|
|
|
Five more years It is five weeks since Hunter Wallace asked a question on our 5th birthday thread that deserves a proper response. It was this:
For one reason or another I let HW’s question slip down the list of things to do at MR. But I’m going to answer it now. It will take only a little time. Let’s start with the admission that it takes someone very special - a lot more gifted than me - to plan and to be entirely consequent. Generally speaking, Man just proposes, you know. And that’s what I did back in the summer of 2004 when, with Phil Peterson as sounding board, I cooked up a blog that would not simply be another guy sounding off about this wicked old world but would model the broad right - radical, hard and traditional - and contain all its ideological tensions. Phil and I did not - could not - know how it would be received, let alone whether any synthesis might emerge. Neither, since it was, anyway, designed for a larger purpose than anything one might achieve through blogging, could we know what direction it would take or how long it would hold together. It had to be free to run its course. As most of us no doubt recall, it did not hold together. The principle reason was that Phil and I had decided to airbrush out the JQ to allow a better chance of success, but the “harder” right would not have that! To be precise my most respected friends wintermute and ben tillman almost immediately drove a big, fast coach and horses straight through it. We were left with the choice, which was no choice at all, of pretending to be Larry’s pals or challenging the “soft wing” to recognise that all those awful and impolitic things WNists say about the JQ have the benefit of being fundamentally true. Some could not deal with that. The lessons that came out of the exercise were almost all about the foundation in the real that one needs in order to address people who have only illusions and have, in consequence, been formed to an unknown degree as personalities by those illusions. Racial awakening, the grail of WN, is difficult-to-impossible with such people - even ones who call themselves traditional conservatives and have written elegantly about the evils of liberalism on this very blog! If I had been told about that in 2004, I would have disbelieved it, considered it too pat, too dogmatic ... hell, too dismissive of the power of self-interest and kinship. But MR had provided a three-year mass of data, on occasions including some stellar blogging, all demonstrating the agonisingly hit-and-miss nature of trying to awaken one’s brother to the terror of his situation. Even when he is standing right beside you. The first phase of MR’s existence, this phase of trial and error (mostly error), came to an end on 8th February 2008 when I published a piece, ostensibly about postmodernism, titled On traction and a farewell to a political friend. The personal renunciation of conservatism with which it finished was a figure for the renunciation of synthesis, and the last words:
... were the first of the second phase of MR’s journey. Returning to HW’s question, then, what journey does that signify? It’s already apparent that it is a more radical journey. The bulk of the news content and nativist-centred political commentary has gone, having been left to blogs whose purpose that is. The accent is on original writing by the most able and informed (not to forget questioning and challenging) writers outside the Regnery circus I can attract. The educational purpose remains. The obligation to provide width remains - we remain happy to publish well-considered, well-written material from entirely different perspectives to the usual MR fayre. But, more significantly, beyond all that the focus of the blog has shifted and is shifting. There is an element in it which treats of distinctions that other nationalist intellectuals do not recognise at all, not even those whose meta-analysis is sophisticated and generally considered at the cutting edge of radical nationalist thought. Over the next few years I intend, with the help of MR’s truly exceptional contributors and commenters and subject to the unpredictable exigencies of internet life to which I referred at the beginning, to drive the blog ever further in that direction - as far, in fact, as it is possible to go, far beyond the reactionaries of the past and the foundationally fascist sentimentalists of the present, towards a new summa. There are some bare outlines that should be visible already for some readers, even if they are still shrouded in mist and uncertainty for most. Let us be certain, at least, that over the next five years MR will transcend the merely radical. We have set ourselves the task of defining Revolutionary Nationalism for the 21st century, this most dangerous and treacherous of the many centuries our people have graced. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:22 | # CC, I don’t mean to imply that OO/TOQ is peopled by clowns and well-trained animals. I do mean to imply disapproval, however. To my eyes, the vision of those running and writing for it is focussed on the near and is philosophically dead. That is why it is repetitive and self-referential, no better example of which exists than O’Meara’s “myth” essay. You might remember he devoted a couple of pieces to defending it without actually addressing the criticisms I had raised. In other words, he couldn’t defend it. These people are erudite, it’s true, and are very well-educated and widely read. But they cannot think. That’s why hollow junk like O’Meara’s wins their prizes, for pity’s sake. Apparently, they just held a secret conference. Does anyone know what they secretly conferred about? 3
Posted by Robert MacDonald on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:35 | # What is the Jewish verbal I.Q. again? http://ezralevant.com/2009/12/vancouver-jewish-book-festival.html 4
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:44 | # There is a certain self-regarding prissiness I sense from the people at TOQ which I don’t think is conducive to the herculean task of saving our race from genetic annihilation. 5
Posted by Red Mercury on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:07 | # Apparently, they just held a secret conference. Does anyone know what they secretly conferred about? I’ve heard much about it, but HW and GJ are in a better position to debrief you. I support the ‘Regnery circus,’ BTW. 6
Posted by Frank on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:17 | #
I never agreed with y’all on this. The myths we have today preceded the shift in power. Self interest is another important motivator, but it isn’t everything. 7
Posted by Frank on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:24 | # Actually, I’ll look back and see what was said… I recall the definition of “myth” being important. I’ll have to look back, so forget my previous comment for now. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:50 | # Frank, What I, anyway, said was that there is Great Myth and there is romanticisation. For example, there is a thread running now at OD on Robert Walker’s interview with Jim Giles, much of which is given over to the repeated observation that the left romanticises its extremists while the right castigates them. Romanticisation is cheap and simple to execute. But it is open to negation and its long-run potential is slight. The creation of Great Myth, on the other hand, is at the very limits of the possible for human intentionality. For the most part Great Myth descends upon a given personage or event post-facto like a golden cloud of consensual thought. It has a permanence and, in the right hands, a political utility that mere romanticisation never can. Nobody can say quite how such myth is brought into being. Just saying “We must mythologise ...”, as O’Meara did, means nothing. If he had said “We must romanticise” ... no problem. Do it. But Michael wanted to lay claim to the whole kaboodle without comprehending (a) what that is, in point of fact, or (b) how to do it. That is why his essay was just hollow assertion, and constitutes an eloquent summary of the perpetually abortive output of white nationalist intellectualism - sans founding philosophy as it is. Dasein, Thank you for explaining, not for the first time, in ten words what takes me an hundred. 9
Posted by jamesUK on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:36 | # @Dasein
&
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/saturday_riddle_classic16/ 10
Posted by PF on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:36 | # Inspiring words, GW.
This latent philosophy of yours is the only thing that interests me anymore, in the realm of politics. It is great when we can presume loyalty and competence enough to go beyond the surface discussion and meta-strategic clashes that seem to cycle endlessly going nowhere, and cut life to reveal some new truth in words which before we had only sensed the existence of. bravo, here’s hoping this vision is realized. *raises glass* 11
Posted by ru41n on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:18 | # There is a certain self-regarding prissiness I sense from the people at TOQ which I don’t think is conducive to the herculean task of saving our race from genetic annihilation. Yea. And they’re long-winded. 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:40 | # PF, is this new philosophy going to replace Christianity? Is that it, or part of it? Whatever’s going on, I certainly join in toasting GW and the others engaged in this undertaking: *raises glass too*. Whatever it takes, just let’s get this job done. I’m glad we’ve got the smartest people on our side, something that’s instantly obvious when you look at the other side’s discussions among themselves. As Trainspotter pointed out a while ago, where brains and arguments are concerned the other side has nothing. They’ve got nothing, zip, nada, zero. I once wandered over to the DailyKos, supposedly the “biggest gun” of the other side’s blogging firepower, and what did I find? It was pitiful. Highschool-level stuff everywhere. A big zero. I was amazed: “This is their biggest gun???? But there’s nothing here!!!” It was so bad it was baffling until I realized what they do is never argue but simply ignore (and when they can’t ignore they demonize). They control the media and have the power to simply ignore us (and demonize us). They have never bested us in fair open argument. Never. 13
Posted by PF on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:18 | # Hi Scroobster!
I dont think the philosophy is going to ‘replace’ Christianity, I don’t know what its social success or future will be. The philosophy is related to the being or essential nature of European peoples. My understanding is that it is a rationalist philosophy, thus allowing for logical debate, which is based on a pre-rational understanding of ourselves as Euros. A philosophy of pragmatism and survival wrapped around a semi-‘mystical’ or semi-esoteric core. This is the best I have been able to understand it, frankly its difficult and often unclear to me too. GW knows what he’s doing though and things will become clearer as time goes on. 14
Posted by Put Down Your Bucket Where You Are on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:26 | # . Unless and until value is placed on efforts made around one’s house, one’s family, and one’s neighborhood, analysis will mislead us into the kind of romanticism that claims the Internet for a battleground. All the theoretical heavy lifting will advance the cause not one bit until local stories of success and failure begin to be told. Let’s face it…analysis and heavy breathing at the keyboard are merely shelters for rest, not activity in the field. May the next five years allocate respect and attention to ultra-local successes and failures in advancing the cause. 15
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:11 | # While reading posts and comments in majorityrights blog and many others in the same vein, the image of a man in glasses looking for his glasses comes frequently to my mind. And I want to scream: People have you ever heard of Dr. William Pierce. Have you listened to his speech “Our Cause”, have you listened to his regular weekly radio broadcasts for the last 10 years of his life before he died in 2002, all of which is readily available on the Internet. Wake up people and stop inventing the wheel. Dr. Pierce laid the foundation for the survival of his people, white people. He explained again and again and again the Alfa and omega of the struggle, he went beyond Hitler, he identified what needs to be done, he identified what can be done now and what needs to wait, he even tried to lay the foundations of a new religion for his people. Please wake up. We already have the strategy and tactics, we have the philosophy of survival of white people, we have our Karl Marx, his name is Dr. William Pierce. Please wake up. What we don’t have is Vladimir Lenin who could implement Dr. Pierce’s vision. We need a revolutionary who thinks 24 hours a day 7 days a week of one thing and only one thing: What needs to be done to wrestle political power from the hands of the International Jew. It can be done. Dr. Mahathir Mohammed knows how to do it, The Honorable Ahmadenijad knows how to do it, Vladimir Putin knows how to do it. Only English speaking world seems has no idea how to do it. If you don’t know how to do it, have at least the wisdom to listen to those who does, put aside your snobbery and arrogance. The enemy is International, let’s defeat our common enemy, after that we can sort out our differences. The only thing that is missing in Dr. Pierce’s philosophy is the simple fact that the enemy is International and the struggle against it MUST be International in nature. Read and reread Henry Ford, the guy knew firsthand what he was talking about. The enemy is International and the struggle against it MUST be International. Just flushing the enemy from one place to another doesn’t work, that’s the main lesson from Hitlerism. The second lesson from Hitlerism is: Don’t go against the family. The enemy is International and the struggle against it MUST be International. 16
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:50 | #
Actually, the point was twofold. It was not a people that moved,but individuals and, secondly, it was not even the stuff that moved individuals.
The motivator is self-interest, however, since the genie was let out of the bottle, there appears to be a definite retreat from that position. God forbid, self-interest might be adaptive even if not directly supporting the greater ethnic good! 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:12 | # Desmond, Thanks for the reminder. I’m not going to go back over all that again. But, yes, as I recall, I made the case that mythicisation has been attempted successfully very few times in the modern age - the most recent and successful being the reification of Adolf Hitler to the status of a demi-god. But while the clamour of trumpets calls and the blazening of banners decorated the image of the Fuhrer, the sacred soil of Germany was imaged in a reserved manner. Love of the land is a quiet feeling. Love of another man’s land, however, doesn’t enter into it, and perhaps that’s why Lebensraum was presented as a personal (future) opportunity. In any case, such choices by an agency with complete, unopposed power to do what it thinks best must count for something - most probably that it knew what and when to mythicise, and did not take the matter lightly. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:25 | #
Ivan, I believe what GW will reply to that is, sort of, “Yes Ivan, but look what became of ‘Lenin’s implementation of Marx’s vision’: 70 years on it was lying in ruins. I don’t want our revolution to look like Bolshevism’s ended up doing 70 years on. I want something far stronger and more permanent. What I’m about is getting at the underlying laws and truths, the basics needed to put this whole thing we’re undertaking on a solid foundation, one more solid and permanent than Marx, than Lenin, and yes more solid and permanent than Pierce.” What makes me think he’ll reply that way is he once replied to me thus, when I scoffed at the need for a new philosophy: “Yes Fred, and when we’re had our revolution and succeeded, and the other side gathers its forces, bides its time till it’s strong again, then counterattacks and topples us again, where will we be but back where we started in all this? I’m looking for something that will take us out of that cycle and place us on a firm footing for a long time to come.” Ivan, if anything I sympathize more with you than GW and the philosophers here. And I don’t have a clue about all this “new philosophy” business. But my impression is that’s something like the way GW will reply to you — if he’s in the replying mood that is (he isn’t always). 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:48 | # What Professor Paul Gottfried wrote about white nationalists:
While I’ve always had and continue to have enormous respect for Prof. Gottfried from all points of view — his vast knowledge and experience of life and his deep erudtion, his <strike>brutal honesty</strike> his genteel, refined honesty, his analytical ability, his fairness and decency, his wisdom — I find much to question in this entire essay. I don’t endorse much of what he says in this essay. But my sense is the very serious criticisms Gottfried levels against white nationalism in this essay are an example of the kind of weaknesses and vulnerability GW perceives in our position and feels must be addressed and rectified. (Myself? I don’t perceive these faults in our position. But obviously some very smart, wise individuals do.) 20
Posted by Armor on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:49 | #
More than a popular mythology, it is a state-enforced policy. And I think egalitarianism doesn’t sound as the right word. The idea is not to bring about equality between whites and non-whites, but to bring lots of non-whites, to replace the whites. 21
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:53 | #
It appears to depend upon who the other man is. George III recognised it, however, maybe that was just self-serving. The wider point is the issue of self-interest must be addressed. JB throws it a cookie. No taxes on labour, production and the homestead. Just vote for me. 22
Posted by Wanderer on Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:50 | #
Gottfried’s politics sound nice, but when we look deeper, we find something disturbing. His politics—that seem on the surface to bear resemblance to ours—actually are not like ours at all. In fact, if you’re like me, you almost come away with the sense that “right-wing” politics are to Gottfried simply the side he wound up with in a rabbinical debating contest, by drawing the short straw when sides were being chosen. Why does he do it? Because winning debates and proving intellectual superiority is an exhilarating sport. ‘Ours’ is simply the side in the debate he has chosen. This is a sport that has been played by his ancestors for millennia. (Skill at argument was always highly valued in Talmudic Judaism).
Gottfried’s proud Sotomayor connection
If you read that article, Gottfried basically brags about this. His son is such a “great wordsmith”, he says, with obvious beaming pride. This is strong corroboration for my thesis above that Gottfried’s political posturing and discourse is a carry-over from the rabbinical debating spirit: The idea is that winning debates and proving adeptness at argument is the key; not building a better future as such, not working for “voelkisch” interests in and of themselves (a concept that he tends to mock - see below). In short, Gottfried uses issues as means to win an argument [the goal]; serious people (like us, I hope) use arguments as a means to get their position on issues to win out in social-discourse [the goal].
If he truly cared at all for American-nationalism, he would *champion* white-protestant revivalism, rather than what he actually does, which is mock “WASPS” and hold them up as an enemy to be derided and to be overcome *on quasi-nationalistic grounds*(!!). He’s done that in his columns again and again, usually somewhat subtly. It’s actually shocking how insidious his line of reasoning is: “The main problem with the USA is its founding stock and majority population.” [Years ago he penned an odious piece, called something along the lines of “America’s National Problem: Protestantism”, in which he argued the same semi-explicitly, i.e. White-Protestants are a problem on quasi-nationalist grounds.]. Gottfried jokes that he “would have been a Stalinist”
Anyone who can make such a flippant statement is not serious about his politics beyond the parlor-game/rabbinical-“Who’s-the-better-wordsmith?” level.
When the mask of his “paleoconservative” bloviationism comes off, he doesn’t seem so dissimilar to those of the Neoconservatives after all, nor to the typical Jewish agitators of any self-proclaimed political ideology. 23
Posted by Frank on Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:56 | # Wanderer, he’s from some Austria group of Jews. There’s more to him than being generically Jewish. I’m not trying to defend him, I don’t like his “blame northern Protestants; downplay Jews” approach; but I think you go too far in saying he’s entirely false. He’s pro-Jewish and pro-white and seems to want Jews to remain among Europeans. More or less: it’s the sane position Jews would take if they had any sense. As I’ve said before, I don’t want to live among Jews. But, I’m not world dictator either… 24
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:12 | # All WN care about is immigration. There seems to be a lot of chatter/fluff commentary about this one issue. If they are so bothered about this then why don’t they just form a lobby group/PAC to petition political groups to make it an election issue? 25
Posted by Ivan on Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:14 | #
Wanderer is making excellent points here. However saying that Gottfried’s goal is to win debates and prove his intellectual superiority amounts to complete misunderstanding what Jew boy Gottfried is all about. His agenda is to emasculate WNism, to render it impotent, and make it barren and irrelevant. The Jew is always on the lookout to detect any movement that is emerging out there, grassroots or otherwise, that could threaten his parasitic wellbeing. Detect it and undermine it. That’s exactly what commenters like Friedrich Braun and his multilevel sidekicks are trying to accomplish at majorityrights. 26
Posted by Ivan on Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:31 | #
Frank, are you a Jew? I’m not assuming one way or another, I’m just asking, are you a Jew. If ‘yes’, I don’t have any more questions for you. If ‘not’, you shall know that you cannot live among Jews on equal terms, they will not accept you as equal unless you are a Jew. Then, obviously, the technically correct statement should be: I don’t want Jews living in my society. 27
Posted by Frank on Sat, 05 Dec 2009 23:35 | #
Which is what I wrote… Reg. whether I’m Jewish, I’ve posted my ancestry here and elsewhere. - This is likely the agenda of closet-Jewish posters here and throughout many WN orgs, but is there evidence linking Gottfried to such?:
My point was solely with regard to Gottfried. He comes across as wanting to defend Jewish interests, but he isn’t anti-white so far as I’ve seen. What is my motive for defending a Jew? I don’t want Jews in my society or in WN orgs, but I don’t see a need to throw false accusations at individual Jews. As another wrote here recently, and it’s not original: Good Jews can have bad Jewish children. Or as Kipling wrote:
28
Posted by danielj on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:18 | # Which is what I wrote… Reg. whether I’m Jewish, I’ve posted my ancestry here and elsewhere. Maybe we should set up use profiles here so we can avoid that whole line of questioning in the future. Then, everybody can have the Scroob’s whole story too without having to bring it up in the comments section. 29
Posted by danielj on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:22 | # user profiles or ‘commenter profiles’ if you prefer. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:56 | #
OK, but my “whole story” would be: “I’m Catholic. And no, I’m not Jewish, any rumors notwithstanding.” Then just to have a little fun with certain types out there, I’d add, “I’m no more Jewish than Sarkozy, Gen. Wesley Clark, or Senator John Kerry.” There, that’s my profile. 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:11 | #
Or comedian Bill Maher, by the way. Everybody thinks he’s Jewish. He’s Catholic. (Irish Catholic dad, Jewish mother — same blend as Jonah Goldberg but with the sexes reversed.) 32
Posted by jamesUK on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:51 | # @Fred Scrooby
Half Jewish, berates religion and supports Israel. 33
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:03 | #
... pushes every degeneracy imaginable, makes fun of 9-11 sceptics, is a big fan of another half Jewish Garry Kasparov - chess king turned political pawn (political whore to be precise) who does everything in his power to undermine Vladimir Putin for a living - and on and on and on. Sounds more like a definition of a Jew to me. 34
Posted by GenoType on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:14 | # FWIW,
Just as some people do not equate cigarette smoking with suicide, others do not equate non-white immigration with genocide. A “deliberate, planned murder” you say? Nobody’s back is to the wall. Miscegenation is voluntary. Besides, racial cuckoldry - white girls breeding with blacks - is a titillating thought! Say otherwise and you’re a racist and prude. Worried about your health? Use condoms and stay clear of the bad areas of town! Seriously, philosophy is needed because white nationalism’s Chicken Little mantra looks and sounds schizophrenic. The problem is today’s philosophy is based upon deductive reasoning. Where inconsistency exists between mathematical projections and empirical observation, observation is shown the door. This is religious behavior. It is Plato in action. The (mathematically) “proven fact” that our universe was created through a Big Bang is philosophically consistent with Creation and Equality. These are but competing candies taken from one box of chocolates, however. We should choose something other than chocolate, but that is where the difficulty lies. White nationalism’s religious nuts and classist Geppettos - foundational conservatives all - will not promote the search, much less put forth the effort. Therefore, we are stuck with Chicken Little mantras and marginalization. Ah well, it all makes for a fascinating read! 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:51 | #
I must be a racist and prude then. (Is this one of those personality questionnaires that tell you what you’re like?) 36
Posted by GenoType on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:58 | #
No, it’s the response you receive when discussing the problem at the water cooler. You might ask, “So what if I am (a racist and prude)?” but the end result finds you walking away grumpy while they snicker and murmur “jackass” toward your retreating back. Onlookers on the scene don’t want to be perceived as jackasses, so they actively (or passively) go along with your antagonists. So you learn to keep your mouth shut and later, retreat to this little sector of the Internet to vent frustration and “enjoy a good read!” Philosophy is required, partly, because nobody’s back is to the wall and we’ve very little to offer except to shout that “the sky is falling!” 37
Posted by Gudmund Haraldsen on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:12 | #
You might then say that the real work is to be done in the future when peoples’ backs are to the wall, not left to bourgeois weenies like us. And you might not be wrong to say so. There is no truly revolutionary element in this “WN” business, it is as “uh” said a support group for pissed-off, dispossessed white men (and of course an outlet for some to gain easy money). 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:27 | # Anyone who is defeatist about this, which “Uh” is, isn’t committed to it. “Uh” isn’t committed to it. Uh’s attitude toward the whole thing, whether or not he’s conscious of this, is he can take it or leave it. The white race? The Ancient Nations and Peoples of Europe? Western Civilization? Easy come, easy go. He’s here to strut his verbosity or something — he’s here to show off how much he knows or something. The problem is he doesn’t know anything. I’m not impressed with the “Uhs” of this world. I’m not impressed with the show-offs. They’re zeroes or close to it. They might as well be on the other side. This Uh character thinks he knows a lot. He knows zip. And he’s good for zip. 39
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:49 | #
Assessment is always the first step to solving a problem. Recognizing and publicly stating the problem/s is no more defeatist than online cheerleading for a failed strategy and a movement which lack of philosophy proves commitment. One of the problems seriously effecting the growth of this non-movement is the type of people who are presently attracted and committed to it.
There is real work to be done now. The problem is, it’s not being done except in a few obscure cases. But hey, all the above is only my opinion to be taken “FWIW” (which is not much around here). 40
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:12 | #
Uh is not the only person doing this at MR.
Pot-Kettle-Black. The only people which might be fooled by this statement is the occasional surfer, assuming others beside the FBI are reading this blog. Shall I list the show-offs…the zeroes on this website? There’s plenty of documentation, plenty of material to quote. I could begin with myself, for example. I am, according to you, “a poseur and a zero.” Now, shall I continue? I really don’t want to. The site - its personalities - is not worth it. 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:45 | # For a site that’s “not worth it” it’s sure got you spending a lot of time at it. Whatsamatter, can’t find anyplace better? 42
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:39 | #
Not even close to the time spent here by certain well known others, Fred - yourself included. I’m here for three reasons: 1. I sympathize with much of what GW is trying to accomplish. I think, however, that he’s easily impressed with pensioned/unemployed intellectual posers with superb writing skills having too much time on their hands and that this tends to sabotage his efforts.
Nope. I prefer flushing to shoveling sewage. Now, we can return to discussing GW’s philosophical pursuits or pursue your hypocrisy. It’s your choice, old buddy. 43
Posted by uh on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:43 | # You’re right. I’m not committed to group therapy on the internet. And I know very little. 45
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:33 | # “Von hier gibt es kein Entkommen.” But “here” for me is not “here” for you. “Here” for you is the planet Egocentric in the Solipsism galaxy. From there there is no escape, that’s right. You’re stuck there. 46
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:40 | #
Altruism.
47
Posted by danielj on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:01 | # There is no truly revolutionary element in this “WN” business, it is as “uh” said a support group for pissed-off, dispossessed white men (and of course an outlet for some to gain easy money). I’m not pissed off or dispossessed. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:55 | #
Well OK but at least you’re gaining all that easy money from it, Daniel — so it’s not a total loss for you. 49
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:58 | # A little more of that “easy money” and you can retire early and be in that other favorite category of GT’s, the “pensioned/unemployed intellectual posers with superb writing skills.” So keep plugging away like the rest of us, Dan — you, like we, will get there. 50
Posted by Q on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:21 | #
Speaking of money, please find time to make a donation to a worthy cause. 51
Posted by uh on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:14 | # But “here” for me is not “here” for you. Pretty sure we live in the same country and epoch, buddyboy. Just sayin’ ..... things aren’t going (y)our way from the world-system perspective. Retreating into relativism after setting up a straw man solipsist is beneath your intelligence. 52
Posted by danielj on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:56 | # Well OK but at least you’re gaining all that easy money from it, Daniel — so it’s not a total loss for you. I wish it were easy money. 53
Posted by GenoType on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:45 | #
Well, of course our brave Chicken Little has the purest motive! Don’t believe it? Ask him! Or any schizophrenic, for that matter. Interested in GW’s philosophical pursuits, Desmond, or is your butt hurt too? 54
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:13 | # What’s the matter GT? Don’t like it when you’re the entertainment? Post a comment:
Next entry: The Roodt interview.
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:59 | #
GW, do you consider the Occidental Quarterly to be part of the “Regnery circus?” What makes those individuals and endeavored sponsored by Regnery circus-like in your opinion?