Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:48 | #

I think what CPI is doing is excellent. Hats off!

I also agree with the criticisms. This is merely laying the foundation for the larger struggle to remove unassimilable race-alien elements from Italy/Europe, which is the only way to ensure Europe’s survival in perpetuity. But going from here to there is a huge leap, psychologically as well as politically, and so, yes, culturalists offer an attractive mid-point ‘space’ for the necessary ideological and sociological development.

It is amazing to contemplate that we have nothing comparable here in America, despite our much greater size (actually, that’s not true: the Jews have precisely this type of ethno-infrastructure, from Jewish Community Centers for the young, to retirement communities for the old, and all manner of communal organizations, pressure groups, and, of course, synagogues, in between). We Middle Americans need to create this type of organization (or series of regional organizations). I think we could do it, too - esp as the notion of “American” continues to be racially diluted. The rise of white American consciousness will be inevitable in response to our continuing and intensifying minoritization. But the longer we delay, the lower our chances of ever stopping the invasion - yet another reason why Holocaust revisionism and similar activities are just so unproductive.

I disagree with the lack of political focus, however, and precisely for this immigration reason. One cannot cede politics to traitors. I harp on immigration because everything else in terms of ethnonationalist and culturalist reclamation is for nought if the class with actual police power behind it can simply dissolve the real nation through allowance of waves of alien colonization. Why do nationalists not address this issue? What is the point of activity on the local level if your population is being replaced?

First, stop nonwhite immigration. Then begin the long process of re-inculcating national consciousness (at the very least, these struggles should be concurrent).

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:54 | #

I would question the necessity and even the utility of racialising the discourse in a specifically national environment like the Italian, or any other specifically European context for that matter. It strikes me that a cultural focus which is expressly moulded to have minimal appeal for intruders should be adequate for its own purposes and need not be explicitly racially coded.

MR might usefully be reconfigured to have provide such a ‘cultural pathway’ as one of its key ‘deliverables’ but that will necessitate a clearer geographical focus and an acceptance that the awkward ecumenicalism which currently characterises it will have to be jettisoned.

Posted by uh on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:11 | #

Good to see affairs returning to normal. I hope that indefatigable creep has departed forever.

Emily, Helvena, now I can take you on that triple date we talked about in private. I hope you like pasta, my lovelies. ‘Cause that’s all this Jew can afford his Nordic harem. Now, go change your panties.

On to business.

You misunderstand this movement, Guessedworker. Let me explain.

It isn’t “Culturism”. No one, not even Iannone himself, was sitting around one day and decided to promote culture over race. The reason is simple:

This is how implicit whiteness looks in Italy.

CasaPound grew around his band Zetazeroalfa and a certain pub in their quarter of Rome where he, his mates and fans would congregate after shows to get smashed and go fuck with the local antifa. I forget when he acquired the Casa itself.

In other words this is entirely grassroots in the most natural way — unplanned, a spontaneous growth from the soil of race. That isn’t to discount Iannone’s obvious genius for organization and promotion. The avoidance of race (and other inclusive culturist rhetoric; check the CasaPound website) is of course a tactical move, but it’s as much a result of implicit Italian attitudes that also prevented Mussolini from immediately and wholeheartedly accepting the National Socialists’ racialism.

The reason for this is exceedingly simple. Wandrin will have anticipated me, ‘cause we’re reading the same shit. These people are more alike genetically. They don’t need to sit on the internet all day debating who they are and what to do. The CasaPound project did not come from the internet, from a dialectical struggle between idlers who favor “culturism” or “racialism”, it came from real Italians in already in the street who have watched Arabs, Africans and Chinese flood their urban neighborhoods. (The ‘hood where CP is found is actually majority Chinese.)

Again and again I must insist that you acquaint yourself with the blogger hbdchick, whose series on European inbreeding, with focus on Italian genetics, provides us a gene-level look at what’s keeping us back and, at least in some nations, pushing us on. A few links:

http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/were-doomed/
http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/behind-the-hajnal-line/
http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/la-famiglia/
http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/inbreeding-in-italy/

Calling it “culturalist” misses the rooted significance of the movement. It is as explicit as a group of Italians can be without coming off like the very imitative “wogs”, covetous like the black-haired Jewboys of yore for fair and unsuspecting Nordic princesses of absolutely pristine virtue, routinely castigated by Anglophones and Germans.

It has no spine of its own.  It has to reach out.  It has to look and sound like its constituency.

This misses the point entirely. Moreover, I dare you to go down there and tell them their movement has no spine. I know what you mean of course — it lacks political legitimacy. But the Italian state has little legitimacy anyway.

In reality they are their own constituency. The amount of support they enjoy in Lazio and the northern provinces, even in Sicilia, is not such that can be ignored. Italian politics is not English or American politics. It’s rather a matter of mobilizing the most impressive showing of angry youth with a dozen cultural figures of the right for media legitimacy. The very thing that keeps Italy corrupt — nepotism, clannishness, historical inbreeding coefficient, all symbolized in the word “mafia” — is the thing that makes “culturism” an irrelevant term to describe this movement.

Therefore, those who make their contribution through it must guard assiduously against accommodationism and the resultant loss of racial focus.

And here is why. There is no ‘accommodationism’ among these Italians, because there is virtually no miscegenation with the invaders. The women in this scene aren’t burdened with half-castes who force the circle of concern to widen. That’s the virtue of the Mediterraneans, you see. They aren’t Guessedworkers, but they don’t mix with other races. There is not the same culture of openness as in our society, for the reason stated. More inbred, less trust, no tolerance of non-whites in their ghettos.

In a massively propagandised macro-environment like ours, Culturism only makes sense if there is a separate but complimentary effort to redefine - and racialise - the terms of debate.  Then it has something to feed off, something to propagandise in return.

Correspondingly, ‘racialising’ their program would gain them exactly ten adherents, each of them probably on Stormfront yammering instead of in the real world socializing with their peers. It isn’t how you appeal to Italians because it is not an historically “multiracial” society on the black-white-Asian model, so they don’t think in those terms despite having “Little Africa” up in Lombardy, gypsies, Albanians and so on filling their abandoned country towns, etc.

So implicit whiteness is a handicap and a benefit: at least they’re out acting in concert as Italians, an unmistakable ethnic divide which cannot be crossed by any other resident race as there is very little miscegenation, and not on the internet ‘theorizing’ as we have had to do for so many decades.

The difference is in the blood. Individualists exist on the internet and call each other Jews. These Italians, urban and more naturally collectivist (see “amoral familism” in The Moral Basis of a Backward Society), are in the streets acting as Italians for Italy. Imitating the “race debate” would be useless as it would simply exhaust other Italians, and what’s more, it’s entirely the wrong perspective to imagine they can win support beyond their ranks — just as it is to imagine Anglo nationalism can do. “White gullibility is genetic”, as Linder said recently.

Supporting the Karen tribe, while laudable, is basically a diversion to score points with people. They think it has memetic value, as if to say, “We support this little ethnic group because they are under threat by a larger state mono-culture, which is how we view ourselves as whites/Europeans.” I’ve tried the same tactic myself; I tell people helping Africans is fine, give them more food so they have more children to starve, but what about the white Tajiks of Xinjiang in China? Blah blah blah.

Interestingly, the inbreeding coefficients of the southern nations seems to correlate to an extent with the limits of their rhetoric — here’s a photo of a French counterpart of CP called Solidarité-Identités. You will see they are a “non-profit organization” and “0% Raciste — 100% Identité”.

Now that’s something you’d never see from CasaPound. Iannone will say so in an interview, but he and his people would never pose for a goofy photo like that declaring their innocence. CasaPound is too sexy for that.

This is merely laying the foundation for the larger struggle to remove unassimilable race-alien elements from Italy/Europe, which is the only way to ensure Europe’s survival in perpetuity.

There is no grand plan because no grand solution is possible there either. They’re just random urban eaters coming to the best modus vivendi they can in the circumstances given. The problem here is not that what they are doing is shallow, but that we as Anglos, by race or culture, force upon this corrupt nation a template of national revival which is simply impossible for a low-trust society like Italy. This is the best they can do, and at the street level, it’s a lot better in some ways than our isolated lives behind computers calling each other Jews or whatever. Similarly, the Union is failing precisely because the northern states imagined the southerners would make stable partners, because race is irrelevant, as we know.

Posted by uh on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:12 | #

I would question the necessity and even the utility of racialising the discourse in a specifically national environment like the Italian, or any other specifically European context for that matter. It strikes me that a cultural focus which is expressly moulded to have minimal appeal for intruders should be adequate for its own purposes and need not be explicitly racially coded.

Well, clearly I need to learn to think and write like Dan Dare, LOL, who just summarized everything I said in three lines.

Posted by uh on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:22 | #

These comments from the Alt-Right thread are amusing — my own stance is mirrored quite exactly in those of Roman Bernard:

caleo

” These Mussolinians are not serious. ” You need to do some more homework, because they seem very serious to me. They have an all encompassing program of cultural infiltration through sport, education and politics. They engage with people and communities on many different levels, and that takes a lot of effort and focus on a national level involving thousands of people.
What is your program and how is it being implemented in the real world ?

Roman Bernard

Their vitality is laudable, no question about that. But their global vision is completely wrong. Their goal is to (re-)integrate ethnic Italians to the State so as to change its politics, when a true patriot would advise his fellow countrymen to avoid the State and weaken the men that rule it: politicians, bureaucrats, central bankers. What they do is legitimizing a corrupt political system. You don’t have to be a soothsayer to think it will never work.

I don’t have a “program”, because I think problems begin when one wants to impose a program on a living society. What I preconize is obviously harder to say, but much more realistic. Living in the countryside, never working for the State, buying local food, homeschooling your children seems to me more efficient than living in overcrowded cities (like Rome) and hoping that a system which only goal is to destroy your people will miraculously reverse its politics just because you “occupy” the streets. Sorry, but I don’t buy it.

caleo

In other words, you have no program other than running away to the woods while heaping contempt and ridicule on those who are actively trying to better their societies from a rightist perspective.
And just because you don’t want to implement a program doesn’t mean others won’t, but it does mean you will be at the mercy of those who organize others and implement their program while you sit in the woods eating locally grown produce.
In fact, in the West, we are living in societies where millions are sitting by and watching as their nations are being turned into multicultural sinkholes.
At least CasaPound are trying to do something about it.

Roman Bernard

Not running away : rebuilding something else. Every Western nation-state is rotten to the core. Westerners will have to rebuild new states if they want to survive. Italian fascists are trying to save the corpse. Too late, amici.

Posted by Ivan on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:17 | #

May I remind you folks the prediction I made just a few days ago:

Don’t worry about uh leaving MR, folks. This leech has “left” MR many times in the past. He is weak, he has no will power, he is a coward - in a word, he is a Jew. The Jews have this unique trait - they have to have the last word in the dispute. They can’t help it. Haller can’t help it, Dr Lister can’t help it, uh can’t help it. He’ll be back giving me the pleasure of driving this asshole’s Hebrew hysteria to the boiling point.

He is weak, he has no will power, he is a coward - in a word, he is a Jew.

That’s the power of Ivan’s impeccable logical thinking

Posted by J Richards on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:32 | #

Ivan @6

Indeed, these Jews are predictable.  Don’t forget what brought Uh back from supposed exile each time: the heat on Talmudism, then the heat on Renner (a blogger and administrator) when he again served Jewish interests, and then the possibility of making me leave the website.

I was going to predict that Haller will soon start promoting the Austrian School, and he beat me to it when he promoted the gold standard as sound money:  http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//bowery_goes_stark_ii_the_starkness_continues#c122927 [I told GW that Haller beat me to it; it made no difference to Haller… scroll down for more promotion of the Austrian School]

I’m sorry to disappoint Uh that the “indefatigable creep” hasn’t departed forever but will be working elsewhere while posting a few things at MR to minimize naive people from being mislead by Uh’s tribe, perhaps even having a little fun in the process.

Posted by anon on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:52 | #

Agree with uh on this. Indigenous Southern and Eastern Euros don’t have the same problem NW Euros have, they’re still endogamensch and their primary problem is US hegemony. If that was removed they’d have a fighting chance.

At best, Culturism is utilitarian.  It is not a revolutionary programme

I think it is for them because their sense of “us” is still strong enough felt so they don’t need much to unify around group identity. It’s the exogamensch who need a unifying idealogy - or at least the death of the current anti-unifying one. For us a culturalist organisation might not be enough in itself - although it would provide a good way to spread a unifying idealogy if we had one.

Regardless of whether that’s true or not, Casapound sounds like a good model of the kind of organisation that would appeal to people who want to do more and think less which is useful in itself.

 

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:09 | #

Indigenous Southern and Eastern Euros don’t have the same problem NW Euros have

Then why the intermarriage when the migrate from their homeland? How do we explain Mussolini’s Manifesto della Razza aimed at ending miscegenation in Ethiopia after its conquest? When men migrate, whether it’s the British in India, the Italians in Ethiopia or the Portuguese in South America, without women, there will always be miscegenation regardless of whether they are inbred in the homeland or not. How then can it be genetically based? Ethnic nepotism does not exist in nature. It is biopolitics and thus Guessedworker’s point is well made.

Posted by anon on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:33 | #

Desmond Jones

I don’t understand how your point relates to mine. My point is that i think southern and eastern euros (in europe) are still more endogamous than exogamous and therefore would have a natural and instinctive terriotorial reaction to invasion if US hegemony was removed. They’d need an organisation to physically implement the reaction but no special idealogy because they are still ethnically cohesive enough.

By contrast i think nw euros became exogamous to the point where natural ethnic ties have broken down too much and require either a unifying idealogy to reinforce the ethnic ties or at least the destruction of the current anti-unifying idealogy as a minimum.

Personally i think destroying the current idealogy contains within itself the seed of the transition from sucky exogamensch to awesome Auftragstaktikmensch so i don’t worry about the second part - although i could be wrong so not against people trying.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:35 | #

@uh

I don’t know Italy (a country I kinda of recently fell ‘in-love’ with) as well as some other European nations but yes I picked up on their implicit collective organic communitarianism, and the idea that an African can truly be an Italian is unthinkable to most normal Italians.

Funnily enough, in a different context the idea that Muslims from Pakistan etc., can be Danes generally goes down like a bucket of cold sick. Despite the shows of moral vanity so common to the Scandinavian’s underneath that, in many of them, is a real nationalistic and collective pride in being ‘the best little country in the world’ even if it is expressed in a quiet way. Not all people can be quite as exuberantly expressive as the typical American.

@Dan

Yes elegant turn of phrase - sums up a lot of my thoughts too. Make the psychological ‘costs’ to listening/support on the audience as low as possible, not as high as possible. Politics 101. Broaden support rather than have a deep but incredibly narrow one. But in classic sub-culture style I think many WN types love being marginal antinomians for very unhelpful psychological reasons…cough cough…the tin-foil hat tendency.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:58 | #

“uh” is back! (that was quick) Great comment @3. Culturalism works better among more organic, inward focused peoples; racialist ideology particularly appropriate for rootless Anglo-Saxons or their cultural descendants (I’m also with anon @8,10 on this).

I have to ask, however: isn’t this just a rehash of the ethnonationalist v. WN debates? I used to have those with Thomas Fleming at Chronicles, until the web-cowards banned me. Fleming was always referring in so many words to what Lister calls the ‘inorganic’ nature of WN. I agree with that criticism. In Europe, with its ‘deep’ histories and ‘thick’ cultures, of course all that should be needed is a discourse of basic national patriotism, provided it is understood to be a blood patriotism. Non-English (perhaps in practice, merely non-whites) Out!

In still somewhat ‘new’ white nations like the USA, ethnonationalism is WN. Anything else would be a civic nationalism that does not really defend the true (white) American nation.

The problem with this analysis is that Europe is becoming progressively less ethnoculturally distinctive, and not only under a tsunami of alien colonists. There are many homogenizing forces: the EU, the euro, cross-border commerce, military coordination, intra-European migration and tourism, media and entertainment, cross-border education, and common indoctrination into cosmopolitanism and anti-racism. I’m not sure exactly how this all fits together, but I think fewer and fewer Europeans wish to ‘hide’ from others, or re-parochialize themselves. Renewal of historic cultures and traditions is always admirable (certainly to this conservative), at least if those traditions are charming and inherently valuable (as, say, Aztec human sacrifice is not). But I suspect that the root of the attraction that a minority of contemporary Europeans feels towards nationalism is not love of fatherland and ancient folkways, but something far more prosaic: fear and dislike of the non-European demographic invasions, and apprehension at what the non-whitening of Europe portends for the future.

Ultimately, even if it is easier, psychologically as well as morally (and of course legally), to operate on the culturalist level, the racial problem will have to be faced. No matter how inward and endogamous the Italians may be (and I don’t know enough about that issue to hazard an opinion), there can be no nationalist abjuration of politics as long as your nation-state is ruled by traitors actively race-replacing. How long can some little indigenous neighborhood in Naples survive if, no matter how admirably developed and thick its communal ties and collective sense of self may be, it is surrounded by a sea of swaggering and covetous Maghrebis, in a nation electorally ruled by Mohammedans (perhaps in league with domestic sell-outs and secular as well as nominally Christian utopian anti-racists; ie, leftists)?

A book could be written plausibly arguing that the dominant theme in the history of the white race over the past half-century has been avoidance of facing the race problem, which at bottom is very simple: racial integration with nonwhites generally lowers the quality of life for whites. Diversity sucks (for most whites, most of the time - but especially for the kind of whites attracted to nationalism). I’m big on the past, historical ‘memory’, etc, but most people aren’t. Even romantic nationalist or reactionary movements are really as much about the present as honoring tradition.

But the white man is going to have to face Race before his end. Denounce the Zionists, start your white scout troops or soccer teams, protest the McDonald’s coming to desecrate your local palate. But don’t be fooled. The real problem is still the color-line: that whites are distinctive and superior, and that racial integration means the end of what is most dear to us.

I admire this Casapound. But they are transcendently useful only to the extent that they are playing the John the Baptist role, preparing the ground for the racial nationalist movement that is Italy’s (and all white nations’) only hope for final survival.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:06 | #

@Leon

Too busy to comment fully but yes:

“But I suspect that the root of the attraction that a minority of contemporary Europeans feels towards nationalism is not love of fatherland and ancient folkways, but something far more prosaic: fear and dislike of the non-European demographic invasions, and apprehension at what the non-whitening of Europe portends for the future.”

I am concerned as to where all this ends - gated communities for the very wealthy and a Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’ for everyone on the outside in a wonderfully diverse ‘community’.

For example, the UN tells us that London is most diverse city in the world - yes it feels like a foreign place whenever I have to visit it for meetings, seminars etc., In part that is why I support the break up of the UK - as much as I love our common history and culture, at least Scotland is 95%+ Euro and it would perhaps shake up the cultural politics of England, such that who and what Englishness is about creates a space for some radical rethinking. ‘Little England’ is not such a bad idea. Being ‘British’ is an easy option for the non-Euros (the awful Yasmin Alibhai-Brown creature springs to mind).

And the wider historical forces you invoke are very real and very big - it requires serious thought to get a grip on how all this stuff ‘hangs together’.

Perhaps we have started in a very small way that task already in allowing a ‘breathing zone’ for serious non-bullshit thought at MR.

Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:49 | #

Uh:

This is how implicit whiteness looks in Italy.

“This is how explicit Italian-ness looks in Italy.” FTFY

Tell me, would your preservationist desires be satisfied if 20 million Celts, Gauls, and Slavs were to pour over the Alps and take up residence? Ethnic displacement becomes perfectly palatable when performed by other continentals?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:57 | #

Randy,

Our objective is for our people always to remain what we are.  Colonisation by any genetically different group is a negation of that.  In America, what we are is European.  In Europe what we are is Italian, German, Irish, etc.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:39 | #

GW - That argument has to be somewhat tempered by the realisation that Western Europeans are actually quite remarkably homogeneous genetically. The principal difference between Englishmen and Germans is, on the whole, cultural rather genetic, and even then principally linguistic.

As for the remarks about Celts, Gauls and Slavs pouring over the Alps into Italy, well, they already did. I don’t share the concern about intra-European ‘colonisation’ as long as it remains on a relatively small scale, as was it was prior to the Balkan civil war and the extension of the EU eastwards in 2004. One of the key benefits of EU is that the effects of such one-time migration surges tend to be smoothed out in the longer term.

It is Afro-Asian intrusion that is the key issue not intra-European movements.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:46 | #

I take the view, Dan, that any colonisation is a negative.  I would not welcome change of any sort.  A million Poles in England are not welcome to me.  They have their own place on earth.  This is ours.  We must remain who we are so that we live, and globalisation, Jewry, anti-racism does not have its way.

Posted by uh on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:08 | #

killer quote at sailer —

Anonymous said…
Though the Left claims to be anti-blood-tribalist, the fact that they promote interracism means that they do believe that blood-tribalism is a powerful/permanent force of human nature.
Blood-tribalism could mean being related by family connections(kinship)or being of the same race/ethnicity.

If ideology were enough, there would no great need to promote interracism. After all, white people, black people, brown people, yellow people, etc could all be taught ‘we are all part of the human race’ and live together as one. But this is often not the case. Races still remain apart socially even if they share the same official ideology. So, the only permanent way to create ‘one human race’ is to promote an interracist mixed-blood-tribalism. If all the bloods are mixed, everyone belongs to the mixed-blood-tribe, like so many in Brazil.

So, the contradiction of interracism is that it’s officially anti-tribalist but adheres to the tribalist emphasis on blood by trying to create a new kind of mixed-blood at the core of the new super-tribe called the ‘human race’.

Leftists look at Soviet Communism and believe it failed cuz it didn’t sufficiently mix the blood of all the peoples. Instead, most ethnicities remained separate and were united only by ideology. Ideology weakend and the communist empire cracked apart.

The Left now believes that ideology need to be grounded in biology.

Of course, it’s not so easy. If tribalism is natural, many people will naturally resist interracism. But once it happens, the mixed-race people will be part of new expanding blood-tribe. Even giants started small.

A white leftist might switch his ideology and become a white right. But a mixed-race person who’s half-white/half-black can never turn to the white right. His mixed-blood is his ideology. So, the new Left is for biodeology. Ironically, this is made possible not by communism but by globalist capitalism which breaks down all barriers, promotes massive immigration, and spreads pop culture which makes women go pant-pant for big black guys.

Posted by uh on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:14 | #

perhaps even having a little fun in the process. — Bot

Let’s just hope he means with a woman for a change!

Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:18 | #

@uh

Interesting - I agree with global capitalism/neo-liberalism potentially creating its own ‘New Man’ - GW has some of my thought on the topic but they haven’t seen the light of day yet (hint hint…GW).

Think along the lines of the witches brew of free-market consumerism, bio-techology and global ‘culture’.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:31 | #

In part that is why I support the break up of the UK - as much as I love our common history and culture, at least Scotland is 95%+ Euro and it would perhaps shake up the cultural politics of England, such that who and what Englishness is about creates a space for some radical rethinking. ‘Little England’ is not such a bad idea. Being ‘British’ is an easy option for the non-Euros (the awful Yasmin Alibhai-Brown creature springs to mind). (Lister)

Even before I discovered MR, I instinctively supported UK devolution and breakup. I recall a BNP fellow with whom I had dinner back in the 90s informing me that his preferred solution to the then still serious problem of Northern Ireland was to allow for ‘Ulster’ independence. I agreed, mainly because I have always been a “Europe of the fatherlands” supporter, believing its intraracial diversity to have genuine worth, and therefore opposed to Hitlerian racial nationalist single-rule and the cultural homogenization that likely would follow.

[I emphasize for Europe; in the US, while I am sympathetic to states’ rights and regionalist pride, I’ve always felt that all whites are basically in the same existential place and political position, and would only maintain ourselves and our society by muting intramural differences, not exaggerating them. In part this is because we obviously live under an historically common government, made stronger and more consolidated as a result of the Civil War. Also, with the genuine exception of the South (at least historically; differences with the rest of the US have diminished there over time, too), white American regions just don’t rise to the same level of ethnonational uniqueness as the historic European nations.]

In the decade and a half since that dinner conversation, that instinctive view of mine on the UK has been, as I’ve stated here previously, immeasurably increased as a function of the treasonous Blair-Brown regime’s deliberately horrible immigration policies, as well as my having become more aware of the strange, regional electoral differences in the UK, and their practical political effects, whereby Labour, which apparently supports rabid race-replacement, is made competitive in England largely because of votes it receives outside of it - and yet poor England seems to be the ‘province’ (not sure what UK constituent regions are called) suffering the most ‘on the ground’. With Scotland and Wales still, for whatever reasons, overwhelmingly populated by the indigenous, it seems obvious that a UK breakup could only strengthen the hand of English opponents of RR, without necessarily resulting in any substantial increase in immigration to Scotland, Wales or Ulster (and if Labour governments in those provinces did go on an immigration ‘bender’, they might well provoke salutary conservative/nationalist backlashes, as peoples less conditioned to ‘diversity’ suddenly get an awful taste of it).

And of course, as you say, without the UK, the non-indigenous could no longer hide behind some fictitious “Black British” identity. I’m certain we would start hearing a lot of rot about “Black Englishmen”, “English Islam”, “were the Tudors part Turkish?”, and so forth, but the purchase of such propaganda on the man in the pub could only be less than its equivalents today.

Posted by FB on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:31 | #

“don’t share the concern about intra-European ‘colonisation’ as long as it remains on a relatively small scale, as was it was prior to the Balkan civil war and the extension of the EU eastwards in 2004.”

Frank Salter shows how migration of Danes to England negatively affects the EGI of the English. Poles are even more genetically distinct. Of course, the settlement of Afro-Asiatics can only be considered a form of biological mass murder.

Posted by uh on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:54 | #

Tell me, would your preservationist desires be satisfied if 20 million Celts, Gauls, and Slavs were to pour over the Alps and take up residence? Ethnic displacement becomes perfectly palatable when performed by other continentals?

This is cheap Guardian-level wordplay. The Anglo-Saxons and Normans were invaders too, so without “open borders” England wouldn’t be what it is, etc.

Kaffir coke-wallahs and murders, coolie stoop labor and gypsy parasites are not European and not good for Europeans. The end.

The first time I went to Italy, I found myself at a McDonald’s in Milan being asked by a huge smelly homeless Senegalese if I wanted to buy drugs. Seven feet away were some Italian children playing. I don’t know what you want from us or expect Europeans to do.

But I know this: NOT. MY. PEOPLE.

For you it’s a little different. To quote the Anonymous again:

A white leftist might switch his ideology and become a white right. But a mixed-race person who’s half-white/half-black can never turn to the white right. His mixed-blood is his ideology. So, the new Left is for biodeology. Ironically, this is made possible not by communism but by globalist capitalism which breaks down all barriers, promotes massive immigration, and spreads pop culture which makes women go pant-pant for big black guys.

Ultimately you have anticipated the mixed-blood ideology of your children. I say this without rancor now. You have built a bridge away from your kind, crossed it, and look back at us with baited nonsense about how wonderful it is on the other side.

But all that awaits us is more displacement.

Posted by uh on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:08 | #

Interesting - I agree with global capitalism/neo-liberalism potentially creating its own ‘New Man’ - GW has some of my thought on the topic but they haven’t seen the light of day yet (hint hint…GW).

Well, England excepted, exogamy still occurs less than endogamy — I believe there are more ‘Hapas’ in the US than mulattoes. But this operates concentrically through the bane of proximity and the obligation to be civil, so your neighbor or your niece has a half-caste child, so you make that exception, and the person you’re speaking to makes an exception, etc. Silver made a great comment about this last year or sometime. So even if the overall numbers are low, proximity will force a widening of the circle of concern well beyond them, which results in a ‘bastardized’ consciousness incapable of drawing the line between itself and the other. Or has resulted, I should say, as this is the normal viewpoint today. Whites have further alienated themselves by taking up the exogamensch mentality. The self/non-self distinction has been broken. In a communal setting with traditional controls, a bastard would always be sneered at and excluded as a bastard. In this society, the entire community is expected to conform to the bastard so as to avoid ‘offense’. That is the very model of political correctness in fact.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:08 | #

Frank Salter shows how migration of Danes to England negatively affects the EGI of the English.

With respect, Friedrich, Salter really showed how little impact Danish migration had upon the English, relatively, because of the close genetic relatedness. However, as Ted Sallis eloquently points out, it’s not about that. It’s prescriptive. It’s about rationally deciding, to make what Salter points out mathematically, an adaptive decision.

Sallis:

When it comes to immigration policy, we are not talking about making a choice between your uncle Joe immigrating or some random co-ethnic. We are instead asking whether (large) numbers of genetically distant peoples should be allowed to migrate to your territory; we are making a choice of whether the future demography of your nation will consist of co-ethnics or aliens.

But again, it is a rational decision and not an evolved tendency whether a population is inbred or outbred.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/12/ted-sallis-ethnic-nepotism-a-prescription-for-fitness/

Posted by Randy Garver on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:51 | #

Uh:

The first time I went to Italy, I found myself at a McDonald’s in Milan being asked by a huge smelly homeless Senegalese if I wanted to buy drugs. Seven feet away were some Italian children playing. I don’t know what you want from us or expect Europeans to do.

But I know this: NOT. MY. PEOPLE.

Forgive the question if it’s too personal, but are you Italian? If so, then those children are not “your people” either. Certainly they’re closer related than the Senegalese, but this pan-European sentimentality whiffs of Marxist cultural and ethnic obliterationism.

McDonalds in Milan? Holy hell.

 

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:18 | #

@Randy

Sorry to inform you we have shit like McDonald’s and Burger King in every damn town and city in Europe including France, Italy etc.,

We don’t even have any Long John Silvers which at least has the virtue of being the place where Wayne Coyne, leader of the ever yummy “The Flaming Lips”, worked for a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSD9WOh7QZ4&

Do you realize - that everyone you know someday will die?
And instead of saying all of your goodbyes - let them know
You realize that life goes fast
It’s hard to make the good things last
You realize the sun doesn’t go down
It’s just an illusion caused by the world spinning round…

Obviously not quite as good as “Screwdriver” or whatever…

Posted by uh on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:02 | #

Forgive the question if it’s too personal, but are you Italian?

Less than half.

If so, then those children are not “your people” either.

Sure. I don’t even resemble most Italians. More at home in France, Switzerland or parts of Britain. All the same: one must force an identity where culture and breeding have failed. That means always keeping in mind that a kaffir and a coolie are more unlike one than any European. It’s this smaller, salubrious untruth against the larger more destructive one of equality / equivalence. No more indulgence of leftist relativism for me.

Certainly they’re closer related than the Senegalese, but this pan-European sentimentality whiffs of Marxist cultural and ethnic obliterationism.

Don’t you know I am something of a Marxist?

Review the quote above:

So, the contradiction of interracism is that it’s officially anti-tribalist but adheres to the tribalist emphasis on blood by trying to create a new kind of mixed-blood at the core of the new super-tribe called the ‘human race’.

Leftists look at Soviet Communism and believe it failed cuz it didn’t sufficiently mix the blood of all the peoples. Instead, most ethnicities remained separate and were united only by ideology. Ideology weakend and the communist empire cracked apart.

The Left now believes that ideology need to be grounded in biology.

You see, Randy, Soviet “multiculturalism” was nothing — really nothing — more than a euphemism for Russian resettlement around the empire. The races mixed very little. Islam was suppressed very heavily but that’s about all; unlike the Catholic Church, it didn’t even damage much older mating patterns e.g. in Tajikistan.

Under the Soviet regime, East Germany experienced -1% immigration, naturally. With the fall and enfranchisement came the Asyltanten and the Toleranzkultus. 

Clearly I am a Jew for preferring a system, even a very strict and boring one, if it has the side-effect of keeping a white folk in stasis. In the modern world it’s ants at a picnic or a well-policed beehive.

McDonalds in Milan? Holy hell.

Surely the Senegalese selling narcotics inside within reach of white children is more shocking?

Posted by uh on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:06 | #

a lot of us lament the fact that whites don’t seem to be interested in standing up for their own genetic interests. but group-orientation and acting as a group is a function of biology, NOT an ideological standpoint that one can just turn on and off at will.

i have a bad feeling that there are strong biological reasons for white america’s (and europe’s) apparent lack of ethnic genetic interests, and that they might not be overcome until, perhaps, the situation is extremely critical … at which point it may be too late.

very loose genetic ties + a strong tendancy for altruistic punishment (+ some ideological sabotage from Those Who Must Not Be Named) = our current multicultacratic hell.

i don’t know how to solve it. but certainly adding more immigrants from latin america, the middle east, south asia, africa and the far east AIN’T gonna do it.

- hbdchick

Posted by anon on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:50 | #

If so, then those children are not “your people” either. Certainly they’re closer related than the Senegalese

That’s the main point though.

Even the most ethno-centric populations are only concerned with their own extended family most of the time. They’re only instinctively ethno-centric in the the context of threat or competition from people genetically further away. If there’s no external threat or competition they’ll compete and fight among themselves.

Me against my brothers, me and my brothers against my cousins, me, my brothers and cousins against everyone else etc

The exogamensch have lost that instinctive grouping together when faced with an external threat. They retreat as individuals instead of fight as a group.

The more ethno-centric a population is the quicker they’ll cooperate as a group and over smaller external threats but it goes when the threat goes. Black jury members might consistently vote not guilty on black defendents and guilty on white defendents but that won’t stop two of them glassing each other if they get into a fight in an all-black context in a bar.

The great advantage the exogamensch had in the centuries between the 1600s and the 1940s was the jump to a national consciousness and a nationalist culture got them to cooperate in peacetime also - so they got the equivalent of a permanent external threat bonus to their level of surplus.

(Jews achieved the same thing the NW Euros did but in the opposite way, through inbreeding instead of outbreeding combined with a persecution culture inculcating a permanent sense of threat - but even then, in an all-Jewish context they’ll fight and compete amongst themselves.)

Since the 1940s either the process of exogamy went too far or the cultural component was poisoned by a stealth enemy or a bit of both.

 

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:27 | #

Under the Soviet regime, East Germany experienced -1% immigration, naturally.

Who would want to migrate to East Germany, under Sovietisation, except possibly a Cuban? As my old German teacher joked, there was no wall in the east.

group-orientation and acting as a group is a function of biology

It depends what is meant by a group. American biologist George C. Williams stated that any animal that acts altruistically towards another is either manipulated or has a subtle self-interest. Bee altruism is directed to their hive sisters because of the level of genetic relatedness. Other beehives carry no interest for those bees. Humans, of course, are not bees, however, their power of manipulation is a direct result of an evolution based upon self-interest.

The Anglo-Saxons and Normans were invaders too, so without “open borders” England wouldn’t be what it is, etc.

This is cheap Zangwillian discourse focused upon transferring the ‘melting pot’ meme from a forlorn forced identity to the English.

“Understand that America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, your fifty languages, and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won’t be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you’ve come to – these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.”

What, no room for the Italians and Welsh?

This is not England where the Germanic Y-DNA was little affected by pre and post “invasion” populations.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:39 | #

The exogamensch have lost that instinctive grouping together when faced with an external threat. They retreat as individuals instead of fight as a group.

How do you account for the Germans or the Grantians/KKK in the US? Apparently at its peak, in the mid twenties, the second Klan was 4-5 million anti-Catholic and anti-Jew exogamensch strong. It’s a grand story how the fighting Irish of Notre Dame defeated the Klan and reshaped America forever. LOL.

Posted by anon on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:19 | #

How do you account for

Time.

Exogamy is a long-term process which can also go backwards and doesn’t apply to a whole population equally or at the same rate. In particular there can be class differences - for example, even if the miners in a small mining town in Virginia came initially from an exogamous population after a few generations they are going to be more tight-knit simply because of the low breeding population - and regional differences - people initially from a lot of different highly endogamous rural places in Europe thrown together in an urban environment may become more exogamous than any of their source populations and if their grand-children go back for a visit they will feel the difference in mentality.

I think the epicentre of the transition lay between Southern England and Holland with the transition point occurring around the 1600s with Holland first (Dutch Golden Age), and then radiating slowly out from there varied by national and geographical circumstances. People like Locke, Hume and Mill marked the British transition, Kant, Hiedegger, Nietzhcetshee (the spelling annoys me) marked the later German transition. Even after all this time it’s still only relevant to one quarter of Europe (and maybe a few small patchs elsewhere).

The only reason such a minority thing became to be viewed as the norm instead of extremely strange and unusual was the immense surplus the effected populations could produce led to immense military power and global dominance.

 

Posted by anon on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:37 | #

But again, it is a rational decision and not an evolved tendency whether a population is inbred or outbred.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/12/ted-sallis-ethnic-nepotism-a-prescription-for-fitness/

It doesn’t have to be an evolved tendency if the mechanism for nepotism and ethnic nepotism is the same i.e. instinctive recognition of genetic similarity, and inbreeding increases genetic similarity and outbreeding reduces it.

 

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:18 | #

As usual the thread descends into another round of pesudo-intellectual point scoring over how many angels dance on the exogamensch pin.

CasaPound have realised, unlike the endless intellectuals in the US & Britain, that THE SOCIAL STRUGGLE PRECEDES THE POLITICAL STRUGGLE.

Without first nationalising the masses at the community level via social activism, the political struggle cannot succeed.

Now you can go back to counting the angels on the head of the pin.

Thats what matters right ?

Intellectualism matters more than activism.

Well, to the intellectuals it does anyway.

Carry on. 

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:01 | #

I’m repeating a part of a comment but what the hell?

I think GW gets where I’m coming from and it goes way beyond ‘gene talk’. Just on that relatedness as biological phenomenon has been cropping up. Do people know that in the models that (1) relatedness as refers to a particular allele (or in quantitative genetics many small alleles of additive effect – effectively a single allele ‘spread’ over the genome) not to some generalised ‘genome’ wide phenomenon and (2) that competition between related organism can completely ‘cancel’ the effect of relatedness even if it (r) is at its maximal value in a given biological system? (Haploid-diploid organisms have very different relatedness coefficients than diploid organisms). Read an introductory review in say “Trends in Ecology and Evolution”, or read about the phenomenon of lethal sibling rivalry for example. Relatedness, ecologically and evolutionary does not ‘trump’ all other factors.

Now here’s a much more interesting thought. If we have a maximally competitive, individualistic ‘free-market’ economy – an economic Hobbessian ‘war of all against all’ might we be destroying, in the long term, our psychological basis and expression of in-group altruism? Destroying the intra and inter-generational ‘moral economy’, by inflating the ‘costs’ of generalised altruism and by that fact alone reducing, in relative terms (pardon the pun), the benefits thereof?

Why be an altruistic ‘mug’ only to be played by a free-rider?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:16 | #

Intellectualism matters more than activism. Well, to the intellectuals it does anyway.

Both seem to me to be forms of entertainment we employ to relieve our correct sense of helplessness as geopolitical events unfold around us.

Fortunately, there may be factions capable of real resistance.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:17 | #

And round and round they go.

Vanishing ever faster up their own backsides.

The day an intellectual does anything more than talk irrelevant pseudo-intellectual bollocks, is the day intellectuals become an asset to the movement.

That day has yet to dawn.

The Spartans defeated the Persians with will power and muscle, swords & spears.

The day an ‘intellectual’ develops an idea or concept as powerful and useful to the movement as a sword or spear was to the Spartans, is the day they will become an asset to the struggle not a hindrance.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:26 | #

  ntellectualism matters more than activism. Well, to the intellectuals it does anyway.

Both seem to me to be forms of entertainment we employ to relieve our correct sense of helplessness as geopolitical events unfold around us.

Fortunately, there may be factions capable of real resistance.

———————-

Iran is useful to the Nationalist struggle solely for one reason - when it is devastated, destroyed and torn to bloody shreds by Israeli and US missiles and bombs - it will reveal to the world just who are the real terrorists on the planet.

Personally I see Iran versus Israel and America as the apolcalyptic end game of all the Abrahamic religions - an eschatological conflict in which each annihilates the other in the name of their own theological brand of insanity.

If Islam, Judaism & Zionist Christianity want to destroy each other - then let them.

The Apocalypse that features in each of their religions will occur as they must create it.

And when they have fulfilled their prophecies, they will all be gone.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:41 | #

Lee,

Stop all this tiresome bitching about intellectualism.  Am I right in the last two paragraphs of the OP, or not?

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:54 | #

Sorry to inform you we have shit like McDonald’s and Burger King in every damn town and city in Europe including France, Italy etc.,

And it doesn’t stop in Western Europe.  It goes right on through Asia to the Pacific and Indian Oceans.  In addition to McDonald’s and Burger King you also have Microsoft, Intel, Google, Ford, GM, Proctor & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, KFC, Coke, Pepsi, Dreamworks, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Boeing, Subway, Baskins & Robbins…  We can add a few European based multi-nationals to this mix.  The Marlboro Man still rides proudly in many countries.  Last year’s hottest product in Moscow was the Apple iPad2.

I still remember mid-90s Russian TV.  Many ads and ad themes that had long been banned by the FTC as being deceptive miraculously reappeared. 

Anyone who has traveled extensively or lives periodically overseas can easily see this.  I don’t know how one can’t see it to be honest. 

The S&P 500 now earns over 50% of its net income overseas.  But this multi-nationalization is all to the good according to Austrian School imbeciles, right?  This economic power bloc is what generic “white American nationalists” are facing with their homey “Take Back Washington DC” ideas. 

 

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:20 | #

All that said, there is a caveat.  At best, Culturism is utilitarian.  It is not a revolutionary programme but a smoothing of the way for serious anti-liberal, anti-globalist activism.  It necessarily operates within the existing terms of public discourse.  It has no spine of its own.  It has to reach out.  It has to look and sound like its constituency.  Therefore, those who make their contribution through it must guard assiduously against accommodationism and the resultant loss of racial focus.

In a massively propagandised macro-environment like ours, Culturism only makes sense if there is a separate but complementary effort to redefine - and racialise - the terms of debate.  Then it has something to feed off, something to propagandise in return.

—————————————————————-

GW,

1) re culturalism - of course you are right. Thats what is designed to do - to bridge the gap between the civic nationalist ideology of liberalism and the racial nationalist ideology of white nationalism so that the conditioned masses may find their way from liberalism to racial nationalism via Culturism.

Culturism recognises that no one who has undergone decades of liberal media / academic / social conditioning goes from a liberal mindset to a racial nationalist unless they have experienced either an traumatic event that shocks them out of the conditioned consciousness eg rape, mugging, crime etc or have undergone some form of mild cognitive dissonance that led them to begin to question their conditioning.

Those undergoing some form of cognitive dissonance can thereby utilise Culturism to ‘wean’ them away from their conditioning, as one is literally weaned off drugs. It allows them to slowly withdraw from their false consciousness into a new consciousness.   

It can only work though when it is deployed by those disciplined enough to realise that Culturism is a process, not the end result. Culturism is the not the goal, Culturism is the methodology whereby the goal is attained.

The end result of Culturism must be an organic ethno-communal racial / ethnic consciousness. 

2) The attempt to racialise the debate is irrelevant. The debate cannot be racialised, as there is no debate. Even when there is a debate, it is rigged.

Culturism is not a mechanism to racialise the debate, if it was it will fail.

In computer terms - Those who have undergone the de-conditioning process are ready for a new racial consciousness to be downloaded into their newly wiped minds, so that new racial nationalist software can be installed and act as the new operating system for their minds.

Culturism assists the wiping away of the old liberal mental software installed in the mind by media conditioning and allows the hard drive, the mind, to install new operating software - a racial consciousness.

Culturism alone does not create a racial consciousness.

In order for a Culturism consciousness to be replaced by a Racial Nationalist consciousness then a mixed racial nationalist / culturism ideology must be promoted that links culture with race.

Then once the culturism consciousness is achieved, the individual begins to explore ideologies / ideas that link culture with race.

I suggest that a new ideology be created which I define as Cultural Racialism.

This is an ideology that explicitly links Culture and Race together. This is not an ideology of hate but one that says ’ a people create a culture, and when that people are no longer the dominant majority then the culture they created collapses and vanishes’.

This links us with Will Durant and his ‘A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. ’ 

We already have the ideological and intellectual means to do this via the science of Cultural Neuro-Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_neuroscience

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/02/17/west-brain-east-brain.html

http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2010/11/26/cultural-neuroscience-–-culture-and-the-brain/

<u></u>
 

So the process is ;

Liberalism to Civic Nationalism

Civic Nationalism to Cultural Nationalism.

Cultural Nationalism to Cultural Racialism.

Cultural Racialism to Racial Nationalism.

Therefore the individual who has undergone de-conditioning can, step by step, go from a liberal consciousness to a racial nationalist consciousness.

The problem is that nationalism has until now only had two nationalisms - civic nationalism and racial nationalism, which are so poles apart the average person cannot cross from the former to the latter.

I have made an attempt to create Culturism via Cultural Nationalism.

I have told you what we also need to allow people to shift from Cultural Nationalists to Racial Nationalists which is Cultural Racialism.

Its now up to you to begin the create the ideology and spread it.       

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:49 | #

The only problem, Lee, and it is one that has been highlighted previously on more than one occasion here, is that your particular version of Cultural Nationalism provides for an entry channel for racial out-group members who have agreed to ‘go native’.

This is exactly what the Culturalism of the CasaPound variety is designed to avoid.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:55 | #

Am I right in the last two paragraphs of the OP, or not?

All that said, there is a caveat.  At best, Culturism is utilitarian.  It is not a revolutionary programme but a smoothing of the way for serious anti-liberal, anti-globalist activism.  It necessarily operates within the existing terms of public discourse.  It has no spine of its own.  It has to reach out.  It has to look and sound like its constituency.  Therefore, those who make their contribution through it must guard assiduously against accommodationism and the resultant loss of racial focus.

In a massively propagandised macro-environment like ours, Culturism only makes sense if there is a separate but complementary effort to redefine - and racialise - the terms of debate.  Then it has something to feed off, something to propagandise in return.

There is nothing wrong with CasaPound.  But I also don’t see anything fundamentally compelling about it, either.  These are largely a series of voluntary and generally leisure-time activities that one can join (and quit) as the currents of emotion shift.  It probably won’t hurt and may help.

My goal with “micro-communities” is to get fundamental human instincts working for us, and not against us as they presently do.  And to do so in a way that plays to our potential strengths, not our manifest weaknesses. This is what the Enemy does by conscious design. 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs

They have systematically seized the “high ground” in every tier of Maslow’s hierarchy.  There are occasional non-Movement efforts to work in the top two levels.  But Maslow predicated that these levels only become important when the lower three are met.   

 

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:59 | #

DD,

Casapound culturism is an aspect of cultural racialism, it is not cultural nationalism.

As for the ‘problem’ of those non-europeans who support cultural nationalism - unless the British public are prepared to deport every immigrant from the UK and sterilise or murder all those with misceginated genetic lineages - then they are here to stay.

The British public will never support either of those two options - they are simply the delusions of people who reject political reality and whose extremist ideas ensure they are regarded either as mad by the mass of the British people and akin to Islamist terrorists by the law.

Therefore it is incumbent that those who are here to stay, as opposed to the colonists who the public will support being deported, are nationalised so that they support the culture of our nation.

Even Hitler allowed fully Germanised Jews and mixed German Jews to fight in the army / navy and stay as German citizens.

If you have adopted an ideological position that even Hitler rejected as extreme, you best reassess your position.

   

Posted by anon on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:10 | #

Relatedness, ecologically and evolutionary does not ‘trump’ all other factors.

It doesn’t have to. The main points of the theory are:
- different levels of consanquinity within a population have population wide effects i.e. very high levels generally leads to a very clannish population, less leads to a more open one
- exogamous populations will voluntarily cooperate to a greater degree creating the potential for a vastly greater material surplus
- a more endogamous population within a more exogamous one will automatically act as a free rider
- various other things blah blah

They are all effects of the average relatedness and the idea is average relatedness greatly influences average behavior not all behavior.

If we have a maximally competitive, individualistic ‘free-market’ economy – an economic Hobbessian ‘war of all against all’ might we be destroying, in the long term, our psychological basis and expression of in-group altruism? Destroying the intra and inter-generational ‘moral economy’, by inflating the ‘costs’ of generalised altruism and by that fact alone reducing, in relative terms (pardon the pun), the benefits thereof?

Promoting dog eat dog capitalism would be in the interest of people with lower average altruism than their competitors as they would compete better in that environment but they would end up selecting for people more like themselves eventually - or even worse. It’s a bit like the Bolsheviks creating a political organisation that selected for sociopaths.

 

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:23 | #

I agree that there there is no realistic prospect of an involuntary repatriation progamme coming to pass in the foreseeable future, however it seems to me that the responsible approach for us who care about our national culture and heritage (and by definition the indigenous population) to take would be to make racial aliens feel as as unwelcome, unwanted and uncomfortable as possible. All within the bounds of currently applicable legislation, of course.

Your prescription would seem to have exactly the opposite effect and for no apparent good reason.

Through a judicious choice of the cultural activities to be promoted I see no reason why a Casapound-type could not flourish in Britain. The key to it lies in choosing activities to focus on which have limited appeal for Afro-Asian infiltrators, but which are likely to appeal to indigenes. Fell-walking and archery, for example, as opposed to football and cricket.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:56 | #

Would be to make racial aliens feel as as unwelcome, unwanted and uncomfortable as possible

—————-

Who would do this ?

Do you think that would elicit sympathy for the underdog - the main aspect of the British personality along with individualism ?

Wouldnt that be churlish, uncivil and frankly total waste of time ?

Is that the sort of society you want us to build - one where people who respect our country, culture, rights, liberty & heritage are treated like shit ?

A society where ethnic soldiers, sports stars, actors, doctors, nurses etc are treated like shit just because of their racial heritage, is one the British society would reject totally. 

Thats not a society most people I know would support, stand for and fight for.

 

The British people wouldnt stand for it - we hate bullies.

As for the other points re cultural activities I agree 100 % 

 

Posted by savrola on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:58 | #

I’m not a huge fan of JLB, but he has won the debate, conclusively.

If Guest Worker wants to die an old man, tended by those of his own race, he’d better hurry up and turn MR over to Barnsie and Uh.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:29 | #

Who would do this - LJB

As I already stated, anyone who cares about his own folk must refrain from acting as a ‘friendly hoster’.

And, of course, it’s not a matter of treating ethnics ‘like shit’ - that amounts to a criminal offence these days - but rather treating with them with cool and distant politeness, in the secret but unexpressed hope that they will go away of their accord, or at least leave us to our own devices. All of which is rather different to inviting them into the tent.

 

Posted by GenoType on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:16 | #

There are occasional non-Movement efforts to work in the top two levels.  But Maslow predicated that these levels only become important when the lower three are met.

Maslow’s hierarchy should be the template for evaluating all activist propositions.  From Psych/Mgmnt 101:

“Does x advance or retard the Movement’s capacity to control the fundamental human needs?”

Our “movement” should be structured around the budget of a white nuclear family and its weekly schedule.  Otherwise we shall always be a fringe group on the margins of the Judeo-Global 1000 economy.

The microcommunity idea is (mostly) a self-contained human permaculture designed to meet the social and economic needs of small human groups in accordance with Maslow’s hierarchy.

I agree that CasaPound focuses too much on leisure activities, and too little on real economics and education. That is not to say the organization can’t have limited effect, but overall it appears to be another attempt to flank the “jewsmedia” and lead nationalists back into partisan politics “with greater strength.”  Too many of us are still looking for the “magic formula” in this sphere, despite a 50+ year track record of failure and ultimate relegation to the fringe of the Internet.  I’m not altogether certain of Europe, but in North America it’s long past time to stop trying to resuscitate a dead strategy.

 

Posted by Randy Garver on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:11 | #

Uh:

All the same: one must force an identity where culture and breeding have failed. That means always keeping in mind that a kaffir and a coolie are more unlike one than any European. It’s this smaller, salubrious untruth against the larger more destructive one of equality / equivalence. No more indulgence of leftist relativism for me.

Are you entirely certain? Could it be possible that your prescriptive pan-Europeanism reflects your desire to gerrymander an ethno-identity which is broad enough to include Euromutts such as yourself?

Someone in your position certainly can’t be faulted for such a temptation, as people do seem to have a natural tilt towards seeking a sense of belonging. Admittedly, this is just a speculation.

Uh:

Clearly I am a Jew for preferring a system, even a very strict and boring one, if it has the side-effect of keeping a white folk in stasis. In the modern world it’s ants at a picnic or a well-policed beehive.

Perhaps a harmless concept if viewed in passing, but I believe quite destructive upon examination.

You seem to be suggesting that all the Frogs, Rosbifs, and Dagos should just march themselves into a grinder and embrace your brave new fiat-ethny. Shame to be losing their rich cultures and traditions, but on the other hand, there’ll probably be plenty of McCargill-brand industrially flensed amino-patties on the far end to enjoy during the mandated 20 minute ingestion period at the corporate feedlot.

  RG: “McDonalds in Milan? Holy hell.”

Uh: Surely the Senegalese selling narcotics inside within reach of white children is more shocking?

Your story doesn’t suggest that the latter, unlike the former, was abetted by your sanction or support. Also, have you considered that the Senegalese drug dealer might have been installed on-premises by the likes of our comrade and fellow traveler José Bové to disincentivize gastrocultural genocide?

Posted by uh on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:03 | #

Could it be possible that your prescriptive pan-Europeanism reflects your desire to gerrymander an ethno-identity which is broad enough to include Euromutts such as yourself?

No. I am no more a “Euromutt” genetically than a Frenchman is.

It is possible that my prescriptive pan-Europeanism, with its idiosyncratic form of totalitarian socialism, reflects other aspects of my character which may have something to do with my partial south Italian heritage and upbringing.

The purpose is simply to recall Europeans of any sort, of all sorts, from their liberal oblivion and set over them a new existential task. Europeans, being genetically fragmented, cannot be expected to work together to ensure the long-term viability of their living space; even single nations fail to do it. Therefore the only revolutionary model that can do so, as proved by the totalitarian movements of yesteryear, is a single party with the will to bind the nations together by force.

Well, I say ‘can’, but of course that paradigm has passed.

Someone in your position certainly can’t be faulted for such a temptation, as people do seem to have a natural tilt towards seeking a sense of belonging. Admittedly, this is just a speculation.

There are dagoes who agitate tirelessly for a “pan-European” identity and movement. In fact I couldn’t care less about that as it’s mere petty identity politics. My preference would be a supra-European totalitarian regime doing what Europeans themselves are incapable of doing: securing their living space and crushing liberalism. Which was the goal of both National Socialism and Soviet Communism.

Perhaps a harmless concept if viewed in passing, but I believe quite destructive upon examination.

Glad we understand each other! Ya see, Randy, unlike my broskis here, I accept the logical consequences of anti-liberal politics, which must end in ___ and ___, and no doubt truly horrific amounts of ___. They merely flirt with anti-liberalism. They want all the trappings of a conservative world without understanding that preservation of the folk begins with ugly things like suppressing women, public executions, a religious population, and a near-total lack of “cultural” distractions. Kulchur itself is hostile to the folk. Why do you think T-bone banned Sears catalogs in Kandahar??

You seem to be suggesting that all the Frogs, Rosbifs, and Dagos should just march themselves into a grinder and embrace your brave new fiat-ethny.

“Freedom or cohesion — your choice.”

But you understand, this is all idle daydreaming. None of it is possible. Yet it’s what would have to be done to finally extirpate liberalism and sew the seeds of a new tribalism among Europeans. In the meantime only nations dropping out of the Union will see a return to good sense, as with Arizona and Alabama. Disconnecting from the franchise, for lack of a grand project, is the only way to go.

 

Your story doesn’t suggest that the latter, unlike the former, was abetted by your sanction or support. Also, have you considered that the Senegalese drug dealer might have been installed on-premises by the likes of our comrade and fellow traveler José Bové to disincentivize gastrocultural genocide?

Uhh. Doubt it. The only reason a Senegalese is allowed to enter and move about in Italy is that Italian authorities are beholden to Brussels. At worst, they’re facilitated by the Calabrian mafia who act as coyotes for very tidy sums.

Posted by uh on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:29 | #

Both seem to me to be forms of entertainment we employ to relieve our correct sense of helplessness as geopolitical events unfold around us.

Ahhhh, so Jimmy, you have been paying attention to what I have been saying for about five years now!

Or wait — let me guess — this is instead something Soren the All-Knowing told you?

You know, like when Daniel came up with “radical despair”, meaning nothing more than what you said above, and Soren co-opted and twisted it to mean the exact opposite, that is, insofar as he could make it through all the stuttering and awkward pauses.

“So it’s .... it .... the pessimism is ... is a precondition of the optimism, not optimism of the pessimism ... yeah. Ok.”

Because I’ve NEVER said that white nationalism is online self-help for whites!!! I’ve NEVER said that all this is pure fantasy and entertainment in a world we can’t control.

No, you’re just channeling Soren Renner, there.

Christ you are making me vain.

Posted by uh on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:42 | #

Our “movement” should be structured around the budget of a white nuclear family and its weekly schedule.  Otherwise we shall always be a fringe group on the margins of the Judeo-Global 1000 economy.

The microcommunity idea is (mostly) a self-contained human permaculture designed to meet the social and economic needs of small human groups in accordance with Maslow’s hierarchy.

Well said. Chickens and pickled eggs before Heidegger and blogs. Splitting cherry wood is hard — commenting is easy.

Posted by uh on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:07 | #

Desmond,

Who would want to migrate to East Germany, under Sovietisation, except possibly a Cuban? As my old German teacher joked, there was no wall in the east.

Dees ees de point, meng.

First rule of holes: stop digging.

If you wish to discourage the ants at your picnic, do you keep putting out jams and meats? (Cue idea-theft by Soren!)

They came for the West’s freedumbs and amenities. Remove the freedom and the amenities, and they won’t be so keen to stay.

I suggest watching the South Park episode “The Last of The Meheecans” for an illustration of this.

Moreover — Prosperity is The Problem.

“Maxim #1,000: Prosperity contains within it the seed of its own destruction.”

This is cheap Zangwillian discourse focused upon transferring the ‘melting pot’ meme from a forlorn forced identity to the English.

I know, I was criticizing Randy Garver.

Despite that I don’t see that Zangwill’s enthusiasm was nefarious or anymore prescriptive of white deracination than any number of ecstatic passages from Leaves of Grass, which I divine you have never read. Zangwill just gave a name to the general enthusiasm for overcoming the endless divisions of the European scene, which hadn’t even exhausted themselves in his day. I don’t see that that’s wrong or an unworthy vision. It was Nietzsche’s for Europe itself. I am all for mixing among Europeans — if you look at an mtDNA map of Europe, you’ll see at once that the “Euromutt” existed long, long before the American “experiment”. As long as it stays within the European genepool that isn’t a problem. It’s the introduction of non-Europeans by improved mobility and capitalism, and the rubber stamp of political identity given thereto by Europeans’ native universalism (trust in abstractions over kind) and post-War failure of will, that is the problem.

The loss of national identities into the greater American political identity seems on the surface a tragic thing; but taking in balance modern Europeans’ own failure to secure their national borders or maintain self/non-self distinction, I don’t see how it’s fundamentally worse. The root of both is white exogamy and resultant misplaced trust in cultural abstractions.