the John Coltrane question - why is his music and Coltrane himself not deeply and properly - authentically if you will - American? I’ve not yet seen an American on here tackle the question let alone provide a sensible boundary condition that works within American ideological norms. However much the modern world assaults the various forms of European linguistic-cultural identity no-one, not even a Frenchman, deep down at the heart of their being things being French is simply a matter of living in France and adopting certain ideas. Let alone would a Basque think along those lines, nor a Catalan, nor a Dane, nor an Irishman etc. Sure few can admit to such instincts under PC norms but they are lurking in our being. European history, geography, politics is steeped in such non-cosmopolitan ‘tribalism’. Our collective ideological imaginations are both deeper and wider than those of the vast majority of Americans. Jonathan Meades - a liberal TV figure in the UK - can state on one of his shows (about France) that Arabs and other non-Euro incomers to French society are profoundly “in but not of France”. Honestly could anyone say that in mainstream public life about any group within America - the Poles are in America but not of America etc? The trouble is this chaps - Americans are in foreign soil - it was never your beloved, autchthonous, authentic homeland. There is a price to be paid for thinking that Europe can be recreated and sustained by fiat in such a way. Either Euro-Americans are in but not of America (but then too this must be true for Blacks, Latinos etc.), or they are all equally part of this ideological and social experiment in starting an inorganic social-order from scratch that welcomes individuals and groups to bring an ever wider set of cultural norms, experiences, perspectives to the show (pluralism especially in religion was one of the most profound and radical impulses of the new social-order). Thus America is enriched by these many socio-cultural accretions and metabolising them within the body Americanus represents a radical, ongoing reworking of what America is but with the foundational commitments solidity in situ. Individual freedom and liberty for all that want it - the ‘universal’ nation. Individual liberty as an ideological acid that unites those that otherwise could not be united. No European could ever think that our often tiny, marginal, obviously limited, particularist nation(s) could possible be ‘universalist’ in this way - or if they do/have then reality soon bites as other Europeans say “hang on a minute dear boy think you’re wrong on that score”. Now of course people will pipe up - but all this liberalism, Enlightenment folly etc., is born of the European mind - yes it was and as someone else put it America might be regarded as representing the unbounded expression of some of the very worst of European ideas. A warning that over the longer-term such ideas, unchecked by any common sense, not restricted by real ideological alternatives etc., have the utterly dreadful quality of being the ideological equivalent of an auto-immune syndrome. The game dear Americans is up. Even if American went fascist (not a sensible idea by the way) what form do you think it would take? A pseudo-Christian ‘inclusive’ form no-doubt. Americans are an out-group - culturally, geographically, politically, imaginatively to Europeans. Sad perhaps but true. America versus Europe from our side of the divide - well it’s like looking in one of those distorting mirrors - one is both oddly recognisable yet very different in appearance - bloated and ugly. This reminds me one that splendid old duffer Auberon Waugh once wrote a piece for ‘The Spectator’ in which he questioned if Americans had immortal souls (Waugh was a Catholic). Waugh’s answer was a resounding no! Not being a Voodoo/Juju type myself I don’t really accept the concept but philosophical zombies might be the equivalent - no wait we have many of those types here in the UK. No the concept of a political or ideological zombie might be better - the individualist ‘liberal undead’ unaware of their state perhaps? 35
Posted by daniel on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:33 | # Hi Graham, From what I glean of your objections, this is yet another case where my original version may have headed off a perceived problem.
However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. The original sentence that I had written was this: However, D.N.A. without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be a Cartesian objective as well, problematic for a number of obvious reasons. What reason the editor had for rejecting the term Cartesian I can only speculate - perhaps too critical of science, perhaps appearing snobbish and not easily apprehended by the average reader. Whatever the case, separation from the land, particularly the land of our evolution, would be Cartesian - in other words, English, Scots etc, are in a crucial respect, in their evolution, inseparable from their land. I understand this. When I propose flexibility it is only in service of tactical retreat and long term survival. John Coltrane may be American, but he cannot not a part of a White nation - which is the concern here. There are some arguments to be made that The U.S. as a political entity was established to be a White nation - the word White is used in the Articles of Confederation as well as other founding discussions; in which I imagine its being a White nation for its posterity was taken for granted. Nevertheless, I do not hold the boundaries of the Unites States in the same kind of reverence as I do the political bounds of Europe as ensconcing the context of our profound evolution. Nor do I believe that most White Nationalists hold American political demarcation in similar esteem as Europe - take the example of the North West Front, which is prepared to let go the entire rest of the present day U.S. in order to secure 3.5 states for Whites. However, I do, of course, believe that it is wise to forge and coordinate White states, counties, communities, if you will, in diaspora as well. 36
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:22 | # CC asks: “Bowery, while controlling for physical prowess, at around what IQ level do you believe killing efficiency would begin to plateau out or decline within the rules of single deadly combat as you define them?” About the time that clairvoyance evolves so that one can divine the other’s future actions in response to one’s own, rendering intelligence superfluous. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife? Oh, I’m sorry, that question is prejudicial. It presumes you have stopped beating your wife. I should have asked, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” There, that’s better. 37
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:54 | # Look, I my view, playing conceptual jujitsu between differing versions of liberal ideology, playing off negative and positive forms of individual liberty, ‘freedom to choose’ etc., is all well and good but it’s still taking the radically deflationary liberal ontology of the autonomous ‘unencumbered’ self seriously and making it foundational. As such it’s a very stupid premise for reasons that have been previously discussed at MR, albeit at not all that deep a level of analysis, for quite some time. But I’m not here to disturb anyone, so do carry on. 38
Posted by daniel on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:27 | # Look, I my view, playing conceptual jujitsu between differing versions of liberal ideology, playing off negative and positive forms of individual liberty, ‘freedom to choose’ etc., is all well and good but it’s still taking the radically deflationary liberal ontology of the autonomous ‘unencumbered’ self seriously and making it foundational. As such it’s a very stupid premise for reasons that have been previously discussed at MR, albeit at not all that deep a level of analysis, for quite some time. But I’m not here to disturb anyone, so do carry on.
Freedom to choose a particular White European ecology (in diaspora, not in Europe) is only one feature of three matters in need of coordination. There are important reasons for maintaining this aspect, however - most importantly, freedom from association with non-Whites forbidden in America’s version of liberalism - I imagine to a large extent in Europe - we are not allowed to separate from non-Whites. However, underscoring the matter of free choice is hard for the “liberal” opponents to argue against. It is our free choice to associate with other Whites. Thus, it is an implicit strategy. More, to allow some options for Whites in diaspora, for different kinds of communities is rather nice, wouldn’t you say, as a communitarian? We are not talking about a facile experiment with Scotland. In fact, there are two other matters to coordinate - the next one being most important of all: our long evolved European human ecologies, as they have been historically bounded. And lastly, the establishment of a unit big enough to be economically viable for necessary projects and other-wise viable against antagonistic non-White nations. In this model, one is not free to choose an ancient European grouping (one would not have the option to choose Scotish, if they are not Scottish genetically), they must match it genetically. They might opt, however, to propose themself for an alternative Euro-grouping in diaspora. Those who opt not to participate in the White nation, to the point where they would intermarry with non-Whites would, hopefully, be compelled to stay out of our White backed community and suffer the consequences. I don’t understand how you see this as liberal. I am quite sure that I am not one of those! For me personally, coming to see expulsion from the White community as potentially sufficient punishment was a step, and rather a concession. Perhaps that is not your issue. But I tell you this. It is the aim with this DNA based nation to see places like Scotland become the homeland of Scots in genetic make-up - beyond 95%. That’s the idea. I am skeptical of over valuation of individualism - but Bowery’s appreciation for individualism heads toward community at any rate. While making modest concessions to liberalism*, I cannot for the life of me see how the plan and motive here is liberal. * I have reservations about he scientific metaphor of freely chosen and experimental communities. It seems to me to be playing fast and loose with our evolution. A myriad of abuses can obtain pseudo justification under the rubric of testing, experiment. Thus, your suspicions being aroused are well founded in my opinion. And perhaps the control variables need to be shored up a bit regarding these experimental White communities. That is why the deep, European component is so significant. However, I believe you are not as far apart from Bowery as you may think - he is motivated to establish freedom from association with non-Whites; which at present is prohibited in The U.S. More, I have no doubt that he would not object to some of those laboratories being Scottish and the Scottish homeland being for Scottish. In fact, I’m sure he’d encourage it. 39
Posted by daniel on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:59 | # Here is another non-liberal understanding of this DNA coordination: the notion of “internal relation” as advanced by continental philosophers, and perhaps copied by Wittgenstein with his notion of “depth grammar”. 40
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:01 | # That last post of mine should have started “Look, in my view”. Typo on my part but I’m sure the meaning of the comment wasn’t too difficult to understand. 41
Posted by daniel on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:15 | # Posted by Graham_Lister on July 15, 2012, 04:01 PM | # That last post of mine should have started “Look, in my view”. Typo on my part but I’m sure the meaning of the comment wasn’t too difficult to understand. There is no liberal ontology to European categories - on the contrary. People electing to participate in a Euro-DNA Nation must come to terms with one another; ultimately learn and assist one another. There is a particular need for communal negotiation in the more experimental communities. There is no conflict with those who would stand their ground. There is, however, additional flexibility, places from which to assist endangered and embattled communities.
Nobody has to participate - though I would recommend it. 42
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:20 | # @Daniel OK fair enough hopefully some others will contribute to the thread. On the identity point I’m a British person with a Celtic ancestry. I couldn’t really choose to become Basque or Catalan now could I? Nor can I choose to become Chinese. I’d be a very bad actor. How precisely, from the melting-pot of even just Euro-Americans, can you/they de-Americanise themselves and ‘pick’ a form of European ecology/identity (stricto sensu) without it being a poor simulacrum? I don’t know if that’s what you’re suggesting they do, but it might be a case of an evolutionary hysteresis. Or in other terms an asymmetrical phenomenon - easy to go one-way (into melting-pot and the abstract universalism of Americanism) and almost impossible to go in the other direction (the concrete particularities of highly specific European identities). 43
Posted by Kyeh Khatah on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:33 | # We spend far too much time arguing and far too little time acting. This whole treatise is based on the presumption that our enemies are going to let us have what we want, just because we ask them nicely for it. They will not. You know what this will ultimately come down to, so prepare. 44
Posted by daniel on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:51 | # Posted by Kyeh Khatah on July 15, 2012, 04:33 PM | # We spend far too much time arguing and far too little time acting. This whole treatise is based on the presumption that our enemies are going to let us have what we want, just because we ask them nicely for it. They will not. You know what this will ultimately come down to, so prepare.
45
Posted by daniel on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:27 | # Posted by Graham_Lister on July 15, 2012, 04:20 PM | # @Daniel OK fair enough hopefully some others will contribute to the thread. On the identity point I’m a British person with a Celtic ancestry. I couldn’t really choose to become Basque or Catalan now could I? Nor can I choose to become Chinese. I’d be a very bad actor. As it is stated in the post and as I have reiterated in the comments, no - you cannot choose these things.
I don’t know if that’s what you’re suggesting they do, but it might be a case of an evolutionary hysteresis. Or in other terms an asymmetrical phenomenon - easy to go one-way (into melting-pot and the abstract universalism of Americanism) and almost impossible to go in the other direction (the concrete particularities of highly specific European identities). Hysteresis sounds like a relevant element for consideration. And it is not my purpose to duck potential problems in this proposal. Still, I did not really have in mind for European diaspora to return to Europe. Though if one is of a particular strain and they would like to return to their homeland, I don’t have an objection, personally (providing they are otherwise decent and meet the existential requirements of the homeland). This is what I have done (with some difficulty, admittedly). More, this is not an absolute purist notion - a modicum of European admixing should not be negative if sufficiently controlled. Nevertheless, it is mostly the objective for a person to identify a category for themself which factually is the case. We are not looking toward altering these categories but rather providing options for deepening their support and expanding them in space. If one is a blend they might opt for one or another variant, perhaps a mixed category. Nevertheless, they would be constrained in accordance with their genetics. A few hundred years is not all that much difference but we are not looking to de-Americanize people. Remember, this is an endogenous process. We are looking for those people who want to participate in a White Nation, not for those who do not want to. 46
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:40 | #
You may be if you buy into the Sykes/Oppenheimer saga. Celtic is not a bloodline. Celtic peoples do not share a single genetic-inheritance. It is a language and a culture. Freedom of association is not a European concept. At its greatest extent it is Nordic and probably more specifically, as Fraser has discussed at length an Anglo-Saxon extended phenotype. It was destroyed in N/A in the early 20th century by white ethnic groups that resented being excluded by the Anglo-Saxon founding people. White multiculturalism is what suceeded it. 47
Posted by daniel on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:30 | # re Desmond Jones # 46 Freedom of association can be the point of emphasis for those who want to exercise that option to its fullest - whether participating in a new category of European or opting out of the White race entirely. Those “ethnics” who resent freedom of association can stay with their own category. 48
Posted by daniel on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:42 | # And it is clear that within this scheme, the Aglo-Saxons are free to maintain their category. 49
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:06 | # The ‘Anglo-Saxon political exended-phenotype’, freedom of association, is in fact the sum total of all previous permutations of political organization which this people have lived under…an evolutionary process foreign to all other Europeans. 50
Posted by daniel on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:38 | # Posted by Desmond Jones on July 16, 2012, 02:06 AM | # The ‘Anglo-Saxon political exended-phenotype’, freedom of association, is in fact the sum total of all previous permutations of political organization which this people have lived under…an evolutionary process foreign to all other Europeans. Fine. Let them do their thing. Advocating freedom of association was not the chief point of this essay, not by a long-shot. The coordination of these White human ecologies, chosen within the life-span (Anglo-Saxon or not) along with the deep human ecologies ensconced in our European habitats, and a White nation big enough to fund projects and defense is the point. 51
Posted by Silver on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:50 | #
So it was resentment/pursuit of self-interest that contributed to its destruction, not some inherent aversion.
Which is why Anglo-Saxons to this day fight so hard to preserve it, rofl. Hey Desmond, is Anglo-Saxons’ world-beating ethnomasochism also part of the same evolutionary process? Look, either the concept is comprehensible and rated favorably or it isn’t. That’s what will decide the issue, not the concept’s evolutionary provenance. 52
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:34 | # An obvious mechanical problem with sign-up is authentication—not whether the person is actually “Euro” (that is ultimately dealt with under some operational definition based on DNA) but whether the person actually IS. Then there is the practical problem of coming up with the operational definition of “Euro”. Obviously, that would be a point of attack—particularly if it were to be based on some sort of plebiscite since Euros constitute such a small minority of the world’s population of real “persons”. In the case of the Laboratory of the States, there is also the allocation of territory which is a point of attack. One option for addressing it (perhaps an operational definition of “county” as the locale from which jurors are drawn) in the “BTW” of this comment: 53
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 05:26 | # Thanks for running the article and for comments.. Being happy with the essay, and not all that sensitive, I have to force myself a bit to see why it was misapprehended where I believe that it was. One colleague, who is actually well known in the struggle, commented through personal email and gave me some really surprising “feedback.” Surprising to me, as I know this man to be very smart, to be one who keenly parses critical issues and to write brilliant essays. First, I think that I am seeing that even very smart people can rather see, in a quasi imagined, perceptive sense, the issues that they want to see in an essay, and go on attacking staw men. Aside from that, which may always be to some extent beyond the control of a writer, I go on to consider my part.
However, I take for granted that whatever individualism we have, is born, constructed and maintained out of the social. I had thought that would have been clear enough on the basis of my White Left essay; but if not, certainly on the basis of previous essays as a point of mere and easy verification (as in, not expecting people to pour over my essays in meticulous detail). There are corporeal aspects to individual selves, as well as autobiographical aspects which can be adopted and cultivated - this tends to be valued in western cultures in particular. That is not an altogether bad value. However, it does conflict with the most important project at hand for White nationalism, which is coordinating, if not organizing our collective defense. Speaking for myself, to whatever extent I value individualism, it is within the context and service of the native European race - what I call the White Class. Valuing individual liberty constrained as such, is called “paradigmatic conservatism.” That is, the border of a culture, a race, a group, would be conservative, while individual ways and communities would be fairly free to pursue various projects, provided they did not violate the group’s parameters. Naturally, they would be free to form groups more conservative than the group’s norms as well. Ok, so taking that stuff and more for granted, I provided some background of the laboratory of the states, which I believe to be well considered project - in need of some fleshing out and correction here and there, but basically fine and good. As I have said, I have a problem with the scientific metaphor as testing and experiment can potentially be used to justify a myriad of abuses and transgressions; playing fast and loose with long, precious and context contingent evolution. Nevertheless, we do not want to be the enemy of freedom anymore than we want to be the enemy of sex. So, we’ve got to use the notion of freedom to our best. One of the places where freedom hurts us most is where people breed outside the race. Bowery and Renner, being the gentlemen that they are, would probably suggest that they be banned from the White Nation for that and left to the consequences of that way of life as opposed to forcing the rest of us to deal with its ramifications. That sounds reasonable to me, a bitter concession, but more practical than burning at the stake. Thus, we needn’t be the unnecessary enemies of freedom, within parameters, we can allow for our creative side, our various ways of life and communities in experimentation - protecting this most precious, creative aspect of ourselves as European. Now then, in expulsion, I believe that we have one practical answer, coming from a liberal mindset, as to one of the liberal short comings - that problem again, is allowing individuals, within their life-span, to play fast and loose with long, historical evolution. Just as we do not want to be the unnecessary enemies of freedom, neither do we want to betray the very source of whatever individualism, freedom, use and enjoyment that we may have, which is the deep ecologies of our European peopled, land nations - obviously as worthy as any rain forest, of course, more-so. I thought the essay would have been more clear as to how crucial I consider these peopled land nations as a matter to coordinate. Maybe the prejudice that some have toward Jim and his predilection for individualism and empiricism caused some cognitive dissonance against seeing the point that I was endeavoring to coordinate variegated communities with the ancient homelands and more, with a viably large White state in their service. I also believe that some have seen talk of DNA and they react rather immediately that I have in mind a rather puritanical and cruel eugenicism. I certainly do not. One colleague commented that he thought he might be excluded because he was 1/16th American Indian or something - I was shocked. Whatever one is, there can be categories devised to fit them and those who might wish to participate. There should be a category for those who have traces of non-European and do not want to be made uptight about it. More, there may be those who are more pure, but don’t particularly mind participating with people who may have 1/16 Amerindian and so on. Another objection raised was that I was parceling out organic and existential criteria. That the DNA criteria was sterile and would leave people cold. My answer is, not if they understand it correctly. I would rebut by once again pointing to my previous essays in addition to my actual intentions. Moreover, it is not either/or. It is both, and. If one is a Christian, a satanist, a well, etc. the matter is more or less addressed by the laboratory of the states/counties - different communities may be formed, but not merely - they may be supported within the scheme of my essay. More, particularly in the more “liberal”, experimental communities, people would be forced to interface more and negotiate their ways in a more fully existential sense. And don’t criticize me about organicism - that’s my baby, ensconced within the notion of The White Class and in stark contrast to the rupturing technology of empirical, individual rights. Having said all that, I am happy with the idea and the essay Maybe the idea hasn’t taken off quickly for the reasons I have suggested or maybe it is summer and people are up to other things. Perhaps it will never be well popular. Perhaps it will and is settling the background of consciousness.. I am happy with it as it is, and am grateful to Soren Renner and Prof. Kevin MacDonald for help in editing. I take it they see its merits and that means a great deal. I also thank James Bowery for being not only a good sport, but actually allowing for some changes to the essay in midstream and for putting it back as the leading article for a few days. If there are any White friendly genetic testing labs, technicians out there, I would like to know about them - it would be nice to form a cooperative endeavor on the basis of this project and the White Nationalist struggle overall. 54
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:01 | #
Or not, especially if they’re Slavs. LOL
Today’s lesson, boys and girls, is about the cricket and the parasite. LOL
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/are_jews_white_revised#c48537
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/are_jews_white_revised#c48580 55
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:02 | # ...ahh, and another thing: some have charged the notion with being naiive. I believe this too, stems from a kind of cognitive dissonance which did not allow them, as reader, to make it to the end of the essay before forming a position. This project is voluntary, it is an expression of a wish and discretion is advised. I don’t know if it would be illegal to declare, in Germany for example, that “I might wish to be a part of genetically White separatist nation one day”, but I trust people to have feel enough of their situation, their local, state living regulations, to know how much of risk it might be and how much risk they might be willing to take. I should think that in many cases, signing a petition saying that one might wish to be a part of a White separatist nation would not be very dangerous. However, as TT Metzger sagely cautions with his lone-wolf strategy, any sort of visibility on a list can be a liability. Enemy lawyers can be imaginative, with anything from R.I.C.O. laws to merely having a convenient list for their agent provocateurs to investigate and set upon. Thus, there should be lone and ghost wolves. ZOG has huge money at its disposal and for its agents, roping White Nationalists into illegal activity is just a job for which they are well paid to do. Nevertheless, while for some people there are well considered reasons not to participate even to the level of “declaring a wish”, I believe that for most people it would be cowardly not to participate that much. Even Metzger, one of the major proponents of covert, independent agents, acknowledges that some people need to be above ground advocates and adherents. 56
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:25 | # Posted by Desmond Jones on July 17, 2012, 01:01 AM | # People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as serious criminal offenders. Or not, especially if they’re Slavs. LOL Which is why Anglo-Saxons to this day fight so hard to preserve it, rofl.
That’s how heavy the American (Germanic and Jewish influenced) propaganda was. When I first saw Poland I was infuriated. As a matter of percentages, the women certainly were prettier than western women. The people were mainly normal and technologically sufficient. I am not one to study men, but they were bigger than I am and seemed all too viable - not easy competition for me when it came to women - that is going to bring me to my next point, which I will go into as a remark upon this: I shouldn’t gloat, as I’m you’re suffering, but what the hell, it IS fun to watch; keep it up. Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste? Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you? Even now. Especially now. They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin. Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl. But think of the progeny of such unions. Darker skin AND more caucasian features. Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT. Face it white boy, your end is nigh. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/are_jews_white_revised#c48537 If you’re gonna play for keeps, so am I. And you can bet I’ll join forces with the Jew boys to carry you fellows beyond the point of no return. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/are_jews_white_revised#c48580
57
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:44 | # Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl. But think of the progeny of such unions. Darker skin AND more caucasian features. Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT. Face it white boy, your end is nigh. There is no compelling reason to acquiesce. Most of us White men prefer our women; certainly we mainly prefer our way of life; and we find our men more easy and enjoyable to deal with. The increase in mulattoes, compelling though they may be, will not mitigate their typical nigger behavior altogether, but more importantly, will not diminish the throngs of Blacks proper, along with their Black behavior “proper.” Thus, there is no good reason for White men to acquiesce. And there is compelling reason for them to continue to attempt to educate women that Blacks and mulattoism are not in their interests as women. Failing persuasion, there is every legitimate reason for White men to expel these women and their offspring - to not allow them to impose the harrowing effects of their choices upon a successive generation of White children who have no choice as to the world they come into.
58
Posted by Silver on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:01 | # Lol, there’s nothing unusual about nazi types getting under your skin so much you’ll say anything to annoy them. Go to any race board and you’ll see the same thing occur over and over again (people who follow this sort of thing will be surprised by how far “whitewards” racial discussions have shifted in recent years, but this has also created something of a backlash). More mature people can accept that sometimes people say things they don’t mean, but not nazi dinosaurs like desmond—who goes even further and insists you do mean things you haven’t even said, which is why, Daniel, he’ll never accept that you’re sincere about wishing his kind well or being willing to part ways with them. No point getting upset by his silliness, though, that’s one thing I’ve learned. His posts for me contain only entertainment value, even (or especially) when he’s bearing his fangs. 59
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:12 | # Why must we be so sophisticated? If we cannot stop nonwhite immigration, it’s all over anyway. Why be radical? Why not build outwards from small victories? First, we persuade a majority of our people to demand the deportation of illegals (do we have a ‘rule of law’ or not? in the US under Obama, we do not, as even mainstreamers understand). Once that is on its way to completion (for logistical reasons we literally cannot get rid of all 20+ million illegals overnight), we demand an end to legal immigration, whilst simultaneously turning up the heat on affirmative action. And so forth, constantly building up the ideological consciousness of our people as we move from incremental victory to victory. In the US, this is the only path forward. Anything else is mere fantasy, or personal agendas of various sorts. 60
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:21 | # No, Leon. This is not either/or. You and others are free to try traditional and mainstream means to organize and fight immigration. I do not have much faith in the political/economic process as they are to achieve that efficiently enough. Hence, I seek an alternative means of organizing defense and separatism - which, in effect, is what you seek in halting immigration and controlling the borders. I just see this as a more flexible and efficient means to work toward that end, the end of separatism, at this point. However, as I have said, this does not preclude coordination with those who would hold their ground. 61
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:02 | #
Like Hitler…he didn’t really mean those nasty things he said…the Slavic Underman…no really it was a joke…so much sanctimonious mendacious parasite…so little time…LOL 62
Posted by daniel on Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:31 | # Of all the things we need to do, you want to pick a fight between Germans/Anglo-Saxons and Slavics? Desmond, I remember your showing me a picture of a “Ukrainian” who looked suspiciously like a Jew, whom you were using to illustrate a resentful ethnic activist against the Anglo-Saxon power structure of Canada. Those who have a proclivity to sort out the Jews and the Jew thinkers do not have a bad habit in looking toward that as a first hypothesis of whom to take issue with. Some of the Germans are blaming Anglo-Saxon elites for complicity with Jewish bankers - now ready to let the Jews take all of the heat. No doubt there would be complicit Slavics as well….and Germans… A traitor is a traitor. 63
Posted by daniel on Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:46 | # “However” One other way in which the original version may have been more clear would be that this sentence began with the word, “However”, thereby providing a turn signal, away from the idea of individual prerogatives and into a different and serious consideration for our deep, historically situated evolution. Therefore, this sentence: This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats.
However, this freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. 64
Posted by Silver on Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:17 | #
He probably felt that way at the time, but who’s to say that twenty years on, had he not taken the country to war, he might not have come to feel differently about it? Only the most irrational diehard genetic determinist dolt could believe that people never change their minds about anything. What a hearty LOL that deserves. There’s nothing to be gained from discussing anything with national-saxonist screwballs like you. You will have to be sidelined, for the good of all. Out of the way, nincumpoop.
65
Posted by daniel on Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:28 | # This sentence was a frustrated slip: “...would look for some other way and place to structure the great White nation - but definitely not Germans and Germans only despite their economic and other prowess - the historic evidence is clear that there needs to be some balance.” I would have meant to say: would look for some other way and place to structure the great White nation - but definitely not Germany and Germans only despite their economic and other prowess - the historic evidence is clear that there needs to be some balance. And clarified my point with this comment. “Upon farther clarification, there should be no objections, of course, to participation from Germans among leadership groups concerning the well being of Whites overall. Just as obviously, they should not be the only participants among White leadership.” I can understand Pilsudski’s Polish nationalism and his not trusting Hiter, despite Hitler’s proposal of alliance. Hitler himself would come to have second thoughts as to the Reich’s designated in/out group upon visiting parts east and seeing the blonde children there… Nevertheless, Pilsudski’s pragmatic stance of welcoming Jews into Polish nationalism to fight for it, would have been problematic. The transfer agreement and a settlement of the border would have been ideal. 66
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 02:07 | #
Daniel, The nematode is you and no matter what legerdemain is employed, to convince your host otherwise, your presence portends racial death. If you had a moral bone in your body you would return to the Slavic homelands and encourage other Slavs to do the same to aid and abet their survival. All those beautiful Polish women await you. Imagine the power a self-determined mass exodus of Slavs would have to embolden the cause of EGI. But you won’t, because like the mendacious Silver, you pretend to care, but in reality you are driven by self-interest. 67
Posted by daniel on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 03:16 | # Posted by Desmond Jones on July 20, 2012, 09:07 PM | # Of all the things we need to do, you want to pick a fight between Germans/Anglo-Saxons and Slavics? Daniel, The nematode is you and no matter what legerdemain is employed, to convince your host otherwise, your presence portends racial death. Desmond, I had not realized yet what a shit head that you are - Ok, now it is established what kind of shit lies behind the legerdmain (what an asshole). If you had a moral bone in your body you would return to the Slavic homelands I have already done this, and have abandoned you to your hubris. I nevertheless offer sincere concern and help to persons of European extraction as I did when in The U.S. (I have never been to the U.K., and I have said repeatedly now, that I think it is wrong for so many Poles to be there. I’ve always been against the E.U.) and encourage other Slavs to do the same to aid and abet their survival. However, with ethics in mind, I would not encourage any Whites to live with a nemantode like you. Nor among the niggers with whom you mingle of your own hubris (how much of a problem can that be? You are so much better than everyone?), the mudsharks adoring the arrogant homo that you are..you, in turn worshiping adonis, don’t you? So riveting your love of big strong men, isn’t it? Gay masochist at bottom. Good riddance. I am here in the homeland and actually, Slavs need help less at this point than do the western Europeans. All those beautiful Polish women await you. Indeed. Imagine the power a self-determined mass exodus of Slavs would have to embolden the cause of EGI. No need for a mas exodus, there is a mass presence. But you won’t, because like the mendacious Silver, you pretend to care, but in reality you are driven by self-interest. Now I know that these false accusations about my motives were circulating among clique of shit-heads - ok, who is going to try these smear cards now? I’m so vain, I don’t care about not wanting to see White women and men fucked over… No, I recognize the health of all Europeans as corresponding to my own. Thus, it is rather you who is acting like the nemantode unconcerned for its host. You seemed like a nice guy at one time Desmond, what happened? Is this a different person? a nemandtode functioning under the same ledgerdmain? I encourage you to care for and maintain your own people, to have friendly relations with your neighbors, extending a plan as such - but you prefer strife, acting like a Jew agent. Are you a Jew?
68
Posted by Silver on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:16 | #
He’s not so much a shithead as he is a lovesick fool. “Oh my race, my race, by poor, lovely race; pristine and unblemished, now befouled by vile hordes of genetic gunk; how I weep for thee.” And that’s it. He’s stuck in that mental loop and it’s all he can think about. But for whom does he really weep? Is it for some fat, freckle-faced pig in track pants queuing at Walmart? Of course not! It’s a sublime image of racial perfection he has in mind that he seeings being besmirched, being wiped from the earth, being transmogrified, and that’s what causes him to lash out at people the way he does. If it wasn’t for that he wouldn’t be so unreasonable. He’d concede that his racial views and his racial feelings are not the only possible views and feelings. He’d see the bigger picture. He’d recognize mistakes as mistakes and work to rectify them and welcome support in rectifying them, rather than moan endlessly about how wronged he’s been. He’d actually have something of value to contribute. As it is, he has nothing.
69
Posted by daniel on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 06:00 | # I don’t mind Desmond being concerned for his category of Whites - on the contrary. In fact, I do not even mind if he cares for his category of Whites only, if he wants to be such a narrow shit head - but to pick fights with people who want his and his people’s well being doesn’t make sense. Thus, I wonder, rather find tedious his lack of judgment in clouding the discussion with this contentiousness.
70
Posted by Silver on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:00 | #
See, that’s not allowed in his view of the world. If you were really concerned about his kind’s wellbeing you’d haul your ass back to Poland—or maybe even put a hollowpoint through the roof of your mouth, you know, just to make up for all the trauma and heartache you’ve caused him. And hmm, even then it’s touch and go whether he’ll lay off, because, in his words, his kind are “qualified by excellence” to rule over others. (Might that upset someone to the point he’ll make some untoward remarks? That’s no excuse, according to Desmond.) I’ve said it before and it bears repeating, there’s really no communication with people like him. Whatever you say, all he can hear is the rumble of a globe resolutely intoning Fee-fi-fo-fum, we smell the blood of the Englishmen, today they live, tomorrow dead, for reasons which best left unsaid.
71
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:03 | # What’s wrong with Poland? All these hot Polish chicks no doubt yearning for “the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin”. No doubt Daniel and his Polish pals will love to have Silver and his Pakistani brethren compete for this bounty of Polish pulchritude. What say you Daniel? Unquestionably a bro like Silver, full of compassion and caring for the ‘white’ man, is welcome in Slavland? 72
Posted by daniel on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 07:38 | # Posted by Desmond Jones on July 23, 2012, 02:03 AM | # What’s wrong with Poland? All these hot Polish chicks no doubt yearning for “the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin”. No doubt Daniel and his Polish pals will love to have Silver and his Pakistani brethren compete for this bounty of Polish pulchritude. What say you Daniel? Unquestionably a bro like Silver, full of compassion and caring for the ‘white’ man, is welcome in Slavland? No, Desmond. My own ideal is that each of the indigenous European Nations would be comprised of more than 95% of their native peoples. In fact, Poland is one of the few European nations that is comprised of more than 95% of its native own. Why would you want to instigate any White women to miscegenate? Are you evil or just sick? Are you Al Goldstein? Why would you want to instigate non-White immigration upon any Europeans? Most Jews that remained in Poland after the war left for Israel in the late 60’s. From historical experience with them, Poles have long been better versed in the J.Q. than Americans. Poles are verifiably one of the homogeneous native genetic groups of Europe. Poles are a distinct people from Jews - Jews would mark their own distinction from Poles irrespective. 73
Posted by Silver on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:38 | # Desmond, I guess the attempt to get under your skin was wildly more successful than I ever thought possible, lol. If you go on race forums you’ll see that sort of thing being said all the time. I get it too, from other groups. People simply do not take kindly to being racially sneered at, while others fear the implications of political racialization, and try to hit back with whatever they can. On the other hand, some appear to be stumped by what all the commotion could be about since they seem to genuinely not care about racial physical difference per se. Making racial contempt the centerpiece of racial politics is such an obvious loser’s game that your reversion to it time and again only confirms to me what a doofus you are. I have no trouble believing that of the two of us I’m the only one really LOLing here. Now, your taunts do appear to have affected poor daniel though, and sent him into some kind of apologetic tailspin. So bravo, Desmond. You’ve really struck a blow for the White Man there, pal.
74
Posted by daniel on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:55 | # . Desmond is actually doing a favor in making a perfect example of himself of what a right-winger is like - viz. an asshole. .... 75
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:37 | #
This is clearly correct tactically, as a matter of PR. It’s nearly as stupid as walking around in white robes or with swastikas. But let us remember, however, that the ultimate justification for the hard, authoritarian measures that will have to be implemented and enforced if the white race is to endure are rooted less in notions of vive la difference, than in the superior rights of the, well, superior. Do the Abos in your country have the same survival rights viz the Anglos, as the Anglos have viz avoiding inundation by Asians? I think not. It’s not just a nice, egalitarian matter of Scotland for the Scots, and Iboland for the Ibos, etc. The Scots have a greater moral claim to keeping Abos out of Scotland than the Abos do in keeping Scots out of Oz, and this is because Scottishness - the heritage, history, culture, society and past and potential accomplishments of the Scottish ethnie - is so incomparably superior to any element of the Abo heritage or prospects. It would be a great loss to the world, to the progressive advance of mankind itself, if Scotland, or Holland, or Middle America, were to be submerged under a demographic tsunami, and erased as a living presence in the world. If all the Abos disappeared or died, would you or anyone else really give a shiiite? What would be mankind’s real loss? So if racial contempt towards outsiders helps to bind a given white society, thus giving that society a greater likelihood of perpetuating itself, then a case can be made for it, even if objectively it remains morally unattractive. We must never forget what really matters - advancing white EGI. This is the supreme task of whites (and even of all mankind, if everyone correctly understood the value of white civilization). This advance ideally should be effectuated in commonly, ethically acceptable ways. But that cannot always be assured, and where there is a conflict, we must always ask and defer to what is best for whites. 76
Posted by daniel on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:52 | # Leon, the rule of respecting discreet White living spaces being discussed here is meant primarily to be an inter-European matter. I am not David Duke. I do not pretend to care about non-Whites just the same as Whites. Though I can see the practicality in not highlighting an aggressive campaign against them, I do not pretend to care about non-Whites as much as anyone else. I am not applying the same rules to ancient Indian claims on the Americas or aboriginal claims on Australia and New Zealand - rather, I take for granted these places being validly maintained as White if not entirely, then in large parts. One should not apply the same moral consciousness of a few hundred years ago to the people of today. Today’s Whites are not to “blame” and punishable for taking these lands. It’s history. This deference to the “superior” might be necessary as a retrospective argument on behalf of those who took those non-White inhabited lands, but is misstated when applied to White survival at present - which, with updated thinking, ought to be looked upon systemically. “Superior” Whites would recognize interrelatedness and indebtedness enough to the systemic whole of Europeans to be in cooperative alliance (providing their space and well being is not diminished); respecting each other’s territories and not wanting to weaken our effort overall with infighting. America’s current predicament is not helped by the hubris of an overly narrow in-group/out-group (enemies) concept, to where some Europeans would would be looked upon as enemies, even where they would respect the territories of other Europeans and even help in their retaking. 77
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:51 | # OK I’m not going to comment further upon the issue that is presently alive at MR. It’s ultimately GW’s show and at his discretion to act as he thinks best. Seriously I don’t which of my posts have or have not survived so just let me say. MR should be meta-political site open to any reasonable and semi-plausible perspectives. We should collectively look to always improving both the content and tone (something I’m guilty of not always doing - mea culpa). Even if we can get frustrated at times with the other dramatis personae civility should generally be the norm (but there are exceptions to every rule). Moreover it should not be a tiresome ‘echo-chamber’ of what is so readily available elsewhere. 78
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:11 | # Just some longer thoughts. If our task is ultimately philosophical in nature and it is the case that philosophy can be claimed to be a ‘conceptual science’, then like any science it ought to be able to tell us something we did not already know: to surprise us. To make explicit what is already presupposed by the activities in which we engage; or when to put it another way, it shows the conditions of their possibilities and any putative alternatives. If nationalism (of any type) is a class of doctrine whose outcome and implications are as unpredictable as everything else human, then the mindset of sceptical and ancient historian may be a better guide to its polyvalent character than the sensibility of the ‘hyper-rational’ and very modern political scientist. @Leon Haller Thanks for the praise of Scotland! But seriously let me say that many Americans have contributed in many different and excellent ways to the world and indeed many Americans are of good moral instincts and character in their personal interactions with others, but as an outsider that has observed it first hand and a some length I do find it really very different to Europe in many regards. And the American people, in part and sometimes in whole, have some very odd ideas about the world. I hope to write more about this at some point especially on the religious front. The cultural politics of religion and psychological economy of contemporary American religiosity, if you like. Let’s not forget H.L. Mencken’s view that: “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” Sometimes one’s critics are also one’s truest friends. I disagree on the superiority question insofar as it implies that if say the Japanese or Chinese or indeed Little Green Men are/were in some way genuinely better than Europeans (or even just thought themselves to be) we should be OK with any dispossession of our autochthonous homelands. I really cannot agree. Obviously as the world became smaller and people with very different forms of life, technological development etc., would encounter each other some form tragedy was always on the cards. I’m not sure we should revel in it. After all something similar could be our fate too. Having said that my own change from bog-standard liberalism was started during my sojourn as a slightly younger man in the Netherlands. One key moment was when I was visiting Delft mainly to see the wonderful Vermeers but as I rested on a bench and had a sandwich I noticed a Dutch mother and her young child at one of the upper story windows which was open in one of the beautiful period buildings opposite me. They were looking out upon all the people below in the market square. The boy most have been around two. He had bright blue eyes, full of curiosity and that spark of active engagement with the world he was in the process of exploring. The mother held her son in her arms and looked upon him with obvious love. An everyday scene. And a thought came into my head. “What a tragedy if all of this, the people, the buildings, the art ceased to be”. I do not know why that thought came into my head, but it did all the same. Suicide is not generally considered a moral good – life is sacred – it is a gift, at least of the genetic river of time. A fierce ethos of life must be foundational. Really in one sense our task is to dismantle the key paradigm of liberal thought (from top to bottom) as expressed in the world and so key in shaping every aspect of modernity, while also offering an outline of a morally and politically defensible (and sustainable) non-liberal alternative – so at least to set robust ideological boundaries on our present state of unbounded liberalism (one of the most inflationary ideologies in human history). To show the profound problems we are storing upon for ourselves by becoming Voltaire’s unloved and unlovable bastards. After all the prospect of one’s descendants having to live in a Cormac McCarthy style nightmare is not a good one (coincidentally everyone that is remotely interested in culture should read McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” - it’s a ‘new classic’ of Western literature). In an odd way the central problématique of MR is illustrated somewhat by Wittgenstein’s intellectual trajectory. The contrast was between what might be called the ‘atomic-universalist-individualist vision’ and the ‘communal-cultural-particularistic vision’. Wittgenstein can be portrayed as trapped within this opposition, veering unwittingly from one pole to the other. His early logical atomism expressed the solitude of the transcendental ego seeking an account of what the world looks like to a solitary individual reflecting on the problem of how his mind, or language, can possibly “mean”, i.e. reflect, the world. By contrast, his later philosophy transplanted the populist idea of the authority of each distinctive culture to the problem of knowledge, concluding that mankind lives in highly specific and particular cultural communities or, in Wittgenstein’s terminology, “forms of life”, which are self-sustaining, self-legitimating, logically and normatively final. Obviously much more can be stated on these themes and what the limits and faults in them might be (for example real scientific knowledge is universal in scope). Just because some Bible bashers think that evolution via natural selection does not occur doesn’t make it so. Even the most passionately held and sincere beliefs can be wrong! 79
Posted by daniel on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:30 | # I appreciate your thoughts, Graham - particularly on the superiority issue… Also appreciate your remarks against liberalism, as always.. ...and how tragically liberal that places France, the U.K. and The Netherlands, are… However, your personal moment of recognition in The Netherlands, of its preciousness..reminds me very graphically that we really can be after the same thing despite differing perspectives and means to getting there… Thanks
80
Posted by Silver on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:09 | #
So you keep saying.
You “think not.” Now there’s a knockdown argument if I’ve ever heard one. Leon Haller thinks not! Spread the word. Kidding aside, you’re obviously very focused on making this an ethical issue. You’re making a claim to objective, universal ethical reality to which everyone who considers the question must, if you’re correct, agree. When you get down to it, it’s tantamount to a demand that the world lay down and die in order to make room for the Great White Race. I’m having trouble deciding which is more outrageous: that you’d come up with such an idea or that you’d expect anyone else to see any merit in it. I prefer to take a different tack, one based on pragmatism and reciprocity. Start where you are, get your bearings, decide where you want to go and figure out the best way to get there, using whatever help you can find along the way.
You’re asking me a trick question (of sorts). Abos aren’t just going to disappear or die spontaneously. There would have to be a cause behind it and my answer to your question would depend entirely on what that cause was. If they were hit by an epidemic of some sort I really couldn’t see myself campaigning to deny them aid. But if aid were provided and they happened to perish anyway, well, lol, I don’t think I’d lose any sleep. If the cause behind their death were something like a Haller-led military campaign to exterminate them (sorry to use your name there, but you were asking for it) then I must admit I would feel quite aggrieved for the poor bastards, even though I have no use for them myself whatsoever. In that case, I’m afraid it’s you would I hate and wish to destroy. (Does any of this click with you, Haller? It’s somewhat surreal to even be discussing this, I must say.)
It’s the expression of contempt, not contempt itself, that bothers people. I don’t see anything morally unattractive about disliking racial others. I dislike (to varying degrees) the vast majority of racial others and am quite happy to have them dislike me right back. Provided we’re able to recognize and respect each other’s “racial rights,” though, none of this need be a problem; indeed, it can form the basis for cooperation in rearranging our world to better reflect the importance of race in our lives. Not all groups will be as immediately amenable to such cooperation, thus the necessity of identifying and winning the support of groups most likely to participate. The alternative is really you against the world, which is the same mistake the nazis made.
I don’t think I can agree that advancing EGI is the supreme task. If such advances can only come at the expense of other groups’ EGI that would seem an obvious breech of the very pact I consider essential. Why is owning the world so important to you? That’s where all this is going, isn’t it? 81
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:48 | # @Silver I think you have articulated something very important about the notion of superiority/inferiority – it is a terribly toxic concept and embedded within a nexus of some of the worst episodes in human history. Like you say I doubt anyone sane wishes to defend slavery as an institution, or wishes to promote some form of neocolonialism. The superiority/inferiority talk invites people to assume some form of moral turpitude in regard to those promoting it. But the idea of differentiation is a less morally problematic starting point. Do communities have a right to be different from others? Do communities have a right to preserve and pass-on their particular ethno- linguistic, cultural, artistic etc., inheritance? Or are differentiated communities under some moral obligation to acquiesce to the cosmopolitan vision that Schmitt dubbed “spaceless universalism”? Moreover the communitarian perspective is about allowing for nations to be be themselves; the freedom to be Catalan, or Greek or whatever, so promotes homogeneity at the local level but ultimately maintains heterogeneity at the global level, in that not everywhere and everyone will be exactly the same in all of their particulars. In contrast, the cosmopolitan view promotes maximal local diversity or heterogeneity while being at global level a force for homogeneity in that everywhere will be identikit “multicult” societies. The question can be asked who are the authentic multiculturalists? Equally one doesn’t overturn the egalitarian plateau by denial of the concept of moral commitments as such, rather moral commitments are context dependent, filtered by notions of proximity and proportionality. Their quality of thickness and thinness will also vary. Some people quite legitimately have more call upon me in a moral sense and in turn also owe me more in moral commitments than they do to others. However, it would be an odd person that upon seeing a tourist visiting their nation suffering a heart attack in front of them, that declined to assist or call the emergency services for the reason that they ethically owed the stranger literally nothing at all. There are some moral minima that no civilised person would wish to see abandoned in their own society. Ordinary people rightfully become very nervous when people hint at or suggest that such minima be abandoned. But that doesn’t mean we owe the entire population of Africa a passport of choice to an EU nation. For any society to survive, let alone flourish, it has to imagine itself in terms of some form of moral community to which one is obligated – no-one is an “unencumbered self”. It must have collectively enforced boundaries upon moral duties and obligations. Far too much “free-riding” on such matters, at the expense of social-capital, is presently tolerated. Obviously there is scope for reasonable moral disagreement but not a total “free for all”. Building such forms of moral consensus, especially if different from present norms, is the very hard ideological work of politics. It is better to start on some type of common ground. It would be hard to find too many liberals that would not agree that communities of indigenous people around the world have a right to self-determination and autonomy. Well if that doesn’t apply to Europeans in our ancestral homelands then it’s a massive slice of bad faith or hypocrisy on the part of the liberal. Neutral-ish onlookers will notice the double standard. Admittedly that line of thought might have much less force in the New World. 82
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:59 | # Silver mentioned that people generally dislike open displays of contempt. Which reminded of Theodore Dalrymple and this article on the tricky issue of snobbery. “Of Snobbery and Soccer” http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/66894/sec_id/66894 Slightly off-topic but not completely so. Couple of highlights: “. . . anyone who knew France only through its national football team would place the country somewhere between North and Equatorial Africa. One prominent white in the team, a spectacularly ugly and thuggish-looking man, so ill-educated that he could barely string a few words together, let alone a sentence, in his native language, had converted to Islam.” & “It is also true that if you compare the faces of the English football team of, say, the 1950s with those of the team today, you will see the decline in civility of English society as a whole.” 83
Posted by Silver on Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:24 | # Lister,
It’s always been something of an Achilles heel, I believe. It’s really the root of ‘white guilt.’ The reason that it’s so easy to shut your people up is that most feel some sense of superiority, or if they don’t feel it personally, they can understand only too easy how others would. In an egalitarian age, that’s awkward enough as it is. To then hear WNs carrying on about Whites are the greatest this, Whites are the greatest that etc… must be quite embarrassing for the average liberal. What then seems to happen is that rather than remain neutral or stay out of the way on race, they actively take the anti-white side; not out of malice, but out of compensation, of wanting to be fair or nice. They’re simply not thinking about the costs to themselves. Or by the time do think of the costs, they’re already committed and find it psychologically too difficult to turn back. All that said, it’s important not to make too much of this. I have to believe there are plenty out there like me who either don’t care about being on receiving end of superiority/inferiority distinctions, or genuinely see themselves differently (they put you on the receiving end), but are good at playing wounded. Appearances can be deceiving. As for defending or excusing slavery or conquest, some do wish to do precisely that. It seems very important to them that the actions of their predecessors not only were justifiable in the context of their own age, but are justifiable even now. For them, White makes right. I find these people highly problematic, and worse, highly threatening.
Stressing difference rather than superiority is an obvious and, I believe, highly effective work-around to the problem. I would emphasize that “rights to difference” be granted as part of the simple recognition of the superiority of life under conditions of organic homogeneity. In other words, it’s not merely a case of communities possessing these rights. If they possess them they may opt to squander them and what then? Their possession should be stressed because the life they safeguard or promise is superior to that which otherwise obtains. I mention this because it’s not clear to me that there is an enormous constituency out there that longs to assert group interests, although you or Haller may disagree. If I’m correct, people beyond that constituency will need to be enticed.
84
Posted by daniel on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:21 | # I agree and have held that the whole equality/non-equality paradigm is a huge “epistemological” blunder. It probably stems in large part from the quest for quantifiability and measurability, the universalisms of physics being misapplied to social studies - “physics envy.” I imagine it also comes from a reaction to certain Marxist literature which advocates equality. I do not know how literally that literature or those people take the concept of equality, as I have never engaged the literature nor the people very seriously - despite having adopted the term “White Left” for its socially organizing efficiency. What I do know is that the White Nationalist right continuously harps on the notion of inequality. I am sure that it is very counterproductive. And I understand Silver’s concern that it is also dangerous. It narcissistically compares everything between cultures and what would otherwise be ecologically disbursed endeavors; rendering vain comparisons (perhaps pseudo-license to impinge upon and exploit) which must breed contempt and reciprocally escalating diatribe - perhaps worst of all, needlessly so. This is why I have continuously tried to emphasize the notion of paradigmatic differences and incommensurability, not only between cultures, but also within our European culture: looking at things this way, we avoid the false comparisons that breed jealousy and contempt; and sensitize to the appreciation of qualitative differences - differences that make a difference in symbiotic functioning. * I’m sure there are things, stylistic matters in particular, that I would correct here, given the chance, but this was my effort to flesh this issue out: http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111203/non-equality-or-incommensurability 85
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:47 | #
It’s a characteristic of inveterate liars, they actually believe their own lies. LOLing 86
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:38 | #
Is conquest defendable if it ends the practice of Abos sacrificing and eating their children? Is conquest defensible if end ends the brutal savage ritual of Mesoamericans sacrificing and cannabalizing their children? Is conquest defensible if it furthers the well being of most of the world’s population…bringing a continual stream of food, medicine, education and carry capacity to deprived and depraved populations? Is there a slave populaton anywhere in the history of the world that advanced so drastically in numbers, wealth and intelligence than that which sprung from the Anglo-Saxon slave system of the American South? What is the price of freedom? The annual rape of 35,000 White women. So please gentleman, before you grovel to the sweet intonations of love and reciprocity whispered by mendacious racial aliens who are only concerned about advancing their own self-interest, think again. 87
Posted by Silver on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:08 | #
By “racial alien,” of course, you really wish to say “parasite” or “shithead,” but at least the term you chose can be defended on technical grounds, so I guess that’s progress. Good on you, Desmond. There’s hope for you yet.
Yes, I’m familiar with this humanitarian interventionist justification. I’d even give it a pass were it not for the fact that humanitarian intervention was the furthest thing from the empire-builders’ minds. But I don’t know why you bring this up with me since I’ve never been one to argue that misdeeds of the past justify racial dissolution today. As far as I’m concerned, the British and others of that era acted according to the universally accepted principles of the day, no differently to anybody else, and that’s justification enough. The crucial point for me is the distinction between then and now. Even if I can’t quite bring myself to believe in a “New Man,” with all the attributes a communist or a post-modern dreamer assigns him, I can certainly believe in a “New Era,” which we can date back to 1945. “Racial rights,” as I understand them (and as McCulloch defines them, although I’d go further and deeper and prefer the perhaps awkward but explanatory term “enlightened groupism”), fit into this new era hand in glove. Secondly, just think what you are doing when you play the role of racial aggressor today. Multiracialism is hardly without its faults, but it’s far from true that everyone is as depressed by it as you. If it doesn’t work perfectly, it’s not to say it doesn’t work at all. Your aggression is so total that, fundamentally, you can be considered to be arguing against love itself. Before you scoff, think—if the thought doesn’t revolt you—of Brazil. What chance the centuries of mixing could be politically unraveled today? Next to none. And why? Because people feel too close to one another. Not “perfectly” close, but too close to allow their differences to divide them to the extent a racialist as strict as you deems essential. Parts of Anglo-Saxondom today are fast approaching such a state and your approval of it matters not. In this, a humorous analogy can be drawn with a kidnapped wife in Tajikistan: not the future she would have chosen for herself and she dreams idly of what another life may have been like, but the fellow turned out better than she might have thought and now she loves him or is at least comfortable enough that thoughts of terminating the arrangement are dismissed out of hand. 88
Posted by daniel on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:03 | # . Niflson argues that a White nation must be cultivated with people with real life practical skills, militarized and unified in accordance with traditional military structures - I would imagine, therefore, that he would assume that the proposal here, Euro-DNA based Nation, is impractical. He does concede that those with practical skills might come along and be added spuriously. However, I would counter farther that he is focusing only on one aspect of the plan - the voluntary freedom of/from association in the form of different communities, counties, states - immediately saying that they would be impossible to coordinate, when the whole purpose of this essay is to discuss how they might be coordinated - in recognition of shared genetics. Next, this would have a marshaling effect on whatever inherent and positive aspects of that first feature, our life-span freedoms: it would provide incentive for different, otherwise conflicting groups of Whites to participate and cooperate. In addition, it would enhance flexibility and the means for guerrilla tactics - whereas Niflson seems to be conceiving of warfare only in an older, WWII era manifestation. A key purpose of featuring this notion of freedom from association is that it is the hardest argument for the liberal hegemony to contend openly without showing its true face - revealing most clearly that they are the “bad guys.” Nevertheless, knowing that the powers that be have no qualms with such hypocrisy (providing they can get away with it) it is set out as a largely implicit strategy, or a mere show of hands for those who want separatism, not a vow of open rebellion against the state. Hence, the primary reason for discussing this feature, freedom of/from association, is to coordinate its variegated expression into a unified effort over all. Whereas that would be in service of an overall coherence of life-span choices (providing that they stay within the parameters of genetically European), the same principle would be used to coordinate the ancient human ecologies of Europe, the discrete nations as evolved over tens of thousands of years - in service of maintaining their freedom from association with non-natives of their ancient ecologies. Finally, these two matters would be coordinated with the large White state in order to organize sufficient economic and military power to help defend the nations, states, counties and communities of Whites. However, it would have the additional dimension of flexibility for facilitating unconventional warfare. How to keep the state from over-stepping its bounds on the parts is an important technical question which I do not seek to avoid. I merely say that it is premature to the concern of this essay. And from the others side, what requirements, if any, each component would have to contribute to the greater White Nation in its collective defense and re-takings is no small detail either, but one not addressed in this piece as its question, “who are we and what do we defend?”, has been preliminary to that, even - the essential matter of the Euro-DNA Nation. 89
Posted by uh on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:33 | #
HEY FAGGOT. Tajiks don’t kidnap their wives. Uzbeks / Kazaks / Kyrgyz do. There is no terminating of arrangements in any case. Exactly like the shotgun marriage of white & black. Fuck I loathe you.
90
Posted by Silver on Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:16 | # Lol, I knew I should check that before posting. But I’m pretty sure everyone got the point, and that’s what matters.
Okay, fine. But why? You don’t have to like me, but loath is a very strong word. I don’t get it.
91
Posted by HW on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 04:45 | # Desmond,
Very true. Where does the negro thrive in this world? The American negro has a much higher standard of living than his African counterparts. In fact, the most civilized and successful negroes in the world tend to be the ones who lived in areas that were the most blessed by slavery and white supremacy. Aside from the American negro, I believe that Barbados, Bermuda, Martinique, and Guadeloupe - all former slave societies, which were also blessed with over three centuries of European colonialism and white supremacy - are the most successful negro countries in the world. Isn’t it strange that slavery is blamed for the failure of the negro when the most enslaved areas tend to produce the most successful negroes? In Haiti, half the slave population that revolted in 1791 had been born in Africa, which is why Haiti is so much more backward than other black countries in the Caribbean. Slavery, white supremacy, and colonialism was brought to end much faster in Haiti than in Jamaica and Barbados which gained their independence in the 1960s. Bermuda remains an overseas dependency of Britain. Guadeloupe and Martinique are overseas departments of France. In Guadeloupe and Martinique, slavery and white supremacy were restored, whereas the blacks in Haiti won their independence. If you were a negro, would you rather live in Chad or South Africa, Haiti or Guadeloupe? 92
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:01 | #
Geez, dude, do you ever stop with the lies. http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/afrolatin/part3/
So what? There is no interplay between morality and self-interest? 93
Posted by uh on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:51 | #
“CAR C’EST LES ENFANTS DE LA TERRE CONTRE LES ARMÉES DE VEAU D’OR.” Your cult of progress at any price. Your smarmy sophistry. Your absolute failure to show yourself a human worthy and capable of personal allegiance after YEARS of commenting. You are just not likable. Do you understand that? Even Daniel, whose intellectual pretensions I despise, is likable as a man. BUT YOU ARE NOT LIKABLE. You’ve written things that I have copied by hand and committed to memory. And one thing that almost made me cry it was so beautiful. Yet you seem to value your cleverness more than other men with similar worries and values. This is wrong. Perhaps it’s because you’re so far from the rest of us. Perhaps you are really that smug in real life. I dunno. But has anyone EVER said, man, I sure like “Silver” as a person? Made worse by your style. Like I saw you some weeks ago yammering about some bullshit, totally laughable RELIGIOUS notions you were having—- ho ho ho!! what a hoot!! How about what you do for a living instead? It’s like that song I linked told you: Geh mir aus dem Weg, erspar mir Deine Lügen! Was Du sagst, kannst Du nicht wissen, warum sollte ich mich fügen? Erlaube Dir kein Urteil über die Welt von einst und rede nicht von “Freiheit”, wenn Du dein Wohlstand meinst! 94
Posted by daniel on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:47 | # Even Daniel, whose intellectual pretensions I despise, is likable as a man. It’s not intellectual pretense that you see in me, it is intellectual apparatus - which I admit to not always wielding with the flair that others do - that I use to make honestly held beliefs. Therefore, again, it is not pretense. If you want to say that I do not have the greatest facility, am occasionally stilted in using intellectual structures to take matters seriously that I consider to be serious, I can cop to that. However, I like the way that you are you are advocating and defending ordinariness in White men lately. I don’t know if you know that it corresponds with my reasons for proposing that being and selfhood be installed as equal requirements to socialization and actualization. But with that, you may be undervaluing socialization and actualization - hence, your tendency to see me as pompous where I endeavor to try to change things with ambition perhaps beyond my talent; and willingness to socialize with people outside and perhaps above or below my station.
“In this, a humorous analogy can be drawn with a kidnapped wife in Tajikistan - HEY FAGGOT.”
95
Posted by Silver on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:21 | # Desmond,
Please. I could get off the plane tomorrow and make my way around Rio without a hassle because I know the neighborhoods, the thoroughfares and the landmarks by heart I’ve researched it so much. That one silly article isn’t going to teach me anything I don’t know the basics of. So the question isn’t “do I ever stop with the lies”; the question is “can you freakin read?” Because if you could you’d understand that I said, loud and clear, to the extent you deem essential. I never said there’s “no racial friction.” Of course there is. How could there not be? But it’s not_______________ (You fill in the blank. Yes you’re back in school.) If it were not as I say, if it were instead as you say, then we’d be reading about mass movements claiming that it’s impossible, utterly impossible, to live alongside these people and, moreover, the graves of our forefathers cry out in anguish over the harm done our EGI! We just don’t see anything like that. I talk to these people (internet, obviously) all the time. There’s just nothing like that occurring.
HEY FAGGOT. (Lolzz) Isn’t that exactly what I am suggesting to you? Doesn’t the whole concept of “racial rights/enlightened groupism” as I talk about it rest on there being an interplay between morality and self-interest? (Uh-huh, is that a light bulb I can see beginning to flicker?)
96
Posted by Silver on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:40 | #
“The men who can manage men manage the men who can manage only things, and the men who can manage money manage all.”—Will Durant, The Lessons of History. (Note to J Richards: that’s manage money, not “control the money supply.” Though Durant was a Jew so who knows what he meant…[*twilight zone music*])
I can appreciate your forthrightness, Lentini. Look, I’m sorry I may have misled you. I didn’t come here to make friends. We do share certain political objectives but you people are still the enemy (or an enemy of sorts). Not only do I not trust you, I cannot trust you. There’s not a single one of you I wouldn’t betray if the situation called for it; so because I genuinely respect you people—grudgingly, it’s true, but genuinely, even the likes of a Crapandchaos—I can only hope such a situation never arises. These are not pleasant thoughts to entertain about one’s putative allies, but it’s best to acknowledge them and bring them into the light, rather than to leave them lurking in the shadows.
You’re encroaching on very personal territory here. But okay, I guess I owe you an explanation. It’s not that I value cleverness so much; it’s more a coping mechanism than anything else, although at times I get carried away. “Race” hit me at a very bad time in my life. If you’ve been “hit” by it, I think you’ll understand why I say “race” rather than “racial issues” or “the racial question” or anything else. It’s so powerful a force that that one word will collect all the issues and ramifications of issues associated with it better than any other term. I was already feeling morose at the time. I was ruing missed opportunities (“I shoulda been the greatest”), cursing regretfully at misguided actions (“You idiot, how could you”) and glumly lacking for purpose (“Whadda I do now?”). To distract myself I would think of the future. Thoughts of the future would play on my mind constantly. I had already developed an inchoate and troubling awareness that all was not well with our world, and that race had more than a little to do with that, when driving alone late one night I was asking and answering a question recommended by psychologist Nathaniel Branden (his work is outstanding):“If I were willing to see what I see and know what I know, then_______________”. I was struck by the following terrible answer: the fucking nazis were right. (There was actually another realization that hit me moments before that, but that I’m afraid is too personal, and while it’s certainly related the story doesn’t suffer by my leaving it out.) The fucking nazis were right. I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t think they were right about everything, but for the first time in my life I believed they were right about far more than I would ever have wished to be true. Of course, this didn’t sit well with me at all. I was completely stunned. But every time I looked, there it was: “...see that I see, know what I know, then…” Now, if you’ve been whacked by race like that you don’t recover from it overnight. Some people don’t recover from it ever. But somewhere over the course of…I’m not even sure how I’d date it… I decided that I could no longer allow myself to be tormented by what I knew to be true of this world, its people, its lies, its degeneracy, its trajectory. I had been a happy child. I had had a wonderful childhood. I had dreamt the most beautiful dreams. At the age of four or so I dreamt a dream so beautiful it literally made me cry to recall it—I cried all day, and was only made sadder at being unable to explain to my questioning mother why I was crying. So I knew what beauty was and I wanted to see it achieved in this world, or at least see the world brought closer to it. Couldn’t I again experience life that way? I decided that I could; despite everything I knew, I could. So far, it’s been working well. Humor and cleverness have been essential, however. But don’t blame me for that—you people are sitting ducks. You stake out the most extreme position, way out to the right of anything justified by the facts of reality alone, alternately menacingly patting your palm with your nightstick, just to let everyone know that YOU’RE WATCHING, and tapping your foot impatiently, waiting for the world to catch up.
Well, you know, religion’s a funny old thing, so you’re probably not wrong to smirk. But I don’t think I said anything so outlandish that you’d laugh nearly so hard if you didn’t hate me as much as you do. (When you get down to it, my view of religion really isn’t much different from your Great One’s.)
A bit of French I can handle. Not this.
97
Posted by Silver on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:58 | #
Hey, thanks, dan. Few who know me would describe me as “unlikeable.” At times jovial, spirited, intense; at times distant, detached, withdrawn. I think that’s what most would say. But, heh, you know, that’s “Uh” for ya. Considering the hatchet-jobs he’s done on others I think I got off pretty lightly.
98
Posted by daniel on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:14 | # Silver, may I ask how you were hit by the racial issue? 99
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:37 | # @Silver “but you people are still the enemy” What? Are you going all Schmittian on my ass? A tendency to supercilious wankerism can’t be that serious an offence can it? At least I don’t have “Paranoid Android” on repeat on my portable gramophone or whatever those IPoddy things are called by the yoofs these days. No names, no pack-drill. How does it go again? Please could you stop the noise, I’m trying to get some rest. 100
Posted by Silver on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:25 | # Graham, Calling me paranoid isn’t going to change reality. Hop over to counter-currents and you’ll see that it’s considered quite appropriate to ponder whether extermination or deportation is the more appropriate route. By all appearances you’re an understanding and accommodating sort of a fellow, but that’s not a difficult thing to be when your back is against the wall. What assurance can anyone possibly have that the accommodationists won’t get swept up in the tide of enthusiasm if the hardliners get the edge? That may seem an unfair question to you, and I’m not really expecting any sort of answer to it, but the doubts and suspicions swirling around my head can’t help but give rise to it. daniel, I always knew it mattered to some degree; I just believed the difficulties could be surmounted (had to be surmounted). Like everyone else, I saw things during my life that made me doubt the wisdom of mass and/or official mulitculturalism and mass multiracialism. Later on I began reading about them and about heredity, immigration, race etc. It all seemed a very distant and abstract to me, though, and for many years I didn’t think it all appropriate to view life through those lenses (I had more immediate concerns). Until at some point it all began to coalesce and then in that one moment I finally acknowledged to myself that I now possessed answers to the sorts of questions I had been asking my entire life. (Not all the answers, but very much answers to so many of the questions I had long pondered.) 101
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:55 | # @Silver It was a joke. I was not really calling you paranoid but some people around are. Tone is hard to convey online. Like you suggest ‘WN’ (which I am not) is full of total whack-jobs that I would not allow to run a whelk stall. 102
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:45 | # “The stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” - Kenneth Burke 103
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:36 | #
No because you offer nothing but harm. Migration is justified by enhanced carrying capacity and moral uplift but you offer, unlike the white men you despise, neither. The only moral gesture you and your people can offer, if you believe what you say (which you don’t) is departure…but you won’t.
Clearly they are restricted by law.
Except of course they are restricted by law and public disapprobation and punished severely should they dare engage in such activity. 104
Posted by Silver on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50 | #
Stop making things up as you go. The point was there can be an interplay between morality and self-interest. I’m not sure what the sociobiology textbooks which you pretend to understand have to say about this but it’s obviously possible for at least one man to take such a position otherwise I wouldn’t be able to post what I do here. Departure isn’t the only possible moral gesture. Separation is another, much more genial, workable, attractive option… but you won’t have a bar of it.
They aren’t prevented from speaking anonymously online. The fact is you chose the greatest human racial disparity—black and white—with which to make an example. But racial gradations exist all the way in between those extremes. So even if some there wish to separate “macro-racially,” there’s nothing like a mass desire expressed to sort all the way through those gradations to the extent that a hardnut like you deems absolutely essential. 105
Posted by daniel on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:25 | # The point is that there should be categories allocated and provided for those who would elect to maintain purer forms (for example Scandanavians, who have no African admixture since differentiation from Africa began significantly some 41,000 years ago). Those who are a part of some gray areas might be afforded other categories, as they are predominantly European (such as Italians, who have a very small percentage, 1-3% of African admixture). Those out-groups who do not wish to be pushed into categorization with Blacks and therefore have incentive to cooperate with native Europeans could provide another discreet category. 106
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:23 | #
For you, but for the host it is merely theft of territory.
LOLing
107
Posted by daniel on Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:38 | # It seems worthwhile to speculate farther on how to operationalize the DNA Nation - how points of responsibility to the local (freely chosen/anciently evolved) White cultures and to the larger White nation might be worked out mathematically and qualitatively. 108
Posted by daniel on Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:52 | # One thing that I am learning from having posted this essay is that you can set out a pretty tight theory and yet people will tend to see straw men and fight against them, setting the theory aside for that reason. For example, there are some people who are prejudice against the importance that Bowery sees in individualism as an empirically based phenomenon. Thus, believing individualism is closer to our problem than our solution, as I do, they may not get beyond the first few paragraphs before forming a negative opinion - a straw man argument that this essay is about defending individualism. I wonder how much this has to do with natural proclivities of readership and how much is my responsibility as writer. Individual freedom is only of particular importance to White separatism inasmuch as it provides freedom to disassociate from non-Whites and also to provide opportunity to form White associations of different kinds - so that they can avoid inter-White conflict over these different ways and cultivate different sorts of White communities to their fullest . Now, to a normal White person, that should be more than valid. Nevertheless, that as a value of itself is Not the central issue of the article. In fact, the central issue is how to coordinate that value with the ancient, situated, human ecologies of our European peoples - undoubtedly a profound White value, but a very different as it is not placing so much importance on choice within the lifespan; moreover, there is the matter of how to coordinate these White values with a larger White National organization overall, such that the White nation can fund a space program and hold up to nations such as China. Another straw argument that I sense - “oh, the nation will never fall apart and relinquish territory to secession movements.” However, this straw man is to exaggerate the literalness by which I mean by the nation state going into its “death throes.” How much and what form the nation’s decline takes is not really the matter - especially not since this is just a preliminary stage, a voluntary expression of assent. And how much and what form the death of the state is necessary for White communities to be explicit can be answered tautologically - when the Nation’s antagonistic delegation is weak enough and the communities organized resistance is strong enough. That answers another straw man, that I am being naiive in thinking that the nation will just let us do these things - we haven’t gotten to the matter of defying them particularly. This is about preliminary organization. The next straw man is that I am being reductionary and sterile in focusing on DNA. But no, this straw man is answered in the first values’ communitarianism, the historical roots of the second value (the ancient human ecologies), and the real world complexity of organizing an over-arching state - one will be reckoning immediately on the powers that be and how to deal with them, whether to enlist their cooperation, work around them or finding realistic methods to bring them down. That is to say, these straw men: “naiivete”, reductionism, a state falling apart in a necessary way in the relative short term, requiring a short term military strategy to deal with that, reduce of themselves the time span of this project and the various forms that decline of the anti-White Nation State will take, as well as the form of its oppression and White separatism. 109
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:44 | # daniel writes: “Thus, believing individualism is closer to our problem than our solution, as I do, they may not get beyond the first few paragraphs before forming a negative opinion - a straw man argument that this essay is about defending individualism.” Ironically, I experience exactly the same thing regarding my ideas about individualism: People simply cannot hear my statements that individualism yields dysfunctional behavior within civilization because civilization (or more accurately, group selection) is war. All they know is that I value something that, in the current context, means crucifixion for those expressing it, and cannot set aside their reaction long enough to even consider whether the current context is a proper one for Euroman. Even more ironically, this reaction seems to come from those who consider themselves “conservative” to my “liberalism” when, in fact, it is the upstart idea of civilization that is liberal and what I am recommending is recovering a respect for our natural origins that is far deeper than theirs. Now, I will admit that the laboratory of the states—with intentional associations based on assortative migrations utilizing modern transport and habitation technologies—may be seen as “liberal” (after all, capital punishment and even prisons would be all but replaced by migration except for cases of sabotage) and that it does permit individualism to express, but the two should not be conflated. If people choose the kind of environment I see as consistent with individualism, they will be choosing a very radical return to our origins as sexual beings—rejecting our eusocial great ape* heritage which is a very leftist influence on the human condition. *not all great apes exhibit this tendency toward eusociality of course, but it does appear to have originated around the time of the advent of bipedalism. 110
Posted by daniel on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:12 | # — I have to give this remark some consideration as I perceive large agreement in it and utility in doing so. However, as you might guess, of course, I am not going to concede the term leftist to our enemies, as in this sentence: “rejecting our eusocial great ape* heritage which is a very leftist influence on the human condition” While I believe that leftism is indeed, about classification and concede that it can be abused as a concept, just as individualism and individual rights can be abused, I wish White Nationalists might understand that classification can be speculative, in a good sense, for the purpose of organizing the group conceptually with minimal control and regulation over individual and community prerogatives. It is the borders of the White Nation that I would not be at all liberal about. In concession to the notion of freedom of association, if people want to leave and interbreed with other populations, banishment is a prerogative of the White Nation in response. For all you’ve said, and I have to read some of your back-links still, if the concept of challenging interlopers to a duel were applied to non-Whites, I’d be a bit less averse. But even there, I do not see why shifts, specific years of service, some specialists (not eusocialized) and requirement that just anybody step up if the situation requires defending against interlopers cannot do even more effectively than the notion of natural duel. Perhaps I should not open this can of worms since the chance of disabusing you of it are nil. But perhaps you might consider that point at which you would seek recourse in natural duel is where one might look toward the second liberation, the hermeneutic turn. Whereas empiricism provided a liberation from superstition, irrelevant religious myths and mere tradition, the hermeneutic turn provided a second liberation, from mere facticity. With that, one would not be denying individual merit and courage, but seeing that point where empirical, corporeal self meets narrative, autobiographical self along with its historical, social indebtedness With this reasoning, one would not abdicate their individual corporeal and autobiographical responsibility to defend their women, people and land, would willing seek to serve and distinguish their individual merit, as such: but would not take on unreasonable and (likely ineffective) responsibility as a mere individual, ex nihlo - rather, it would assume this individual responsibility to inherited manliness and responsibility to one’s people in fair (fairness in relation to and negotiated with the group) shifts or stepping up as need be in an emergency. Why, after all, should we not enjoy the fruits of our evolution and ways, less encumbered by the need for vigilance and the responsibility thereof at most times? That would seem to correspond very exactly to authenticity - and White authenticity at that. 111
Posted by daniel on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:22 | # I don’t want this comment to seem like I am anti-Kevin MacDonald, because I am not at all. In fact, he is largely why I came into the struggle. I have tremendous respect for him and his work; am in agreement with the vast part of it; and where in disagreement, it is largely veneer - I wish that could be understood. I think that adherents to his view have taken his line that “leftists” would be critical of Israel for its ethnocentrism. Well, not really. The truth is that liberals would be critical of Israeli ethnocentricsm. That it is a veneer that I speak of is clear in the fact that all I have to do is change the word left for liberal and I see that we are talking about the same thing. You know where I am coming from, I want the word left for us, The White Left for its organizational utility. But trumping the notion of Israel being a leftist classification even, I believe that Lee John Barnes made an outstanding point that Zionism is passe - it is Jewish imperialism. Thus, they are not only not leftist, they are not only not liberal, but they are right-wingers: with all the elitism, injustice and imperviousness that that implies. 112
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:34 | # Daniel writes: “For all you’ve said, and I have to read some of your back-links still, if the concept of challenging interlopers to a duel were applied to non-Whites, I’d be a bit less averse. But even there, I do not see why shifts, specific years of service, some specialists (not eusocialized) and requirement that just anybody step up if the situation requires defending against interlopers cannot do even more effectively than the notion of natural duel. Perhaps I should not open this can of worms since the chance of disabusing you of it are nil.” You’re doing it again, Daniel. I have repeatedly stated that civilization (because it is a form of group selection) is war and that individualism has no place in the waging of war. I’ve described the specific means by which individuals, in service of a leader, give up their individual will to the leader so that a <u>group with integrity</u>—indeed greater integrity than the enemy group—can be formed: A leader declares a military objective he will lead (the original “Declaration of War”)—the accomplishment of which will result in the dissolution of the group and the failure of which will result in his own execution (the original “Sacrifice of the Sacred King”) and forms an army from the resulting hierarchy of subgroups. Clearly, since civilization (because it is a form of group selective pressure) is perpetual war, the structure thus obtained must be perpetual in some sense. In proposing the laboratory of the states, I have already offered my compromise: Since we are in a state of perpetual war, and we simply cannot express our natural authenticity in such a heightened state of unnatural vigilance, there needs to be some sort of accommodation. That is what “The Hundred” were all about in their original form: Those who sacrifice their humanity to become part of a group organism with high integrity for the purpose of defending the people—living as individuals in peace—from the sneak attacks of the serpent peoples—the people evolved to be mere parts of group organisms that, in E. O. Wilson’s apt book title, are bent on “The Social Conquest of Earth”. The Hundred provide enough time for others to transform themselves from free individuals into TEMPORARY parts of a high-integrity counter-“serpent” (or, in the case of military action, “dragon”) to “slay the dragon” so they may return to live the authentic life. And to be clear about this compromise: It in no way prohibits individuals from forming group entities—serpents—if that is their preference IN THEIR OWN COUNTIES. However, it guarantees that those choosing to live in counties where serpents are banned will not be forced to live in a state of unnatural vigilance. You don’t like the natural vigilance this implies and you don’t need to live within a county where that is the way of life. Is the Compromise understood? 113
Posted by daniel on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:14 | # Bear with me while I talk about civilization my way for a minute. Because I think that you are using ‘civilization’ as I would use “modernity” Let’s see, civilization would imply persons with civic responsibility to the populace; an agreed upon moral order which enabled cooperation to rule over force. It would seem to implicate a certain amount of specialization, which can be unfortunate, quantifying, alienating from one’s natural balance under certain circumstances - but not necessarily. Obviously, you’ve thought about this, but I am trying to understand how civilization is synonymous with war. Ok, the individual cannot make war, fine. But why must the civilization? As I recall Plato’s definition of civilization, he viewed it as the gradual advance of persuasion over force. That works fairly well for me as a definition, though I would add the increased cooperative element of the civilization’s moral order. Now then, there will in all likelihood be antagonists, who are not going to play by our rules, will try to take advantage and use force against us; both outsiders and traitors. Ok, but do the civilized need to seek them out and start a war with them? Wouldn’t they be satisfied to beat them back and hope perhaps, that they will shrivel up and go away? I guess I am not seeing your definition of civilization and what is so necessarily unmodifiable, irreconcilable with White nature. This anti-civilization talk that I hear strikes me as modernist wailing for empirical grounds and with it, a return to a simpler, more self sufficient way of life. I think that is a valid option that ought to be taken up by whomever would wish it and that the civilization ought to cooperate with them in setting up that way of life. Now, technology, capitalist growth, overpopulation as a result of corporate farming and obsolete, universalistic moral orders (let alone Jewish exploitation of these), these kinds of things could perpetuate runaway indeed, and I can see conflict arising a little more necessarily. But I would equate these things more with modernity than with civilization. It is where modernity transforms civilization indeed to become disordered and unaccountable - uncivilized. You say that civilization is a form of group selection. I don’t see what is stopping women from choosing highly individualistic men, even in civilization - I think they rather like them. While I would not begrudge them that choice it can leaves us vulnerable. I know you try to address that in the natural duel. But let me wait to hear what you have to say about civilization (I am not seeing the necessary connections that you make there) Agreed, the group with integrity might allow for a great deal of individualism. “Clearly, since civilization (because it is a form of group selective pressure) is perpetual war” Maybe rather modernity, in its quest of progress is group selective pressure? You see, I am beginning to sense that your argument would do well to substitute modernity for what you are calling civilization. ...it follows when you say: “civilization is perpetual war, the structure thus obtained must be perpetual in some sense” Now try, modernity is perpetual war, the structure thus obtained must be perpetual in some ways. Modernity is on a reflexively reconstructing loop in its valuation of the “new, progress” its obliviousness to what it may wreck along the way to the foundational truths of empiricism or say, maths. Because it values progress as good then what is old and traditional is bad and change is necessarily good. Once what is “new” has been established its celebration is over almost as soon as it began as it is no longer new and change must be sought on behalf of more progress, in perpetuity etc. This valuation will necessarily lead into conflict with traditional, ethnocentric peoples - hence will tend to lead to war, yes. But I would not call that civilization’s proclivity but modernity’s.
Ok…
As I have said, I like this idea; border camps, service for 18-20 year olds and 64-65 year olds. But ideally, only sacrificing part of their lives to this service. I presume then you mean serpents are something like gangs, cartels, organized crime groups… You don’t like the natural vigilance this implies and you don’t need to live within a county where that is the way of life. Fair enough; the options of going to various states takes care of many issues; the border camps and the natural vigilance that remain once the moral rules can be taken for granted enough among the people to pursue an authentic way of life sounds fine. Is the Compromise understood?
114
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:24 | # Daniel defers to Plato thus: “As I recall Plato’s definition of civilization, he viewed it as the gradual advance of persuasion over force. That works fairly well for me as a definition, though I would add the increased cooperative element of the civilization’s moral order.” Plato had no conception clearly specified of evolutionary pressure let alone evolutionary pressure applied to different kinds of aggregations such as individuals or groups of individuals. If we choose persuasion over force then what we are really saying is that if an individual can persuade a larger and/or more powerful group than can another individual, the former wins and the latter loses. It is clear what this selects for: The loss of communication as a biological capacity. The verbal capacity becomes mere armament. This, in fact, is most prominently represented by the high verbal intelligence of Jewry and is now further being realized at a new level of evolutionary sophistication by the motion picture industry (although this has been slowly evolving since the first alien story tellers got control of the education of children (academia)—not just the old art of theater (media)). You raise a number of issues but lets try not to confuse things by throwing out too many things at once. Civilization—all civilizations—are forms of group organisms that arise due to group selective pressure exposing the capacity for eusociality within the widely ranging capacities of Man. This wide range of capacities may have even, in part, arisen as a result of group selective pressure since “theory of mind” as cognitive psychologists call it, tended to promote high degrees of complexity in empathizing with, understanding of and communication with others in the group. It also arose in part due to the high degree of perceptual intelligence required by a primate that had spent a large amount of evolutionary history in the canopy where visual intelligence became paramount, as that primate descended to become a ground dweller whose primary strength (in addition to having “hands”) was a high degree of complexity in empathizing with, understanding of and communication with other species. It also arose in part due to the advent of tools which can be traced back at least to our common ancestry with the genus Pan (including chimps and their subspecific relatives the bonobos). But once having arisen, from whatever source, the ability to extend perception with abstract reasoning becomes a new regime of perceptual capacity coupled with a new regime of action: Man. This new regime, encompassing as it does, formal systems of infinite flexibility (practically limited in extent by the finite extent of the organism), allows explosive malleability which can take a vast array of forms including new forms of group selection that are a direct derivative of the group selective pressures that produced eusocial tendencies among our great ape relatives (war parties of young male chimps, etc.). So we should expect that war, being as ancient as our common ancestors with chimps, is an inescapable aspect of group selection and that civilization is no exception. One might point to the condition in which the two opponents I describe above degenerate into an individual man vs a man with a group at his command—and say this is not “war” because we have another name for that conflict which is “criminal prosecution” but we see the futility of that rhetorical maneuver the moment we find ourselves enforcing the “law” against two men who have combined their forces in some way. No, whenever a group forms to exert greater power than can an individual, group selection obtains and all of the evolutionary consequences, including specialization, war, accumulations of capital and power with attendant corruption, follow. 115
Posted by Matthias on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:29 | #
Wouldn’t German victory in WWII and its subsequent land empire in Eurasia have accomplished this? 116
Posted by Silver on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:04 | # Jonesy,
Well, in a manner of speaking, yes. But, lol, open your eyes feller. It’s not as if we just alighted yesterday. It’s not as if bonds—real bonds, genuine bonds, no matter what a WN hardass thinks of it—haven’t been formed. You can’t just expect people to, as they say, “turn on a dime” and discard all that. (Which is what WNs have traditionally demanded, and which looms large among the reasons they’ve gotten absolutely nowhere. Think of it: absolutely nowhere; that’s how bad it is.) Better to work around it, to work with the hand you’ve been dealt. To me, this is so obvious it barely requires any further explication. But for hardasses like you, well, it’s such an an aggravating experience attempting to discuss anything with you that let’s just keep it short and say that in topsy-turvy times such as these you might think of it as “fair is foul and foul is fair.” Fair enough? Or, alternatively, we’re all a bunch of thieves squabbling over how to divvy up the loot. (And of course, we can always kill each other later.) 117
Posted by daniel on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:08 | # Jim, while I may agree that nature has since had a great deal to teach us, I don’t know that I am deferring to Plato. But then again, I might prefer his definition, as an intelligent human, of what constitutes civilization to that of observations about less advanced social practices among prehistoric humans, let alone animals No, whenever a group forms to exert greater power than can an individual, group selection obtains and all of the evolutionary consequences, including specialization, war, accumulations of capital and power with attendant corruption, follow. I wouldn’t be so optimistic about being able to realize this ideal of individualism nor am I so pessimistic that people cannot be fairly cooperative and reasonable in group interests. If one looks around, there is probably more cooperation than fighting going on in the day to day; could be better, no doubt. Are there staunch competitors looking for the sucker born every minute, no doubt. But I see many if not most (White?) people can be satisfied.
moreover, there is the matter of how to coordinate these White values with a larger White National organization overall, such that the White nation can fund a space program and hold up to nations such as China. Wouldn’t German victory in WWII and its subsequent land empire in Eurasia have accomplished this? What I do know is that its history. For the sake of not getting caught up in backward looking tedium, I’ll avoid the matter that they were apparently trying to eliminate neighboring cultures, their elite representatives and hence there would have been ongoing resistance. Thus, I would say that Germany probably would have contributed heavily toward such projects had they been satisfied with the lands that they had in Europe and America and not prosecuted a hot war at all. I understand that may not have been possible from their point of view, but again, it’s history.
118
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:21 | # Daniel writes: “Jim, while I may agree that nature has since had a great deal to teach us, I don’t know that I am deferring to Plato. But then again, I might prefer his definition, as an intelligent human, of what constitutes civilization to that of observations about less advanced social practices among prehistoric humans, let alone animals” Nature created us with our hyper-perceptual capabilities. We now co-create in accord with our projections so visualized. The real conflict boils down to this: Do we turn our hyper-perceptual capabilities toward Nature so that our creations are in accord or do we pursue a deracinated vision—“free” from such encumberances? 119
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:32 | # @James Bowery Well let’s leave the ‘left-wing’ nature of ants and termites to one side. OK so you think that the division of labour and the attendant specialisation of skills/knowledge etc., is bad or has negative effects. However what do you propose as an alternative? I can only raise two cheers for Adam Smith and his ‘invisible hand’ (and always have one eye on the ‘invisible backhand’) but the extent of the division of labour (in all modern societies) would suggest that your ideal community (with a much more attenuated division of labour) would have to live at a much reduced level of technologically grounded comfort/existence, or have I misunderstood? Just on that topic what do you think your ideal form of community would look like in terms of size? What would be the maximal size such a form could cope with? Does it aim for autarky? How autonomous would it be or is it one small part of a larger set of communities? 120
Posted by Matthias on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:51 | #
What should they have done? Instituted affirmative action or quotas or something? Acquiring more land and resources would have helped them pursue such projects. The “neighboring cultures” would have been reduced but not “eliminated”. 121
Posted by daniel on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:11 | # What should they have done? Instituted affirmative action or quotas or something? Acquiring more land and resources would have helped them pursue such projects. The “neighboring cultures” would have been reduced but not “eliminated”. First of all, maybe the neighboring cultures did not want to be reduced (though Himmler stated elimination), and fought, just as Germans might. Affirmative action…right…how about not aiming to eliminate their intellectual elite, to burn their books, trying to demolish ancient culture. I don’t know what they should have done - perhaps worked something out with those Germans living in The US (where they were already a majority in its “living space”) Canada, South America and elsewhere, but it does not sound like you are going to be persuaded that the policies that they pursued then were anything but perfect, so what’s the point in talking? Finally, this is not really a historical thread - it’s irrelevant. 122
Posted by daniel on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:36 | # Do we turn our hyper-perceptual capabilities toward Nature so that our creations are in accord or do we pursue a deracinated vision—“free” from such encumberances? I invoke a false either/or. It would certainly be best to be in sufficient accord with nature, that is true; and we certainly do not want to be deracinated; however, non-human nature follows a stricter notion of necessity. Humans, White humans, can and should make use of the more freely linking forms of necessity that are available to us where it is adjudged to our benefit. For example, I see no absolute reason why we as humans cannot say that in our White civilization, eusociality is cruel and inhumane. We will work to correct it where it, or its instigators, seem to arise. 123
Posted by Matthias on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:43 | # It’s relevant because it was a White regime that pursued such projects and would have pursued them further subsequent to victory. I never said it was perfect. Any sort of modern regime pursuing such projects is going to disrupt ancient cultures. “Elimination” is a loaded word. Various cultures would have been disrupted since it was unavoidable but much of them would have been preserved. 124
Posted by daniel on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:15 | # .. Of the three “White goods” to coordinate (1, freely chosen white communities 2, ancient human ecologies of Europe 3, a large White nation), I really had in mind the coordination of the large nation as a facet that might benefit in particular from the fact that the DNA Nation is not altogether land contingent, but rather flexibly coordinated, perhaps even from different parts of the globe. The interests of Germany and Germans was something that would be protected under the second matter to coordinate - the ancient human ecologies of Europe; these are, of course most crucial to protect. Just as obviously Germany would contribute mightily to any large and sophisticated White endeavor - as in Wernher von Braun’s contributions to The NASA space program. But Germans would also be protected by laboratory of the state/county communities in diaspora as well. 125
Posted by daniel on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:29 | # that you could not help but think of anything but Nazi Germany accidental double negative there…
that you could not think of anything but Nazi Germany 126
Posted by Matthias on Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:38 | # That’s because it was an example of a White regime that pursued and would have pursued such projects. If Germans are most capable and do most of the work, why shouldn’t they disproportionately benefit? As far as “ancient human ecologies of Europe” go, migration and conquest have a long history in Europe, with Germans playing a predominant role: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkerwanderung 127
Posted by daniel on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 04:54 | # Posted by Matthias on August 02, 2012, 05:38 PM | # That’s because it was an example of a White regime that pursued and would have pursued such projects. You might discuss it with someone who is interested.
It’s a question which is both too abstract and irrelevant for this discussion.
Just as one may regret Cesar’s conquest of the Gauls, the loss of its cultures and variety of European, so too this Germanicization can have its regrettable aspects. With good reason, reasons that Germanophiles may tend to overlook, not every European is ready to fall on their sword before them.
128
Posted by daniel on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:51 | # * Just a note to say that I am not an equalitarian. I do not object to people having different levels of reward; obviously, there comes a point where some might unjustly and unnecessarily be excluded from sufficient resource to build a fruitful, productive, actively contributing life; other instances where individual “merit” is arbitrarily distinguished and rewarded beyond reason. There are qualitative differences between peoples which can be important contributions to overall systemic health - contributions which to some may (errantly or disingenuously) not read as “work”, or valuable contribution. equality/non equality is an “epistemological” blunder of the right; perhaps of the non-White Left too. The White Left as I see it, rather than talking in terms of equality/non-equality, would tend rather to talk in terms of qualitative sameness or difference in logics of meaning and action - looking for whether those logics are commensurate - whether sufficiently matching to function on the same project or, if not on the very same particular project, then in overall symbiosis; if not, then they are considered incommensurate - of an entirely different quality. 129
Posted by Silver on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:18 | # daniel, you like to speak disparagingly about kikes and niggers, but I notice you’re not so tough when the shoe’s on the other foot, lol. Look, admitting it would have been better for all concerned had the nutzis won doesn’t mean liking the nutzis or believing their every action correct or appropriate. It just means that all things considered, at this point in time in the 21st century, with all the lunatic idiocy you see all about you, it would have been better. By the time I ever arrived on the scene thirty-five years would have passed and by the time I even began to get a clue about anything, forty-five. That’s plenty of time for the extraneous nutzi bullshit to have been sorted out (and there was a lot to sort out, for while they were right about a great deal of what is good and important in life, they were hardly right about it all), so while I might not have been perfectly pleased with the world I was born into, fixing that world would have been a much simpler proposition than fixing this one.
130
Posted by daniel on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:19 | # .. daniel, you like to speak disparagingly about kikes and niggers, but I notice you’re not so tough when the shoe’s on the other foot, lol. Silver, I advocate all Whites. I am not against any native European people and that is why it is for me an unfortunate but necessarily more nuanced argument when it comes to Nutzis. I.e., because I am not against Germans but I am against the Nutzi program - especially because it is history and was not altogether successful. Why emulate its failures?
How is that, for example, best for everyone? Ask the Czechs and the Slovaks if they don’t want their countries, etc. Ask the Belarusians, the Ukrainians and the Russians if they would not have the same position as mine - i.e., sympathizing with wanting to get the Jews out of Europe but rather preferring a different means for its realization and its perceived corollaries on the part of the Germans. To me, your blind spot to these perspectives and more, stems from not being White. There are non-Whites, like Farrakhan, who think Hitler was a great man. And why wouldn’t he? What problem would he have with a war where tens of millions of Whites were being killed, ancient White treasures destroyed?
It’s history. With a better considered plan the war would not have to be fought (or not in that way) and we would have our racial sovereignty. That didn’t happen. Hindsight is 20/20. I’m not looking to lay guilt trips on Germans nor do other Whites need guilt trips. Other European nations were defending themsleves. I don’t think its reasonable to expect anything else. I really believe World War II is irrelevant to this discussion and those who want to re-fight it as an inter-European battle, the last thing Whites need. I agree that in the long run, had they won, their dominion and influence would have been beaten back; but that is the point - the neighboring countries wanted their life, their countries, their culture. The didactic over-reach of the Nazis not only indicates why other Europeans did fight back, why they would fight back in the long run, but also provides clues as to where the Nazi concept was not well conceived to begin. In the example of Poland’s hundred year absence from the map, I’ve heard that Polish women wore black when posing for paintings as a gesture in prayer to regain their nation. If the Nazis thought a Pilsudski would have gone along with them, in truth it would have been only a provisional alliance against the Soviets. He was a Polish nationalist and he and his kind would never have agreed to have their nation subsumed. Nor should they have. Nor should they have had to. Maybe the Natzis could not figure out another way to do things but to kill neighboring peoples and to destroy all memory of their culture, but I think there are and were other ways which would have us in far better racial condition than WWII as it was prosecuted by the Nutzi side as well. (and there was a lot to sort out, for while they were right about a great deal of what is good and important in life, they were hardly right about it all), so while I might not have been perfectly pleased with the world I was born into, fixing that world would have been a much simpler proposition than fixing this one. Sorting things out was not an either/or with Nutzism. But most of all, it is history. With this essay, the DNA Nation, I am talking about now and wanting the best for Germans and Germany as with all native Europeans. ..and seeing the potential means of cooperation with non-Whites, such as yourself, along side the borders of The White Nation. 131
Posted by Matthias on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:19 | #
You’re interested in White regimes of a certain scale pursuing certain projects, aren’t you?
It’s not abstract and irrelevant at all. It’s very practical. As it happens, Germany is still the dominant industrial power in Europe. Any future White regime involved in significant industrial projects is likely to disproportionately involve Germans. The EU has depended on German effort and industry. 132
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:53 | # daniel writes: “For example, I see no absolute reason why we as humans cannot say that in our White civilization, eusociality is cruel and inhumane. We will work to correct it where it, or its instigators, seem to arise.” E. O. Wilson is what some might call a definitive authority on eusociality—the kind of person to whom the Oxford Dictionary folks might turn for the definition of the word “eusociality”. He says, in “The Social Conquest of Earth”, page 16:
So the issue for your notion of civilization is what kind of eusociality you consider cruel and inhumane. 133
Posted by daniel on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:08 | # Posted by Matthias on August 03, 2012, 05:19 AM | # You might discuss it with someone who is interested. You’re interested in White regimes of a certain scale pursuing certain projects, aren’t you? I’m interested in a governance that seeks to secure, maintain and foster the interests of all native Europeans. That would include managing a size and scope - therefore sufficient inter-White cooperation - to defend their existence and well being overall against large non-White nations and to foster space and other far reaching programs. - Why shouldn’t Germans disproportionately benefit is a question which is both too abstract and irrelevant for this discussion. The concreta of negotiating these issues is beyond the scope of this essay. You say It’s not abstract and irrelevant at all. It’s very practical. As it happens, Germany is still the dominant industrial power in Europe. Any future White regime involved in significant industrial projects is likely to disproportionately involve Germans. The EU has depended on German effort and industry. That it would involve Germans has never been in question. The proportion and disposition of those German representatives among leadership another matter: Many, probably most, Germans are reasonably disposed to overall ecology of native Europeans (which would always see to German well being, of course). Some are not. I have also seen that it is possible for the capacities and contributions of other European peoples to be underestimated, undervalued and under-rewarded. For its devastation, West Germany did have the marshal plan; while Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, “Yugoslavia” etc etc, were saddled with communism. etc. 134
Posted by daniel on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:18 | # .. To adumbrate, the kind that would not provide sufficient occasion, discussion, recourse to a fair partner and one or two children for any native European individual relatively normal and cooperative toward native European group interests. 135
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:41 | # Graham Lister asks: “suggest that your ideal community (with a much more attenuated division of labour) would have to live at a much reduced level of technologically grounded comfort/existence, or have I misunderstood?” A better statement changes your “would” to “might”. The point being that “comfort” is a subordinate value and can therefore be sacrificed to whatever degree necessary. Even ignoring the hedonistic failure mode, there is a question of why Nature chose to create in sexual being the necessity of death. Being toward death, as some would inaccurately call sexual being, subordinates “comfort” of even the most rational kind. We are all, as sexual beings, born into the world to be sacrificed—to be “crucified” if you will. It is an essential aspect of our being. The question for Man then becomes not for what comforts do we live but for what do we offer ourselves in sacrifice? It is a choice rendered meaningful by our hyperception, if I may be permitted to coin a neologism with, I believe, defensible etymology. Ultimately, the “comforts” might exceed those available to advanced technological civilization depending on how one defines “technology” and “comfort”. In short the myth of Arcadia may not deserve the ridicule and scorn heaped upon it by the sophisticated. GL further asks: “Just on that topic what do you think your ideal form of community would look like in terms of size?” The primary unit of polity—of human ecology—I’ve offered as definition for the laboratory of the states is the “county” which I’ve further, operationally, defined as “the domain from which jurors are selected”. I am satisfied that the origin of the notion of “county” is sufficiently well grounded in Nature to take what we currently define as “counties” (in Switzerland it may be a “canton”) as the practical size of such a domain. In more naturalistic terms a county is defined as a territory, not overlapping with other counties, that can be routinely traversed in a day’s ride on horseback. This does create pathology at the border which must be dealt with in the traditional manner: Vigilant watch to control border crossings and trade-route traversals through the county to the highways—which may be a necessity under the compromise embodied in the laboratory of the states. GL: “What would be the maximal size such a form could cope with?” Ideally, if jury selection could be defined in more flexible terms, where a given court being convened would draw jurors from within a day’s ride of the court, the size of territory dedicated to a naturalistic polity could be unlimited by allowing there to exist agreements between individuals that would bind them to service under conditions of war as defined by what I’ve called a “declaration of war” which is essentially a declaration, understandable to all who enter into it, of the conditions under which the group organism, so formed, is no longer necessary and its parts become individuals again. That is essentially the mode of organization of the Germanics that succeeded in holding off the Roman Empire. GL: “Does it aim for autarky?” Since it aims for individual sovereignty it, by implication, aims for autarky. GL: “How autonomous would it be or is it one small part of a larger set of communities?” Except for ecological impacts on other counties, peacetime conditions of individual sovereignty would, again, imply autonomy of the county. Other counties could have radically different cultures of course. When I talk about “serpent” cultures being allowed within the laboratory of the states, I’m simply saying that some, perhaps even the vast majority of the, counties would cultivate Man-like beings that cannot survive apart from the group organism—they are biological parts of group organisms called by the ancients “serpents”. 136
Posted by Silver on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:30 | #
That’s just one sick idiot’s opinion. There’s no guarantee it would have played out that way.
Lol, I guess I touched a real sore spot. It’s incredible how dumb otherwise ostensibly intelligent people can become once their buttons are pushed. That’s why daniel hits back with what he figures are the “big guns,” calling me non-white and suggesting I just don’t understand (“blind spot”)—as if Greece and Yugoslavia weren’t likewise overrun or don’t form part of Europe (whether you want to call them “white” is another issue, that region being very much a racial fault line). I don’t know where in the world you get this idea that I think positively of Hitler or his party. I hate the motherfuckers. I’ve always hated them and I probably always will, and not just a little bit, but a lot. Nevertheless, having thought about it, I have to admit that in the long term it may very have all been for the better had they won, despite the human, territorial and cultural cost. (That’s not to say I want to invite them to try again, which is what I think you fear, and what the neos who hang out blogs like this positively itch for.)
137
Posted by daniel on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:01 | # When I speak of White, I am using the shorthand American political designation for people of native European extraction. By that designation, native Greek and Yogoslavian (anachronism polity, no?) are considered to be native European. Because there can be confusion and conflict with northern Europeans over the term White, I would prefer to use the term “European,” having it understood that I mean native European. And in the long run, I will do so (While always careful to note that I do not wish to see their kind of European blended away or otherwise go extinct). Providing all other evidence corroborates “native European”, olive skin and dark hair do not cast one out of Europe anymore than light skin, blonde hair and blue eyes make a Jew into a European. Some claim that our people can be confused for a political entity as opposed to an evolutionary taxonomy, but I think that is disingenuous or playing into the hands of the disingenuous.
138
Posted by Silver on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:23 | # I don’t think that that does anything but shift the debate over to the proper definition of “European” or terms like “native.” At the end of the day, no matter how you cut it, if you’re going to insist that a racial polity consist of one sole race or racial type, the boundaries of that race or racial type are always going to be up for debate. This may not matter very much if a racial government is in power, since those who disagree with official policy would be largely powerless to do anything about it, but it’s a formidable stumbling block when attempting to take power, not simply because you have the powers-that-be and cultural inertia (“that’s racist!”) working against you, but also because of the oftentimes overwhelming emotional baggage racial issues carry—even when people understand the need for change. Now, if you want to play the whiteness game (for whatever reason), go right ahead. Imo, you’ll be forever dealing with the above, and dealing with it with people who are not well known for being open-minded about it (there are really only two types of WNs, from what I can tell: nordicists and those who deny it, no matter what their own background), but that’s your call. I sure do resent this unaccountable arrogance of yours, though, that seems to believe it can dismiss my opinions—no matter how grounded in reality they may be—by mere virtue of their being mine. Maybe that goes down well on stormfront but I doubt people with the ability to think for themselves are going to be swayed that easily. 139
Posted by daniel on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 17:43 | # I don’t think that that does anything but shift the debate over to the proper definition of “European” or terms like “native.” At the end of the day, no matter how you cut it, if you’re going to insist that a racial polity consist of one sole race or racial type, the boundaries of that race or racial type are always going to be up for debate I did not say the borders of native European were not debatable. I have always said that they are. But there are, in fact, advantages to Europeans not being conceived of as a closed system - not the least of which is dealing with the reality that they are not.
Not true, Silver. While there are Nordicists who do not even recognize the Europeanness of those below the 40th parallel, a survey of the struggle will reveal that most people can accept the native European criteria. More, the wishes and concerns of particular European peoples are provided for in the framework of the DNA Nation.
I don’t dismiss your opinions. I misunderstood you as speaking on behalf of non-native-Europeans. Though I have looked at Stormfront a few times, I haven’t been there in years. Still, I’m not on board with the Hitler thing. And many WN’s who can think for themselves are not. That is not to be construed to mean that I want to see any native Europeans lose their lands and people to non-Europeans.
140
Posted by Matthias on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:06 | # daniel, You have a very simplistic, one-sided view of the affair, similar to the mainstream one. Those eastern European populations were turned into slave armies for the Bolsheviks that threatened Germany and western Europe. 141
Posted by Matthias on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:11 | #
Would it be purely negative i.e. no European nation can violate the borders of any European nation or do anything to reduce the territory or population of any European nation? Or would it be positive as well i.e. the spoils must be shared at such a rate, etc.?
This is a matter of cooperation between Europe and White areas outside of Europe. Since for Germany (or any other nation that would be the dominant power in Europe), all of Europe would be its sphere of influence and it would have an interest in defending its sphere of influence which extends beyond its own territorial boundaries to cover all of Europe. 142
Posted by daniel on Sat, 04 Aug 2012 06:07 | # Posted by Matthias on August 03, 2012, 04:06 PM | # daniel, You have a very simplistic, one-sided view of the affair, similar to the mainstream one. Mathias, I am not interested in going into World War II. But you don’t come across as anyone who should accuse others of being one sided and simplistic - simplistic in the sense that predictably, you will always talk about WWII and only see Nazi Germany as correct, good, victims, etc. Those eastern European populations were turned into slave armies for the Bolsheviks that threatened Germany and western Europe.
But of more utility now is the fact that these eastern nations were interested in maintaining their national sovereignty and there was a high level of anti-Jewish sentiment. How it may be relevant now is that we might build upon these peoples’ wishes for their national sovereignty. In fact we build upon the wishes of any who would seek sovereignty for their people. 143
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 04 Aug 2012 06:41 | #
If your philosophy possessed sufficient motive power to move men to subordinate themselves to it you would not need to play at semantics and word coinage for its expression in common language would do just fine. To procede in that vein can only accomplish to cement the understanding in the minds of those you wish to convince that you are motivated, at least unconsciously, not by laying out those brutal yet needed things for Northern European racial salvation but instead what you need to believe in order for your own zerrissenheit to be healed. To wish to live out one’s full life and see the seeds planted in one’s prime productive years come to full flower cannot - <u>will not</u> - be casually dismissed as so much unmanly decadence by your use of belittling quotation marks. You have been made subject to humilation by men naturally inferior to yourself in the course of your life. Haven’t we all, at one time or another; and so what? We move on in the understanding that we have been made stronger and better men for having gracefully endured the lamentable products of human weakness. It is only this example that in the end ennobles, not the childish indulgence of revenge fantasy mascarading as profound thought. But perhaps that is what you really aspire to, not to ennoble but merely to kill. What sane man could subordinate himself to that? No man at all, I say. 144
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:57 | #
The social unit most in accordance with Nature to coalensce around the sovereign individual would be a group of around 150 people as is consistent with Dunbar’s Number. This, along with the territory the group would occupy, is presumably what Bowery must mean, if he has his thinking cap on, by “county”. It is hard not to imagine something resembling “socialism” being practiced amongst them. The sovereign individual, this hero, this Fuhrer, would effectively function as absolute dictator to those under his protection; with disobedience being punished by him throwing them to the wolves, er, other sovereign individuals. What was it I said? Ah yes, sovereign individualism as enforced by single deadly combat is Nazism for (eccentric) individualists. Every man capable of winning a knife fight gets to be his own tin-pot Fuhrer. LOL 145
Posted by daniel on Sat, 04 Aug 2012 11:42 | # I’m rushing this answer a bit, but here goes: Posted by Matthias on August 03, 2012, 04:11 PM | # I’m interested in a governance that seeks to secure, maintain and foster the interests of all native Europeans. This essay - Euro-DNA Nation - is not concerned centrally about land masses to begin, but rather organizing native Europeans on the basis of DNA. After that, it would be more relevant to talk about the particular land masses that can be aimed for through negotiation, to be taken or retaken, whether traditional territories or new. I don’t know what must be shared. Must is a strong word, which I would tend to use primarily with regard to border defense against non-European peoples. A question that I had asked before was regarding the optimal level of mutual obligation that component parts of the great White Nation would have, especially with regard to that function of overall border defense. I imagine obligations and requirements fulfilled would bear upon reward as well. I am always concerned to be fair. Though there are some nuances regarding justice in negotiation (sometimes people can be operating on valid but different premises of justice), I believe weasel tactics can be avoided amongst White people. The short answer is, I don’t know exactly how it would be worked out yet. But it is a worthy consideration, a conversation that is more relevant. Again, I think these matters can be sorted out to a fair extent. That (the large Euro-DNA Nation) would include managing a size and scope - therefore sufficient inter-White cooperation - to defend their existence and well being overall against large non-White nations and to foster space and other far reaching programs. 146
Posted by daniel on Sun, 05 Aug 2012 03:42 | # The concept of “borders” emerges differently - Note: at this point in time and development of The Euro-DNA Nation, “the borders” would be primarily and literally be around peoples voluntarily expressing a wish to be in the Euro-DNA nation. 147
Posted by daniel on Sun, 05 Aug 2012 05:38 | # It is a key matter for all Native European peoples and nations that Jews (and liberal cohorts) have made discrimination against non-European peoples illegal; thereby putting into runaway the female tendency to incite genetic competition. 148
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 05 Aug 2012 06:32 | # Dunbar’s Number is eusocial. Moreover, it is not practical to limit jury selection to such a small number/territory. Simple transportation by something as inescapably desirable as horseback dictates the territorial range of disputes should be on that order. This is also a reasonable area from which females can be drawn to avoid inbreeding or outbreeding depression. Yes, it does mean that population densities will be lower than in some areas such as New York City and othe rmetro areas. PS: CC’s belittling (not to mention mischaracterization) of northern Europeans reminds me of the characterization I’ve heard from Jews of northern Europeans of the pre-Christian era: adolescents. At least they didn’t say “Childish”. It also reminds me of the attitude so many have toward masculinity, honor, valor and the kind of passionate love experienced by the “naive” young. However, all of these things are the very stuff of life that is gutted by the “maturity” represented by civilization. 149
Posted by daniel on Sun, 05 Aug 2012 07:19 | # I would say the “maturity” represented by modernity (modernity’s universalizing). 150
Posted by auroch on Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:50 | # Would the Pilgrims have successfully settled New England without civilization hence eusociality? Wasn’t it civilization - agriculture, greater population density, the diseases of civilization, etc. - that allowed the Pilgrims to push and wipe out the Indians? It wasn’t a matter of individual Pilgrims engaging in natural duel with individual Indians. Would the Pilgrims have been able to settle New England if they had to engage in individual natural duel with the Indians? The Pilgrims were preachers, merchants, traders, etc. while the Indians were hunter-gatherers used to running around the forests. 151
Posted by cladrastis on Mon, 06 Aug 2012 01:49 | #
Yes, this stands in contradistinction to Nietzsche’s assessment of the “blonde beast” as the precursor to the sickly, pathetic, Judaized N. European following the Christian conquest of his psyche. Then again, why wouldn’t Jews prefer a caged animal? 152
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:11 | # auroch, even if the settlement of the New World was by a people not so divorced from their environment of evolutionary adaptedness that they had little clue who they were, there is nothing in the historic record of JudeoChristian civilization’s conquest of the indians that reflects anything like the formalized natural duel described by the Romans in their history of their attempts to conquer the Germanics. As I keep saying (what… 10 times now?) individualism is maladaptive in a eusocial environment since the ESSENCE of the eusocial environment is group selection—which is to say a Hobbesian “war of all against all”. You don’t win a war by being individualistic. You win a war by being a more powerful group. There is nothing “fair” about war. The only place for human individualism is in an environment segregated from eusocial competition, designed for individual selection and to suppress group selection baggage from the great apes. That segregated environment was uniquely created and maintained by northern Europeans prior to JudeoChristianization and was lost when the two-sided coin of JudeoChristianity, wielded by kindly priests most adept at flipping it side for side at the demands of the moment, so confused the ideals and instincts of the northern Europeans that they were conquered by words where swords and armies had failed. The butcher of Tarsus had a stroke of absolutely diabolical genius on the Road to Damascus that transitioned Rome’s strategy against the northern Europeans from the sword to the word. Oh, and the absolute chutzpah of going from the butcher to leader of the same people through “religious conversion” of the leader was what made it necessary for a Jew to conceive and execute this strategy. There may be no people more morally nimble and therefore more uniquely qualified to execute that transition in strategy. There was some serious fall-out from that shift of responsibility for strategy from Rome to the Levant. Its still going on to some extent but we now see the transition of authority almost entirely complete, especially since Vatican II. 153
Posted by daniel on Tue, 07 Aug 2012 08:07 | # “Considering the problem in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.” should add, it also provides a highly practical means of coordinating a sizable population, and like white nationalists disbursed throughout the world 154
Posted by daniel on Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:57 | # . “Another variation on the idea that we will somehow be allowed to build Beaver Cleaver-ville in little towns and counties and never be compelled to confront the United States and its armed men, but this one is pretty well-written. - HAC” Other comments on his blog: Anonymous John Norman Howard said… How did that “freedom of association” thing work out for Alabama back in the late fifties? “Discretion is advised”... “Implicit rather than explicit”... all the same ol’, same ol’ mealy-mouthed crap that puts Whites in a defensive, apologetic mode… seeking moral approval from those who wish White males gone from the face of the earth. No. It means that a man has to use of his judgment with regard to how much of a risk he is willing to take - and how much his personal situation will allow. For example, Germany has different constraints from Idaho. I would imagine that for most, joining a DNA petition would not be much of a risk. For others it might - but that is the point, it is a free choice. It is quite proactive. This person obviously did not read this essay with an eye toward seeing it favorably. 1:36 PM Yet one more piece of advice on how to put back together a pot that has shattered into a thousand pieces. Better to sweep it up, throw it in the trash, fire up the potter’s wheel, and start over. Nor is it an effort to put anything back together, it is a new start… There is no motive to go back to “Beaver Cleaver Ville” with this plan. It does not dispute those who wish to take a stand in the “North West Front.” People who take the angle that the Feds or the Jews won’t let us do this, and that we ought have no part in facilitating the dismantling of oppressive state apparatus, have made their mind up what the essay is about before getting through the first two paragraphs. That is, they do not understand the point - which is preparatory coordination of White interests. .. 155
Posted by daniel on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:03 | # Perhaps I should not see it that way, but for the nature of resistance encountered, I wonder if the below statement is a contradiction and rather a projection? The words of a thirty something motivated to be the eminent progenitor of solutions? toward that end, willing to move others and solutions already extant aside? interjecting straw men and willful misunderstanding because he wanted to be the purveyor?
I’m working on answers to those questions, which involves reading, pondering, and occasionally throwing an idea or proposition out here or there for feedback and perspective. What’s been really startling to me, more than the (entirely expected) resistance to the very taboo ideas I presented…was how many people who were capable of verbalizing the stuff about our impending oblivion/genocide would then blink and…do nothing. Most people are rather risk-averse, unintelligent, and lacking in curiosity. I get that, and I never got frustrated about that. Most people don’t think. That’s just how it is. What’s crawled under my skin and frustrated me is the inaction and indifference of those who allegedly got it. Of course most people are going to dismiss you when you claim that the sky is falling, but what about those who fully agree with you that the sky is falling and can repeat the assertion as clearly as you…and yet are not motivated to act or seek a solution? That’s what baffles me. It seems to be the result of some deeper spiritual or psychological problem and getting to the bottom of that mystery, rather than engaging in street activism, will be the focus of my work for the meantime.”
Traditional society = ethnocentrism, in and out groups. The king and god looks-after one’s own people. There are other groups and they have different ways. Modernity = a quest for universal foundations; seeing all people as pretty much the same, change is a necessary hazard on the way to its progress - Tended to be oblivious to good coordination with other people because of its narcissistic propensity to see all peoples as being essentially the same. held inherent contradictions - “be different so you can fit in” and a pernicious cycle - work to change - celebrate change - this is no longer new - work to change - grinding away at traditional forms in perpetuity. Post Modernity = recognition that change does not necessarily lead to progress, good things or unshakable foundations; one of those negative effects is profound disorder, hyper relativism and the lack of accountability that goes along with that (incl. destruction of Whites); therefore post modernity tries for an optimal balance between reconstructing tradition (and one’s people) where beneficial and also gauging and making changes where positive. It has the ability to reconstruct traditional practices without “the pangs of self loathing” for the appearance of conformity, since where it participates in traditional practices it does so knowingly. It can also disengage from traditional practices to make modernist changes where advantageous. Now, Jews wouldn’t do anything so dishonest as to try to misrepresent these ideas so that Whites could not understand them properly and use them effectively, would they? They would never promote liberal modernity to the detriment of Whites instead, would they? 156
Posted by daniel on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:35 | # Science has been an integral part of a first liberation - from mere religion, superstition, tradition, custom and habit. But unlike matters of logic and technology (theoria, and techne), the complex biological necessity of agentive human involvement (praxis) and concerns entails the necessity of practical, agentive judgments (phronesis) in response. Along with this added complexity of agentive social interaction, it is also the case that the factual lines of theory and reasoning can quickly and hazardously become divorced from context and relevance. Given the concerns of the social realm and the tendency of logic to outstrip context, a second liberation becomes necessary, a liberation from mere facticity – which takes form in the hermeneutic turn. Obviously science is good and important; of course it can demarcate racial bounds that normal people need not dispute. However, as it is the case that all humans can breed with one another, there is a modicum of arbitrariness to those bounds - which I have taken to calling classifications - that require, therefore, argumentation. Since these classifications are not merely closed, self-corrective systems, we seek ways to argue on behalf of Whites (native Europeans). As good and important as science is, I am sure you will agree that there can be such a thing as bad science or scientific application. That can be called “scientism.” For example, where a scientist may say, “oh, racial distinctions are not important, they are just a matter of skin tone and a few other relatively minor genetic markers”. Another example of bad science would be a scientist advocating race mixing because he thinks it would necessarily improve offspring - onward and upward in the impervious change of modernizing “progress,” any “traditional” human forms (e.g. European) wrecked along the way be damned. Hermeneutics provides the second liberation, from mere facticity through a narrative release from necessarily close, lineal readings of the facts, and into the capacity for protracted (“narrative”) conceptual organization of the facts (e.g., of race; its history and breadth). It thereby allows for contextual orientation on proper application and relevance of facts to the patterned expanse of the group (interests) in historical and systemic process. Hermeneutic process also provides for, and recommends a return to close readings of the facts where necessary – e.g., scientific verification. Unlike modernity, which had a basic orientation toward lineal progress, Post Modernity, properly understood, would manage a back and forth process: between reconstructing traditional practices and genetic legacy of the group on the one hand, and allowing for modernizing progress on the other; moderating the introduction of technological, scientific and other changes where evaluated to be of true advance in group interests. Therefore, (White) post modernity it is not anti-science. It is anti bad science or anti bad scientific application. Nor is it ant-genetic reconstruction or anti-tradition - particularly as it concerns us, post modernity would not be against traditions where they foster genetic interests. On the contrary, the key move of post modernity was a rejection of Modernity where and when its universalisms were culpable of riding roughshod over ethnocentric traditions and human differences. ..
Mono-cultural society = all people are seen as pretty much the same - therefore, those not fitting in the world view are less than human - worthy of the communal stew pot. In the present situation, as we move toward globalization, i.e. ‘one world’, “racists” might be thought of as less than human. Traditional society = ethnocentrism, in and out groups. The king and god looks-after one’s own people. There are other groups, they have different ways and are treated differently than insiders. Modernity = a quest for universal foundations; values objectivity and is prejudice against prejudice - tending to see all people as pretty much the same; change is a necessary hazard on the way to its progress - tended to be oblivious to good coordination with other people because of its narcissistic propensity to see all peoples as being essentially the same. held inherent contradictions - “be different so you can fit in” (as it valued change and non conformity to tradition). and a pernicious cycle - work to change - celebrate change - this is no longer new - work to change - grinding away at traditional forms in perpetuity. Post Modernity = recognition that change does not necessarily lead to progress, good things or unshakable foundations; one of those negative effects is profound disorder, hyper relativism and the lack of accountability that goes along with that (incl. destruction of Whites); therefore post modernity tries for an optimal balance between reconstructing tradition (and one’s people) where beneficial and also gauging and making changes where positive. It has the ability to reconstruct traditional practices without “the pangs of self loathing” for the appearance of conformity, since where it participates in traditional practices it does so knowingly. It can also disengage from traditional practices to make modernist changes where advantageous. Now, Jews wouldn’t do anything so dishonest as to try to misrepresent these ideas so that Whites could not understand them properly and use them effectively, would they? They would never promote radical individualism and liberal modernity to the detriment of Whites group interests instead, would they? Of course they would: Jewish and Jewish approved academics have been promoting a hyperbolic form of Modernity (at least as it concerns Whites) as if it were “Post Modernity”. I don’t know what is so hard to understand or why the value of this to Whites is hard to perceive. 157
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:22 | # Speaking of praxis: What is the petition we are to consider signing? 158
Posted by daniel on Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:18 | # . Speaking of praxis: What is the petition we are to consider signing? It’d be great if you’d consider helping to devise that petition - providing that you have leisure and would take pleasure in devising it. Among the basics, I guess, would be cooperation with a genetic testing lab. But its taxonomies and anticipation of various problems in implementation might be sketched right away…You’d be a terrific contributor to its framing. 159
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:07 | # I consent to live in a federated body politic, and on a corresponding territory, shared exclusively with other Europeans. By “Europeans” I mean people predominantly of indigenous European ancestry. I do not consent to present conditions. Moreover, I recognize the value of the individual. Therefore, I consent only to a body politic that materially recognizes, as taking priority over all other rights, the right of any adult individual to migrate and join with mutually-consenting others to form exclusive communities. By “materially” I mean land adequate for community self-sufficiency must be provided as part of this primary right. In the event that irreconcilable conflicts arise over land-use, preference should be given to those consenting to more indigenous ways of life. Implied by “consent” is that each body politic, including the federation and each subordinate body politic, must have only one body of law—always completely contained in one document. I reject any argument that things have become too complicated for one body politic to have only one body of law contained in one document. There can be no government by law, and consequently no law-abiding citizens, unless the law is clearly stated. To satisfy the condition of clarity there must be a completely self-contained document which can be fully reproduced, widely distributed, held in the hands, and be understood by any individual over whom it claims jurisdiction. One document - and one document only - must be recognized as the supreme law of any body politic that claims legal (de jure) status. 160
Posted by daniel on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:48 | # This is just a draft, but what comes to mind In farther clarification, We the people interested in being a part of a nation of confederated European peoples, understand the signatories wish to be of a political unity of persons of native European extraction, separate from non-European natives; and further recognize the prerogative for its consenting peoples to maintain discreet, smaller political divisions (states; counties) conforming to their genetic interests. While the fundamental requirement for inclusion will be evidence of predominant native European DNA (predominant to be defined), categories will be freely chosen provided DNA matches the requested group category. The DNA Nation recognizes that some land masses, particularly ancient European and Russia, are not negotiable as a choice beyond a certain agreed upon percentage from their ancient inhabitants. While DNA is fundamental, many may have different priorities and ways of life besides. Some may value a particular ancient homeland and people above all. Others may value a particular religion, economic system or life-style. There will be categories a bit more mixed European, some more pure - and while those more pure categories may correspond with ancient European homelands, pure communities may form elsewhere as well; mixed ones might also form elsewhere; or perhaps among particular areas of the ancient nations, granted overall consent. Coordination may also be sought with states of non-native Europeans who also wish to maintain their genetic form. While the Euro-DNA Nation is genetic based to begin and to some extent always, we nevertheless see relation to lands (especially lands of our ancient evolution) as naturally fundamental; and the lack of sovereign habitat as problematic in many regards; therefore, we will address matters of land acquisition in days to come. Signatories are under no legal obligation nor expressing anything other than a wish that there be such an entity as a European DNA based nation, with a confederation of indigenous European subcategories from which they may choose, should they match. 161
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:05 | # A common form for such public declarations is clarifying language written in the form of an ontology. For example, I adhered to that strategy in reifying “Europeans”, “materially”, and “consent”. In routine legislative language, there is almost always a “Definitions” section separate from the overall language that serves this purpose, but we need to find a happy medium between common language and legalese. Toward that end I would probably rework some of your further clarifications a similar form of ontology. We have to be very careful about length as well as adequacy. Words have frequencies of usage, eg “Dog” is more frequently used than “canine”. So what if you scored two passages, saying the same thing, by adding up the frequency-ranking of their words? Fewer words and more plain words, lower score. Of course, “saying the same thing” would be problematic but its an interesting way to measure how plain the language is of, say, a contract or scientific paper. It would be necessary to take the sum the logs (or some similar function) of the frequency rankings rather than the rankings themselves so that what is represented is closer to the actual information theoretic complexity of (ie: how many “bits” of data are contained in) the document. 162
Posted by daniel on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:05 | # ... Striking a balance between ordinary, understandable language and language which commands sufficient rigor and respect to represent a compelling document is a worthwhile objective - a non-Jewish aim. Providing definitions of some pivotal words would seem to be a next step indeed - with a caveat: that serious conflict may stem from overly ambiguous or overly tight definitions. Of course, serious conflict may happen even with reasonable definitions. Having said that, of course I believe it is possible to come up with sufficient definitions. Native European = predominantly evolved in the context of Europe over x thousands of years. Predominantly = having a genetic quality and quantity distinguishing it as native European. Freedom from association = ability to expel those who violate state or national consent. Terms of expulsion = violation of established rules - Presumably, some terms of expulsion would apply to the whole nation and others only to particular states.
That some native Europeans may have qualities that require protection from other kinds of Europeans even, if they are to maintain their kind; i.e., might makes right probably should not be allowed to run roughshod over all qualitative distinctions, in an expansive sense against other Europeans. where there is no threat of loss of numbers or habitat to the “mighty”. That if gray areas on the inside of the White class are recognized - for example, states allowing for some people with 1/16 Asian admixture - would they provide a potential conduit for still more influx of non-Europeans as they would have more empathy for mixed people? It could be a good idea to coordinate with some groups who are not European, but probably wanting to maintain their distinctions say, from Blacks and Jews: for example Iranians and Caucasian peoples. We run the risk of unnecessarily pushing semi-White people into alliances against us. Perhaps a key matter of coordination with non-pure groups is agreeing on percentages of acceptable admixture. I imagine the same principle would hold true of inter-European negotiation - that if the line is drawn too narrowly and some “compartments of the ship” are not allowed for, it might push them into unnecessary antagonism and even non or semi-White alliance; or, it may break them off whereas they might have been a helpful buffering group; perhaps leaving the entire group more susceptible. I imagine this forced alliance with non-Whites would be even more a concern even where the line is reasonably drawn: say, people who are 1/4 Black being excluded. They would contain a large measure of White ability, but would be forced into alliance with whomever might ally with them in indifference or antagonism to White interests. Worse, I think, is the possibility of these mixed groups, ostracized though largely White, would provide a pleasant enough haven for White traitors. Hence, their violation of White interests and banishment would not be a sufficient punishment for betrayal; but the mixed group may even be strengthened against us if we do not handle the situation well. I’m not exactly sure how to resolve that. Maybe it is not a big problem. In principle, freedom from associate and the right to banish anyone who breeds outside the race and otherwise works against its separatism, would seem to be a minimum punishment. It also seems to be clearly our prerogative - we ought not be forced to endure the consequences of those who act with indifference or antagonism to the 41,000 years of European peoples, the struggles and triumphs that have gone into our making. 163
Posted by Silver on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:29 | #
HEY FAGGOT Nobody is interested in maintaining racial distinction from Jews. Sorry to put it so forcefully but it’s clear your loathing is clouding your judgement. See ya when get back down to earth.
164
Posted by daniel on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:33 | # Hey Silver, Nobody is interested in maintaining racial distinction from Jews? No problem, they will do us the favor as they are interested in maintaining racial distinctions from us - those with real concerns, here on earth. I had given you the benefit of the doubt, Silver… maybe you are a quadroon or something. LOL 165
Posted by daniel on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:35 | # ...Octaroon, perhaps.. What category would you select as an Octaroon? 166
Posted by daniel on Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:49 | # If you are not one of those really bad octaroons, the kind with the big lips and all, you might be well placed in the Turkish half of Cyprus..its not too far from Israel, etc. 167
Posted by daniel on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 07:50 | # ‘Practical Politics Seminar’ “There is this phenomenon of White grandparents taking care of mulatto* grandchildren and we don’t want to offend the grandparents” “These mulattoes are a tragedy to themsleves (not to us); most of them will elect to not have children.” Right.
168
Posted by daniel on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:03 | # ...and “these White grandparents are raising these mulatto children in White communities.. because they know how bad it is to live in Black communities.” “So we don’t want to offend these White grandparents, because they know the score.” 169
Posted by daniel on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:33 | # Once racial classifications are undone (by the right and liberals) normal men cease to become normal and optimal men, but rather become “mediocre and inferior.” This is the bullshit to which Right, new or otherwise, is all too susceptible: Mulatto Supremacism 170
Posted by daniel on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:27 | # Once racial classifications are undone (by the right and liberals) normal men cease to become normal and optimal men, but rather become “mediocre and inferior.” This is the bullshit to which the Right, new or otherwise, is all too susceptible: Mulatto Supremacism - http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/epistemology-and-the-new-right/
171
Posted by daniel on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 16:21 | # European DNA Nation: a Declaration of Independence from non-European peoples, basing the nation on European genetics and in quest of sovereign homelands. I consent to live in a federated body politic, and on a corresponding territory, shared exclusively with other Europeans. By “Europeans” I mean people predominantly of indigenous European ancestry. I do not consent to present conditions. Moreover, I recognize the value of the individual. Therefore, I consent only to a body politic that materially recognizes, as taking priority over all other rights, the right of any adult individual to migrate and join with mutually-consenting others to form exclusive communities. By “materially” I mean land adequate for community self-sufficiency must be provided as part of this primary right. In the event that irreconcilable conflicts arise over land-use, preference should be given to those consenting to more indigenous ways of life. Implied by “consent” is that each body politic, including the federation and each subordinate body politic, must have only one body of law—always completely contained in one document. I reject any argument that things have become too complicated for one body politic to have only one body of law contained in one document. There can be no government by law, and consequently no law-abiding citizens, unless the law is clearly stated. To satisfy the condition of clarity there must be a completely self-contained document which can be fully reproduced, widely distributed, held in the hands, and be understood by any individual over whom it claims jurisdiction. One document - and one document only - must be recognized as the supreme law of any body politic that claims legal (de jure) status.
In farther clarification, We the people interested in being a part of a nation of confederated European peoples, understand the signatories wish to be of a political unity of persons of native European extraction, separate from non-European natives; and further recognize the prerogative for its consenting peoples to maintain discreet, smaller political divisions (states; counties) conforming to their genetic interests. While the fundamental requirement for inclusion will be evidence of predominant native European DNA (predominant to be defined), categories will be freely chosen provided DNA matches the requested group category. And while DNA is fundamental, many may have different priorities and ways of life besides. Some may value a particular religion, economic system, language or life-style. Others may value a particular people and ancient homeland above all. Nevertheless, the DNA Nation recognizes that some landmasses, particularly ancient European and Russia, are not negotiable as a choice beyond a certain agreed upon percentage from their ancient inhabitants. There will be categories of mixed European, some more pure - and while those more pure categories may correspond with ancient European homelands, pure communities may form elsewhere as well; mixed ones might also form elsewhere; or perhaps among particular areas of the ancient nations, granted overall consent. Coordination may also be sought with states of non-native Europeans who also wish to maintain their genetic form. While the Euro-DNA Nation is genetic based to begin and to a large extent always, we nevertheless see relation to lands (especially lands of our ancient evolution) as naturally fundamental; and the lack of sovereign habitat as problematic in many regards; therefore, we will address matters of land acquisition in days to come. Signatories are under no legal obligation nor expressing anything other than a wish that there be such an entity as a European DNA based nation, with a confederation of indigenous European subcategories from which they may choose, should they match.
172
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:43 | # I took the liberty of going back and editing the third sentence to read: “I do not consent to present conditions.” The purpose of that sentence is to make clear that change is required in order to satisfy “consent of the governed”. 173
Posted by daniel on Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:26 | # great I wonder about this sentence of mine: “While the Euro-DNA Nation is genetic based to begin and to a large extent always,”
Nevertheless, I think that recognizing the necessity of attachment to land and the danger of horizontal transmission without it could be enough. Therefore the sentence should probably read: While the Euro-DNA Nation is genetic based to begin and always, we nevertheless see relation to lands (especially lands of our ancient evolution) as naturally fundamental;
“In the event that irreconcilable conflicts arise over land-use, preference should be given to those consenting to more indigenous ways of life.” While that would make sense in Europe, should there not be some distinction as such so that it is not confused with claims from non-Whites in America? I might suggest: In the event that irreconcilable conflict arises over land-use in Europe/Russia, preference should be given to those consenting to the more indigenous ways of life; whereas on other continents, the concern will be based on the more practical efficacy of White separation. 174
Posted by daniel on Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:53 | # There are some small changes to the original post which I believe represent an overall improvement: Adding this sentence: “More, it has the distinct capacity to gather disbursed peoples into a large mass under one rubric.”
“However, he has modified this notion some since its inception, with state-sized units being set aside provisionally for county-sized political units as they are apparently optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.” While adding However to the beginning of this sentence helps in transition of ideas: “However, this freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats.”
175
Posted by daniel on Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:55 | # Euro-DNA Nation James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes separatism through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (see Note 1 below). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities would be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association. However, he has modified this notion some since its inception, with state-sized units being set aside provisionally for county-sized political units as they are apparently optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes. The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as serious criminal offenders. This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well. However, this freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination. We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence. There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large. Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well. Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism. By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front. There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship. The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always). However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be Cartesian as well and problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims. Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory. More, it has the distinct capacity to gather disbursed peoples into a large mass under one rubric. The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction. Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible. If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership. The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided. Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised. DanielS. 176
Posted by uh on Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:22 | #
We’ve come a long way from “Blut und Boden”, comrades. 177
Posted by daniel on Sun, 02 Sep 2012 18:18 | # .. Naturally, I pursued this argument because I felt that there were important issues to address. I recognize Matt as an intelligent man, wonderful writer and dedicated advocate of Whites - and largely competent. To begin, I have enjoyed his efforts as one among our talented advocates. Hence, I have been inclined to mostly ignore what I think are some bad ideas that he is promoting: 1) that we ought to be Christians - in my estimation, this is like advocating mental retardation and suicide for Whites (BTW The 14 Words works wonderfully as a new and organic religion - since Matt is hip on that word). 2) We should not ever, on any of our forums, use the word “nigger.” While there are tactical reasons aplenty not to use that word in many instances, there are also places where it is just right - it others a people who should be othered, because they have been “samed” so profusely for so long. It is bad enough that TOO, VoR, CC and other sites (maybe this site too, of legal necessity) do not use that word - I respect their tact and do not attempt to use it there, but to say that it should never be used, anywhere? Because it will “dehumanize them”? This is Matt’s argument. There are nice Blacks. I told him honestly, that those “nice blacks are a bigger problem because they bring the bad ones along with them.” Matt responded with the head slap icon, as if I were incorrigible. How many White people have to be raped, murdered, how many cities destroyed, etc, before we are free to refer to them as pejorative others, not worthy of respect, as a pattern? Matt’s contention - along with other movement figures, whom I disagree with strongly, is that when we do this we play into the enemies hands by appearing like ignorant skin heads. Of course, it all depends upon how and when you use the word. Moreover, the real dangerous stereotype that we are up against is the nerdy wimp, too cowardly to call a spade a spade. It is a more accurate and pervasive stereotype by far than “the skin head” - I personally, have never known any. Have encountered a few, briefly - were fairly pleasant to me, actually. Now then, this brings me to the third thing that I had let ride with Matt’s perspective (since he was saying that I jumped on his case all of a sudden just because he did not like the DNA Nation idea), that is we should kindly take mudsharks back…I have softened a little on that one - vis a vis Renner’s and Bowery’s advice that they might be banished and that could be punishment enough. More, there is something to the argument that these women have been subject to torrents of brainwashing, and we need to show some compassion - for now. Once matters are understood and promulgated better, we need not be forgiving in the least - away with them! However, I still think that a hard line with regard to mudsharks is necessary - we need to scare these women and to show that there will be punishment for their acts. This goes to the main thrust of what became a problem for me in Matt’s view. He tends to close off other views, at times, better than his, with straw men arguments; and to suggest that there is universally no place for them in the struggle. I did not expect to find this personality trait and it had been irrelevant until he commented on the DNA Nation in personal correspondence - which I will publish here shortly (having been given his permission). I did not respect his criticisms as well considered; and I began to suspect that there was some bad motivation too: Ego and immaturity seemed to be clouding his judgment - the kid is only 30 and is being looked upon as a major leader by some - he should be the prime purveyor of information and set other thinkers aside at his leisure? This still did not pique my concern until some other things started factoring in - he is a moderator at TOO and CC? I don’t know, but it seems so, and that is a bit of power. Ok fine. I saw Joe Webb complaining about him and I rather agreed with some of Joe Webb’s criticism, but it still did not occur to me that I might need to air this out until I saw these remarks:
I’m working on answers to those questions, which involves reading, pondering, and occasionally throwing an idea or proposition out here or there for feedback and perspective. What’s been really startling to me, more than the (entirely expected) resistance to the very taboo ideas I presented…was how many people who were capable of verbalizing the stuff about our impending oblivion/genocide would then blink and…do nothing. Most people are rather risk-averse, unintelligent, and lacking in curiosity. I get that, and I never got frustrated about that. Most people don’t think. That’s just how it is. What’s crawled under my skin and frustrated me is the inaction and indifference of those who allegedly got it. Of course most people are going to dismiss you when you claim that the sky is falling, but what about those who fully agree with you that the sky is falling and can repeat the assertion as clearly as you…and yet are not motivated to act or seek a solution? That’s what baffles me. It seems to be the result of some deeper spiritual or psychological problem and getting to the bottom of that mystery, rather than engaging in street activism, will be the focus of my work for the meantime.” “
No thanks. So, that is where I start this conversation: I will address some of our correspondence below - as it appeared in email and on a chat board where we talked… 178
Posted by daniel on Sun, 02 Sep 2012 18:29 | # Before I commence, as an aside, it occurs to me that while what Metzger says about Blacks - that they are a weekend operation - is true in terms of conventional warfare, that they might not be so easy a problem in psychological an other contemporary forms of warfare. 179
Posted by daniel on Sun, 02 Sep 2012 19:35 | # Email exchange with Matt Parrot regarding Euro DNA Nation
I apologize for my tone getting a bit terse. I respect you, your support, and your volunteer contributions. We should be able to freely throw about ideas amongst one another without any of us (including myself) getting agitated. That being said, I continue to believe the proposal is unlikely to be successful. I certainly wouldn’t and won’t stand in the way of it. I certainly get that it’s based on a voluntary model. If it works, then that’s great. I’m just skeptical about its prospects. Daniel wrote: Ok. Thanks.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Matt Parrott wrote: “Freedom from association” is not a central matter because whether or not we’re ideologically consistent is beside the point. Of course “freedom of association” implies freedom from association. Of course forced integration is tyrannical, unjust, inconsistent with Enlightenment ideals, and even genocidal. A parasite whose very survival depends on being attached to a host while do whatever it takes to remain attached to the host, even brooking cognitive dissonance and ideological inconsistency. To propose that we’ll be allowed to peacefully detach ourselves from the host because we’re doing it in an indirect social and apolitical way rather than with a more formal political secession is grossly naive.
I’m willing to bet that there are those who would be willing to go that far on a limb (i.e. not very far).
Matt: If you’re proposing something other than that, then please spell it out for me. Daniel: I have just made my points - it is not a legal status.. Maybe you should have a look at the version and discussion on Majority Rights. Your objections would be welcome. Maybe they could be better addressed there.http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/euro_dna_nation I understand that you do not tend to like the site for its commentators and such - but as far as I am concerned, your input would be welcome. If not, I will try to answer your questions via email 180
Posted by daniel on Sun, 02 Sep 2012 19:39 | # ...
It is impossible to detach people from the land and interaction with others in any complete way and it is not the objective. The organic measure is completely central and accounted for more thoroughly in my other essay now in revised form on MR: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/leftism_as_a_code_word_part_1_the_white_left You cannot talk about everything at once. I think your emotions are clouding your thinking Matt. I am not against you.
You didn’t understand it; and argued against straw men 181
Posted by daniel on Sun, 02 Sep 2012 19:41 | # On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Matt Parrott wrote: Matt: Of course, the big problem is that it would necessarily be subversive or wait until the state’s decline is farther along.
Daniel: No. That was an entirely different thing! We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-D.N.A. based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence. Matt: As a White American who (along with tens of millions of other White Americans) (who is not necessarily a thousand percent White), I’m also unsure whether I’m even invited. Matt: The world is increasingly divided between a handful of super-oligarchies: China’s Mandarin inner party, Russia’s Ortho-KGB network, the West’s Judeo-Masonic clique, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc… To merely subvert the Judeo-Masonic clique which reigns in the West without replacing it with something approximating its military and economic position on the world stage is to invite our Continent being divided up among the other global oligarchies…a situation which is arguably as shitty as our current one. Daniel: Well, I am not inviting that – and that is why The White Nation as big as possible is one of the three major components. First things first. We need to be organized and we need a common basis for that organization – DNA is most consistent.
I find Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” idea to be a typical example of unhinged and useless theory with no potential for application. I find your proposal to be a variation on it which doesn’t address my principle concerns with it. Daniel: I’m sorry that you think that and I do not understand why you think freedom of and from association is not a central matter. Matt: I respect and appreciate the time and work you put into sketching this up. You’re evidently bright, knowledgeable, and sincere. But I depart in my own thinking from this framework at nearly every major consideration. Daniel: 182
Posted by daniel on Sun, 02 Sep 2012 19:52 | # ........... I saw in this more of putting ego and position before the best interests of our people than I would have expected… and so I aired my grievances and will discuss the ensuing chat that I had with Matt and a few others. 183
Posted by daniel on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:28 | # ...... To sum up from what I gather of the rather long chat that ensued: I wish well Matt well with the Counter Currents audio project as well as his other projects. - obviously very talented writer and advocate of Whites: I thought his response to Uh’s contention that “when one wakes up, walks around, eats, they are hardly engaged in narrative” was brilliant - Matt said something to the effect of, yes, but these are largely private and custodial matters, not of the sort of protracted concern for the race that would call for narrative extension. excellent. That’s the kind of incisive thing that can be expected of him. With a caveat of the aforementioned foibles; and, for all the good things, a tendency and facility to immediately construct elaborate straw man arguments, to impugn motives (then project that motives are being imagined of him); and finally to try to universalize the “good cop” while asserting that there should be no “bad cop”, not even on other web sites. Maybe these would not be concerns, but he’s got something of nodal position in the struggle. I guess these foibles come from a bit of youthful ego and inexperience. Perhaps he is nervous about other people’s motives and that has more to do with why he would rather quickly see negative things where they did not exist; wanting to be the central purveyor instead. Whatever. Now that I am aware that he can be that way, I can let the matter rest. Some conclusions: We should disagree That mudsharks should merely be forgiven. Whereas, I would say that given the torrents of propaganda in particular, there may be good cop situations to show compassion to mudsharks. However, by and large the bad cop is needed to protect Whites from the consequences of bad mudshark choices; first there ought to be preventative incentive by fear motive (and they ought not be comfortable that they’ll be forgiven). We need to scare them a bit; and follow through - we ought not have to endure those consequences; and conversely, by and large, they should have to endure them with expulsion: Just as rape and pedophilia may be an inclination for some but are nonetheless prohibited by social norms in defense of the populace, so too, while miscegenation may be an inclination among some, it ought to be rejected in defense of the populace - calling for the banishment of practitioners. It is very important that WN’s who cannot find it in themselves to ascribe to Christianity have Christian free places where they are not yoked with this anachronistic tradition, but rather free to work out a new moral order centering on the 14 Words. Finally, I strongly disagree with his assessment of the Euro DNA Nation but that misunderstanding may stem from having not read some of my prior essays (which I do not expect, but may be necessary to know what I am and am not saying) It is valid to call attention to the possibility that youth and ego may be wrongly pushing aside significant ideas. 184
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:04 | # A primary concern I have is whether the encompassing declaration should be the laboratory of the states or DNA nation. There needs to be some kind of delineation between humans and sub-humans and that delineation cannot be “white” vs “non-white” or “European” vs “non-European”. The delineation I see as relevant, and the reason the “unhinged theory” as MP describes it, is central to practical action, is that the definition provided by the Laboratory of the States is essentially this: If you agree that we humans have a right to exclude you, then you are a human. If not, you are a subhuman. The practical implication of this “unhinged theoretic” delineation is declaration of war. Indeed, any goal that does not provide a moral basis for war does not provide the morale required to win and is unhinged from the fundamental conflict besetting us. With that delineation of human vs sub-human, you can be inclusive of all races of human and can form practical insurgencies with plausible promise. The only question remaining then becomes the one I’ve been trying to raise here at MR regarding base hypocrites like E. O. Wilson who are on the one hand proclaiming their preeminent valuation of the preservation of indigenous diversity and on the other hand proclaiming eusocial “human” masses that are engaging in “the social conquest of earth” as the next “higher” stage in biological organization. I have my answer, that very few accept, but no one has offered anything better. 185
Posted by daniel on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:29 | #
1. If you agree that we humans have a right to exclude you, then you are a human. If not, you are a subhuman. 2. The practical implication of this “unhinged theoretic” delineation is declaration of war. 3. Indeed, any goal that does not provide a moral basis for war does not provide the morale required to win and is unhinged from the fundamental conflict besetting us.
186
Posted by uh on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:46 | # daniel, It isn’t polite to indulge in speculation about someone when they’ve apologized to you. Try to be honorable, at least. 187
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:07 | # Good. So now let me address the “DNA Nation” goal from the standpoint of the definition of “indigenous peoples”. A defining characteristic of an indigenous people is the presence of genetic correlation structure at the population level—not just its cultural traditions. When an indigenous people has been under genetic attack these correlation structures are destroyed and people like Graham Lister down-play the significance by referring to the result as “outbreeding depression” as a counterpart to “inbreeding depression”. However, the real damage is to the genetic correlation structure—damage that does not occur with inbreeding but does occur with outbreeding—even if that outbreeding gives rise to heterosis (hybrid vigor) rather than adaptive depression. Does a people lose its indigenous rights just because genetic warfare has been waged against it by civilization and great harm done? According to folks in the United Nations the answer is, yes, they do lose their indigenous rights because they are no longer defined as “indigenous peoples” and must, therefore, open their borders to all under the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. Of course there are other interpretations of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” but we must keep in mind the reality of selectively enforcement bordering on, if not directly achieving genocide, of that vague laundry list of “rights”. However, modern DNA technology gives allows us to piece together fragments of DNA as damaged as that found in very ancient remains such as Neanderthal or Denisovians. No work has yet been done to attempt to recover genetic correlation structures of highly damaged indigenous peoples, but this is clearly a theoretic possibility that is now within practical reach. If we then define “indigenous rights” as belonging to such genetic correlation structures at the population level, we can begin to reconstruct the value produced by evolutionary creation over vast stretches of time and provide people who fit the profile with preferred “indigenous” status. To the extent that these structures correspond to particular natural ecologies, they also prescribe territorial allocations for nature preserves containing indigenous human ecologies. How does this work out in places like the New World* and Australia? The preservation of European situated human ecologies—indigenous people of Europe—outweighs the right of Europeans to lands recently occupied with the power of civilization. Indeed, the proper place for those peoples, who do not wish to or are excluded from returning to their European homelands, is at the frontiers of humanity, be those frontiers on the ocean, beneath or beyond the biosphere. *I am ignoring here the Solutrean hypothesis—not because I discount it, but simply for the sake of getting to the central point. 188
Posted by uh on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:09 | # ps- Matt’s a brilliant writer, much smarter than me, and one of the most valuable exponent of our thing — despite your <strike>tiresome</strike> tireless efforts to be the most valuable — but a few of the presuppositions of his thought are surprisingly flimsy. Exaggeration of the importance of “narrative” is one of them. All he’s done is absorb academy-speak and regurgitate it for a different audience. He even admitted he went too far in stating the “primacy of narrative”, so you’re not grasping much of anything against me here. I don’t see what is ‘negative’. I see language as irrationally ‘positive’ by biological necessity. The Optimism Bias is very real. It lives in your brain. A consequence of this is that people use language as a kind of magic wand against reality, and have, for many eons now, exaggerated its importance in everyday human affairs. It is the archetypal ghost in the machine, for it relentlessly introduces indeterminacy where cause and effect have us locked in the real state of affairs that we confront in our daily lives. This will be where Silver pops in with one of his usual potshots at my “mental health”. Let’s step back though and remember who’s proposing a “DNA nation” and who is merely making a point about neuroscience and its relation to belief systems. 189
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 17:42 | # And so it begins, with whites in George becoming “unhinged”:
190
Posted by Matt Parrott on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 18:41 | # Movement Pro-Tip: If you receive an unsolicited “theory” in your inbox, then read that theory, then find it problematic, do not respond honestly and openly about your misgivings unless you can confirm that you’re communicating with a serious man. Respond in a vaguely positive, encouraging, and evasive manner. Find that optimum level of positiveness which will leave him feeling like you’re supportive, but not so much that he has an expectation of receiving any actual support. Should you err in this regard, you will rue the day for months to come. He will badger you in private message. He will badger you in your chat forums. He will spread rumors about you and your friends. He will cough up an endless stream of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about you, your projects, your friends, and your ideas. For every sentence you can respond with, he’ll have a dozen paragraphs of new critique for you to wade through. And if you don’t respond with Talmudic precision, your responses will create new opportunities for fractal responses to responses in a geometric explosion of asinine responses. 191
Posted by daniel on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:13 | # So what we have here is Ad Hominem. I am a stalker who will never leave him alone will badger him to the ends of the earth. And I am supposed to be the one who is smearing…
Days and months to come? Where did you get that shit from? He will badger you in private message. When did I do this? And who is smearing whom? Stop it.
All is out there in public Matt. No rumors spread. It is you who is slandering by saying that I am doing these things. Really bad. Stop it Matt. He will cough up an endless stream of fear,
It’s finite and finished as I am concerned. And I am glad I did it. Needed to be done, because you are like a straw man argument machine. And if you don’t respond with Talmudic precision, your responses will create new opportunities for fractal responses to responses in a geometric explosion of asinine responses. Forget it, Matt. We disagree. Have a fun time at Counter Currents. It’s a good site. Your a good writer, I just don’t go for your straw men in particular, the way you attack when someone disagrees with your great assessments, attributions of motives and deeds. Drop it, I will. 192
Posted by daniel on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:17 | # The Euro DNA Nation is an organizational device, a basis for morale in preparation of defense against a right that would be recognized by humans - to sovereignty, the freedom form imposition by outsiders so assessed. Typos in this one
193
Posted by daniel on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:23 | # He even admitted he went too far in stating the “primacy of narrative”, so you’re not grasping much of anything against me here. I know that he did that Uh. I was calling attention to the fact that I would have provided a different answer. 194
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:38 | # I think perhaps Mr. Bowery and Mr. Haller should combine their ideas in an act of synthesis. White Zion in outer space! Or on the moon, or Mars perhaps? Or even vingt mille lieues sous les mers? Jesus wept as the saying goes. I’m very glad to be a bona fide European. I cannot even start to imagine how ghastly it would be to be an ersatz version from the ‘land of the free’. I know from personal experience that not all Americans are ‘philosophical zombies’ but I do wonder just what proportion of the population are in that unfortunate category? Bring on the deadly pairwise contests I say! 195
Posted by daniel on Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:47 | # Posted by uh on September 04, 2012, 11:46 AM | # daniel, It isn’t polite to indulge in speculation about someone when they’ve apologized to you. Try to be honorable, at least.
I was disappointed by his response but over it (though he seems to think it is the issue) But I became troubled again by the juxtaposition of that and this later post that began..
I’m working on answers to those questions”
Lets drop it. 196
Posted by daniel on Wed, 05 Sep 2012 04:19 | # The only question remaining then becomes the one I’ve been trying to raise here at MR regarding base hypocrites like E. O. Wilson who are on the one hand proclaiming their preeminent valuation of the preservation of indigenous diversity and on the other hand proclaiming eusocial “human” masses that are engaging in “the social conquest of earth” as the next “higher” stage in biological organization. I have my answer, that very few accept, but no one has offered anything better.
More, it serves the mentoring process ..and allows for organic turning and integrating of various abilities throughout the life span, making for fuller individuals and more complete experience. It seems to me that this shift taking would actually reduce the possibility of eusocial type compartmentalization. 197
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:20 | # “And so it begins,” Kersey is wrong. This is about the centralization of wealth not about race. It’s more apartheid than secession because cheap labor is soooo addictive. It appears Jewish virulence has its benefits. http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/depression_wealth_and_moral_depravity 198
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:34 | # Fly me to the moon In other words, hold my hand I don’t know how Mr. Bowery continually comes up with such excellent suggestions. Why aren’t all Americans so insightful? To quote Mr. Bowery himself - “I have my answer, that very few accept, but no one has offered anything better.” Quite. Now I have a very important game of ‘D&D’ to finish. It’s at a crucial junction – some eusocial elves are attacking me – it’s not fair as they don’t respect the honourable one on one pairwise fight, but what can one do? Now roll the die please GM! 199
Posted by daniel on Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:08 | # Fly me to the moon
200
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:32 | # Unfortunately, no one in the WN world wants to deal with the awful question: what do we do if most whites just don’t care about collective survival? It seems obvious to me that the burden of saving the race will have to rest with those who affirmatively wish its salvation. “In the natural course of human events” we’re toast. In other words, we’ve lost our ‘organicity’, and all exogenous trends seem to point in the direction of an accelerating intensification of that loss. The white race survived in the past because of environmental and endogenous mental conditions which no longer obtain. Some creatures (I think the coelacanth is the famous example) can endure far past their evolutionary place, simply because the world has, in effect, left them ‘uncontacted’. But once contact has occurred (say, exposure to the antiracist meme), there’s no going back - or at least, the going back is itself conscious, ‘constructivist’, and therefore inorganic. There may be any number of arguments against White Zion, but I think the biggest is that the scheme might functionally be an argument for merely the ‘Americanization’ of the entire white race. I would rather have a “Europa of (ethnic) fatherlands”, or at least a White Zion of mini-European fatherlands. I don’t want to lose the ethnocultural diversity of the European peoples (though much past regional diversity was already sacrificed to the rise of modern nation-states). But I fear that most whites will never favor WN, or even just race-realism, and thus without some intentional activism geared towards white preservation through secession and sovereignty, WNs will continue to be noisy but ineffectual ‘Cassandras’. (BTW, I finally got around to reading Never Let Me Go. Beautifully realized work, even if I found much about the plot sociologically unconvincing. Anyone interested in revisiting Graham Lister’s essay on it, and continuing the discussion?) 201
Posted by daniel on Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:03 | # One of the good things about the Euro-DNA Nation is that it is not asking gloomy questions as to why nobody cares. It begins with those who do care, from the inside out. Jim is making some important points in post 187 regarding ways to identify native European and to deepen its warrant for existence, in its aboriginal, native territory and beyond. Though extending European territories to some places beyond Europe should not be all that problematic in reality, he is onto a deep way of considering these matters. On the more abstract level, regarding those who will respect freedom from association (or not) being the litmus test for their worthiness of having human rights is significant. However, to repeat, regarding defense of the borders and against eusocializing: Perhaps “rotating shifts” would serve to take on challengers and eusociality both. That is, people would at some points in their life, to some extent, have to be individually courageous and capable enough to take on enemies to the class. This would have the added benefit of not requiring that this role be acted into at all times; thus, allowing for a more human, more humane, less fretful existence. It serves the mentoring process. In addition, it allows for organic turning and integrating of various abilities throughout the life span; this would make for fuller individuals and more complete experience. It seems to me that this shift taking would actually reduce the possibility of eusocial type compartmentalization. 202
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:06 | # Daniel, I may not have adequately communicated what I meant when I said:
To expand on the problem statement: When we regard human ecologies as the primary group entities, even when they are formed by ruthlessly enforced individual choice and mutual consent, we are still dealing with group selection. The iron law of group selection is that the group with the most power will overpower groups with less power—hence evolve group integrity over individual integrity. The ruthless enforcement of individual choice in mutually consenting formation of human ecologies, is the best one can do on behalf of individual integrity against the demands of group integrity, given that one is going to uphold civilization over honoring the individual’s right to demand satisfaction against other individuals in deadly force. In those circumstances, birth control is mandatory but more importantly, it must be applied across all human ecologies in a manner that is not subject to corruption of central authorities. I see this as an intractable problem for all proposed group selection systems. I have other things to say about the idea of rotating responsibility for border defense, but that is a distraction from this—more fundamental—iron law of Malthusian group selection. 203
Posted by Randy on Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:16 | # Leon Haller:
Off the top of my head…how about “give them a reason to care”? Allow me to suggest that you immediately embark on a program of grassroots outreach, mentoring, career counseling, networking, and the like to demonstrate the value of that which you worry has lost its perceived value. Religious organizations utilize this methodology to great success. A hot meal wins more converts than either a dismissive scolding or the whinging of frocked, cloistered elites. Appalachia is probably an ideal place to begin, owing to demographics and political orientation. Take lots of pictures and keep us updated.
204
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:04 | # @Daniel To move the discussion on from the possibilities of colonies under the sea or in outer space do you mean by a fuller, more balanced life-experience something like parecon - otherwise known as participatory economics? The underlying values that parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, workers’ self-management and efficiency. (Efficiency here means accomplishing goals without wasting valued assets.) It proposes to attain these ends mainly through the following principles and institutions: workers’ and consumers’ councils utilizing self-managerial methods for making decisions; Albert and Hahnel stress that parecon is only meant to address an alternative economic theory and must be accompanied by equally important alternative visions in the fields of politics, culture and kinship. No doubt Mr. Haller et al., would hate the whole concept - which is another point in its favour. Hayekian liberals would hate the very notion of parecon - in any format. Read more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics Now are such ideas amenable to some reformulation in an ethno-communitarian fashion - i.e. drop the spurious commitment to ‘diversity’ (which doesn’t seem particularly central to it and is rather tacked on) and so on? 205
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:50 | #
LOL! Bowery, you seriously have no idea how retarded this sounds? You say this without the slightest hint of irony? You truly believe this most unhelpful suggestion contains even one scintilla of motive power? Are you really that much of a far gone kook? 206
Posted by daniel on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 07:57 | # .... “To move the discussion on from the possibilities of colonies under the sea or in outer space do you mean by a fuller, more balanced life-experience something like parecon - otherwise known as participatory economics?” What I had in mind was loosening up the boundaries between (what I refer to as) organic being, inextricable social concern, practical routines and disciplines of selfhood, and ambitious projects of actualization. The boundaries would be loosened up some conceptually and in reality to the extent necessary to rotate these functions for the individual and society so that an optimal balance could be achieved in aversion of toxicity and runaway. There are two reasons why I bring the obnoxious human potential term, “actualization” into the four-way equation. First to include its valuation as it is impossible and wrong to thwart human aspiration. Secondly, to bring it under control as it is valued in order to bring it into optimal balance with social, being, and selfhood (which are enjoyable too, we might add) and mitigate actualization’s runaway effects and the reflexive effects of its toxicity as a requirement – the stress, the disorder, lack of social accountability that it is prone to create, as these things are in American and Americanization’s overvaluation beyond the social (and being and selfhood) which you rightfully despise. I do believe there should be negotiation between former specializations, even some hard ones – for example re: male/female, males should be granted and honored more being and selfhood; in order to mitigate toxic runaway of their being instigated to actualization quite so. Conversely, female being and selfhood ought to come under more criticism – especially where they pursue more actualization in themselves and a partner. That, however, requires invoking the class. Regarding free enterprise - work, business and economics, it is problematic as to where there can be more or less flexibility and participation. I have not given a great deal of consideration as yet, not being anything like an economist. Nevertheless, it would seem this recommended flexibility of practices would obtain not only to these four essential qualities of individual and social well being, but to disciplines and activities as well – though it is problematic – for now, it is just to say, that there can and should be more exchange in participation. There will be some activities that can afford more negotiation than others. The problem is to mitigate toxic quantification of certain activities, over-reward of some individuals, over punishment of others, without hampering talent, its just rewards and rewarding incompetence and non-merit. That’s a problem that I anticipate but may be more or less solvable within sympathetic groups of Whites.
“The underlying values that parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, workers’ self-management and efficiency. (Efficiency here means accomplishing goals without wasting valued assets.) “ At first I balked when I read this – perceiving equity as “equality”. As you may recall, I don’t like the equality non-equality paradigm as it runs universal criteria rough shod over important qualitative differences. But given that it says, “equity”, it all sounds ok. Nevertheless, if it is to hang together in any organic way of real solidarity, it would require biological, racial backing. Do the races in-fight? Yes. That’s another problem – but I suspect not as destructive as the fighting that occurs between races. Valuing diversity is an excellent idea for valuing different, non-comparable qualities within the class. It is a shame that it has been perverted by Jewish interests to mean accepting and tolerating people from without the class. workers’ and consumers’ councils utilizing self-managerial methods for making decisions; balanced job complexes; remuneration according to effort and sacrifice; participatory planning.” All sounds fine to me. Where it is or isn’t more or less, according to some, perhaps they could opt for different communities/states where the formulation is a bit more to their liking. That is ducking the question a bit. I suspect you are talking also about the macro-state. I guess that would require discussion over the concreta and circumstances. “Albert and Hahnel stress that parecon is only meant to address an alternative economic theory and must be accompanied by equally important alternative visions in the fields of politics, culture and kinship.” “No doubt Mr. Haller et al., would hate the whole concept - which is another point in its favour. Hayekian liberals would hate the very notion of parecon - in any format.” Well, every sane person that I listen to agree that the capitalist growth model will destroy us all, not only Whites, left unabated. Containing third world population and migration is also imperative. Evens so, I would like to maintain my private property, be able to have a wife and two kids (or at least one), without too much concern that tomorrow’s events may leave us desperate; I would like to travel and enjoy a few months of every year free from toil. A five-day workweek only if it is work that I really want to be doing. “Read more at: Ok. I have skimmed it but will give it a more careful read. “Now are such ideas amenable to some reformulation in an ethno-communitarian fashion - i.e. drop the spurious commitment to ‘diversity’ (which doesn’t seem particularly central to it and is rather tacked on) and so on?” My cursory assessment would say that such ideas might be amenable to re-formulation and use, sure. My concern is for their implementation among the class of Whites. And that those “communities” which would participate with any appreciable number of non-Whites, not be admitted as White union members (who would be accorded something more like the golden rule, while outsiders, the silver, provided they will allow for freedom from association from them and not other wise overpopulate and overgraze?) However, again, I would not drop the valuation of qualitative diversity within the class; i.e., while not introducing other races within the class, qualitative diversity within the class is a way of conceptually valuing incommensurate (as in Not equal/non-equal thing) contributions, symbiotically negotiating the various logics of meanings and actions that some are practicing, maintaining. 207
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:04 | # Lister@204 Why don’t you spend some time actually reading Hayek first, before referencing such idiocy? I skimmed the wiki article, and find the whole notion ridiculous. Trying to realize such “rationalist constructivist” schema would so bureaucratically stifle and ‘enbog’ the natural economy that the current Obama mess would look like roaring growth. This type of utopian nonsense has no place in proper racialist discourse. There is a need to work towards a specifically nationalist political economy, one in which the inherent efficiencies of capitalism are harnessed to the cause of racial preservation. It really isn’t that difficult, and I have mentioned the outlines on many occasions. We want maximum capitalism, up to the point at which it threatens the very racial goals themselves (eg, selling weapons to our racial enemies; allowing foreign colonization under cover of ‘guest worker’ programs; excessive outsourcing of jobs leading to internal disquiet and fragmentation, etc). That point beyond which the capitalist may not go because he would be jeopardizing the race can be criminalized or otherwise legally disallowed (eg, no immigrants, no sales of military technology, etc). Capitalism within racial boundaries. Pretty clear, no? Let us not try to sneak in tendentious personal agendas under spurious cover of race patriotism. 208
Posted by daniel on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:11 | # I do agree that model is sounding too Marxist and too prone to multiply inefficient bureaucrats; but… 209
Posted by daniel on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:02 | # I guess this comment didn’t make it through the Counter Currents sensor, so I’ll post it here: While it is true that the left-right paradigm is phoney as it has been misconstrued, it is not true that it cannot be reconfigured in our interests as Whites. Moreover, the notion that we should jettison the left-right paradigm in its entirety obstructs our organizational abilities as Whites. In fact, the White left, the White Class, provides a deft organizational tool to sort these matters out from prior abuse. http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/09/robert-stark-interviews-chuck-baldwin/ 210
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:51 | # CC, if E. O. Wilson cannot recognize how ridiculous an expanding technological civilization within a finite biosphere is then certainly I recognize how ridiculous it sounds to try and address that reality—at least it sounds that way to the ignorant and stupid. However, not all words uttered need be addressed toward the ignorant and stupid in hopes of motivating them toward one’s own power. Sometimes, words can be used to discuss rather than manipulate the masses. In those situations it may, from time to time, be appropriate to discuss what is of value so that when one sets about to use power, one has some reasonable chance of achieving a result worth the sacrifices that inevitably accompany the wielding of power. PS: I am quite aware of how ridiculous it may be to address the above to a person such as yourself. 211
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:47 | #
We can save civilization for ourselves by depriving non-Whites of civilization. This is WN’s main selling point. But wait, no, can’t have that. Because…why? Because for Bowery living in civilization is “torture”. LOL 212
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:17 | # Yeah its really humorous the way exponential growth suddenly disappears and flat-lines when whites take over technological civilization in the biosphere—sort of the way Captain Clown’s brain flat-lines when he tries to deal with reality. 213
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 02:21 | # What is truly humorous is that Bowery, for all his self-claimed intelligence, becomes seemingly spontaneously blind to the understanding that the clear trend of technology to develop in ever more subtle and efficient forms could be conciously nutured so as to lessen its ecologic impact. Of course step number one to lessening the ecologic impact of technological civilization is, no, not calling it quites on earth and blasting off to the fucking moon, but ceasing to give away the largesse of our civilization to muds whose numbers are grotesquely artiifically inflated thereby and letting them regress back to their natural stone age savagery. Perhaps then Bowery would feel less “tortured” with many fewer “subhumans” to serve as an eyesore to his oh so refined visual palate. 214
Posted by uh on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:43 | # Captain, While not as insane as the resident cosmonauts, your belief that civilization itself can be “seized” (which you once envisioned as “seizing all the arable land and starving them out”), as though it were a discrete thing to begin with, is so immoderate and technically impossible as to rival the great blast-off. Also ...
Seriously, to whom? You seem to be trapped in the past, broski. They’re not just a bunch of dumb wogs anymore. They have factories and such. They can make do. And much of what sustains us, by the way, comes from their parts of the world. No one has the will to stand on their necks while drawing upon their resources. It’s so far gone it’s incredible you’re even talking about it. 215
Posted by Rooster on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:55 | #
In Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf, Hitler discusses his Malthusian beliefs and talks about how since European countries had already taken the good non-European land, European countries would have to be attacked to get land, and that if you were going to attack European countries, it would be more practical to do so to acquire more land in Europe than abroad: http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/politica/hitla002.htm
216
Posted by daniel on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:59 | # .. Seeing how that narrowly ethnocentric, European infighting worked out, and in the name of turning the fight outward, lets try for the broader vision: It still seems that modernity serves well as an adversarial term in place of civilization: By addressing the pejorative logic of modernity’s narcissism, we begin to question the extension of our life expanding technologies to non-Whites. We might also reject modernity’s narcissism by not necessarily depriving life sustaining technology for ourselves just the same. Jim’s reticence to claim only European lands may be a casualty of modernity’s universalism. Claims of non-Whites to all of the America’s, Australia and New Zealand are not unassailable. What a dumb move it was to bring Blacks to North and South America, to the Caribbean. But how can Whites assume universal blame? Does the fact that crass slave-traders and masters brought them there give them an unending right to ruin what would be island paradises? Haiti? Who the hell are they? Mulatto supremacists? Understood, it is not something we are going to be merely allowed to do by those imposing monoculturalism, but it may provide a conceptual break for ourselves, for our own warrant to survival, in looking at the matter of non-White population explosion and in establishing White states beyond Europe.
Rooster, Why don’t you check in with Craig Cobb? He seems to be doing well in forming a community there in North Dakota - it is a state which is half German by the way. 217
Posted by Rooster on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:25 | #
Wouldn’t the “clear trend of technology” while maintaining civilization involve controlling people “in ever more subtle and efficient forms” ala Huxley’s Brave New World? 218
Posted by Rooster on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:47 | #
A fundamental feature of civilization seems to be that the largesse doesn’t go to those who make it. Civilization has been described as “macroparasitism” before. 219
Posted by daniel on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:39 | # A fundamental feature of civilization seems to be that the largesse doesn’t go to those who make it. Civilization has been described as “macroparasitism” before
...Christianity and disingenuous objectivism would also be contributing factors. 220
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:34 | # Rooster brings up three good points and daniel’s answer to one of them is key to understanding the relevance of frontiers outside the biosphere when daniel says:
Here’s the rub: Civilization is a pre-sexual organism. That means its component parts replicate exponentially to the maximum extent. If we are responsible stewards of civilization it won’t consume and destroy the biosphere but will “turn the fight outward”. Regarding Rooster’s quote of Hitler: Hitler at least had the good sense to understand that when we’re talking about such a pre-sexual organism, it is all about will to power. He simply followed up that understanding with integrity. Like all men with exceptional integrity, he was, as a consequence a “madman”. Daniel (and, to the extent we can take anything he says seriously, Captain Clown) wishes to produce a pre-sexual organism with a will to power that will be more inclusive than that which Hitler sought. But the same “madness” will be required. Captain Clown’s techno-optimism being leveled at me as though it were a critique is perhaps the most hilarious of all his jokes as will be revealed in due course. Suffice to say, that even if I were Norman Borlaug, Haber-Bosch and Jethro Tull wrapped up in one, all I would be capable of doing is forestalling, perhaps by mere decades, the inevitable collision of the pre-sexual organism’s will to power with the biosphere—a collision that is already too far along for we, who invented most of its carrying capacity, to be called good stewards of the resulting civilization. daniel’s optimism about pre-modern civilization’s ability to avoid macroparasitism is not shared by W. D. Hamilton in “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”:
221
Posted by daniel on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:14 | # daniel’s optimism about pre-modern civilization’s ability to avoid macroparasitism is not shared by W. D. Hamilton in “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”:
As for forming a defensive union welcoming of all native Europeans and unleashing the madness outward, in whatever cunning ways and for whatever it takes, I’m all for it. However, the separatist alliance of European peoples would seem pre-requisite to concrete initiatives, delegation, recognizable heroism and measurable success. As for W.D. Hamilton, that is the same sociobiologist who had the modernistic tendency to view species, humans included, as having something like universalistically interchangeable parts; whereas E.O. Wilson’s team at least took the measure of looking upon some species and members as being incommensurate. With quite such a lineal view, Hamilton would be more pessimistic indeed. 222
Posted by Rooster on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:26 | #
I’m saying that it seems to be a fundamental feature of civilization itself, not restricted to certain times and places. Though it does seem to vary in degree and salience under different circumstances. The term “civilization” has positive connotations among most people so there is a mental resistance to conceiving it in an obviously negative term like “macroparasitism” even though ecologically that may be all that it is.
223
Posted by Rooster on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:30 | # In Hitler’s discussion of his Malthusian views, he assumes a European world. He doesn’t choose “European infighting” over “turning the fight outward” against non-whites since in his view non-whites don’t exist for all practical purposes. Hitler’s reasoning would still apply in an actual all European world so if you wanted to avoid “European infighting” you’d have to prevent and suppress it. 224
Posted by Rooster on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:49 | #
I’m not really sure what you mean here. Hamilton seemed to hold and express more politically incorrect views than Wilson. 225
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 00:11 | #
Even dumber was allowing the other races of Europe to migrate to N.America, because unlike the Africans founding Americans interbred widely with the European other and that, as Grant understood, “gives us a race reverting to the more ancient and lower type.” JB labels it erocide. 226
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 00:29 | #
Clark’s, “A Farewell to Alms” argues to the contrary. Clark advocates that “The middle-class values of nonviolence, literacy, long working hours and a willingness to save” lay the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution in England. 227
Posted by Rooster on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 01:07 | #
I think the macroparasitic load can vary from light to heavy but doesn’t go away. If Clark’s account is correct, I think it would be an example of the macroparasitic load being low enough that a good deal of the spoils are returned to its creators. I don’t think the macroparasitic load is completely absent in the period Clark examines. You still had taxes, rents, the great land enclosures across the British Isles, etc. 228
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 03:14 | # This is a contradiction, if you will, of the original point.
It’s not necessarily a ‘fundamental feature’ of civilization that the ‘largesse’ goes to other than the creators. Civilization may mitigate this “macroparasitism”. 229
Posted by Rooster on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 04:09 | # I agree that the macroparasitic load can vary. Macroparasitism seems to be the essence of civilization. Some degree of it is always present. The reason that a group of men get together to establish a monopoly on violence or to replace those who control the monopoly on violence in a given civilization seems to be to collect taxes and rent. 230
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:20 | #
Or possibly an advent of civilization employed to mitigate the impact of continual unending violence.
231
Posted by daniel on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:27 | # Try substituting the word modernity for civilization….and modernity’s rules being disingenuously distorted by Jewish interests.. to extend not only sameness, but obsequious over compensating help to non-Whites.
I’m saying that it seems to be a fundamental feature of civilization itself, not restricted to certain times and places. Though it does seem to vary in degree and salience under different circumstances. The term “civilization” has positive connotations among most people so there is a mental resistance to conceiving it in an obviously negative term like “macroparasitism” even though ecologically that may be all that it is. Yes, civilization has positive connotations - and well it should. Whereas more and more, modernity does not and should not, in its essential functionality and in even more so as that function, to narcissistically see all peoples as being basically the same, has been perverted by Jewish interests Desmond, I don’t think you know very much about Eastern Europeans, but I can agree with you on this point: Posted by Desmond Jones on September 07, 2012, 10:14 PM | # This is a contradiction, if you will, of the original point. A fundamental feature of civilization seems to be that the largesse doesn’t go to those who make it. Civilization has been described as “macroparasitism” before. It’s not necessarily a ‘fundamental feature’ of civilization that the ‘largesse’ goes to other than the creators. Civilization may mitigate this “macroparasitism”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/myth-japan-is-broke_b_1855125.html
232
Posted by daniel on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:37 | # I’m not really sure what you mean here. Hamilton seemed to hold and express more politically incorrect views than Wilson. He may be more politically incorrect, pessimistic and theoretically aligned with racial mixing at once. 233
Posted by Rooster on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:48 | #
If you want to control and extort people, you want a monopoly on violence. 234
Posted by Rooster on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:02 | #
My point was that people tend to conceive of civilization solely in vague, emotive terms or in terms of things that may only be incidental to it, rather than think about it as what it might fundamentally be.
I don’t believe that would be an example of a complete absence of macroparasitism. Brown discusses Japan’s financial system which is based on fiat currency. Fiat currency depends on the state’s power to tax. 235
Posted by Rooster on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:08 | #
What do you mean by “pessimistic” and “theoretically aligned with racial mixing”? I don’t really understand your comparison of Hamilton and Wilson. I don’t see why Wilson is better or if it even makes sense to say that one is “better” than the other. 236
Posted by daniel on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:27 | # // I don’t really understand your comparison of Hamilton and Wilson. I don’t see why Wilson is better or if it even makes sense to say that one is “better” than the other. Hamilton can be pessimistic in that he might believe that the avoidance of race mixing is difficult, because he conceives of groups (e.g., of humans) as being fairly interchangeable, in theory. At the same time, he may not like it and publicly express what he sees as pejorative effects. Whereas Wilson’s theory would be “better” in that it provides more theoretical backing for the scientific legitimacy of separatism - even though he endorses race mixing.
238
Posted by Rooster on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:58 | #
I may misunderstand what you mean here , but I don’t think Hamilton saw groups as interchangeable.
I’m not sure Wilson’s theory would be “better” since he seems to view groups as being arbitrary and to favor ever bigger groups and altruism just for the sake of ever bigger groups and altruism themselves, whereas Hamilton emphasized kin altruism. 239
Posted by daniel on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:34 | # Hamilton can be pessimistic in that he might believe that the avoidance of race mixing is difficult, because he conceives of groups (e.g., of humans) as being fairly interchangeable, in theory. I may misunderstand what you mean here , but I don’t think Hamilton saw groups as interchangeable. From what I gather of the argument in Wilson’s article, he looks upon Hamilton’s notion of sociobiology as being composed of building blocks which are more interchangeable than Wilson’s more recent theory would hold - that is supposed to be one of its important findings. Whereas Wilson is detecting a greater level of incommensurability between species. I am far from a scientist, but whether this particular application (the difference between Hamilton and Wilson) is even true or not, is not nearly as important for our purposes as what we would have to look for - incommensurability - in order to underscore the important qualitative (paradigmatic) differences that warrant separatism The alternative leads to assimilation.
Whereas Wilson’s theory would be “better” in that it provides more theoretical backing for the scientific legitimacy of separatism - even though he endorses race mixing. I’m not sure Wilson’s theory would be “better” since he seems to view groups as being arbitrary and to favor ever bigger groups and altruism just for the sake of ever bigger groups and altruism themselves, whereas Hamilton emphasized kin altruism. Well, that may be true, as I am only familiar with Hamilton’s work as briefly referenced by Wilson. Nevertheless, I would refer back to my previous point. 240
Posted by daniel on Sun, 09 Sep 2012 12:29 | # In the first hour of the most recent Political Cesspool (Saturday, September 8th) http://www.libertyroundtable.com/radio-archives/the-political-cesspool/ James Edwards proudly asserts that he and his stand for objective standards, best man for the job. ...period, not comma, not context, no history, no circumstances? If a Black or Mulatto has an I.Q. of 106 and a White has an I.Q. of 105, that view is going to give the nod to the Black or Mulatto and ignore the pattern of Blacks, Mulattoes and Whites as it relates to White interests as a pattern? It will ignore the ebbs, flows and hidden qualities of patterns?...no matter how precious overall, it is only the “objective” best at that point in time that matters?: Patterns - what is it with right-wingers that they cannot get it?. 241
Posted by daniel on Sun, 09 Sep 2012 13:29 | # If a Black or Mulatto does something better, he should be able to have the women co-evolved with Whites through millennia? 242
Posted by daniel on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:52 | # Perhaps “yoked” would have been the more normal term: as in White Rightists are yoking us with objective standards while Jews and other non Whites are looking after the relative interests of their group. 243
Posted by daniel on Thu, 13 Sep 2012 05:18 | # Do the races in-fight? Yes. That’s another problem – but I suspect not as destructive as the fighting that occurs between races.
That while it can be natural for siblings and relatives to compete, even to the death, with one another, it is an important distinction of human parents that they might stop this from happening and render symbiotic if not cooperative relations among relatives. 244
Posted by daniel on Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:28 | # I realize that one paragraph had gotten confused, so I have sorted it out into two, the first beginning with: “Thinking about”..the second beginning with “Once coordinated as such”.. Euro-DNA Nation James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes separatism through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (see Note 1 below). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities would be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association. However, he has modified this notion some since its inception, with state-sized units being set aside provisionally for county-sized political units as they are apparently optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes. The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as serious criminal offenders. This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well. However, this freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination. We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence. There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large. Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well. Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism. By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front. There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship. The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always). However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be Cartesian as well and problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. More, it has the distinct capacity to gather disbursed peoples into a large mass under one rubric. Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Indeed, considering the problem finally in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory. The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction. Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible. If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership. The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided. Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised. DanielS. 245
Posted by daniel on Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:55 | # Dugin’s notion of returning to pre-modern, eternal verities, sounds too much like the modernist quest for foundational truths. http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/09/dugin-the-fourth-political-theory/ I might accept it somewhat as one option among an array of post modern choices, but I don’t hear him emphasizing the most important premodern reconstruction of all: our native European peoples (which we, with modernist hindsight, would recognize as the organization of our DNA). To assert a pre-modern tradition other than that, to cover all in defiance of modernity will not suffice; this is a sort of foundational quest that assimilates and therefore takes us back to modernist pursuit. It is rather not some premodern essence other than the race (what I call the White class) that we should be focused to protect and advance. The White race, as a classification, admittedly draws lines, but encompasses and is accountable to its empirical grounding while it partakes of a hermeneutic transcendence of the myopic, empirical focus of modernity. Also in defiance of modernity, it stays within nature and human concern by turning back from Cartesian and Archimedean notions which would transcend nature. Hence, the White class protects our ecological flexibility, qualitative disbursements and developmental processes within the life-span and in our evolution. More, it fosters our culture and creativity. As we protect and advance the White class (race) on the basis of its/our interest, there is no reason for us to be quite so limited by one way of negotiating our traditions and advances. Just as not all premodern traditions were pejorative, so too, not everything modern and not all tendencies of modernity are negative and destructive to our race. The key is to gauge modernization only inasmuch as it serves the interest of our race in its various contingents. Dasein, there being, is certainly an important notion in undoing the Cartesian notion of individual, detached self, but even more articulate of a guiding need, is Midt-Dasein, as O’Meara has pointed out. There-being-amid the White class and White sub classifications (by classifications I do not mean economic hierarchies but horizontal delimitations among the White class much like regions of the White biological Nations) is a meaningful reward and freedom for different White ways of being in the world, in the White class, for those who adopt this post modern project of the White class. 246
Posted by daniel on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:04 | # I thought Matt’s response to Uh’s contention that “when one wakes up, walks around, eats, they are hardly engaged in narrative” was good - Matt said something to the effect of, yes, but these are largely private and custodial matters, not of the sort of protracted concern for the race that would call for narrative extension. “All he’s done is absorb academy-speak and regurgitate it for a different audience. He even admitted he went too far in stating the “primacy of narrative”, so you’re not grasping much of anything against me here.” Of course, the answer to this is semantic. When we are talking about things like getting up, walking around and finding something to eat, we are talking about logics of action and meaning which, being sequential and having their own coherence, are analagous in form and structure to narrative. More, as it is never the case that one lives wholly in isolation and without shared language, when these actions are communicated to others, they would start to connect and become more literally a form of language and narrative. Further still, narrative is a particularly good metaphor as it allows for the hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity and a conceptual expanse over the empirical, maintaining coherence over long term processes and various, arbitrary contingencies; and also the flexibility to return to empirical verification. Now then, this disconnect has been remedied. That is why when narrative is used to describe these sorts of private activities, it is not invalid, so long as it is understood as metaphoric – viz. metaphoric for logics of action and meaning. 247
Posted by daniels. on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:34 | # . A civilized ordering might state, for example, that native European class members are required to serve ages 18-20 and again ages 67-68 in focused effort to prevent and reverse dwelling of non-Europeans in the habitats we target and designate for European dwelling only. Even outside of those service periods, all would be expected to contribute where they might, and may be found guilty of gross negligence where they might have contributed; or where they have aided and abetted incursion. Civilization may establish criteria to facilitate pairings of appropriate partners since lethal competition within the class, for a partner, may not be sufficiently respectful of this 41,000 years and its circumspect offerings. Fights against non-Europeans, Augustinian devils (death by way of non-human nature) and good done on behalf of the European class can do much to parcel out survival and merit. etc. I.e., I see civilization as being to our benefit. Now, if one talks about blocking the access to our civilization so that outsiders cannot gain entry and exploit it, that makes sense. (I think Jim called that disintermediation).
I really had nothing special to add to this post; but since I’m here, I’ll just comment that the post raises a valid concern. Perhaps we would not want every post to be of such a specialized concern, but it is not overly speculative and the deployment of genetic targeting technology certainly is an important consideration. 248
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:53 | # daniel writes: “When I think of civilization, a place that is ordered in reasonable way comes to mind.” Civilizations in decline are not ordered in a “reasonable” way and civilizations in decline are clearly among things that matter. Unless there is good reason to depart from etymology, the conservative approach to ontology is to avoid redefinition. What “good reason” is there that justifies rendering the phrase “civilization in decline” meaningless? One of the primary ways Jews abuse their high verbal intelligence is in precisely such redefinitions so that words like “culture” cease to exist in their original sense and vital concepts are practically inexpressible. In the case of “civilization” we are clearly talking about cities. One can try to justify your ontology by saying that what is “declining” is “reasonable order” but I take issue with that. Civilizations are founded on an existing “reasonable order”. They advance and grow only so long as that “reasonable order” remains in place. Once the reasonable order decays, we see a change in the derivative of civilization. Think about sine vs cosine: The cosine starts declining long before its integral, the sine. Your failure to make this distinction is exactly what invaders count on when they try to take credit for “high civilization”: They’ve merely shown up in time to reap the fruits of “reasonable order” and point to the continuing “rise” despite their invasion as evidence that “you would have been so much better off if only you’d had us around earlier.” Your ontology of “civilization” is poison. 249
Posted by daniels. on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:05 | # daniel writes: “When I think of civilization, a place that is ordered in a reasonable way comes to mind.” To my mind, that is just sloppy ontology. Civilizations in decline are not ordered in a “reasonable” way. Moreover, unless there is good reason to depart from its etymology, the conservative approach to ontology is to avoid redefinition. One of the primary ways Jews abuse their high verbal intelligence is in precisely such redefinitions so that words like “culture” cease to exist in their original sense and vital concepts are inexpressible. In the case of “civilization” we are clearly talking about cities. One can try to justify your ontology by saying that what is “declining” is “reasonable order” but I take issue with that. Civilizations are founded on an existing “reasonable order”. They advance and grow only so long as that “reasonable order” remains in place. Once the reasonable order decays, we see a change in the derivative of civilization. Think about sine vs cosine: The cosine starts declining long before its integral, the sine. Your failure to make this distinction is exactly what invaders count on when they try to take credit for “high civilization”: They’ve merely shown up in time to reap the fruits of “reasonable order” and point to the continuing “rise” despite their invasion as evidence that “you would have been so much better off if only you’d had us around earlier.” Your ontology of “civilization” is poison. I don’t think that I am guilty of what you say. My notion of civilization is a very fresh organization and has nothing to do with what infrastructure that already exists. I am not talking about high civilization at all. Some rules to organize our defense, some incentive to provide for fair pairings. That’s pretty basic. If a word other than civilization were insisted upon, I can live with it. Its just that the word has always had positive connotations for me and I think for anybody I’ve ever known who has used it in conversation. As I’ve said previously, I thought it had to do with Plato’s notion of force giving way to persuasion. To me that implies social organization - at any rate, I believe we need at least some social organization. I did not conceive of cities being a necessary part of it. Nor did I know moderate sized cities were necessarily bad from an ecological standpoint. I thought they were actually a means to allow for more arable land. I happen to live in a White city. One with a pedestrian zone in the center. I believe these are two features sorely lacking in American civic engineering. Anyway, sorry, it is not my purpose to be a trouble maker. I understand that you see civilization as the means by which parasites affix to Europeans. I understand you see civilization in that negative sense, developing necessarily in line with EO Wilson’s theory that beginning with the campfire a division of labor is spawned leading to ever more specialization; an evolutionary trajectory other than distinctly European evolutionary character of individual self sufficiency. Ultimately this leads to parasitism and the destruction of Europeans. However, I still believe that that definition of civilization has more to do with the problem of linking infrastructure through modernity’s technology and universalizing, thus linking rules (as you sought to disintermediation with cold fusion, making the individual independent from that primordial civilizational, communal source) rather than with wise social organization that European folk tend to associate with the word, “civilization.” By contrast, White post modernism might be able organize on our own behalf, of our class, and that is what I mean by our civilization; disintermediation would be a problem of how to deal with modernity in a post modern way - how to separate from this modernist linking of non-Europeans with Europeans: we simply cannot absorb their populations and must defend ourselves. I think its best to have at least some organization in preparation, and I am calling that social agreement, “civilization.” Hence, a European man might be defined as one one who, say, is a man of European genetics who disintermediates on the whole and in focus for specific periods from non European dwelling in European designated lands. Since my ontology is a bit loose, let me have yet another try at distinguishing what I mean by civilization from what you may mean (I don’t think you’ll find it satisfactory, but well, if I were the singular guiding light then god help us; so, feedback and criticism welcome):
social disorganization, on very broad levels growing permanence in divisions of labor and roles and war of all against all.
separation of classes (races), social organization alternation of roles and allocation
250
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:11 | # daniel writes: “Its just that the word has always had positive connotations for me and I think for anybody I’ve ever known who has used it in conversation.” He who builds his ontology on connotation engages in politics rather than philosophy. A fruit tree ripe for the picking also has “positive connotations”. The failure to discriminate between the function and its derivative is poison to an ontology independent of my particular preferences in dispute resolution. 251
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:10 | # Here are Webster’s 5 senses of of “civilization”:
Clearly Daniel’s definition of “civilization” must be limited to sense 4. Bob’s usage referred to sense 1, so Daniel’s response to Bob was inappropriate. 252
Posted by Fortis on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:16 | #
You may be right about such redefinitions. Most people would be confused if you told them that “civilization” means cities. I think only maybe ecologists and environmental scientists would define “civilization” as cities. If you asked most people, they would probably define “civilization” in terms of vague, positive connotations, and in terms of some of the trappings of civilization like toilets or something. There is a vague, almost religious conceptual framework that people hold and that informs their definitions of “civilization”. It is a sort of Manichean view where “civilization” is all that is good, and non-civilization is bad and barbarism, savagery, etc. 253
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:43 | # Bowery, do you live in a place with indoor plumbing? Do you shop at a supermarket? Do you like being able to make a living tapping on a keyboard? If you hate civilization so much why don’t you man the fuck up and go live in a shack in the woods like Ted Kaczynski? 254
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:03 | # /. 4. the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome’s civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable. Clearly Daniel’s definition of “civilization” must be limited to sense 4. Bob’s usage referred to sense 1, so Daniel’s response to Bob was inappropriate.
Yes, I knew that Bob’s (and yours to date) notion of civilization is more like number one. I readily acknowledged that but disputed the definition for important and good reasons; not to impose Roman civilization on “barbarians.” Rather than leaving collapse to chance, I believe that it is important to prepare our defense by coordinating a modicum of organization in defense, accountability and fair allocation. Coordination is a key word, it is unlike Roman imperialism trying to subjugate “barbaric” tribes. So, no, my definition of civilization is not like number 4 in crucial ways. Coordination between native Europeans implies the identification of common, non-conflictual aims. Central to the post modern idea of coordination is the concern that the paradigmatic structures of the various European groups be maintained - including your beloved Germanic states and their sovereign, self sufficient individual ways. It is about Europeans helping each other to maintain their kinds and territories. The objective is coordinating their efforts so that they do not conflict with one another but are able to defend against the common antagonist - viz. non-Europeans. The optimal extent which a White nation commits help to other White nations is something that can be formulated. It probably has to do with how much it can comfortably spare and how much it needs to contribute with a view that it might otherwise lose buffering nations, allied numbers and qualities. My response to Bob was therefore teasing apart a radical definition of civilization, lets say with a Heideggarian-type pursuit, from modernist definition. I believe that this is a crucial matter, if not the crucial matter. The pejorative that you (and Kaczynski LOL) see is in modernity’s universal linkages through rules and infrastructure. What we have here is a problem and a wail against modernity’s linkages that is ultra legitimate and calls for a post modern response. I believe that the different kinds of genetic Europeans can maintain their distinctions and coordinate on this goal of disintermediation from non-Europeans as definitive of themselves as the genus, European man. Rather than my notion of civilization being poison, the Cartesian notion of individualism is poison. It is toxic beyond a doubt. Some osmosis, certainly to the extent of accountability, between kinds of roles and divisions of labor is the non toxic answer to the pejorative evolution that you see, culminating in the sci fi scenario of our eusociality. Some terms of duty for the young and old, where they focus on defense, for a time, not specializing for a life time, is conducive to each individual developing a fuller set of skills and relative independence; and not becoming subserviant specialists. Their being killed in battle or by non human nature, should tragically satisfy your concern for the selection of sufficiently strong and intelligent individuals. Your state, where individualism is an overwhelming preoccupation, is a focus that can take care of the rest: “Warning, enter Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, North Holland etc. at the risk of natural duel.” In the service of avoiding the confusion that could lessen our chances to coordinate in our defense, it was appropriate to tease apart a definition of civilization, with the conceptual aid of post modern White separatism distinguishing that which is healthy and distinctly European from modernity and its universal linking. 255
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 06:24 | # The pursuit of distinguishing foundational characteristics of Europeans, or Northern Europeans, and holding that they are to be found in a strong measure of individual autonomy is not a wrong pursuit; it is not wrong to want to defend - except, of course, where it does not allow for overall defense of Northern Europeans. I think you recognize that. This is a characteristically modernist quest, a quest of modernist “wailers” who are despondent of modernity’s ramifications. Not knowing quite what to do, they push in the modernist way of pursuing unassailable foundations with all the more determination. That is not altogether wrong, but what I want to say is that this way of pursuing foundational truths does run the risk of myopia, of losing sight of patterns and their qualities. I saw a criticism of empirical method - or bad empirical method, since you and Graham will correctly, no doubt, show that contemporary empiricists are not so lame: Using the analogy of American football - bad empiricism has tended to focus on the left tackle and its procedures, while losing overall sight of the team and its various members necessary positions, functions and procedures. 256
Posted by E.M. Pirical on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:23 | #
The problem with this view is that the common antagonist is not non-Europeans but other Europeans and their institutions and entities. Thus the enemy of the serf in arenda Poland was ultimately not the Jew but those who protected the Jew. 257
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:00 | # Posted by E.M. Pirical on October 31, 2012, 04:23 AM | # The objective is coordinating their efforts so that they do not conflict with one another but are able to defend against the common antagonist - viz. non-Europeans. The problem with this view is that the common antagonist is not non-Europeans but other Europeans and their institutions and entities. Thus the enemy of the serf in arenda Poland was ultimately not the Jew but those who protected the Jew. http://www.culturewars.com/2003/RevolutionaryJew.html+
Traitors are outside the White class. 258
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:46 | # P.S. This pattern of traitorous elites is a key reason why it is best to characterize The White Class as leftist, so that it will maintain vigil in that regard. 259
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:23 | # Daniel writes: “Yes, I knew that Bob’s (and yours to date) notion of civilization is more like number one. I readily acknowledged that but disputed the definition for important and good reasons; not to impose Roman civilization on “barbarians.”” No, Daniel, it is not “notion”—not definition—that is at issue here, it is “sense”. Sense 4 refers to the derivative of sense 1. Bob’s usage of “civilization” was in the “sense” of 1 and you criticized it as though its usage was commensurate with sense 4. Velocity is not commensurate with distance. Sense 4 embodies your usage of “civilization” as consisting not simply of “order” (one can point to the “order” of high civilization’s manifestations) but specifically of the processive ordering character of sense 4. I don’t disagree with that sense of “civilization” as a process of manifesting order, resulting, ultimately, in a manifest order of sense 1. Indeed, it is my contention that such a process is the transfer of integrity (ordered internal relations toward Being) from the individual to the society resulting in the loss of the integrity of the individual as one approaches “high civilization” (sense 1). At the extreme, Being is transferred from the individual to civilization, just as Being is transferred to the individual from his or her cells with the transfer of integrity from the cells to their “civilization”. At the point of an Individual’s Being, the cells are no longer beings. Some believe that at the point of death, this process is reversed and Being (very temporarily) reverts to each cell, as the individual disintegrates. Therefore your criticism literally made no sense. What I am referring to as “poison” is not the idea that “Rome’s civilization of the barbarians is admirable.” but the idea that 100meters is a velocity. 260
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:14 | # Daniel writes: “Yes, I knew that Bob’s (and yours to date) notion of civilization is more like number one. I readily acknowledged that but disputed the definition for important and good reasons; not to impose Roman civilization on “barbarians.”” No, Daniel, it is not “notion”—not definition—that is at issue here, it is “sense”. Sense 4 refers to the derivative of sense 1. Bob’s usage of “civilization” was in the “sense” of 1 and you criticized it as though its usage was commensurate with sense 4. Velocity is not commensurate with distance. Therefore your criticism literally made no sense. What I am referring to as “poison” is not the idea that “Rome’s civilization of the barbarians is admirable.” but the idea 100meters is a velocity. This is poison for the same reason that the conflation of wealth (distance) and income (velocity) are commensurate is poison to political economy: The “wealthy” becomes “people with high income” in the vicious word games played by Jewish inspired political economics and lead to FDR’s transformation of Normal Lowell’s genuine wealth tax into FDR’s Wealth Tax of 1935 that protected the wealthy and inhibited economic activity and class mobility. Someone once said of this kind of conflation of incommensurate terms, “The devil is the author of confusion.”
What I am proposing is Not like definition 4 because I am not proposing homogenizing the different European peoples, rather I am proposing a minimum of coordination so that we are not at conflict with each other but rather with non-Europeans and traitors where they emerge as the relevant front. If you understand the way people apprehend the word civilization, it usually corresponds to normalized social procedure: “as in, oh he or she is so uncivilized” etc. This ordinary understanding of civilization is important. When talking to people, we do not talk to them as a scientist does, that there is a mammal or a mixed Beagle/Welsh Terrier on the porch, we say there is a dog on the porch. We talk in human sized terms. It is not poison to suggest that civilization is about organization and thought of by Europeans in positive terms whereas it is generally understood that modernity and its technological, high speed, bringing together of cultures has negative consequences. Nevertheless, I have said that if you insist on maintaining civilization as the word corresponding to that which you describe that I can live with it. I just don’t think it is a good choice for ordinary usage. I am not criticizing Bob or you; I am proposing that modernity and its linkages are better notions (and no, “notion” is not a bad word; I believe Hegel used it) and words to use than civilization - because civilization has positive connotations in terms of cooperative, non conflictual conduct among people: which are precisely things we need to grapple with in anticipation of collapses - some of which we might hope to instigate - disintermediation. It is social organization that we are talking about. Who is trying to make chaos and confusion? I have happily introduced the notion of incommensuration in my discussions. It makes perfect sense to recommend that the discussion be cast in terms of modernity/post modernity rather than the terms of civilization, especially since you would be ostensibly wishing to take down something that has positive connotations - not the greatest public relations move. You accuse me of proposing just what Jewish interests want. On the contrary. What the Jew wants is for Europeans to look like fools, to be disorganized and to be fighting each other by the likes of “E.M. Pirical’s” comment. 261
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:52 | # So would you say Rome’s multiculturalism leading to its decay and downfall was due to modernity? 262
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:58 | # ... So would you say Rome’s multiculturalism leading to its decay and downfall was due to modernity?
We’re talking about the same kind of pejorative, inadvisable integration and mixing of peoples. More, it was done largely by force, not by persuasion (contrary to Plato’s definition).
I.e., modernity take down would be better than civilization take down 263
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:03 | # Don’t skirt your own ontology, Daniel. Don’t say “something more like that than civilization”. Say what you mean: Was Rome a modern society or not? 264
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:48 | # The only real long term hope for the white race is for a return to nationalism (maybe National Socialism) in Europe. In the New World, outside of a conscious, White Zionist secessionism, the conditions for white survival will never exist again. The innate lack of ethnocentrism on the part of whites is an evolutionary disadvantage it may prove impossible to overcome. This is the heart of the White Zion idea (again, WN geographic ingathering within a sovereign polity small enough that we could eventually become the majority, and proceed to transform that polity into a WN/Racial State). In absolute numbers, there are many ethnocentric whites, just as there are many ethical blacks. But in comparative terms, those numbers (in both examples) are small relative to other races. And, of course, they exist in moral gradations. Thus, there were doubtless huge numbers of whites in the 70s/80s (I know, I remember) who were easily persuadable that nonwhite immigration (perhaps masked under simple “immigration”, as better than 90% of all post-1965 immigrants to the US have been nonwhite) should be terminated. I distinctly recall my parents and their friends complaining about the “invasion” as far back as the late 70s (and they probably did so earlier but I was just too young to be taking notice). But once the alien colonizers have settled here, had “American” children, bought homes, “built lives”, etc, the number of whites who could be persuaded to endorse the colonizers’ forcible repatriation drastically plummets. It was always (and continues to be so today) so much easier to keep out alien settlers than to try to reverse course post-arrival, and this is true morally as well as physically/militarily. I don’t want to sound too conceited or “I told you so-ish”, but at least for New World whites (and quite possibly for Europeans, too, the way matters are unfolding), White Zion is our only real hope for ultimate racial survival (perhaps some form of domestic, intra-national White Zionist movement is possible, but I doubt it; if/when the Northwest Front starts looking more viable, I’ll change my tune).
265
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:18 | # Just as Platonic forms and aspects of Christianity were antecedents of Modernity, if you insist on me making the connection between Rome’s campaigns and modernity, yes, ok. I could. There was an essential connection. It had modernizing aspects. Rome practiced Stoicism which saw all aspects of the universe as as necessary to accept - the relation to modernity there is clear; they also practiced Epicureanism - a distinct precursor to empiricism and positivism - hence, related to modernity too. Later Christianity predominated in Rome. Its relation to modernity and the enlightenment have been noted by many scholars. Its aggressive campaigns and integrative infrastructure linking Europe the Mediterranean and Middle East are very much an antecedent to modernity. But was Caesar’s attack on the Gauls civilized? I should say not. Was the Roman scattering of the Israeli virus into Europe civilizing? No. Were the Roman legions being defeated by the Germans an act from a civilization, in accordance with its civilization, I would say, yes. Rome is not customarily cast in terms of modernity, no; it would not be called modern, but it is not important when addressing the essence of the phenomenon that we are concerned about - imposed integration. Rome may have taken a certain amount of pride and lasted quite long in part as a result of encouraging nations to retain their local customs and ways, but the fact is, it was an aggressor and generally an imposer of forced integration and servitude.
266
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:22 | # Leon, pursuit of White secession and ethnostate(s) is a perfect objective. I’m all for it. However, I’ve heard it said that the N word evokes shut-off response. The term White Zion does that for me. The term “Zion” in the context of our pursuit is unbearable. Maybe a carry over from CI. 267
Posted by Hesper on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:31 | # Was the Egyptian New Kingdom a forerunner to “modernity”? Was the Assyrian empire a forerunner to “modernity’? Was the Magadha empire of India a forerunner to “modernity”? Was the Han empire of ancient China (huge Sinicization campaigns of the southern area now termed part of China proper and massive canal and road building works) a forerunner to “modernity”? Was the Islamic caliphate from Fez to Lahore a forerunner to “modernity”? Was the pan-Mexican Amerind Aztec empire a forerunner to “modernity”? Was the Western Euro (largely Protestant Northern European driven) industralization and democratization a forerunner to “modernity”? (LOL) In the above, I notice a pattern of recurrent and spontaneously arising human social development and logistical organization constraints that are constant and intrinsic in this process. ******************************* Guys, I just finished thumbing over a leftie’s history of White settlement of North America. Oh boy, it’s got me upset and mad. Between 1607 and 1890’s (closing of the frontier), Whites - mainly of Northern European extraction - in the course of grabbing other people’s land and forming highly complicated, stratified and environment-exploiting (while producing little, only pollution) urban aggregations, rounded up the strictly honour-code governed and clan-based individualist American Indian tribes and committed genocide and force integration on them. This has resulted in the virtual extinction of this once proud and freedom-loving people, a people of simple, blessed Stone Age capabilities which the White man’s demonic resources-lust and manipulation of nature easily - and haughtily! - overcame. The Whites stigmatized native American society and mores as “primitive”, “backward”, and criticized them for not doing whatever the Whites wanted. Do you think Yahweh is mad at us? 268
Posted by Hesper on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:16 | # I lack the time, and patience, to enter into corrective expositions of the more extravagantly inaccurate opinions about Antiquity here, or peruse each comment. However, as someone with a Classics education, who won State-wide prizes, at both high school and university level, for his Classical studies essays and orations, I must tell you all that your knowledge of ancient Greco-Roman cultural development and polity is contemptible.
The Livian tradition, corroborated lately by concrete archaeological discoveries, posits a legendary foundation of Rome the city in 753 BC (settlement, from diggings research, appears as early as the middle of the tenth century BC however). Rome fell to Germanic marauders (the latter acting the part of Mexican gangs in contemporary “America”) in AD 476 (in truth the infiltration was earlier, but Odovacar or Odoacer consciously forbore elevating another puppet of the Germans to the Imperial purple in the West in that year). Is it rational to speak of Roman society as presaging stages of “modernity” (by which, surely, is meant this late period of Pax Americana Western Zivilisation) when it endured for above 1200 years (753 BC-476)? Was it “modern” in the 350’s BC when “formalized natural duels” were still current in the daily mores of the Roman and other Italic nations? (Witness the challenge of the Horatii and others in the pages of Livy; this is confirmed by late Etruscan, Oscan and early Roman sepulchre murals and potsherd daubs, as well as weapons hoard discoveries in coffins or elsewhere). Yes, that’s right, every people in the “barbaric” and tribal stage of their culture (pre-culture actually) has exhibited these traits because in a setting of stringently local and kindred cohabitation, where everything is visible in immediate terms (no faraway castles or villages) of physical propinquity (think Tolkien’s Hobbit Shire) and cousin consanguinity, “honour” (maintaining in the eyes of your brethren your worthiness to keep your inherited place and property) is jealously guarded and valorously asserted. Long-term settled people, many showing fellaheen characteristics of mass historically-inert peasantries and carbon-frozen culturally stagnant (but imitatively traditionalist) aristocracies, such as the Egyptians - both the later Pharaonic and now Arabo-Islamized - the Chinese, the Hindus, the *Jews*, the Iranians, the Balkan, southern and more recently northern Western Europeans, also have come to lose this instinct for honour. Because honour in our present cultural environment has no meaning and meets only with ridicule. History is tragic, as Spengler remarked, and furthermore he said Nordic history will be the most tragic of all cultures’ efflorescences and declensions. But it is the result of natural processes (processes which we have often mismanaged, misconceived and failed to adequately profit from largely owing to the inherent unreal/reality-distorting values of our Christian pseudomorphosis and the Renaissance Classicizing pseudomorphosis wherein by the latter a culturally Germanic hereditary monarchy-and-aristocracy in Western Europe, from Norway to Spain, was gradually replaced as the political ideal by the ancient Pagan Mediterranean city-state democracy of the Greco-Roman culture. A catastrophic change because we misunderstood both the innate racial, geographical and historical foundations of the Classical, and of our own Western culture’s natural potentialities). 269
Posted by Hesper on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:27 | # Have any of you been to Scandinavia? Do you know how ridiculous the Viking-as-immanent-ethos argument is when describing the industrious and unspiritual bourgeois consumerism of the modern Scandinavians? Do you walk around your American cities with open eyes to see that this vaunted individualism, in places like Vermont or rural Tennessee, is mainly hot air? Rural eastern Tennessee (few blacks or other non-founding stock whites) has counties with some of the highest rates of Fed. Government disability pension and long-term unemployment benefits addiction. Is this “evil”? No. Nothing wrong with it. They are what they are. Old men become senile and decrepit and then die. Old cultures become atomized and socially dysgenic and then collapse. 270
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:34 | # Hesper, is it not Spengler’s view that the final stage of decay—money—is overcome by the only power capable of overcoming it: blood? Do you agree with his assessment? If so, is there any historic precedent for blood taking the form of a culture of individual integrity—natural duel, honor, physical propinquity, consanguinity, etc.—rather than merely a replay of the mass integrity of a Caesar’s armies mobilized against the power of money giving rise to another cycle? 271
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:03 | # Posted by Hesper on October 31, 2012, 05:31 PM | # Was the Egyptian New Kingdom a forerunner to “modernity”? Was the Assyrian empire a forerunner to “modernity’? Was the Magadha empire of India a forerunner to “modernity”? Hesper, it is widely acknowledged that the things that I cited had set direct precedents for modernity: Plato’s forms, epicureanism, Christianity. The line and the essence is clear.
The German’s defeat of the three Roman legions would have involved significant social cooperation, including women participating in the fight - that innovative social organization in response to a threat to their people was not a poison of natures laws.
272
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:15 | # Comrade Bowery (you’ll overlook the strained, raspy tone of my earlier comments I’m sure. Slept terribly last night),
Yes. As the conclusion of two *decades* of both private lucubrations and formally preparatory systematic research into all branches of human history, that was Spengler’s judgment. Blood (i.e. personal or hereditary ties, of both a vertical and horizontal distribution) alone had the strength to defy the strait-jacket tyranny of Money (i.e. contractual and impersonal ties). Do you agree with his assessment? Indeed I do sir (isn’t my constant, and increasingly shrill, promotion of his theories proof of that? LOL at myself). Commercial relationships (e.g., You, otherwise a stranger, trade with me and we associate as one together against the world) are insufficient for the long-term macrocosmic governance of a polity of any size or complexity. This is because financial interests are shallow, attract to the top the worst passions of the worst individuals in a culture, and any compact grounded on rationalist materialism (self-choosing voluntarism instead of ancestral involuntarism dictating how one disposes of one’s self in politics, friendships, marriage and livelihood) eventually breaks apart as those financial interests become unequally lucrative/detrimental to one of the parties involved or one discerns the advantage to be gotten by stabbing the other in the back, e.g. Jews using the Anglosphere only in so far as they could rely on Anglosphere strategic interest to weaken growing German hegemony on the continent. If so, is there any historic precedent for blood taking the form of a culture of individual integrity—natural duel, honor, physical propinquity, consanguinity, etc.—rather than merely a replay of the mass integrity of a Caesar’s armies… Not in recorded human history. Only a Hitler can defeat a Stalin. Though, theoretically, once the competing Caesars have cleared the board by mutually obliterating each other, the surviving individuals, composed of both the lucky refuse of the old megalopolitan conurbations and the few heroic nonconformists who resisted and withdrew from degenerate society, crawl into the light of a desolated landscape, political interaction is radically reduced to the ambit and dynamic of single individuals arranging themselves over a few hectares of pasturage and farm cottages. 273
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:28 | # Continued: When *internal* convulsions end a culture’s late period political form (empire), the individual is the basic unit involved (not family or clan). But these are masses of individuals, anonymous, rootless, pedigree-less, indifferent to honour or self-sufficiency (indeed, communist utopian redistribution of income or property is their motive) and often mongrelized. The Yellow Turban and Five Pecks of Rice rebellions in the last century of the Han empire’s existence were of this character: millions of communist individuals, but not one honour-driven individual. By this stage of a culture, the hoi polloi are “liberated” from the old cultural restraints (which were initially rural and religious in formation) and therefore give free rein to their materialistic appetites. But the elite by this time, an amoral and nepotistic bureaucracy of placemen and overly-specialised technocrats, cannot provide for the excessive wants of the populace and mostly wastes or plunders what scarce resources are being drained from the ever-decreasing genuine industry that is going on. Individualism is re-introduced into a decayed culture by the cultural intrusion of “barbarians” (technologically/socio-politically less complex peoples but whose hierarchies, crudely patriarchal rather than grandly political, are more instinctive and pertinacious). There is paradox involved here. The Gallo-Roman priest (typical liar and exaggerator - lying for the Lord as they always do) Salvianus wrote a short book, that is still extant, in the 410’s on the Germanic piecemeal invasion of Gaul called, in English, “On the Government of God”. Here he fervently praises the Germans as more chaste, abstemious, honest, religious and greatly less debauched than the Roman provincials - these are the same Germans who spent the past century in sustained thievish border raids on Roman farms, villages and outposts (thievish because these depredations lacked political designs of conquest and settlement) and were habitually raising obscure usurpers in the field to be emperor in competition with the reigning incumbent only to then murder them (German mercenaries assassinated a majority, but not all, of the failed emperors and generalissimos between Constantine and 476. These are also the same Germans who in the year 410 were abysmally assaulting the walls of Treves (Augusta Treverorum) which swords and arrows, being entirely ignorant of basic Roman siegecraft and the making of siege engines to effectively batter stonewall fortifications. Sound familiar? The Moslems of today? The Moslems are more virtuous than we are. We all can see that, as it regards sexual, social, family and even ethnic morality within their colonies in the West. Yet, paradoxically, these Moslems rape and pimp White women, steal and rob White businesses and welfare systems with ravenous hunger, and though immune to PC are, the university educated at least, the first to bleat about “racism” and “prejudice” and (my favourite) “Islamophobia” when they are, as any honest and vigorous ascending group is, the greatest “bigots” on the planet. Again paradoxically, and like our German forbears, the Moslems are both highly *ingroup* moral whilst highly *outgroup* amoral/immoral. Honour killing of careless sluts on the one hand, and bringing in uncle Zafar on a visa fraud scheme on the other. Morality is not a universal law but a kaleidoscopic perspective. Morality is a means to an end. The question is: What end? And whose end? The most clannish and inbred of Western immigrants, the Moslems, are the same destined to reacquaint us with the example and practice of individualism (have you seen how firmly/violently they react to anyone “disrespecting” them or their religion? Snorri Sturluson’s heroes would applaud such love of Honour!). 274
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:39 | # Hence, the reason to interpose the word modernity instead of the word civilization is that it is both more descriptive of what is afflicting us and it corresponds with a turn toward post modernity which has the established conceptual moves that warrant separatism, including White separatism (though these conceptual moves need to be more widely understood as yet).
275
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:49 | # Hesper, I hope you can dump your long winded stuff elsewhere. This thread has done much to clarify matters. Until it became a dumping ground for the history of how wonderful German individuals are and how poison social organization is, it ended like this:
“All he’s done is absorb academy-speak and regurgitate it for a different audience. He even admitted he went too far in stating the “primacy of narrative”, so you’re not grasping much of anything against me here.” Of course, the answer to this is semantic. When we are talking about things like getting up, walking around and finding something to eat, we are talking about logics of action and meaning which, being sequential and having their own coherence, are analagous in form and structure to narrative. More, as it is never the case that one lives wholly in isolation and without shared language, when these actions are communicated to others, they would start to connect and become more literally a form of language and narrative. Further still, narrative is a particularly good metaphor as it allows for the hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity and a conceptual expanse over the empirical, maintaining coherence over long term processes and various, arbitrary contingencies; and also the flexibility to return to empirical verification. Now then, this disconnect has been remedied. That is why when narrative is used to describe these sorts of private activities, it is not invalid, so long as it is understood as metaphoric – viz. metaphoric for logics of action and meaning. 276
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 05:10 | # The honoured Comrade Bowery, ...giving rise to another cycle? We can’t stop time. It’s no different than a mother giving birth to a child but, the child having reached 6 years of age, she wishes that it develop and grow old no further. The Kultur cycle must proceed as will also its more transparently physical counterparts, the Nitrogen Cycle or Oxygen Cycle, proceed and will always proceed. No messianic intervention to avert decay and death is possible.
On the contrary Daniel, I alluded to these (howsoever faintly) in my treatment of pseudomorphosis. Having studiously mined the Classical canon (what little was left) we seized upon what gratified and reflected our own innermost aspirations and biases. We didn’t “catch” decadence from reading Classical texts, no more than the culturally Hinduised Javanese and Malays did from the extremely degenerated post-Buddhist Indians and their culture. But classical and Christian ideas influenced the path our decadence would follow: its peculiar forms and slogans. The assorted infirmities and terminal cessation of brain activity/locomotive power brought on by old age are not infectious. The “germ” of natural decay is inherent in the matter of a body not something “acquired”. Epicureanism (elegantly upper-class hedonism, and sceptical scientism) are present in the history of all High Cultures as are religions like (but not as bad) as Christianity. Plato’s forms didn’t lead to Baconian empirical science and the 19th century explosion in industrial output which demanded the subjugation of Afro-Asiatic countries for both resource-extraction and location of new markets for sale of industrial product. ”...is important to distinguish from technological and then social assimilation of formerly differing peoples.” No it isn’t. You’re confusing your (and our) interests and wishes with the course of natural processes. It may be both my interest and wish to never die, but I will die nonetheless. “Racial purity” has never been maintained, not even by the Jews, however strong cultures with strong elites make policy determinations about how to stratify the newcomers and subject races: Equality or Servitude? “We” chose to integrate as brothers rather than dominate as masters. The very purpose of a Culture is expressing artistically, politically and militarily a people’s spiritual and psychological ideals in will-to-power. This involves appropriating land and the “differing peoples” who indigenously inhabit it. ...is more characteristically a facet of modernity than civilization, yes. Faustian Western culture is the first, and hitherto only, world-encompassing culture. Evidence for this, and its basis for global supremacy, is the technical mastering of coal, electricity, wind, sun, even the atom by fission. So the number and extent of “differing peoples” we encountered, subjugated and are now absorbing is greater than the other empires. But hardly unique. Unlike some of the more crazed race-patriots I realize that though Humanity is an abstraction, common human characteristics abound and these characteristics are not slight. We are interfertile. This suggests, and daily experience reinforces, that there is sufficient likeness in face and form for inter-racial pairs to be attracted to one another (heightened during rank-abolished, undifferentiated and decadent times of lost race-instinct), to couple and to bring forth viable human offspring of mixed breed. Many don’t appear to understand what “natural” means when they say “miscegenation is unnatural”. It’s akin to the preaching of the Cath-tard clerics against those acts which contradict “natural law”. A law is only a law if there is some third party around to enforce it and punish transgression. 277
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 06:28 | #
Merely because something is possible does not necessarily make it optimal. Clearly, as I’m sure you know full well, “natural” is meant to be synonymous with optimal when the former is used normatively. Homosexuality and miscegenation are not adaptive life choices as relates to one’s reproductive fitness; which is precisely why most people instinctively avoid them. But you have not come here to enlighten, nor conduct an honest debate, have you, jewboy? You see, instead of engaging with whatever florid diatribe you happen to trot out I simply satisfy myself with cutting your balls off. Everytime, kike. Maybe it’s because I’m German.
278
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 06:36 | # Hesper - please spam elsewhere.
Plato’s forms didn’t lead to Baconian empirical science Wrong, Plato’s forms and his idea of substance were forerunners of enlightenment era science. It is important to distinguish civilization from technological and then social assimilation of formerly differing peoples. No it isn’t
Yes it is and it is also important to distinguish from campaigns of aggression. I don’t see you trying to do any good for Whites, for native Europeans, with this obfuscating muck of yours.
I am not confusing anything. Perhaps YOU have an absurd, detached notion of necessity in which there is nothing that we can do.
Did we always choose to integrate as brothers? While I might hope so as well, and I might also suggest that you are engaging in wishful thinking.
Ah yes, I rember that you are a Nietszche head: ecce homo, the gay science and more pander to puerile females
Unlike some of the more crazed race-patriots I realize that though Humanity is an abstraction, common human characteristics abound and these characteristics are not slight. We are interfertile. This suggests, and daily experience reinforces, that there is sufficient likeness in face and form for inter-racial pairs to be attracted to one another (heightened during rank-abolished, undifferentiated and decadent times of lost race-instinct), to couple and to bring forth viable human offspring of mixed breed. Whether they are viable or not is not the concern here: our concern here is to defend and foster our European kinds. If that is Not your purpose here, and it seems it may not be, then you are either in the wrong place or an enemy aggressor. Many don’t appear to understand what “natural” means when they say “miscegenation is unnatural”. It’s akin to the preaching of the Cath-tard clerics against those acts which contradict “natural law”. A law is only a law if there is some third party around to enforce it and punish transgression. I never said miscegenation was unnatural. However, I will say that the prohibition of White men from defending against it, using the means at their disposal to defend their co-evolution is unnatural. I never said miscegenation was unnatural. Homosexuality*, pedophilia and rape are natural inclinations for some too. But we impose social constraints on them. With regard to rape, pedophilia and certain kinds of miscegenation, we impose these prohibitions for very good reason. These distinctions are why it is important to get away from scientism and the modernist notion of necessity.
279
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:12 | # Perhaps Hesper isn’t Jewish, but he definitely sucks Jewish cock. 280
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 07:25 | # Posted by Captainchaos on November 01, 2012, 02:12 AM | # Perhaps Hesper isn’t Jewish, but he definitely sucks Jewish cock.
281
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:23 | # Posted by daniels. on November 01, 2012, 02:25 AM | # Posted by Captainchaos on November 01, 2012, 02:12 AM | # Perhaps Hesper isn’t Jewish, but he definitely sucks Jewish cock.
LOL. I see that I’ve missed an incomparably witty and patrician exchange between these two cocktail party wags. Such repartee! Accusing those we disagree with of sexual peccadilloes. Excellent, excellent! Today indecent prole profanities and innuendos and no doubt tomorrow CNN interviews or C-SPAN televised discussions at the Kennedy Centre to spread White-wing views.
Of course such behaviour (miscegenation and permanent lifetsyle sodomy) is not optimal but it happens regardless, and it clearly has a natural basis, as do all forms of sickness. As I’ve remarked repeatedly I think a political solution (only a government/military force can close the borders and enact police measures) is the sole way to mend a political problem. Prole-level racial hatred won’t motivate the desperately needed, better sort of people with access to power and money , and besides, the social apathy to racial differences I think in large part is due to a cyclically inevitable lessening of these impulses. Jewish Marxism further befouled this already drying-up well. Yes I do subscribe to “fatalism” (past actions retain consequences for future generations), perhaps superstitiously, but that does not mean that I counsel passive resignation to our fate. Intellectual comprehension of what is occurring and why, conjoined with steadfast activity is what I recommend (internet commenting hardly qualifies as activity). Sir Francis Bacon speaks of Plato’s cave in his Novum Organum but his heritage is Ockham, Roger Bacon and Nicholas Oresme not the Ancients who despised and never developed a real empirical practice (make-believe attributions by enthusiastic Classical fetishists be as they may). Western Europeans (the elite corps thereof) spent every hour at ritualised prayer or contemplating the “sublime truths” of the Christian message: yet this did not blunt the desire for jousts, honour feuds, wars of conquest and usurpation, bloody executions and the infamous Crusades. Clearly Instinct exercised an overruling power above the incessant gibbering in that echo chamber of ours known as the Mind. 282
Posted by Hesper on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:39 | # Addressed to the superlatively eloquent and commanding Captain, “Chapter II: A Realistic Appraisal of the Jews: Their Unparalleled Achievements Passionate hatred of the Jews is almost certain to be futile, If our race is ever to be liberated from its present masters, We must, first of all, understand that in the real world the
You see Captain, the big boys (Great men think alike, is that not the adage?) are not timid in confronting facts in the face. Nor do they begrudge a rival his due out of niggardly rancour or consuming envy. Untruth is not bad because it is a sin. Untruth/false witness are bad because they dangerously distort reality. Do that and you’re playing with fire. ********************* Daniel, Men reared in the Classics have a pronounced bent toward verbosity. Other than that I would not characterise my insistence upon the cyclical nature of material existence and therefore the waxing-and-waning sequence of human culture (what expands must someday contract) as overbearing. These are Darwinian positions stripped of the Progressivist teleology which Herbert Spencer resolved to impregnate into the science to justify robbing working class English of a decent living wage. Really, blaming the Romans for urbanisation and unavoidable oligarchy in societies of that sort. How could a Classicist not but forcefully interject? 283
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:40 | # Daniel, Spengler’s ontology uses the word “culture” where you use “civilization” and leaves “civilization” as the accumulated manifestation of “culture”. In his view, culture gives rise to civilization and exhausts itself in the manifestation. While I agree with this sort of ontology in two ways: 1) It distinguishes the derivative from the function (culture from its accumulated manifestation in civilization), What I object to is Spengler’s characterization of this cycle as entirely “natural” hence inevitable. The founders of the culture can learn from history—although the evidence is that they do not. Consequently I object to the fatalism that says we, at this stage of the Spenglerian cycle, should find it hopeless to try to help the founders of the next culture, learn from history. 284
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:46 | # Hesper, I’m curious as to your opinion of W. D. Hamilton’s diagnosis of civilizational renaissance and decay in “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”:
(I presume the two invasions Hamilton is referring to are the Dorians of the Greeks and Germanics of the Romans.) 285
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 01:32 | # / I understand your concern about the apprehension of civilization as ripe fruit for our enemies to plunder and for our own people to lazily divide upon. Hamilton makes some points there too. For that reason I’d be willing to use another word than civilization as the positive word for our social organization - I wasn’t in the habit of calling it civilization anyway. However, I still maintain that it is inarticulate, too inarticulate to use as a negative term. (internationalist) Modernity works better as a negative term especially because it implies that White post modernity (separate national and regional ecologies) as the remedy.
We’ve talked about the word culture before in a positive sense. I like the notion of a cultivated turning back toward the replenishing and fostering source of one’s people, their systemic pattern. That is an organic thing, and I appreciate your concern for organic organization. Remember, I am anti-Cartesian, so when I talk about taxonomic classifications, it is not exogenous imposition - it is merely a concession to that very small margin of arbitrariness; and in order to avail ourselves of relative transcendence to provide agency and orientation on the patterns. However, I am not sure that culture does it as a word for the modicum of social coordination that we need, either. I am sure that the best term will emerge in a moment of “lucidity” LOL.
286
Posted by Des Picable on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:24 | #
Miscegenation is not natural. It does not occur in the animal world with any regularity even between those animal groups that are fertile. It occurs in humans when males are separated from their females for a long duration. It appears to be a product of civilization…war, conquest, exploration or trade. Permanent lifestyle sodomy (homosexuality) is unnatural because it is inauthentic. Individuals and groups do not naturally construct identities based solely upon their sexuality. Per Foucault, “Sodomites were recidivists, homosexuals are a race”. All forms of sickness are natural? Even the highest primates do not naturally contract mesothelioma, for instance.
The Crusades were a Christian meme not an act of instinct. There is no group instinct for war. It’s the construction of a meme and its constant iteration that ascends the natural individual instinct to protect self and family. The propagandizing before the First Crusade was intended to unleashed a collective wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury. This is the incessant gibbering that filled the mind of Christians. Instinct is innate and lives in the silence of the subconscious. 287
Posted by Sue Perior on Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:40 | #
Species don’t extend their power. It’s is the reproductive differential that accrues to individuals in the group that provides a group benefit incidentally. Even Adolf understood the fact that the group advances nothing. It is the individual within the group that is the biological superior. Thus if “Jews” are special it is something other than their superiority that makes them powerful. If, hypothetically, it is criminality that accrues power to individual Jews who perpetuate an ethnic meme that is self fulfilling, then must it still be regarded with “respect and even awe”? 288
Posted by George on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 08:27 | # @ daniels Can you explain what you mean by “Cartesian”? I’m not sure what you mean by it. “Cartesian” generally refers to the major ideas of Descartes, such as mind-body dualism, Cartesian coordinates, and “cogito ergo sum” or methodological skepticism. You seem to use it differently. 289
Posted by antifascist on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 08:46 | # @George the confused white supremacist nazi
290
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:09 | # I want to clarify this statement a little and then connect with the Des Picable’s comment. I had said: I never said miscegenation was unnatural. However, I will say that the prohibition of White men from defending against it, from using the means at their disposal to defend their co-evolution is unnatural. While I never said miscegenation was unnatural, homosexuality, pedophilia and rape are natural inclinations for some too. But we impose social constraints on them. With regard to rape, pedophilia and certain kinds of miscegenation in particular, we impose strong prohibitions for very good reason. These distinctions are why it is important to get away from scientism and the modernist notion of necessity.
I would welcome the comment below as a hermeneutic circling back to something more empirical, a closer reading of what might be called more natural; and would, in fact, like more empirical data. Unfortunately, I doubt that miscegenation is wholly unnatural, however that it may be much less natural than loyalty is believable:
The Crusades were a Christian meme not an act of instinct. There is no group instinct for war. I am not sure that there are not shared genetic patterns circulating amongst groups which would elicit a collectivizing, militaristic response to threatening groups. I rather think there would be. I guess Jim would say that German individual men and women coming to fight the invading Roman legions are not collective, but the sum result of German individuals. German individualism may be an all important distinction for him, but for me it is a matter of degree. I believe that German individualism’s systemic basis can be operationally verified. Nevertheless, that there is a difference that makes an important difference, one that ought to be maintained, I can be eager to agree, even if I am not perfectly sure. That more cooperative sorts should automatically qualify as evil - I very much doubt it. On the contrary. I would be eager to disagree. These more cooperative and ethnocentric Europeans may just be expressions of the more primitive forms of Europeans, the non “Aryans.” They need not be in necessary conflict with more individualistic types - may rather be symbiotic, the two ways providing buffering, source and replenishing material for one another. 291
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:27 | # Posted by George on November 03, 2012, 03:27 AM | # @ daniels Can you explain what you mean by “Cartesian”? I’m not sure what you mean by it. “Cartesian” generally refers to the major ideas of Descartes, such as mind-body dualism, Cartesian coordinates, and “cogito ergo sum” or methodological skepticism. You seem to use it differently. George, first of all, pay no attention to anti-fascist. It is a strange bird.
This view would suggest that it is important to apply ecological and biological metaphors to human relations as opposed to quantity and physics metaphors. 292
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:28 | # Among the important reasons to get away from Cartesian type arguments is that they pursue causal explanations beyond significant human involvement, forces and impacts, which neither reflect our agency nor call for accountability. 293
Posted by George on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:31 | # @ daniels
Do you mean Descartes’ mind-body dualism? 294
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 03 Nov 2012 21:30 | # Do you mean Descartes’ mind-body dualism?
295
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 03:10 | # Causal explanations do the opposite of separating the individual mind from nature and interaction. Agency and accountability require “separation”. 296
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 07:28 | # . Causal explanations do the opposite of separating the individual mind from nature and interaction. Agency and accountability require “separation”.
In the “enlightenment”, or modernist notion of causality, “mind”, for example, is said to be detached from nature and lineally connected to Archimedean points beyond nature. Whereas in a post modern notion of causality, mind is interactive, taking on input from its interaction. Or, we might say, one acknowledges interaction more than the other. 297
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 08:58 | # Of course there are degrees of separateness and autonomy (and yes, agency and accountability depend upon that, as well; though it is less generally acknowledged that they depend upon interaction) but they are not pure, as the Cartesian model would have it.
298
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 10:28 | # There are differences that make a difference. Since Hesper is probably waiting to dump three long, obfuscating paragraphs, we might say that Charlemagne’s military campaigns are related to this conversation, but not very much. 299
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:23 | # Daniel, when you bring up “Cartesian” continually and there are virtually no scientists that indulge in the corresponding error, let alone me with my proposals put forth in “Secession From Slavery to Free Scientific Society” wherein ecological hypotheses as the basis of religious communities are accomodated to deal with the problems of extended phenotypic corruption of human thought, will and action—and then it takes literally months to get the truth out of you about what you even mean—it renders communication very low return on investment with you. Indeed, the return is negative. This brings up a problem with the philosophical enterprise in general: The focus on the names of philosophers as keys to conveying their ideas—“Hegelian”, “Cartesian”, etc. is symptomatic of the way Jews treat rabbinic authorities. Each rabbi is a cult who stands in stead between the acolyte and God. The Rabbis make reference to other rabbis writings (going back to the Talmud and Torah) in terms of “authorities”. The trick is to always play the ambiguity and connotations in such a way as to avoid ever being pinned down to anything where one can be downright wrong about anything while making convincing sounding noises based on those ambiguities about absent “authorities” that one’s opponents are “wrong”. Its all sound and fury signifying nothing but the selection for minds adept at using words as weapons at the expense of the very foundation of the human genome—as it selects genes that are incapable of genuine articulation of any truth. 300
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:43 | # .. Daniel, when you bring up “Cartesian” continually Yes, Jim. Antii-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudiced. It is hurting and it is killing people. That is a very important point as are the ones about Locke and rights as it denied the value of classifications. etc. It is also important to demonstrate that the premises of anti-racism are an absurd conceptual blunder, destructive for a number of reasons that I have discussed. and there are virtually no scientists that indulge in the corresponding error, I am surprised that you make such a stink about this and are talking about it as if what I am doing is negative. It was demonstrated explicitly, for example, that Locke certainly did make this error in a post that Desmond made. More, that is highly relevant as his notion of rights was written into the US Constitution; many others would be shown to be making this kind of error as well, in line with the Newtonian physics; prior to non-Euclidean geometry, Godel’s theorem, Bohr/Heisenberg, the failure of a the Vienna positivist school to trace trace a language free of metaphor, the contention that there is no private language and more. Plato’s notion of substance was a forerunner of englightenment era science til then. let alone me with my proposals put forth in “Secession From Slavery to Free Scientific Society” wherein ecological hypotheses as the basis of religious communities are accommodated to deal with the problems of extended phenotypic corruption of human thought, I suggested that some of your arguments, which place such enormous importance in individualism, are running perilously astride Lockeatine individualism, reflecting a predilection for Cartesian quest - it is farther suggested with god talk and pure Euro man types of ideas (that are simply beyond words). Because I believe that Locke’s notion of individual rights as opposed to classification is so central to our problem of what is considered “racism” and what we need to do to defend ourselves, I undertook the daunting and unenviable task of suggesting that some of your ideas can use a little modification. will and action—and then it takes literally months to get the truth out of you I have been plain all along, Jim. I thought it was clear that by Cartesian, I meant separation or a tendency to isolate mind and thought from nature and interaction. about what you even mean—it renders communication very low return on investment with you. Indeed, the return is negative. Jim, I groaned before I came to this post. Because I could anticipate that you would depict what I am saying in an antagonistic sense; when I can and have done everything I can to show that the kinds of things that I am saying can be conducive with your projects. Even this latest discussion, in which I propose modernity as the negative term as opposed to civilization, is well considered as it implies a post modern turn, the essential aims of which are the legitimacy of distinct groups and therefore their maintained separation.
Well, Wittgenstein thought he had ended philosophy with both his Tractats Logico Philosphicus, where he thought he’d identified an “unassailable” logic of the world, which was later disconfirmed by the aforementioned people; and then he thought he put an end to philosophy as a “mental disease” which required “therapy”, with his Philosophical Investigations. That turned out to be as Jewish and modernist as it gets. What is philosophy really, but a discussion of how life should be lived. In our case, with a specific focus on how European life should be lived in relation to antagonistic others, who would deny our existence, even. To say that philosophy is an utter waste would correspond very well with the notion that we do not really exist or that there is nothing that we can do to save ourselves. I don’t think so. There are some elemental considerations which can be normally taken away when we say Hegel - a rigid logic of process. Cartesian, a separation of mind from and nature and interaction. I’m sorry if I expected that to be obvious to you. I did not expect you to be quite so defensive. And I thought it might be understood that we are talking about a matter of degree. Yes, we are talking about a relative degree of separateness and interaction when we talk about agency and accountability. Teasing apart the differences that make a difference would be something you are well suited for, that is why I did not hesitate to put my thinking at risk and discuss it with you. Each rabbi is a cult who stands in stead between the acolyte and God. The Rabbis make reference to other rabbis writings (going back to the Talmud and Torah) in terms of “authorities”. I have no idea. I will take your word for it. What I do know is that I am talking to you and others here. I am not expecting people to accept my word as an intermediary of god’s word. The trick is to always play the ambiguity and connotations in such a way as to avoid ever being pinned down to anything That might well be their game. It is not mine. Show me one place where I have not been pursuing the interests of Europeans. Because I do not believe that science is always the best means to approach a problem? Hell, it is necessary to be sure, we place it at one end of a necessary and ongoing process of our defense. Because I do not believe that words are for Jews only? And I do not think scientific demonstration is the only valid way of social negotiation? Like saying Locke’s notion of rights and his motivations are irrelevant? Its all sound and fury signifying nothing but the selection for minds adept at using words as weapons at the expense of the very foundation of the human genome —as it selects genes that are incapable of genuine articulation of any truth. Jim, have I sought to exclude you? I was asked by Stark to be guest on his radio show but worked to have you be the guest instead. I have done everything I can to coordinate your views with the most up to date thinking that I am aware of; I have done this with good will, not with an intent to do harm to you or the genome which you seek to protect - on the contrary! The only difference seems to be that the view I am taking can accommodate yours: if you have a kind of European people and way that you see as different and important to maintain separately I not only understand, but approve. I never favor amalgamating the kinds of Europeans - and not if one kind is more individualistic either. However, you seem to be saying that if some Europeans whose values and skills are somewhat different from that, say if they have some verbal skills, and prefer cooperative organization among their group, that they are necessarily at odds with you. I am defending European people. For me that means defending a group. I understand where you are coming from: you are saying that authentic individuals arise naturally to come to the defense of their kind. My words are always aimed at defending European peoples and their distinctive manifestations, including more individualistic kinds. I say there is no contradiction. I have tried to show some of the subtle distinctions and you seem to say that I am bullshitting. I am not a bullshitter. I do not use words for decorum or to deceive. 301
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 21:14 | # Bottom line: You are never going to be successful in clearing Europe of its invaders and traitors without finding a way to get most Europeans behind the idea that it is ok to kill the invaders and the traitors if that is necessary. It is crystal clear the invaders and the traitors are inhuman beasts who have absolutely no regard for individual rights even as they mouth their support for individual rights. I have dealt with this practically by specifying that there is precisely one individual right that must be upheld above all others and that is the right to share territory under mutual consent with others—consent implying the option not to consent to the entry of some would-be immigrants. The litmus test as to whether a creature should be treated as a human or as a mere force of nature is the simple question put to them by a human: “Would you oppose the formation of a society that excluded from its territory you and people like you in some sense, including possibly race and/or ethnicity?” Answer “No” means potentially human. Answer “Yes” means right to kill it. This is a simple, straightforward individualist position. You attack it by smearing it with ridiculous ideas of historical figures and expect me to sit calmly by as you, thereby, participate in the destruction of our people. It would be one thing if the European New Right listened to me about taking over Parliamentary governments via the citizen’s dividend—I might be able to cut you some slack. But, as it stands, you and the entire New Right have exactly nothing to offer our race but pedantic obstruction. 302
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:09 | # .. You are never going to be successful in clearing Europe of its invaders and traitors without finding a way to get most Europeans behind the idea that it is ok to kill the invaders and the traitors if that is necessary. No argument with that. I agree. I have dealt with this practically by specifying that there is precisely one individual right that must be upheld above all others and that is the right to share territory under mutual consent with others—consent implying the option not to consent to the entry of some would-be immigrants. Great idea. It is for that kind of thought that I am always interested in what you have to say.
Brilliant.
I don’t attack those ideas at all. It would be one thing if the European New Right listened to me about taking over Parliamentary governments via the citizen’s dividend—I might be able to cut you some slack. But, as it stands, you and the entire New Right have exactly nothing to offer our race but pedantic obstruction.
I thought your article about Parliamentary take over was a good one too.
303
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 23:11 | # Let me coin a neologism to deal with confusion: sortocracy: government by sorting migration where a “sort” is determined by shared causal hypotheses in human ecology formulated as a concise statement of law governing the territory for those mutually consenting to that law. Any DNA nation would be one sort of sortocracy. The Euro DNA nation would be one sort of DNA nation. In the current environment, where most Euromen are indoctrinated and intimidated into being self-alien, if you try to get Euromen to sign onto the right of indigenous Europeans to their native lands before you get them to sign onto sortocracy, you’ll lose. If you get them to sign onto sortocratic principles as preeminent over democratic principles, you’ll win for the same reason hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year in a futile flight from diversity. Moreover, once sortocracy is accepted as the primary individual right, all other discussion of “individualism” can be deferred to the group sharing whatever law they agree to. Most importantly, once sortocracy is accepted as an alternative governing paradigm, grand juries can form to indict individuals for violation of the basic human right to territorial exclusion. This means a real United Nations exists with real moral authority to condemn individuals if not regimes, corporations, etc. Such condemnation would not require any recommendation of specific action but, perhaps, admonition that anyone who respects the humanity of others, should they sit on a jury, vote to acquit anyone being prosecuted for doing harm to the condemned. 304
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 04 Nov 2012 23:42 | # I can agree to that. It corresponds with what I have thought and hoped for this proposal. 305
Posted by social capital on Tue, 03 Feb 2015 02:17 | # Social Captial
Charles Jansen · February 2, 2015
306
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 03 Feb 2015 03:38 | # http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2015/1/6/the-road-to-imperium
307
Posted by Londen and Johnson, Tribe and Nation on Sat, 07 Feb 2015 13:16 | # WHY I AM ANTI ANTI-ZIONIST AND PRO ANTI-SEMITE THE LOGIC OF TRIBALISM by John Londen alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-i-am-anti-anti-zionist-and-pro-anti.html#more The position of Majority Rights should not be misunderstood by the provocative banner, “we support a multicultural Israel.” We certainly favor Jews being in one nation of their own to whatever extent that is possible. Neither should “The Euro DNA Nation be misunderstood in what it means by “nation” - we mean nation as a people, in fact, radically confirmed by their DNA. Hence Londen’s article in relation to The Euro DNA Nation is summed-up by this sentence of his:
Nation and tribe are redundant, exactly. Separatism from Jews and other non-Whites is what we seek, exactly. His differences are primarily word play.
Grandiose Nationalism - Greg Johnson http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/02/grandiose-nationalism/ The challenge is to articulate the fact that we want the same thing as Johnson - the sovereignty and perpetuation of discreet nations and their coordination in non-conflict, if not cooperation overall. And to articulate the fact that we are not at threat to inter-European peace in our confederated interests, as the term of Londen proposes - “Confederation of Sovereign European Nations.” I believe the fact that the focus on curating the DNA genus and species of our European kinds should serve greatly to alleviate if not do away entirely with the background anxiety that leads to serious conflict between Europeans. 308
Posted by John Londen on Mon, 09 Feb 2015 13:27 | # re.: Londen and Johnson, Tribe and Nation @7 February 2015, 8.16 a.m.
That is not what I said. My headline point is: Nationalism is manifestly redundant, Tribalism is the way forward. ‘Separation, not integration; sovereignty not segregation’ is not word play. It has to be seen in the context of the article, which is to make a distinction between two different types of agitators within the broad church of Nationalism. There are those who want to preserve a failing culture that is not fit for purpose - they seek ‘integration’. They are what the public tend to identify as the ‘far-Right’ or ‘Nationalist’. I would argue that a true racialist seeks not integration but separation. Hence the whole rationale behind, say, the Liberate Stamford Hill demonstration, and must else besides, is in some respects redundant - though I also make a point of acknowledging the more useful and constructive side to such political action. One could make a similar observation regarding traditional British Nationalism and the notion of rallying behind Queen and Country, which some in our camp still hold to. British Nationalism is really a call for integration, and even if its adherents don’t consciously believe in this, they tend to slip into integrationist rhetoric at some point. ‘Nationalism’ may be national, but it is not tribal. The distinction between sovereignty and segregation is fairly obvious, but to illuminate the point: South Africa under apartheid was not a state of true white sovereignty, for reasons that I am sure you are aware of. Separation can also be distinguished from segregation. They are not the same thing. In fact, I would suggest they are opposites. A racially-segregated society is not practical racial separatism or racial sovereignty. The Southern United States ante bellum can be seen as a good example of this. In hindsight, the slave labour system can be seen as a ticking demographic time-bomb for white civilisation. Blacks should have been excluded from American society altogether. Had they been, we perhaps might not have had some of the problems we have today. (Of course, the history is much more complex than that. I am deliberately simplifying it here to make a point). Thank you for reading my article. 309
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:19 | # Posted by John Londen on February 09, 2015, 08:27 AM | # re.: Londen and Johnson, Tribe and Nation @7 February 2015, 8.16 a.m. DanielS said: John says: DanielS John says: DanielS John: DanielS John Yes, but not in the sense that we mean it, or in which I mean it - nationalism corresponds, as I use it, with the etymological sense of the word - a people. Though it does also correspond with aspirations for sovereign - separate - sacrosanct territory. John: DanielS John: DanielS John: DanielS Metzger prefers the word “tribe” as well, and is suspicious of the word nationalism as well. But again, I use nationalism in its etymological, viz. tribal sense - “natio” - of natal origin - and in terms of parameters it serves as a working hypothesis for means of accountability. If you look at the Euro DNA Nation, you will see that the priority is for our peoples, wherever they may be and their distinct kinds, “tribes”, as you say (i.e. we agree), although the ancient homelands are extremely important also. A semblance of cooperation is important as well, at least enough so as not to conflict. But coordination is very different than integration. DanielS
I didn’t say that they were. Of course, I’ve never felt or argued otherwise. John: No problem, its a good one and I am agreeing with you. While I may have used a more friendly phraseology - than “word play” for the fact that we are designating approximately synonymous meanings and motives with different terms - I did not expect you to read this response. I am glad that you did and I hope that you will take a more careful look at the Euro DNA Nation and help me make it correspond with your project because there is no necessary conflict. But It’s important that we get it under way. It is a kind of “separatists alliance”, to refer back to a term that I started out with when I first contacted KM and TT. 310
Posted by Iceland's common dad on Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:04 | # DNA of ‘an Entire Nation’ Assessed James Gallagher, BBC News, March 26, 2015
311
Posted by untested rape kits - thousands of serial rapists on Wed, 20 May 2015 20:56 | # Untested rape kits reveal thousands of serial rapists who could have been prosecuted sooner. 312
Posted by Wells of Natn'l Geographic: "we're all African" on Sun, 05 Jul 2015 19:08 | # Dangerous scientism from Spencer Wells of The National Geographic “human genome project.” Following a note of interest on a positive (or at least not negative) side, they have discovered that after coming out of Africa there was a long incubation period of peoples in central Asia - one branch of which went to Europe: the only branch that Wells did not follow in his video tour of the genetic trail. I imagine because Europeans as a difference are not important to his benefactors, who have him finish his tour of the genetic trail in Brazil. He adds this comment at the end: “Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin. “
313
Posted by China's exponentially growing military budget on Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:21 | # China’s exponentially growing military budget: a reason for White nationalist cooperation/coordination
314
Posted by Faye, on the invasion of Europe on Sat, 02 Apr 2016 10:33 | #
The DNA Nation is a viable means of organizing the defense of European peoples and their various kinds against this invasion.
315
Posted by Half West European men descend from one king on Mon, 02 May 2016 05:11 | #
317
Posted by Dating service for migrants and German women on Tue, 17 May 2016 03:29 | # It’s amazing: a free dating site for non-White migrants to hook-up with native Germans (and other White girls, no doubt), but White nationalists are too cool and too important to coordinate a DNA curating and with it, matching service. We’ll do it anyway. But in the world of the right and the reaction to the right, the opposite is happening:
318
Posted by snythetic genome controversy on Wed, 18 May 2016 04:45 | #
319
Posted by 35,000 yr old mtDNA haplogroup U6 from Romania on Mon, 23 May 2016 12:03 | #
320
Posted by Genetic matching/dating service on Mon, 23 May 2016 21:47 | # 321
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 25 May 2016 20:15 | # My sister got her DNA test results from the National Geographic Genoproject. I am pleasantly surprised. I am a little more Nordic than what I had guessed given that I am half Southern Italian. For all the shrill Nordicism abounding WN, I had a slight worry that I would have a little African or a little Mongolian. As you can see by the Tunisian group (there are plenty of others that I could show you too), if it were the case that I had any African, they wouldn’t hesitate to indicate as much. And, as you can see with the case of Finland, it I had any Asian, they would not hesitate to show that either. Here is the haplogroup from my mother’s side - U5B1E1 Here is the heat map of its concentration - it isn’t Saami, either. It’s Nordic. Here I am compared to English; I was surprised by this southwest Asian stuff that we have. Here I am compared to Greeks Here is the average German assortment. The Danes are quite Nordic Finns are very Nordic but they also have a bit of East Asian on average.
Source: National Geographic Genoproject
323
Posted by U5b2c1 on Sun, 29 May 2016 06:11 | #
324
Posted by When nations do not protect European DNA on Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:53 | # When nations do not protect European DNA, then DNA must become the nation, begin there, determine right to citizenship thereupon and coordinate thereupon. 325
Posted by exclusion/inclusion of citizenship - key on Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:06 | # Inclusion/exclusion of citizenship establishes a nation - a drastically under-utilized concept in European nation building & defense. And where the nation state doesn’t protect European DNA, the Nation building exclusion/ inclusion must begin again with DNA 326
Posted by Jon Hinkel on Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:44 | # Launch of First App to Test DNA Johannesburg, South Africa. November 20, 2016 – PureDNA, a groundbreaking biomed start-up and genetics laboratory is launching the first smartphone app that tests DNA through the user’s… wait for it… tongue! That’s right, using first-of-its-kind technology, the company has identified specific genetic markers that are expressed through unique imprints on the tongue’s lingual membrane. In its first beta version, the app delivers to its users a confirmation of their country of ethnic heritage. Over the next year, new add-ons will be launched for identifying additional characteristics. The initial “heritage purity” test is possible through a simple, three-second tongue print on the user’s phone screen. As is widely known, previous DNA tests have been based on saliva analysis, which can now be done through at home-kits. Paired with the concept of unique tongue-imprints, the company is ushering in a new generation of non-invasive testing and personalized medicine. “With the rising trend of at-home DNA tests, we figured, why not simplify the process by making it available on your phone?” says Dr. Andres Van Jenkins, the founder and scientist behind the project. Van Jenkins specializes in otolaryngology, with a particular focus on genomic research of the bucall swabs and tongue, recently completing his second PhD in oral DNA from Durban University of Technical Science. Given the uniqueness of tongue-prints and countries of origin, the initial product launch is a proof of concept focused on identifying genetic purity of ethnicity. The app will be available for download on iPhone and Android For media enquiries, please contact Angela Canon: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). 327
Posted by Père du Champ on Sun, 26 Feb 2017 15:01 | # Many in here excoriate the Left and no doubt “multiculturalism” and “diversity” are hated words. Yet you are promoting precisely that. Your desire to preserve and strengthen what you (often erroneously) characterize as “white” traits is no different from the goals of the black civil rights movement, La Raza Unida, American Indian Movement, and so on. I am Appalachian—-Scot, Irish, Welsh, English, German, Danish, Cherokee, Shawnee—-so, “white”. Dark hair, blue-green eyes, light skin but tan quickly. I am very interested in the preservation of Appalachian as well as Celtic culture and people. But I do not wish that to the exclusion of other groups. If diversity is good, then it is good for everyone. That includes cultural and linguistic as well as biological diversity. Racism is so… petty, anachronistic, ignorant. My only child is half Mexican. I hope for the survival, positive evolution and success of Mexican people and culture, too, as for Celtic, “white”, Nordic, Appalachian, etc., people. I don’t feel the need to engage in selective breeding to accomplish that. In any case, my daughter is of light Medit. color, brown eyes, blond hair. Her mother’s father was Spanish blood, green eyes and blond hair. Really, to obsess on that is pointless. Nobody is going extinct. At the end of the 21st century it is predicted that there will be a billion in America, a billion in Europe, and 9 billion elsewhere. Whites are now a minority and will be a smaller minority. But they/we are not going to disappear, despite my Native American blood and despite my blond Mexican daughter. 328
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:47 | # Père du Champ, you understand almost nothing of my position, particularly not in clarification recently - and it is particularly for the tedium of having to repeat certain things (that you have totally wrong about what I’m saying) that I will roll my eyes, take a breath, take my time and answer a little later. 329
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 03:37 | # Père du Champ, comment number #327 DanielS: If you had been paying more attention, you would realize that beyond mere concern for migrations and population fecundity’s impact on carrying capacity of lands, a concern that we’d extend to any people including our own, that what is objected to here is not Mexicans per-se nor Mexicans who manifest more European DNA on balance, such as your daughter. Rather, we seek alliance with Mexicans. However, where we would object to you, is in your careless liberalism that would, unlike la Raza for example, promote further indiscriminate mixing. We favor a separatist alliance with Mexicans in a mutual aim to protect one another’s distinctions - the Mexicans of a la Raza bent seek to to maintain what is an overwhelmingly Amerindio and European population, most often a mix of the two, but not always - there are some purer Amerindios that need protection as well. While Mexico has a White population that we view quite tautologically as White, the vast percentage of Mexicans are a mix, which is not White, but a population with whom we nevertheless seek friendly relations: The original, radical component of la Raza, of which we speak and support is an idea of an Indio race - part AmerIndian, part White, with an emphasis, along with la Raza, on protecting its Amerindian element against further mixing. This motive has its basis in reaction to the right wing betrayal of the treaty of Hidalgo in which the Mexican Raza stipulated that they could live alongside White settlers provided that the settlers did not bring blacks with them. It was coupled with outrage that some native American ethnie, such as some in the Caribbean, were being wiped-out by the imposition of black slaves upon them. This spirit animates them to this day and is why blacks have had to flee from their neighborhoods. Any normal person is rooting for the Mexicans against the blacks; nor do they want further mixing with Whites, but then, the right wing is not normal in its instincts and that’s why you side with blacks and Jews instead. The reason that there has been some blacks among Mexicans is because right wingers imposed blacks upon them against their will originally, and still Mexicans are only about 4% black: MEXICAN-AMERICAN: 28% Mediterranean, 8% Southwest Asian, 36% Native American, 2% Southeast Asian, 20% Northern European, 4% Subsaharan African While Amerindios have statistically zero% black: AMERINDIAN (MEXICO) 4% Northeast Asian, 4% Mediterranean, 3% Southwest Asian, 83% Native American, 5% Northern European ..and they do not want to mix with Whites either, whereas the Alternative Right has been led by Jews into siding with them and American blacks - who are mostly black (usually around 80% black 20% White from miscegenation), on the naive/disingenuous premise that they are not going to mix with Whites, and humbly mind their own, like their docile Negroes of old. 331
Posted by You have your DNA results. Now what? on Mon, 25 Dec 2017 16:36 | # You Have Your DNA Results. Now What? - Gedmatch Is 23andMe the best DNA testing company? Which Genetic Genealogy Company Should You Choose? There are 4 genetic testing companies reviewed by the guy above, but not the National Geographic project. So, here’s a discussion of that one: 332
Posted by 3.6% African on Tue, 26 Dec 2017 22:57 | #
3.6% African by itself, I’d be hard pressed to insist to someone that they shouldn’t have kids with someone for that much African by itself. 29.7% Native American (Mexican) puts her in the Mestizo category for sure… Nevertheless, it is an interestingly problematic admixture from the standpoint of a DNA curator; i.e., what to advise. It is perhaps somewhat telling, if not predictive, that she thinks having some African admixture, even if “only” a small amount, is “cool”, but that may be cultural conditioning as much as the genes speaking. * Still, one would be pretty hard, I’d say, to reject her - except for realms where you were really trying to maintain a purer type - as Prince Harry should have been concerned - if it were only a matter of, say, 3.6% African while the rest of her genotype were European. I would not condemn someone for not wanting to interbreed with that much African ...but it is an interestingly problematic amount: do you reject a huge amount of European genetics because of 3.6% African? What about because of 29.7% Native American? We’re fairly purists here and one does not have to be so desperate as to make such a decision, but accounting for circumstance and reality.. (speaking primarily of the Americas) it becomes an interesting question..
334
Posted by U5B1e woman on Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:02 | #
“If anyone takes this test and has the same maternal haplogoup (hit? ring? beam?)* me up.”
* Assuming that means “let me know” if you are also U5b1e 335
Posted by Jessica Alba on Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:43 | #
0% East Asian, 0% Sub-Saharan African, 13% Indigenous American, and 87% European…
338
Posted by Origins of Jewish People on Sat, 30 Dec 2017 15:55 | # Ashkenazi mostly trace back to Jewish male, European female pairings…
340
Posted by Neanderthal contrubution/human social contribution on Sun, 31 Dec 2017 00:26 | #
Paabo is asked what makes him think humans have been able to go on to satellite technology while Neanderthals died off. After all, in their parallel time Neanderthal technology was about equal to human. In answering, Paabo suggests:
341
Posted by Palestinian genetics on Tue, 02 Jan 2018 06:08 | # Plos.org, “Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture” Comparisons of the Levantine and Middle Eastern modal components. A) ADMIXTURE analysis based on 10 constructed ancestral components, with only the Levantine and Middle Eastern components highlighted. B) Frequency of the Middle Eastern component in world populations. C) Frequency of the Levantine component in world populations. Intensity of the colors reflects the frequency of a component in the plotted populations. Maps were produced using a weighted average interpolating algorithm, and therefore should be used as a guide rather than a precise representation of the frequency distribution.
344
Posted by Irish Closest DNA Match Basque on Sat, 06 Jan 2018 18:04 | # 88% of DNA in Ireland traces to ancestors who arrived in the Mesolithic period
346
Posted by Ryan Faulk 1/16th on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:27 | # Ryan Faulk, apparently 1/16th African = 6.25% From Wiki:
347
Posted by Susan (((Wojcicki))) on Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:53 | #
348
Posted by The first flower on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 23:38 | #
350
Posted by Euromexmix + 2% Mali African on Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:14 | #
2% European Jewish 2% Mali African 7% Caucuses [Turk, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan] 15% Native American 351
Posted by 49% Jewish, 44% European West on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:52 | #
44% Europe West [Spanish/French] 49% European Jewish, 2% Africa 1% West Asia 352
Posted by 20% sub-Saharan on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:53 | #
6% Native American. 69% European: 28% European West; 22% Iberian Peninsula; 15% Italy/Greece; 3% Ireland; 1% Europe East. 353
Posted by 95% Native American (Central) on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:11 | #
Surprising results showing only two ethnicities: predominantly Amerindian with such a small percentage of European (she had one grandfather who was blond-haired and blue eyed), no Japanese (perhaps it doesn’t show by contrast to native American, even though her family was aware of some Japanese admixture), and no African (surprising because of the circumstances of Spanish colonial times). 354
Posted by Near 100% European on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:18 | # 355
Posted by 100% European but you might not guess on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:45 | #
356
Posted by 100% European on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:39 | #
357
Posted by question on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 04:15 | # Quoting Chris L. > Are we making progress in fight against white genocide? Is it
The idea that we need to have more White children is not the proper focus - we need rather to be focusing on creating a safe situation for Whites, such that we are not subject to violence, exploitation and absorption into other races. Then sufficient White population will be maintained naturally. We are not going to win a game of keep-up-with the birthrates of nonwhites anyway, and we should not try, because that is not our way - we need to concentrate on our qualitative, K selective upbringing and environments. Sheer increase of populations, especially in a futile effort to keep up with blacks would be destructive to our habitat’s carrying capacity - a birthrate race is not what our over populated world needs. Do we need to increase White birthrates? No, we need to find a way to reverse black birth rates and to keep them out of our habitats. Personally, I feel we have lost the fight already any time a healthy woman, but particularly if a qualitative woman, goes to certain kinds of men. Will we win overall, and redeem these losses by recreating our kinds on a more solid basis, in a better rule structure where they are not as apt to go that way? I think it is possible to survive and wrest our sovereignty, but for one thing we need to bypass the bureaucracy, red tape and other obstructions of our enemies (through their power points and biopower) by forming a parallel nation with the Euro DNA Nation; this will allow us to take control of our own rule structure, and rather than having to right away engage in the daunting project of “kicking people out”, engage in massive and massively resisted wholesale deportations from the day one, we can simply leave out from the beginning of our newly formed nation groups those people who are antagonistic. In effect, forming our own in-group rule structures to whatever extent current law of extant nations will afford. 358
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:11 | # This would mean that we would not have to set about from the start trying randomly and aggressive to revoke people’s citizenship, we would simply be setting about to create our own nationhoods based in account for our peoples. 359
Posted by Another question from Chris L. on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 04:47 | #
Overpopulation is definitely a huge problem. Check out this post at Majorityrights - pay particular attention to the “gumballs” videos. Frosty Wooldridge is good at explaining the catastrophe of overpopulation as well. I don’t know that every child is a “blessing” but we certainly want White people who are reasonably prepared to do so, to be having children as a rule. I’m glad that you agree with the rest of it. ...feel free to have a try at commenting at Majorityrights Central, News or Forum. In answer to you question, what I think about…
I believe they are instigators of White genocide particularly as they are based on right wing/liberal platforms and agendas, which they mostly are (there might be a few corporations which will conform to ethnonationalism; I don’t have ready examples - Japanese might claim a few. So it might not be an inherent property of corporations that they run counter to ethno nationalism and thus instigate White genocide; but in as much as they are right-wing-objectivist-liberal, yes, they would tend to be oblivious if not downright antagonistic to race, ethnie and other human and pervasive ecological delimitations, as mere obstructions. 360
Posted by Mixed signal for Whitey, not for bloods on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 06:53 | # If you thought that trannies could mess with your head for a moment, how about a 1/8? - a legitimately profound concern - kind of a shame to lose that 87.5%, and 12.5% would add to hesitation for Whites.
But not for the bloods: got her pregnant at 15: When you were in high school, did you hear about White girls getting pregnant by White guys at 15? 362
Posted by Another European with Octasomething on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 16:21 | #
364
Posted by Portugese with pinches of on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 18:31 | #
41% Iberian (Portugese), 28% Italian/Greek, 11% Great Britain, 5% Irish, 12% Africa North, 3% Middle Eastern. 366
Posted by 1% African, but don't tell her... on Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:42 | # ...that there’s a difference between North African and Sub Saharan African.
97% European Largest percentages: 32% Irish 26% Europe West 18% Scandinavian
1% North African 2% European Jewish 367
Posted by .66% Masai/ I want jumper genes theory on Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:57 | # Italy 63%, 5% Great Britain, 3% European Jewish, 2% Iberian Penninsula, 6.32% South East Asian, 5% East Asia, 3% Polynesia, 2% Asia South, 1% Asia Central, 2% North Africa….
It’s such a minute amount that it’s way back in my history. And I have an active imagination, I’m sorry:
368
Posted by "African / European" because 5% N. African on Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:12 | #
369
Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 01 Feb 2018 18:32 | # The latest Ancestry UK television advert claims that the average British person’s DNA is 60% European. Having sent them some spit last week I’m hoping for a little more than that… 370
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Feb 2018 23:39 | # Manc, A few questions pithily raised by one of the denizens of that YT thread:
Or this one:
371
Posted by mancinblack on Sat, 03 Feb 2018 01:08 | # I regarded the advert as a little facetious, GW, rather than “fake shoddy” like Ms Jones. To say that the average British DNA is 60% (other) European seems somewhat high to me.However, I doubt that people pay a £100 for a DNA test out of random curiosity, rather it’s more likely to be because they already know that they have ancestry other than British or are curious about some aspect of “family lore” that’s been passed down to them. This would lead to a distorted average of other European DNA. My initial comment was posted tongue in cheek but I actually have sent them a sample and will post the results when I get them, which apparently will be in six to eight weeks time, as I view myself as being pretty average… 376
Posted by "The Whitest person in the world" on Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:45 | #
Except for the fact that what is “French” can probably contain any of these categories: 14% European West, 12% Europe South, 9% Iberian Peninsula, 17% Scandinavian, 3% Great Britain, 44% Scotland/Ireland/Wales, 1% North West Russian. I.e., she can be Very French. Also, speaking heavily for her Whiteness is the fact that she is kind of a “spaz” (spastic): White people are not as automatically graceful, are more liberated (if not compelled to think, to struggle after imperfectly available patterns) as it were, not as hard programmed to less distinctly human behaviors, such as the inborn capacity to dance well; or sprint fast. 377
Posted by Johannes Krause of Max Plank Institute on Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:23 | #
378
Posted by Ancient DNA on Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:22 | #
When did the ancient north EurAsians enter Europe? 1. Hunter Gatherers 2. ME/Farmers 3. Northern EurAsians
380
Posted by Y-Haplogroup I on Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:51 | #
381
Posted by Johannes Krause, Archeogenetics on Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:05 | # 1.Genetic Differences of Modern Europeans (Archeogenetics) | Johannes Krause: My research question is, what is the genetic ancestry of Europeans? ...the people who live in Europe today, what’s their genetic make-up and where did their genetic make-up come from?
SoHP Lecture: Johannes Krause, Director, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, “The Genetic History of Plague: From the Stone Age to the 18th Century via the Roman Empire” February 16, 2017. 382
Posted by 96.6% Balkan (viz., Serbian) on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:43 | # When I think of it, none of my family actually mixed with anyone. We only mixed with local people, around the city of Kragujevac, and a region called Šumadija - it’s a region of Serbia that was always Serbian.
383
Posted by Albanian (Kosovo) on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:35 | #
Overall estimate, 91% European, 8% West Asian.
385
Posted by 100% European on Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:16 | #
100% European: 52% Great Britain (specifically England) 22% Western Europe (Belgium, France, Germany) 19% Irish 6% Scandinavia .5% Eastern Europe .5% Iberian Peninsula
387
Posted by Toba on Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:02 | # Toba super volcano eruption 75,000±900 years ago years ago and subsequent human genetic bottleneck. This cataclysm left less than 10,000
388
Posted by Are The Finns European? on Mon, 19 Feb 2018 21:44 | # 389
Posted by 99% European/ 38% Great Britain on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 08:22 | #
390
Posted by 99.6% European on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 08:50 | #
391
Posted by If you're watching this... on Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:32 | #
392
Posted by Baklava on Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:01 | # 9% Western European - Belgium, France, Germany; 6% Ireland, Scotland, Wales; 3% Scandinavia; 2% Great Britain; 1% European Jewish; less than 1% South Asian and less than 1% Caucuses. 393
Posted by A most Jewish person on Sat, 24 Feb 2018 12:18 | #
394
Posted by Recommends Gedmatch corroboration on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 05:59 | #
North Atlantic (Norway, France, Portugal and Spain): 35.15% Baltic (which is all the Slavic countries, such as Poland): 13.47% Western Mediterranean (Sicily, Italy, Greece): 13.13% East Mediterranean: 3.89% Red Sea to Morocco: 0.70% South Asian: 1.4% East Asian: 1.95% She says that her “Syrian, Saudi and Israeli came from” this part, but she must be referring to the “East Mediterranean” category. North East African: 0.29% Sub Saharan African: 1.96% Amerindian: 21.73%
395
Posted by Mexican on Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:15 | #
396
Posted by Cuban on Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:18 | #
Iberian (Spain/Portugal) 59.9% Broadly Southern European 16.4% Italian 4% Broadly European 2.3% North Western European 2.2% Scandinavian 0.4% ....... 12.4% Sub Saharan African Sub Saharan 12.4% West African 7.8% East African 1.9% Broadly Sub Saharan 2.7% ....... 0.1% East Asian/Native American 397
Posted by We is ViKangs on Sun, 04 Mar 2018 15:29 | # Keith Preston keeps taking his mercenary aim at our platform - this time again with Todd Lewis, as we might liberate ourselves from Lewis’ would-be Judeo/Christian re-yoking. In follow-up to part 1 of their smoke-screen podcast (about which I commented here, Preston’s next smoke-bomb vs left-ethnonationalism)... Predictably, “Contra the AltRight Part 2: Fake History or We Wuz VIKANGS!” is fraught with straw men. Among the folly being praised is Christianity as a unifying and civilizing force of Europe. First of all, for whatever extent that Europeans achieved and extended their unity despite Christianity’s Judeo-Noahide yoking, there is no reason to believe that it can be the only galvanizing force of European peoples in the future. Next, there is a straw man in there that we are accusing Christianity of being “divisive of Europe.” In furtherance of our critique, that Christianity was a revolutionary Jewish conspiracy to overthrow Rome in a day. While it has been a factor in brutally destructive imposition as well as sectarian war among Europeans, that is not the main indictment here. It has been more like a patient Jewish design, taking the helm of religion, working its way from there, happenstance and consolidating the take over of European power and influence through niche institutional positioning and popular European culture - far more like that, than like a plan for wholesale overthrow (although selling the masses on immanence, after life and damnation was part of the long view as a matter of spurious convenience for the YKW, i.e. for their casuistry) - more like a Wandering Jew weed than a maneuver of revolutionary take-over. On the contrary, Christianity was a binding factor of Europe, like a Wandering Jew Weed working its way through the various reaches and institutions that Europe might have put in its way to preserve European peoples. It is a weed that would bind, envelope and eventually choke off European identity, becoming more and more genetically intertwined and cryptic in its blending with Europeans - Finally its narrative weed bound-up the very native psychology of Europeans, our objectivist Augustinian naivete - instilling emulation of self destruction as the ultimate virtue - false hope being place in a reward hereafter for our martyrdom - but this weed has been enveloping Europeans, binding-up our minds over two thousand years. Again, Todd Lewis downplays the Greeks and Roman contributions to philosophy, morals, science, technology, architecture, art and culture…(and Judeo-Christianity’s clear antipathy to Rome as the “new Babylon, mother of all harlots” in its oppression of Jews) but that is nothing compared to the hatchet job he does this time on the Nordics - saying that they were barbarians who have contributed almost nothing to European accomplishments. This stems from Lewis’ superficial view. The Vikings, as all Nordic European contributions, may have been quiet to historians in long spans of time, largely dormant in their DNA which evolved the capacity for calculation and technology, but not only did they build seafaring ships that could take us across oceans, they have been integral to our capacity to build the ships that have taken us to outer-space. - DanielS 398
Posted by The Ronnettes on Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:57 | #
Ok, the standard conservative would say, “I don’t like rap music but if only blacks could make music like they did yesteryear”... And I don’t mean to begrudge African musical and rhythmic ability, the Ronnettes’ either. However, you must take a few things into consideration when pointing to them as “the good blacks making the good black music”...along with the fact that “they don’t look bad as black women go”.... The lead singer, Ronnie Spector, nee Bennett and her group member sister, Estelle Bennett, had an Irish father; and a mother who wasn’t only African, but also part Cherokee.
The third member of the Ronnettes, Nedra Talley
And again, not to begrudge their musical talent but their production by (((Phil Spector))) and his “wall of sound” didn’t hurt their music, even if it did hurt their professional and personal lives… Phil would go on to marry Ronnie, apparently was very controlling of her and crazy in more ways than that… In later life Phil Spector went on to be convicted of murdering another girl he wanted to control. 399
Posted by 95.7% Southern European/ 80.2% Italian on Sun, 11 Mar 2018 06:20 | # 95.7% European
95.7% Southern European: 80.2% Italian 5.2% Balkan 0.7% Sardinian 0.5% Iberian 9.0% Broadly Southern European
4.2% Middle Eastern and North African: 2.6% North African 0.5% Middle Eastern 1.1% Broadly Middle Eastern and North African 400
Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:59 | # I now have my results from Ancestry UK. This is what they returned - Europe West 47% I’m a little nonplussed as to why they have grouped Ireland, Scotland and Wales together in anyway other than in a cultural sense, based on their supposed “Celtic-ness”, although perhaps the hunter-gatherer DNA in Ireland is a little different to that of Britain? In which case Ireland should have a separate entry but no matter because there is much over lapping within the regions they have given. This is especially so with the “Europe West” section, which they say is mainly found in Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Lichtenstein. Also found in England, Denmark, Italy, Slovenia and Czech Republic. Unless you know something about your ancestry this is going to prove to be of little value. Fortunately I do know a fair bit about some of the branches of my family tree. For example, I share a common ancestor with a notable, some would say notorious, political figure of the twentieth century and that particular branch has been accurately traced back to the thirteenth century and is solidly Anglo-Saxon. I also know that I have some French ancestry and some Irish, so I’m basically accepting this as British, English, French and Irish, which I would regard as pretty average for an Englishman. However, this leaves another 3%. Low Confidence Regions Iberian Peninsula 1% Lol Some years ago, when more of the DNA testing companies were starting up and the cost of home DNA testing had come down, I can remember reading an article about this development in, I think it was, Haaretz. They quoted some rabbi who seemed to be very enthusiastic about people taking home DNA tests because he reasoned that if they found any Jewish ancestry, they may develop empathy with Israel. I’ve since noted how many people have a small amount of seemingly out of the blue Jewish DNA. I’m sure it’s all cohencidence though. The South Asian also seems to be somewhat random. However, if you take that as being North Indian and take the Iberian as Spanish and mix the two together, you end up with a gitano (Spanish gypsy). “Gypsies” first arrived in Britain during the sixteenth century in what has been described as significant numbers and over time they have been absorbed into the wider population. For example, actor Michael Caine and Rolling Stones guitarist Ronnie Wood have some of what is called today “Romanichal” ancestry. A couple of days ago I did a little online research and found a web page about Roma DNA. In the comments section, some British people who knew they had some Romanichal ancestry were discussing their DNA results. They were surprised to find that they had no South Asian DNA but they all had some Iberian, leading one woman to remark that “more of us must have come from Spain than we realized”. Now, I happen to have this South Asian DNA that I’m not using, so perhaps I could auction it off to these people. I can hardly give it away. I’m Jewish now already loool. 401
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:59 | # Although you wish it were more precise, it’s got to be a generally pleasant reading Mancinblack. I was tempted to make a joke about your 1%, that we could make you an honorary huWhite, despite that. ...but then, somebody might think I’m actually serious and believe we should be concerned with 1,000.0% purity (e.g., Parrott couldn’t quite believe that I didn’t find his being 1/16th Amerindian to be particularly important). On a positive note, I think that the data base of Ancestry is updated periodically - i.e., you might get a more precise reading in the future from the same data you’ve submitted. There is also a data corroborating service called Gedmatch which you should use to flesh-out your data. And I’d be interested to hear more about this notorious political ancestor of yours…. The solidly Anglo-Saxon history would be interesting learn more about as well… Having some Irish is cool, with recent DNA analysis showing that they are related to the Basques, basically the oldest indigenous Europeans (having the densest accumulation of Mt DNA). 402
Posted by mancinblack on Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:24 | # Yeah, it’s more or less what I was expecting and it has a nice balance to it, which is quite pleasing I have to admit. I will try Gedmatch at some point in the future too. Hehe I saw that one coming in my crystal ball, Daniel. He wasn’t an ancestor. We shared a common ancestor. The familial relationship was a long time before either of us were born. It’s been suggested that my info sec is lousy enough as it is without….. It’s my hope that as more people in Britain and Ireland have their DNA analysed they will discover more common ancestry because, for obvious reasons, it’s apparent that a lot of healing is still required. 403
Posted by National GeographicGen2.0 Confirmation/Bat Mitzvah on Sun, 18 Mar 2018 08:44 | # A confirmation, or, rather, a Bat Mitzvah for the National Geographic take on the human genome project:
Spencer Wells, Director of National Geographic’s Human Genome Project. 404
Posted by World Genetics Table on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:54 | # In his discussion (16 March 2018) on “What is White” (genetically speaking)?
JF uses this graph, from this site, “Frontiers of Anthropology”
407
Posted by Feral dog/grey wolf hyrbridization on Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:27 | #
408
Posted by Polish guy DNA analysis with Gen 2.0 on Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:30 | # Old maternal and paternal lines, not archetypically Polish
Paternal line connects Dinarian (pre-Croats) mammoth hunters, Basques, first Europeans in after Ice age retreat…
411
Posted by Popularity DNA tests, genealogy cause for optimism on Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:41 | # The popularity of DNA testing and related research is very encouraging, great cause for optimism in our concerns as ethnonationalists. While it is possible that the volume of concern, the popularity, even the rigor and assiduousness involved in DNA testing, matching, mapping and genealogy does not necessarily correspond with an absolute concern to maintain human speciation, racial and ethnic distinctions, it certainly is a kindred concern. And it must be an overlapping concern with our wish to curate and defend our kinds to a large extent:
NEXT GEN genealogy network: Young Genealogists and Your Society 412
Posted by DNA as religion on Fri, 27 Apr 2018 05:13 | #
I believe this article has some good points, but a more ecological approach ought to be employed with regard to this “relgiosity”, not only with regard to the Whitest kinds and within the “Whiter” nations, but between the nations - that is to say, there should be an over arching coordination toward the maintenance of the diverse kinds of European ethno-nationalities - DanielS 413
Posted by Guatemalan on Sat, 28 Apr 2018 21:56 | #
414
Posted by El Salvadoran on Sat, 28 Apr 2018 22:21 | #
46.4% Native American (+ 1.5% broadly east Asian and Native American), 33.1% European (30.3% Southern European: 15.5% Iberian, 1.4% Balkan, ), 8.4% Sub-Saharan African (6.4% West)
Didn’t register Sardinian like her sister, but did register some trace British/Irish unlike her sister. 415
Posted by GS serial murderer nailed by GEDmatch on Sun, 29 Apr 2018 15:58 | #
417
Posted by DanielS 'Ancestry.com' DNA results on Fri, 25 May 2018 13:33 | # I (DanielS) have received my Ancestry.com DNA ethnicity estimate results and they are a little strange given what I know about my ancestry ... I imagine that Ancestry might make some modifications in the estimate over time (they already have once), but for now, they say what is below. While I can live with it as an advocate of the European genome, I will comment on some of the estimates which strike me as curious.
Ancestry’s general estimates of my proportions are curious given that one of my parents was Polish and one was Italian:
51% Eastern Europe and Russia: They specify further to say, Poland, Lithuania, Czech and Slovakia….
It makes sense given that my mother’s parents considered themselves to be Polish and came from parts of the former Polish/ Lithuanian commonwealth (her father, from present day Vilnius, Lithuania and mother, from present day north western Belarus). Now, Ancestry also says that I am 22% Italian, and specifically from Campania. I can attest that the area is absolutely on target, that is where my Italian grandparents came from; the small percentage is what doesn’t make complete sense.
While Richard Lynn may not be impressed, it is what it is, my Italian grandparents were Southern Italian - from Campania to be exact. I am as sure, in fact a bit more that my Italian grandparents were Italian, if not Southern European/Mediterranean, than I am that my Polish grandparents were Polish. Ancestry adds 7% Greece and the Balkans, which I can buy - Southern Italy was populated by Greeks - Caposele, my grandmother’s village is at the head (capo) of the river Sele, which empties into the Mediterranean at the ancient Greek settlement of Paestum.
Even so, 29% combined is a low reading for the Italian side given that I am half Italian and given the fact that you’d expect that stuff to be genetically dominant. It is an additionally surprisingly low percentage given that they are reading 20% Baltic in addition to the 51% East European that they already list (Baltic and East Europe largely overlap).
It is as if they are going by a framework that I am close to one quarter Italian and three quarters Polish/Lithuanian, when in fact, I am half and half. The Baltic reading almost seems to reflect a struggle to reconcile something that Ancestry is not seeing, something that was clear in my sister’s reading - receiving maternal haplogroup U5b1e1: while that is common among Finland and Sweden, where it mutated, Ancestry’s regional ancestry maps are not showing any of Sweden and barely any Finland. Whereas my sister’s National Geographic heat map shows that to be the epicenter of her maternal haplo mutation.
My grandmother, lower right, actually sewed all of these clothes. Her two babies are my mother’s older sisters. The man center-top, my grandfather’s brother, and my grandfather, upper right, may well be related to Poland’s most famous writer, Henryk Sienkiewicz:
418
Posted by Helena Räsänen on Fri, 25 May 2018 17:21 | #
Like my mother, she has red hair, light blue eyes and very white skin. Actually, looks quite a bit like my mother. And interestingly, like my mother, she is a nurse. 419
Posted by U5b1e1 the Viking mother of Rus? on Fri, 25 May 2018 18:03 | #
420
Posted by mancinblack on Fri, 25 May 2018 18:07 | # I could question my Ancestry results too, Daniel. The 1% Iberian and 1% South Asian is from my paternal grandmother. Both of my father’s parents died when I was a baybee, so I have no personal memories of her, however in photographs she looks waaay more like a Senora than a Mrs. With a tan my father could easily pass for a Spaniard as well. The curious thing is my father and his siblings were totally oblivious to this (lol) I guess they just didn’t talk about it. I mentioned it to my father’s surviving sister at his funeral and she somewhat rudely dismissed the suggestion. So, since getting the test results, I’ve been feeling rather smug and vindicated nonetheless. 421
Posted by Ancestry's arbitrary reading on Sat, 26 May 2018 19:53 | # Now Ancesty.com is reverting back to their original ethnicity estimate of me, which is similar but slightly more controversial. Before someone accuses me of lying (because the results they are now posting are not exactly the same as what I’ve listed above - which I have the screen shots to prove), let me comment. Perhaps I should wait until I’ve settled with them just how my ethnicity regional proportions are to be assigned; perhaps I’ll wait to weigh it against what National Geographic Gen2.0 has to say… Clues as to what they’re saying now: Ancestry is still saying that I’m 61% Eastern European (I still don’t know how they arrive at that when I’m only half Polish and half Italian). They’re still giving me a low, but nearly identical reading - 20% - on Southern Italian (viz. Campania) But they’re saying 4% Iberian Penninsula (and not Greek and Balkan) and 2% Great Britain (which makes some sense because my Gedmatch always shows at least a little “North Sea.”) What they are attributing to the rest of my 13%, basically 1/8, seems to reflect confusion for the ancient sources of “Italian”...they are saying (and this makes sense) that this 13% funded the Italian side. Clue: There is no sub-Saharan African. Which is a relief but not surprising to me given my sister’s results. No Far East. Though Gedmatch shows on one of its arcane metrics an overlap to a place called Balochistan (north of India and South of Iran) at about 5% - it had to be very very long ago in my family’s journey out of Africa. The same metric is showing about 5% Armenian (Cher and Anna Kasparian - it’s borderline, arguably White). A small percentage of Caucasian is something that tends to show up in similar Gedmatch metrics (they have several metrics). These things Ancestry is now calling “10% Middle Eastern”.... It seems they are drawing a rather protracted frame around the journey of Middle Eastern Farmers into Southern Europe, which is a generally known path. Anyway, just about as big a controversy is that Ancestry is now saying “3% European Jewish.” That’s a surprise to me - not very bad because it is still a small percentage, but I was expecting none of that; and while it is small, it is not so small as to not require some account as I see it. The first thing I would say to establish my innocence in that regard is that I would never risk my well being in the least to defend YKW other than a circumstance where the law required me to do so in some reasonably minimal risk to myself; or if I thought people were tactlessly aggressing against them and risking disproportionate blow back - then I might raise the voice of restraint on behalf of reasonably minimal risk to myself and colleagues. Next, nothing changes as to what I see as “rules of membership to White/European” advocacy group. I’ve never been an absolute purist regarding the general Genus and the general Species. Regarding YKW, I start the inquiry as to whether or not they should be included at 1/4 (my experience, unfortunately, is that 1/4 tends to be too much). I have argued and continue to argue that there should be accountability (the Euro DNA Nation would provide that); so that overall patterns would be maintained in their large percentage of relative purity and quality-wise; and - this is important - I believe that there should be percentages or subcategories that are maintained at quantities as pure a quality as possible. Thus, while I, according to my “rule structure”, would not be excluded from participating, I would not merely be able to intermarry with whatever European I like without an account to their quantity and quality. For example, change Harry into a woman - Harrieta - I would not be able to marry her without some serious accounting and dues to pay to compensate for ethnic genetic interests of the English, and actually, I would agree with the English who’d say not even then - Harrietta would have to really love me for me to broach the account in search of warrant… I’m not sure which is more complicated a warrant “10% Middle East” or “3% Jewish”. While not wanting to be too cute about it, Ancestry has changed their estimates once already, showing some arbitrariness. Having said that, half way of what they are calling “middle eastern” would be 9%, not 10%. Coming back to the 3% Jew thing (again, not sure which is more complicated as an advocate of Europeans, that or the M/E claim), Ancestry is estimating 3% (0 - 6%). The guy who does several Gedmatch metrics, including the Jewish percentages one, says that metric he devised is outdated and “if you have a reading of less than 15% Jewish, the reading is useless.” The reading he gives is a maximal of 5.39 - not quite a Robert Stark level of 1/16th, but almost. That would not be very bad if true (I would still be good to go for most positions under most nuremburg laws, lol), but a little troubling in that it would mean that - in that worst case scenario - one of my parents may have been around 1/8th Jewish. Then one of my four grandparents 1/4 Jewish. Now, in my experience, a 1/4 is enough for that person to try to put the breaks on against a hard line and take off regarding differentiation from Jews. So that’s where it could be problematic in that generation - in the worst case scenario - but….they’d be weighed against by their own 3/4 non-Jew And the three full non-Jews (7/8th) that are investing their DNA in children even less Jewish…. Among the reasons why I did not think that I had any Jewish at all is firstly because my Italian family, well, they’re just very Italian and very Not Jewish.. I could elaborate but… that’s the short hand that was clear and good enough for me..but more pointedly..on the Polish side, one of my mother’s older sisters actually married a Jewish guy and my Polish grandmother, the one you see in the picture above, “cried for a month about it” ...while she had no problem with my mother marrying an Italian, other children marrying Irish, German and so on…. Anyway, continuing in the worst case scenario….which is that a great grandparent was half Jewish - that makes them effectively Jewish in my experience - and it would have happened, if it happened on the Polish side, during the period of the partition of Poland; and if it happened on the Italian side, a similar period of upheaval. Now, that’s the worst case scenrio and I go there because I like to take on complexities and challenges. It is comparable to Robert Stark’s 1/16th situation - about which Carolyn Yeager said to Stark, “why do you even mention it?” ...which goes to show, that if even a Nazi thinks that my “worst case scenario”, viz. almost 1/16th, isn’t worth mentioning, that its probably not so bad ....although maybe my penchant for taking on challenges is getting me into troubled water, because Stark sure does cater to Jewishness… Well, I’m not Stark, not at all politically and in terms of my aims. And that’s just the worst case scenario percentage wise…..it would not exactly qualify me to be an Israeli citizen. Further, Ancestry is saying only 3% ...that’s 1/32 (if its a lineal input that would mean that maybe one out of eight great-grandparents was 1/4), practically negligible… again, only requiring an account because of the sensitivity of my position and because I am a stickler for genetic accountability and curation. When Mancinblack got a reading of 1% it was occasion for a joke and nothing more (“you can be an honorary HuWhite”)... 3% isn’t a whole lot more serious in my opinion, but requires a little account inasmuch as might be true, whereas 1% doesn’t really. Finally, coming back to my own standards and potential charges of being a hypocrite - I am not. For example, when Matt Parrott was fretting about being 1/16th Amerindian, I would tease him about it because I thought it was ridiculous that he saw it as a problem - again, it may require an account in some circumstances - as I said above, long ago in this thread, tossing-off the example that he might not be entitled to just go ahead and marry the queen of Sweden (who isn’t pure Swedish, but never mind, I’m not trying to do the Jewish, “it’s all so relative” thing because it isn’t quite that relative, generally speaking) but beyond special circumstances like that, qualitative and quantitative considerations, i.e. by contrast generally, who gives a damn? In my opinion, it doesn’t disqualify me from what I’m doing; though really, it is not as simple as that kind of brush off: In my honest opinion, it has required this account by contrast to the usual cavalier liberal brush-offs. At any rate, I’ll be eagerly awaiting my National Geographic Gen2.0 reading; and what 1/8 “non-European” I may have according to Ancestry, in their known N/W European bias, is among the closest in terms of genetic distance of any non-Europeans; and does not leave me prone to be overly liberal regarding European purity, as one can see from my statement. On the contrary. 422
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 04 Jun 2018 19:38 | # I’ve got notice from National Geographic Gen2.0 that they received my sample on May 30th and it will take 6-8 weeks to provide my results. In the meantime, here are the readings of my raw data from “GedMatch K36” Eurogenes K36 Admixture Proportions This utility uses the Eurogenes K36 model, created by Davidski (Polako). Questions and comments about this model
15.49 Italian; 11.64 East Central Euro; 10.04 East Balkan; 10.01 Eastern Euro; 7.59 Iberian; 7.18 East Med; 7.01 Fennoscandian; 6.18 North Sea; 5.74 Central Euro; 3.78 Armenian; 3.41 French; 2.58 Near Eastern; 2.45 Western Med; 2.35 North Caucasian; 1.92 Basque; 1.63 Volga-Ural; 1.00 North Atlantic. ................... Polako comments on his own test procedures and results of his own sample:
423
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 05 Jun 2018 14:44 | # Let me now take another look at my “admixture” though the lens of Gedmatch 36K Euro Admixture assessment; despite reaching far back into ancient history, it provides for a different, more favorably European composition than that constructed by Ancestry.com I am only going to address the more controversial, marginal areas…
15.49 Italian; 11.64 East Central Euro; 10.04 East Balkan; 10.01 Eastern Euro; 7.59 Iberian; 7.18 East Med: This is a marginal grouping that Jerkish purists might put on the other side, despite its containing Italian, Greek and the Minoan - civilizations at the onset of European civilization:
7.01 Fennoscandian; 6.18 North Sea; 5.74 Central Euro; 3.78 Armenian: Another marginal admix that purists can dispute. It can be arguable as to whether an Armenian should be considered White, if not European or Middle Eastern ...the point being that it is that close. 3.41 French; 2.58 Near Eastern: This might be where Ancestry reads Jewish stuff. 2.45 Western Med; 2.35 North Caucasian: Again, marginal, but with a decided tilt toward White. 1.92 Basque; 1.63 Volga-Ural: The farthest I have away from Europe, but probably where my mother’s red hair and very White skin come from. 1.00 North Atlantic. ............. 424
Posted by Ancestry and Gen. 2.0 updates on Sat, 16 Jun 2018 07:48 | # Holy cow, now Ancestry is giving me (DanielS) another “update.”
Italy Baltic States Greece and the Balkans Though there is no Jewish or Middle East this time, I still think their breakdown looks surprisingly weighted in the direction of North East European compared to my parentage. I’ve got notice from National Geographic Gen2.0 and things are coming along much faster than expected: They’ve completed the isolation and analysis of my DNA and now the process is being verified for accuracy. “This is the final process stage, so your results should be ready for you to view very soon!”
425
Posted by 3% English/97% Scandinavian on Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:22 | #
426
Posted by Ancestry and 23 & Me Compared on Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:25 | # Woman finds large agreement in Ancestry and 23 & Me readings, but marked disagreements as well:
Ancestry 46% Italian 23 & Me 47.9 Italian Ancestry 10% Iberian 23 & Me 10.5 Iberian Ancestry 22% West Europe 23 & Me 6.2 North and West Europe Ancestry 7% European Jewish 23 & Me 0.3 Ashkenazi Jewish 427
Posted by 53% Scandinavian, 37% Scottish, Irish, Welsh... on Thu, 09 Aug 2018 15:10 | #
428
Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 09 Aug 2018 18:23 | # “I have no markers for being Scandinavian”. Poor Kiwi girl could do with learning about the eugenics programme of Scandinavian countries, particularly in Sweden. http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/64/4/379 After WWII Sweden switched from trying to produce “pure Nordic types” to ridding the country of so- called “anti-social elements”, leaving a compliant semi-robotic population who would dutifully pay their Church tax, create flat pack furniture, boxy, boring (but reliable) cars and become a humanitarian powerhouse. In effect, they got rid of the very elements of society that may have provided the country with stiffer resistance to the country’s immigration disaster. 429
Posted by Descendents of Otzi on Sun, 19 Aug 2018 06:53 | #
430
Posted by DanielS Y-Side reading on Sun, 09 Sep 2018 11:46 | # As promised, I am adding my Y-Side information…
As promised, I am adding my Y-Side information now that National Geographic has provided a semblance of it - I say semblance, because while they do get genetically specific enough in narrowing my Y Group to J-Z467, their historical narrative stops short of specifics two permutational groupings prior, at Branch: M67 Age: 8,500 – 15,500 Years Ago. Location of Origin: Anatolia.
And then they add:
I had to head over to Eupedia to follow the line down, adding the next big mutation in my line, which is apparently Y4036, which mercifully takes me out of Anatolia and into Europe; and finally to J-Z467 which is well ensconced in Europe as you can see:
In a superb irony, downstream from me are none other than The Rothschildes. While National Geographic makes the same reading as Ancestry originally did regarding Jewish percentage - 3%, only - it seems rather that the wandering Jew impregnated an Italian woman somewhere on my line. Nevertheless, I feel that 3% and I am rubbing my hands together, calculating how to make loans to both GW and Captainchaos, to finance their going to a war against each other so that I can profit big time, and no matter who wins - war is a YKW harvest. Kidding, of course. I mean about my designs, not about who harvests (as TT’s grandmom would say). However, one thing I’ve learned from comparing Ancestry and National Geographic (and GedMatch) is that the small percentage of Jewish that I have had to have come from my father’s side. The 161 matches on Ancestry, 4th cousin or closer, show that the trace Jewish that I have comes not at all from the Polish side, but from the Italian side. Almost all of the Italian males show trace Jewish. None of my closer Polish cousins show even trace Jewish ancestry. On the Italian side Two distant cousins (4th - 6th) on that side show beyond a trace. And at least two male distant cousins (4th - 6th) on that side show none. But almost all of the males related to me on the Italian side show trace Jewish ancestry. ............. Now I want to say a few words in defense of J2 (which Sykes considers to be one of the “seven daughters of European Eve”, viz. “Jasmine”), because I understand MacDonald to have said that there were no significant contributions to Europe from this line. That has to be wrong, and here is why:
And I have learned from this following link that the age of J-Z467 is 10,300 years - That’s a good long time in Europe. Not the oldest European group (which my Mt side is) but here for a long time.
Family Tree gives a more specific name for my Y-Side Haplogroup:
And for a refresher on my MtDNA side to shore up my European credentials:
Again, while National Geographic takes my maternal side genetic reading specifically to U5b1e1, I had to look at other sites to get narrative specifics beyond the general trunk U5b. One site, MTDNA Family Tree, provides a genealogy of sorts:
Another individual adds:
431
Posted by mancinblack on Fri, 21 Sep 2018 23:10 | # Ancestry UK say they have improved their system and they can now give more detailed and accurate estimates. I’ve just had a look at my updated results and I’m now 100% British and West European. So I’m on a purity spiral high and not only that, I no longer have to worry about the Gestapo calling round…. However, it is of course, bollocks. What they have done is to remove all the “low confidence” regions, which is anything of 8% or less. Given my comments further up the thread, my Iberian estimate should have been higher than 8% to begin with. Also, I couldn’t ignore the (((1%))) I think I have mild OCD and hate loose ends. I now know who it has come from and again, it should have been a bit higher. As things stand, someone with say 7% sub-Saharan African DNA with a British name and living in Britain would be estimated as being fully European by Ancestry (unless there is some kind of poc privilege). I needn’t tell you what that would do to a DNA Nation. They asked for feedback, so I gave them some and I’m sure they’ll get plenty more but even if they provide further updates, they are hardly inspiring confidence in their methodology. 432
Posted by mancinblack on Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:42 | # This guy is also bemused by his Ancestry results, Daniel.. “Albert Bianchi, January 29, 2016. They seem to be very accurate in analyzing what’s in your DNA, however the percentages will seldom, if ever, match the individual’s known ancestry because they compare a new sample with what they already have on their database and estimate the percentages on that. I’ll have a little more to say about my own test results at some point in the future. 433
Posted by Who do you think you are? on Fri, 07 Dec 2018 14:54 | # Ancestry.com has put out a Youtube series wherein celebrities trace their genealogy. The segments are too long and have too much emotional reflection on the part of the celebrities, but there is some interesting inquiry and the places they travel to take you to some interesting vistas making these 45 minute segments almost worthwhile nevertheless. Hilary Duff finds that she is related to Spotswood, governor of the colony of Virginia who had the notorious pirate Blackbeard killed. Going back further, Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, is her ancestor. Christina Applegate - her grandparents come from Trenton, New Jersey. Take note they don’t show the place now because it would be a hellish black ghetto by now. Lisa Kudrow finds that her great grandmother and the other Jews of their Belarusian village were wiped out by the Einsatzgruppen Susan Sarandan finds that her grandfather (not Sicilian), from Tuscany, Italy, was murdered by a disgruntled business owner. Rashida Jones is the Jewish (mother Peggy Lipton) and half black (father Quincy Jones). She has a disgustingly deep voice for a woman (or maybe the audio is bad). 434
Posted by "Not Arab" on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:12 | #
“My Heritage” says: 73% “North African”; 16.4% Iberian; 4.2% Nigerian; 3.6% Ashkenazi Jewish; 2.7% 2 or more ethnicities.
435
Posted by Mysterious genetics in S.E. England on Wed, 26 Dec 2018 22:07 | #
436
Posted by Gambinos & Bananas on Sat, 29 Dec 2018 22:17 | #
How dare you say that Italians have big noses like Jews!
I’m going to set the Gambinos and Bananas on you! 437
Posted by Accuracy of DNA tests - solid on Thu, 17 Jan 2019 17:45 | # Are Home DNA Kits Really Accurate? Jeff Rossen Investigates With Identical Triplet Sisters | TODAY Triplets take three popular DNA tests which accurately replicate their results. 438
Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 17 Jan 2019 19:57 | # Home DNA tests certainly appear to be accurate in determining what regions are in your DNA, however the experiment with the triplets didn’t address the vexed (and crucial) issue concerning the ethnicity estimates they provide. It would have been very useful to know who their Middle Eastern or North African forebear was. Ancestry gave them 5% ME ethnicity, the percentages given by the other two were not revealed. This would suggest perhaps four generations back from them but it didn’t surprise them. They seemed to know about it, which suggests to me it is a bit more recent. 439
Posted by mancinblack on Tue, 22 Jan 2019 21:00 | # German girl’s DNA test results make Ancestry’s bs transparent? I mean, wtf is Mid-Western American DNA? Still, at least someone has “English” in their DNA. That makes two I know of. This German girl and a Danish girl who had her test done with another company. It seems that if you want “English” in your DNA results you shouldn’t actually live in England….. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKIRWvDS2iA On a side note, my younger sister and her husband left for a break in Berlin yesterday and before leaving she confided in me that she was fretting because she couldn’t remember any German, despite having passed German O-level at school. I told her not to worry as most of them speak English pretty well anyway. As this German girl demonstrates. No wonder they will miss us…. 440
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:39 | # “wtf is Mid-Western American DNA?” It means Nordic. Just the kind of thing you swarthoidists want to see mongrelized out of existence. Because if Southern Europeans have to be dark-skinned, mongrel abominations, then all Europeans should have to be too, right? I’ll be perfectly blunt, Nordic racial survival is non-negotiable. If presented with the stark choice of accepting Nordic genetic amalgamation with swarthoids or seeing swarthoids absolutely exterminated I would unhesitatingly choose the latter. This is a line you don’t dare cross. Best make your peace with that. 441
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:07 | # Captainchaos, You stupid asshole. Where did anyone here - EVER - say anything about breeding-out, mongrelizing the Nordic kind? There has been one position here, that ethnonationalism and the DNA Nation is about preserving our distinct kinds, that’s why we advocate for it. In addition, the political units of the northern European nations can better facilitate the preservation of their own and coordination with other nations in their self defense; while the DNA Nation is conceived to accommodate European kinds without the benefit of national structure, such as those in diaspora in the Midwest of the U.S. Ethnonationalism and the DNA nations contrast favorably to vaguely organized Nordicism which would define itself in enmity to would-be valuable, natural and cultural allies of the Southern European nations. My complaint with Nordicism is where it antagonizes and throws Southern Europeans under the bus needlessly, where they could be very important ethnonationalist allies. I have never argued for integration of the European kinds. .... Moreover, what makes you think that nobody can resist these midwestern women? Furthermore, we “Swarthoids”? I do not even tan well. I get burned in the sun. Mancinblack tested near 100% NW European… ...... Note: Mancinblack, as I understand it, the mid-west of the U.S. is highly Germanic in its stock….Appalachia and Southern Whites, largely Scots Irish… But I understand your point, Ancestry is showing a bias by not distinguishing the English sufficiently. I’m glad that you’re staying after their classificatory scheme..because it does appear to need significant refinement. 442
Posted by Ashley Judd on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:50 | # Captainchaos would put these two in the same boat. Ashely Judd (birth name, Christina Ciminella), right.
443
Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:37 | # Then how would you separate ethnic German DNA in an American from ethnic German DNA in a German? wouldn’t there need to be something uniquely American in her DNA to suggest American ancestry, by which I mean something tribal, which she hasn’t got? It is more likely that they are hedging their bets with her. That they can’t decide where she is from, given that you can no doubt find similar results to her’s in both Germany and America, although they haven’t explained that to her, so she now believes she has some American ancestry that she probably hasn’t got. They are not always scientific in their approach. A few years back I read an interview with a couple of researchers at Ancestry in America, during the course of which they said that if it was an “older persons” sample they were testing and they found something in their DNA that they thought the individual “might not know about”, they always included it in the test results “at the minimum amount"so as not to affect the persons sense of self. Apparently they have a lot of people contacting them who are either upset or angry about their results. They cited one particular white American who had actually phoned them up to tell them that “I don’t want to find no ni**er in my results”. They candidly admitted that they then gave him some in his results. Moving on…. It should go without saying that ethnic German and Nordic are not synonymous. Even Hitler didn’t take that line. This is what he (Hitler) said during a speech he gave on 26th May 1944 Platterhof “When one looks at the German people from the purely biological point of view then we see here, I would say, a society with a common language united by detour of state-building, but a people - and this is perhaps the most significant factor - of varied racial origins : a Nordic racial nucleus , some Mediterranean racial nuclei, even a European core race, a prehistoric race which we cannot define exactly, but which is there and was there already with the Greeks; the Helots of Sparta came from this race. That racial core exists within our people. We see in our people the existence of various racial nuclei”. Oh My Satanic Majesty, did he say “Mediterranean” ? 444
Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:00 | # DNA test train wreck for a poor American girl. “My life is a lie” cuz no Irish. She can have 12% of mine, if she wants, because it sure as hell doesn’t belong to me…. 445
Posted by No Irish, Blacks or... on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:30 | # Yes, Mancinblack, understood - German/ic and Nordic are not considered synonymous. My current understanding is that the Midwest U.S. is heavily populated by German farmers, while some of the northern states, naturally, such as Minnesota and North Dakota, have a larger percentage of Nordics. German and Irish being the two largest White demographics in The U.S. (might not only provide a clue as to White American susceptibility to pandering disinformation of Hitler apologetics) but may also provide a clue as to bias/distortion terms of DNA classification - e.g., not distinguishing English enough. 446
Posted by Good Morning Britain hosts MyHeritage DNA on Thu, 24 Jan 2019 13:45 | # Good Morning Britain hosts receive their MyHeritage DNA results live on air 447
Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:48 | # At least MyHeritage are paying attention to English ethnicity then. When I got my Ancestry UK results, they told me my ethnicity was British and provided a map of Britain with the areas my ancestors were from highlighted and these proved to be remarkably accurate where my great grandparents and fourteen of my great x2 grandparents are concerned. The areas highlighted consisted of Staffordshire, Cheshire, Shropshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and Kent. These are, of course English counties. 448
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 24 Jan 2019 22:47 | # Nordics in North America should resist breeding with greasy, swarthoid mongrels. Nordics in North America are entitled to territorial separation from swarthoids. 449
Posted by Hitler on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 04:11 | # Captainchaos, For the millionth time, fuck-head, the idea is to preserve distinct kinds and also voluntary kinds as they see fit. So, if a particular state doesn’t feel it can handle a significant amount, for example, of Hitler’s “swarthoid” e1b1b1, then it will be their prerogative to direct it to a state which can accommodate it.
Now then Captainchaos: If you continue to put things in terms to stir up enmity between Europeans, you can go somewhere else. You’ve been tolerated to make a point - that we see prejudice as a warranted concept. But stirring up conflict between Europeans is doing the enemy’s work for them and won’t be tolerated here. Stop doing that or go somewhere else. 450
Posted by Captaincontrol on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 06:21 | # One of the major reasons that participation in the White racial politics of America became untenable for me and one of the things, ultimately, I believe, that made it untenable period, was asshole perspectives like yours Captainchaos, which would automatically see women like this as chum-bait for Africans.
I’m not saying that either of them are my dream girls or that they should be included in a Nordic state, but to automatically treat this sort in a belligerent way on first blush is sickening… It was one of the large reasons why I could not participate in the racial advocacy of America and had to get out of there, too many like yourself, creating too many enemies, throwing what should be allies under the bus (where not outright antagonizing them) - rightfully scaring reasonable people off with right wing stupidity and reaping the whirlwind of increasing your pool of enemies. .... For the record, both of them are in a bit of a gray area from a racial standpoint. The first woman: MyHeritage reads 43.2% Iberian (even though her father’s family is from Italy), 36% percent “Central American” - MyHeritage has created a hybrid category that we must assume means some mix of Native Americans; 20.8% “Other”, incl. English 19.6%, Irish/Scotish/Welsh, 1.2%). The second woman did 23 and Me, getting a reading of 80.5% European (mostly South: 42% Iberian; 8.4 Italian; 22.5% broadly Southern European; and 3.7% Northwestern European, to which she says, “I kind of wish I was a little more of that’), 4.7% Native American/East Asian, 4% unassigned, Middle East/North African 0.5% and 10.3% Nigerian… If I just saw her without knowing that, I would not hesitate to classify her as some kind of European; I admit that the 10.3% Nigerian would cause me personal hesitation upon knowing about it; but I certainly would not want for her to be tossed to black reintegration; which is the trajectory of Captainchaos; in fact, the trajectory he’d put even less marginal cases on with his doltishly simple, American racialist division of “Nordics” vs “Others.” I’m sure that it is a large part of the reason why your blond women are walking around with apes - because you’ve cut off your buffering nations and allies in your right wing perfidy - isn’t inequality great? Isn’t trying be so purely natural or precise, worth being above accountability to social systemic homeostasis? This what you get - “It’s natural, life isn’t fair, that’s just the way it is”...
451
Posted by Sacagawea on Wed, 06 Feb 2019 17:00 | #
452
Posted by Hanna on Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:03 | # Here’s one that’s 1/2 Italian, 1/4 Polish and 1/4 German…
23 & Me gives her a reading of 99.9% European. 0% Sub Saharan African, Middle Eastern, Jewish or Asian. Note: she’s a scientist. 453
Posted by Israel Using DNA Tests to screen immigrants on Sun, 10 Feb 2019 02:07 | # Confirmed: Israel Using DNA Tests to Racially-Screen Would-be Immigrants 454
Posted by Premature to talk of land based discrimination on Sun, 17 Mar 2019 08:29 | # It’s been a while since I’ve re-visited the Euro DNA Nations article, and upon discussion, moving through the article with Ecce lux, I’ve come to realize that it is premature to talk about states, counties, nations and exclusion on their basis. At this point, establishing a common ground and coordination in DNA is what we need to focus on. And with that, for example, if one wants to discriminate for/or against, say, “communists” or Christians, they may do so in correspondence with their DNA associations. It was premature for me to say to Ecce that his wanting to discriminate against ‘communists’ is a matter for county and state prerogatives. At this point, rather, it is through correspondence of genetic grouping that we might decide which ideologies, religions, etc., that we do not want to associate with - in Ecce’s case, he and his genetic fellows would choose not to associate with those deemed communist. There is no need to be so inflexible and put-off that kind of choice for the laborious and speculative prospect of organizing a county or state to your liking. That would, in fact, belie the nifty facility of DNA coordination as the fundamental basis, defeating much of its purpose - one of its best features being its flexibility and immediately ready implementation. In fact, I’m going to add this remark as an addendum to the original article. 455
Posted by Laura Towler: Pure European on Sat, 23 Mar 2019 07:36 | # Laura Towler is 100% European. No Askenazi, African, etc.
456
Posted by David Reich on Sat, 23 Mar 2019 15:29 | # David Reich: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past | Town Hall Seattle 458
Posted by Ancient DNA research on Tue, 02 Apr 2019 14:43 | # Perspectives on isotopic and ancient DNA research on migration by Hannes Schroeder 459
Posted by It's Okay To Be White..? on Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:12 | #
It’s not a matter of pride, it’s a matter of accountability to human and pervasive ecology. 461
Posted by Toba and the evolution of cooperation on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:25 | # The Toba super volcano eruption and a hypothesis that the cooperative tribes out of Africa allowed for their survival while non-cooperative troops of Neanderthals dwindled. 462
Posted by Ancient European populations on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:45 | # CARTA:Ancient DNA–Humans in Africa; Ancient European Populations;Genetic History of the Americas 463
Posted by The Oldest DNA on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:49 | # CARTA: Ancient DNA – Archaic Ancestry; Prehistoric Biology from Dental Calculus; The Oldest DNA 464
Posted by Johannes Krause on ancient genomes on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:38 | # Ancient Human Genomes…Present-Day Europeans - Johannes Krause 465
Posted by Who were the Picts? on Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:05 | # 466
Posted by The elevator pitch on Sun, 05 May 2019 05:10 | # 7:04 AM
467
Posted by Lammy / Cleese on Sat, 01 Jun 2019 17:05 | #
468
Posted by Lenin on Sun, 02 Jun 2019 11:38 | # In trying to establish that Lenin was not a Jew, this Youtuber actually establishes that Lennin’s mother’s father from his mother’s side, was Jewish.
469
Posted by )))DanielS((( on Tue, 04 Jun 2019 21:22 | # For what it’s worth, the most recent update from Ancestry.com does not list any trace Jewish for me, not even 3% as they had previously attributed. Here is the breakdown now: Ethnicity Estimate 470
Posted by What is genetically Jewish? on Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:24 | #
471
Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 04 Jul 2019 21:49 | # A DNA analysis of the remains of ten individuals buried at a Philistine archaeological site, has revealed their southern Mediterranean origin ; their ancestors having migrated from Greece, Sardinia or Spain 3,000 years earlier during the late Bronze Age or early Iron Age. However, mixing with local peoples led to the Philistines losing their European genetic inheritance after two hundred years, although the culture of Philistia survived for six hundred years. https://www.livescience.com/65867-philistines-ancient-dna-europe.html 472
Posted by A bad argument against the DNA Nation on Fri, 19 Jul 2019 07:40 | # In discussion of the Euro-DNA Nations concept with a European fellow yesterday, I was confronted with what I believe were bad objections to participation. He said, first of all, the he is blonde-haired and blue-eyed, familiar with his German heritage, so he had no particular concern about distinguishing his ethnicity and finding those to identify with him as such. OK., fine, not everyone has to participate and they can participate later if they like. That wasn’t the particularly bad argument. He added the theory, however, that the Israelis have genetic data bases of perceived enemy peoples, for which they are devising genetically specific targeted bio-warfare. Even if that’s true, to deploy such a weapon is on the level of nuclear war and would warrant commensurate retaliation. Therefore, it would be risky, very dangerous for them to hazard such strategy. Particularly if the European agenda is separatism, autonomy - our sovereignty - not supremacism, imperialism, exploitation, let alone genocide, the Israelis are not warranted in using such a weapon. Combine that with the risk to themselves in retaliation for any deployment then, and it would be nothing more than cowardly and to some extent irresponsible to not want to participate in building a data base to curate and manage the survival of our European genus and species. Finally, the argument that you do not want provide your DNA for a reading through services that hostile governments and our enemies per se can have ready access to and look over, would barely make for an inconvenience to them. If they want a sample of your DNA and are devious enough to have clandestine plans against your kind (and nothing better to do), there are a myriad of ways that they can secure a sample of your DNA from out and about. So, you are not concealing your DNA very successfully by not participating. 473
Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:35 | # ‘Hungary’s secret: New study by MyHeritage reveals that Hungary has the worlds second largest percentage of population with Jewish ancestry’ https://blog.myheritage.com/2019/08/hungarys-secret-new-study-by-myheritage/ 474
Posted by Philistines on Sat, 24 Aug 2019 06:41 | # Philistines—The Jews’ Ancient Enemies—Were Europeans, DNA Confirms 475
Posted by What the great replacement means on Sat, 24 Aug 2019 06:45 | # “The Great Replacement” Means the Extermination of the White Race through Mass Immigration 476
Posted by On Genetic Interests With Dr Frank Salter on Sat, 31 Aug 2019 01:57 | # 477
Posted by Response to gurugeorge on Tue, 03 Sep 2019 05:01 | # Highlighted reply 1
479
Posted by mancinblack on Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:47 | # “Why You May Be Reading Your DNA Results All Wrong” [or the company selling you the product is]... https://familyhistorydaily.com/genealogy-help-and-how-to/understanding-dna-results/ 480
Posted by Hazony tries on Thu, 05 Dec 2019 18:12 | # To say that European people defending their genetic interests is somehow wrong. Typical Bullshit: 482
Posted by mancinblack on Fri, 27 Dec 2019 15:38 | # Identical twins get contrasting DNA test results from 5 companies. Worth watching as the problems with “ethnicity estimates” are explained - “a science and an art”. 483
Posted by Christopher Walken on Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:19 | # Having spent quite a bit of time in Sicily, and with the typical erroneous and unhelpful stereotype that Sicilians “have a lot of African admixture”, I am annoyed by these twins “representing” Sicilians. I saw almost no Sicilians who looked like them. Mi Scusi 484
Posted by mancinblack on Fri, 27 Dec 2019 16:57 | # Nothing to say about their “Polish and Ukrainian roots too” ? 485
Posted by mancinblack on Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:00 | # Btw, loved your performance in “Heaven’s Gate”. Real Scots-German that was…. 486
Posted by Ancestry Expert on Sat, 28 Dec 2019 03:24 | #
Daniel: One other question for future reference. When are the ethnicity estimates due to be updated? I believe my estimates were a bit off to begin with, but I’m pretty sure they only got more inaccurate with the last update.
487
Posted by DNA ingredients of Ukrainian beauties on Mon, 27 Jan 2020 13:47 | # 488
Posted by Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid on Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:27 | # 489
Posted by Eurogenes on Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:35 | #
491
Posted by Prince Charles Tree traced 900 years on Mon, 24 Feb 2020 22:17 | # Male-line ancestors of Prince Charles traced back 900+ years 494
Posted by BRITISH COUPLE TAKE ANCESTRY DNA TEST on Thu, 02 Jul 2020 03:38 | # 496
Posted by 3/4 Sicilian 1/4 Mainland Italian on Sun, 02 Aug 2020 03:59 | # Rick Beato The Story of My Musical Background - Rick Beato Everything Music 497
Posted by Angelo John Ganucci No Jucci on Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:50 | # 498
Posted by lists and discovery on Fri, 21 Aug 2020 12:25 | # 499
Posted by Yazidi child's DNA on Sun, 23 Aug 2020 18:59 | #
She was just 11-month-old when she was kidnapped by ISIS terrorists from Sinjar in August 2014, and was found in an orphanage in Mosul City a few months ago. 500
Posted by mancinblack on Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:13 | # Having first removed the ‘low confidence regions’ from my DNA test results, Ancestry’s latest update informs me that I’m now 15% German lol Adolf is alive, living in Dublin and working for Ancestry UK. I find this pretty funny , despite it being wrong but it would be hilariously funny were it not for people taking their ‘ethnicity estimates’ seriously and perhaps basing their identity on bs. 501
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 04:45 | # Hi mancinblack, while your rigorous criticism of Ancestry’s ethnicity estimates is certainly well placed and your skepticism of placing full identity on its basis is warranted, it still seems to me that by the cousin matches alone, and the correspondence of physical locations to genetics with our known history, along with their commitment to ongoing corrective updates that they are in the ball park, along with other genetic testing projects, to provide one important criteria to help establish and warrant identity. Before this more recent update, my ethnicity estimates appeared to be well off the mark. But this latest update corresponds better with my known history. Of course, not beyond question, but more likely: My Updates: Eastern Europe & Russia 27% Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland & Lithuania Baltics 22% Southern Italy
18% The Balkans 15% Greece & Albania 9% Northern Italy 7% France 2% 502
Posted by mancinblack on Fri, 18 Dec 2020 13:38 | #
You can follow a link in the article to learn where your surname most occurs in Britain. This is the type of resource that ancestry DNA companies will use when determining their often vexatious ethnicity estimates. 503
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:14 | # For what it’s worth and it would have to be a tiny bit arbitrary, at least in the framing of having a percentage of one ethnic group or another, Ancestry is now saying that I am 3% Germanic Europe (and no Jewish), while giving me nothing of France compared to the last reading.
Post a comment:
Next entry: Obama’s Layers of Grossly Incompetent Deception?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & NewsCommentsThorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:26. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Charles crowned king of anywhere' on Thu, 09 Jan 2025 20:31. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 07 Jan 2025 21:54. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:42. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 18 Dec 2024 01:41. (View) |
Posted by Hanger on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 03:33 | #
If enough White people did this, it would be declared illegal in one fashion or another. Leftists hate freedom of association. Leftists hate freedom of speech. Heck, Leftists hate pretty much everything, especially freedom. Pity they run the world.