Posted by Eyebrow of the Beholder on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:23 | #

I am not yet as convinced as Telegraph journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard that the West or, at least, the EU is entering upon some Kali Yuga style end-game of strife,

Kali Yuga? What, are you desi or something?

What next - Ayn Rand qoutes?

Om Tat Sat

Posted by Diamed on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:30 | #

Ayn Rand On Racism
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.

Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the character and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control.

This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

—from “Racism” in The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand.

Here we have Ayn Rand condemning as immoral people who accept that A is A.  Ie, that the facts are the facts, and truth is truth.  Ayn Rand starts slobbering at the mouth at the idea that we are not blank slates, ie that genes determine our intelligence, personality, and behavior.  She then creates a false dichotomy between animals and men, acting just like the religious people she pretends to disbelieve and giving humans some sort of soul with free will that simply doesn’t exist, and demands chemicals and genetics have no influence on who we are even though it wholly controls all other life forms.  What a ridiculous lack of scientific rigor and intellectual honesty she brings to the table, when anything important is under discussion.

And thus, to hell with Ayn Rand, aka Ms. ROSENBAUM the jew.

Saddest of all this is what GoV think is a great prophet who will deliver them to MLK’s color-blind promised land.  Like lemmings they happily rush off the cliff under the influence of liars who pretend to take varying positions but all share the exact same position, a hatred of the white race and a simultaneous reification of jews and Israel.  You’ll note the ayn rand institute spends half of its time championing Israel and demanding we go to war with all the enemies of Israel—Syria, Iran, etc.  All, supposedly, because individualism and freedom demand it.  Why oh why is anyone fooled?  Properly considered, nothing about selfishness or freedom in ANY WAY requires we go to war to protect Israel, but everything in the philosophy is bent so that Jews end up the beneficiaries of anyone who believes her shit.  While condemning tribalism, they make every possible effort to help the tribe!  Objectivists are like Menshaviks, a FALSE OPPOSITION that exists merely to provide legitimacy to the overall jewish supremacist multicult screed.  We are the true opposition, we are the Only alternative to the 3rd world invasion, and the false opposition is simply a tool to siphon off the support we normally and rightfully should have received.  One last mouse trap before free thinkers finally escape the jewish maze.

Posted by Guest on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:58 | #

Ayn Rand was a jewess from Soviet Union.
Largely responsible for the libertarian program for promotion of genocide of the White race in America via individualism.

America is the biggest pig in the swine herd.

Resist, drag your feet, every day, in every way, nothing illegal, nothing remotely even overtly political, just do not HELP the System.

After the deluge, US!

Posted by Red Mercury on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:31 | #

Who is “Ayn Rand”?

Posted by Revolution Harry on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:01 | #

‘Largely responsible for the libertarian program for promotion of genocide of the White race in America via individualism.’

That’s interesting because I’ve just been reading G. Edward Griffin’s well argued claim that it’s collectivists who are to blame for the ills of America and beyond. From his perspective it’s collectivists in the form of Marxists, Leninists, Fascists, Socialists, Fabians and monopoloy capitalists that are the problem. He states:

“Let us be specific. Collectivists advocate controlled elections, controlled media, controlled education, the elimination of free speech, disarmament of the population, fiat money, a cartelized health-care system, military imperialism, and global government.

The ideology of Freedom Force is individualism, the opposite of collectivism at every point. Individualists advocate honest elections, a competitive media, an educational system responsive to parents, encouragement of free speech, a well-armed citizenry, sound money, freedom-of-choice in health care, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and national sovereignty.”

What he claims is it’s the tyranny of governments claiming collective rights over the people that is the issue rather than individualists who claim that rights come from the people themselves. He says “the purpose of government is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them. By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite view that rights are granted by the state. If we accept that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away.”

It’s something I’ve been puzzling over for the last few days.

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org

Posted by alex zeka on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:03 | #

Diamed,

You forget to mention how that essay ends.

Posted by Dave Johns on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:20 | #

... I’ve just been reading G. Edward Griffin’s well argued claim that it’s collectivists who are to blame for the ills of America and beyond.

Ayn Rand said the same thing. I agree with them.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:50 | #

Harry,

Griffin’s collectivisms have nothing to do with us.

From our standpoint, it is not in human potential for an entire race of Man, consisting of many tribes, to “choose” to “decollectivise” kinship.  Men may think they can exercise free choice in embarking upon a journey from blood and the Real into anomie and self-estrangement, but they can’t.  They have it forced upon them.  Regardless that they ascribe individualism to themselves, it is the opposite ... something achieved wholly by coersive means.  There is no “objective” individualism, no freedom, without wholeness, and first and foremost human wholeness is the product of kinship and love.  Man is family, kin and nation as well as, and before, he is self.

Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:16 | #

Man is family, kin and nation as well as, and before, he is self.

How else to explain the rise of mass nationalism and all the people willing to die for their kin/ethny?

“Individualists” often refer to nationalism as “placing an abstract principle above the self.”  But it is in fact individualism that is said “abstract principle,” is it not?

Posted by Dave Johns on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:26 | #

... it is not in human potential for an entire race of Man, consisting of many tribes, to “choose” to “decollectivise” kinship.

Too bad the leftist-collectivists, whom, btw, are firmly in control of the governments in the West, don’t share your affinity for white peoples’ kinship. They only care about multiracial collectivism. A form of collectivism where the white-man, the producer, is relegated to a mere servant of the nonwhite parasites.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:36 | #

How else to explain the rise of mass nationalism and all the people willing to die for their kin/ethny?

Non-kinship based reciprocity.

In most countries, in most eras, you needed to belong to an extended family “mafia” for protection.[...]

The English were perhaps the first to break out of this rut. Fraser notes:

“Over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence in England of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring cooperation between strangers…”

Some of the cultural attributes that emerged in Northwestern Europe that made individualistic polities possible include, according to Fraser:

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

The English national polity grew from evolved individualistic institutions. If the English continued to emphasize extended family, and not provided legal protection for property and contract, as is the case in the Middle East, then nationalism would not have come to the English as early as it did.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:44 | #

Day six and protests spread all over Europe:-

From Madrid to Moscow, Greeks living abroad, left-wing activists and other sympathisers took part in demonstrations in solidarity with the six days of rioting which has hit Greece.

The protests marked a dangerous escalation in the crisis that has engulfed Greece since 15-year-old schoolboy Alexis Grigoropoulos was shot dead by a police officer on Saturday night in Athens.

In Copenhagen, police detained 63 people who threw bottles and paint bombs at riot police late on Wednesday.

In Madrid, nine people were arrested when around 200 people chanting “police killers” targeted a police station, shops and banks.

In Barcelona a Greek woman and another unidentified foreigner were arrested during a similar demonstration.

In France, arsonists torched two cars outside the Greek consulate in Bordeaux, scrawling slogans in support of Greece’s worst riots since the country was ruled by a military junta in the early 1970s.

Graffiti sprayed opposite the consulate read “Support for the fires in Greece”, “Insurrection Everywhere” and “The Coming Insurrection” – the latter the name of a book which the French government alleges has inspired a network of “ultra-left” anarchist groups.

In Turkey, about a dozen left-wing protesters daubed red paint over the front of the Greek consulate in Istanbul. Protesters threw petrol bombs at Greece’s embassies in Moscow and Rome.

How’s it done?  Rather easily, apparently:-

Protesters used mobile phone text messages and the internet to co-ordinate their campaign.

Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:17 | #

“The Coming Insurrection”? I really don’t understand why all the left-wing protestors are demonstrating. The Left owns Europe and North America. It’s the Far Right that should be taking to the streets.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:24 | #

“In Turkey, about a dozen left-wing protesters daubed red paint over the front of the Greek consulate in Istanbul.”  (—from the article pasted in GW’s post)

No such thing as Istanbul.  It’s Constantinople.  In Turkish-occupied Greece.  Turkey must get out of Europe, back across Bosporus where it belongs — if it even belongs there, even belongs back across the Bosporus in Anatolia, rather than somewhere in Central Asia:  in antiquity something like the whole western half of modern-day Turkey (the whole western half of Anatolia) was a part of Greece and completely Greek.  Why are we expected to swallow some other arrangement today?  Not me:  I don’t swallow it.  Never will, either. 

Turks out of ?????!

Posted by Revolution Harry on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:28 | #

This is the puzzle for me. On one level I certainly aspire to the personal liberty that Griffin talks about. There can be no better example of a collectivist government run amok than the present Labour one we all suffer under. But I then wonder how this fits with my despair over the ruinous level of immigration we’ve seen and the imposition of such things as multiculturism. Is this against our collective rights as English, for example, or our individual rights as English men and women? I agree with his concept that rights are granted by the people rather than the state. He also says:

“When someone argues that individuals must be sacrificed for the greater good of society, what they are really saying is that some individuals are to be sacrificed for the greater good of other individuals. The morality of collectivism is based on numbers. Anything may be done so long as the number of people benefiting supposedly is greater than the number of people being sacrificed. I say supposedly, because, in the real world, those who decide who is to be sacrificed don’t count fairly. Dictators always claim they
represent the greater good of the greater number but, in reality, they and their support organizations usually comprise less than one percent of the population. The theory is that someone has to speak for the masses and represent their best interest, because they are too dumb to figure it out for themselves. So collectivist leaders, wise and virtuous as they are, make the decisions for them. It is possible to explain any atrocity or injustice as a necessary measure for the greater good of society. Modern totalitarians always parade as humanitarians. 

Isn’t this what has been done to us? Isn’t the mantra ‘diversity is good for us’ or ‘good for the economy’ ie the larger group representing the nation? Surely it’s my individual rights, or rather all our individual rights to retain what we hold dear?

He says “Collectivism is based on the belief that the group is more important than the individual. According to this view, the group is an entity of its own and it has rights of its own. Furthermore, those rights are more important than individual rights. Therefore, it is acceptable to sacrifice individuals if necessary for “the greater good of the greater number.”

Surely that’s the claim that Labour always make, not just in terms of immigration. The counter argument is that they have no rights to sacrifice my individual rights to preserve the England I know and love.

Like I said, it’s a puzzle.

Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:01 | #

No such thing as Istanbul.  It’s Constantinople.  In Turkish-occupied Greece.  Turkey must get out of Europe, back across Bosporus where it belongs — if it even belongs there, even belongs back across the Bosporus in Anatolia, rather than somewhere in Central Asia:  in antiquity something like the whole western half of modern-day Turkey (the whole western half of Anatolia) was a part of Greece and completely Greek.  Why are we expected to swallow some other arrangement today?  Not me:  I don’t swallow it.  Never will, either.

Whoa, Fred.  Not that I disagree with the sentiment here, but that’s some serious bloody revisionism right there!  But since you brought it up:

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

Their homeland is somewhere in Western Kazakhstan.  A little humane repatriation would be in order.  DNA studies can determine who is of Greek descent, and they can stay so long as they learn to speak Greek.

But since we’re at it, we can give the Kaliningrad Oblast back to the Lithuanian peoples who had it stolen from them by the Germans.  Or the South Tyrol to Austria.  Or the Karelian isthmus to the Finns. Or the…

Its a slippery slope, Fred.

Posted by Diamed on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:30 | #

Nonsense.  There can never be any individual rights.  YOU are not the end goal of life.  More and better life, is the end goal of life.  YOU are not an end, YOU are a means to further evolution towards perfection.  An individual is mere fertilizer, fodder for the future.  Millions of generations of living beings have been devoured or devoured so that you might be born, not because they want you to be happy, but because you have been given the torch to pass on to the next generation.  Nobody died, nobody labored throughout their life tending for and raising you, so that you might enjoy your individual rights.  It was all so that life might progress and prosper.  Don’t get cocky, and more importantly, don’t steal the sacred trust and treasure LOANED but not GIVEN to you for your own selfish ends, your entire genome is the collective wealth of the millions of generations that came before you, and it is meant to be passed, INTACT with VALUE ADDED, to the next generation.  You do not own it, you have no right to it, you have no right to anything.  We are one link in the great chain of being, hardly the last link, we exist merely to connect the past to the future.  It’s fine to enjoy yourself while you’re doing this, but never at the expense of that link.  Some things are more important than you!  Christ how stupid that I even have to tell grown adults this.

Dictators are far superior to democracy, because dictators are generally superior to average people.  Democracies always elect total non-entities and losers, lowest common denominator schmucks.  This has been true ever since universal suffrage was passed.  I think the last decent president of America was Eisenhower, and before him Coolidge, that’s not many in a freaking century.  My entire life I’ve had to endure the likes of Bill Clinton, George Bush, and now Obama.  I can’t stand democracy, I can’t stand how utterly imbecilic and what putrid moral values my presidents have.  All three at one point used drugs and drank.  All of them are corrupt liars.  A dictator who abuses his people is far rarer than a demagogue who abuses his people.  For thousands of years Europe was run by monarchs who never once imported africans to race replace their country.  Rome had the chance, it controlled vast amounts of Africa and the middle east, but it never saw fit, after 50 emperors or 100, to race replace Europe with Bantus or Arabs.  So much for the glories of democracy.  In general hierarchies allow merit to rise to the top and these people will be more far-sighted and choose the policies that best protect and prosper their people.  Monarchs and nobles have a vested interest in the future because it will be their children running the country, meaning they cannot afford to harm it.  Presidents and congress will all be gone in a few years so they have no vested interest in the future, they can play around pushing any pet project with no thought to what it will mean 10, 20, or 100 years down the road.  It’s an inbuilt catastrophe.

Your examples of leftist collectivism gone wrong say nothing about the quality of rightist collectivism.  Go complain when national socialists are in control about how evil collectivism is, if you still find something wrong, until then what do we have to do with the communists?  We were the vanguard of opposition to communism, as I recall, it was you democratic capitalists full of Ayn Randian individualism that allied with the USSR, while we were dying by the millions to stop it.  Or just look at it this way.  Anything the jews support or tout as good, should be like garlic to us.  Anything any jew says, just do the opposite.  It is enough to know Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were jews.  It’s enough to know Jesus and Marx were jews.  Just keep doing the opposite and by the end you’ll find the only sensible belief left—national socialism.  By order of elimination.

Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:12 | #

Diamed,

I agree that democracy is putridity, stagnation, corruption and decadency enthroned.  Even in Ancient Greece the brightest minds were disgusted with the ochlocracy that dared to put a luminary like Socrates to death.  Put the power in the hands of the popular will, and it only takes one demagogue to start the mob hounding for blood.  Right now, Diamed, we WNs are target of said mob, and it chills my blood to think what could happen because of that.

In any case, benevolent dictatorship of some kind could work.  But authoritarian government is not without its own risks (see Germany prior to WWI - many historians feel that Germany viewed war as a desirable option just to take the public attention off the internal tensions!).  But the German model sounds right to me - a Chancellor who answers to some sort of assembly so that he is checked somewhat (as Bismarck did to the Junkers).  Add to that policies which benefit the industrial working class, and government subsidies of education in the hard sciences and other productive trades, etc, etc and you’ve got a strong and sustainable nation-state in the making!

Posted by Guest on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:45 | #

Kemal Attaturk and his crypto-jews.

WLP wrote an excellent essay on Individualism and it is well worth a read.

Kevin MacDonald noted that COLLECTIVE STRATEGIES outperform INDIVIDUAL STRATEGIES.

NS was, according to MacDonald, a RESPONSE to the Jewish Strategy.
NS helped to form a COLLECTIVE WILL to fight off the murderous program of the Jews.

Unless and until we see a WHITE identity amongst the masses then the game is over.

Frankly pessimism is more realistic than optimism.

This is DARWINISM in action before our very eyes.

This is an extraordinary speech by the late, great WDP:

DUPES OF JUDAH – A CHALLENGE TO THE AMERICAN LEGION 1938
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/dupes of judah.htm

That was probably the last time that Whites in America had any chance to throw the System over and regain the ascendant position.

Are we going to be saps enough to let ‘em get away with it?

Posted by 987654321 on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:30 | #

So typical: a Jew blames the stable, thrifty, and budget-balancing Germans for the financial problems of the Jew infested nations of France, America, and the UK.—> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/the-german-problem/

“The German Problem”?  More like “The Jewish Problem” in the France, America, and the UK.

Posted by 987654321 on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:10 | #

The Jew Krugman claims the Germans are “boneheaded” and “intransigent” for saving money, being economically stable, and refusing to buy in to the hypercapitalist/hyperdebt system headed by Jewish businesspeople and Jewish economists in America and the UK—> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/the-economic-consequences-of-herr-steinbrueck/

German banks have already lost tens of billions because of the bogus mortgage backed securities and other bad debt which was sold all around the world by corrupt Jews on Wall Street.  Can you blame them for being skeptical of America and the UK and not wanting to bail them out?

Posted by KARMACY on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:52 | #

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

This pdf is long and old (early 20th century OZ), but it is worth a read.  I have never read anything like it in my entire life and spent the last one hour enthralled to gain a glimpse into an interesting psyche, to say the least. 
I’m not even half way through the piece yet.

Anyway, we all brought it upon ourselves.  If we had stayed put, in our own lands with our own people, things would not be where they are now.  But our men just had to venture out, cross seas and co-habit with natives, didn’t they?  Then, once they created the problem, they had to write documents like this one to try to fix it.

You made your bed boys, now lay in it.  (Wait a sec. Laying in bed may not be a good idea.  That’s what started this whole mess to begin with).

Really telling; http://www.themonthly.com.au/Documents/stolen.pdf

Posted by John on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:33 | #

Harry,

Griffin’s collectivisms have nothing to do with us.

From our standpoint, it is not in human potential for an entire race of Man, consisting of many tribes, to “choose” to “decollectivise” kinship.  Men may think they can exercise free choice in embarking upon a journey from blood and the Real into anomie and self-estrangement, but they can’t.  They have it forced upon them.  Regardless that they ascribe individualism to themselves, it is the opposite ... something achieved wholly by coersive means.  There is no “objective” individualism, no freedom, without wholeness, and first and foremost human wholeness is the product of kinship and love.  Man is family, kin and nation as well as, and before, he is self.

Griffin is against the collectivizing social engineers whom he saw since the 1950s gaining more and more power over American institutions and gov’t. There’s a distinction between state-enforced collectivism and voluntary collectivism (that Griffin would have no problem with) that needs to be iterated here and I should steadfastly hope you’re against the former

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:28 | #

Diamed: “For thousands of years Europe was run by monarchs who never once imported africans to race replace their country.”

Yes, but oftentimes these monarchs brought in a foreign race (Jews) to help them exploit their peoples (e.g. via tax farming).  Some monarchs would expel the exploiters because they recognized it as evil (e.g. Louis IX), others because the people persuaded them (e.g. Edward I).  This has been cited as a factor in the differential development of the English and Polish artisan class.  Often the Church was the only body with any power that would defend the people against these exploiters.  To some extent, the crisis the West faces is due to the policies of these monarchs.  I do agree though that, in principle, a monarchy is preferable to the ‘democracies’ in the West.

Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:33 | #

The Jew Krugman claims the Germans are “boneheaded” and “intransigent” for saving money, being economically stable, and refusing to buy in to the hypercapitalist/hyperdebt system headed by Jewish businesspeople and Jewish economists in America and the UK

Krugman subscribes to Keynesian economics, the mythological belief that fiat money and deficit spending can be used to get bad economies jump-started.  Hey, genius, what if fiat money and deficit spending got us into this mess?!  How does this imbecile get a cushy, high-paying job…oh yeah .

This is the same guy who advocated for a new New Deal.  In a recession, while we’re running a trillion dollar deficit, with a 10 trillion dollar debt.  The man is either stupid, insane, sadistic or a mix of all three.  What a leprous minded bastard.

An economy based on finance - with nothing to finance.  The next few years are going to be long and painful, it seems.

Posted by Dave Johns on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:15 | #

Diamed states: “Dictators are far superior to democracy, because dictators are generally superior to average people.”

1- Name two dictators, in power today, that are “far superior” to a democratically elected Western leader.

2- Is there anyone that comments here at MR whom you would trust as your all knowing, all caring, dictator?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:21 | #

“Its a slippery slope, Fred.”

Everything’s a slippery slope, Gudmund.  You’ll never be rid of slippery slopes.  Slippery slopes are built into the framework of reality in this universe we inhabit.  They’re not what concerns us in matters such as this.  You don’t go around in life placing the avoidance of slippery slopes uppermost, you support what’s right.  Turkey in Europe is wrong.  The “Kaliningrad Oblast” is wrong.  Negroes in Britain are wrong.  Dany Cohn-Bendit is wrong.  Hans-Gert Pöttering is wrong.  Brian Crowley MEP is wrong.  The E.U. is wrong.  The Jews are wrong.  The Russian Revolution was wrong.  George Bush is wrong.  Vladimir Bukovsky is right.  Vaclav Klaus is right.  Jean-Marie Le Pen is right.  Enoch was right.  Peter Brimelow is right.  Greece is right.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:34 | #

Two excellent comments by 987654321.  (If you continue posting, please consider switching to a less awkward handle, 987654321.)

Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:51 | #

Everything’s a slippery slope, Gudmund.  You’ll never be rid of slippery slopes.  Slippery slopes are built into the framework of reality in this universe we inhabit.  They’re not what concerns us in matters such as this.  You don’t go around in life placing the avoidance of slippery slopes uppermost, you support what’s right.  Turkey in Europe is wrong.  The “Kaliningrad Oblast” is wrong.  Negroes in Britain are wrong.  Dany Cohn-Bendit is wrong.  Hans-Gert Pöttering is wrong.  Brian Crowley MEP is wrong.  The E.U. is wrong.  The Jews are wrong.  The Russian Revolution was wrong.  George Bush is wrong.  Vladimir Bukovsky is right.  Vaclav Klaus is right.  Jean-Marie Le Pen is right.  Enoch was right.  Peter Brimelow is right.  Greece is right.

I agree 100% with what you wrote above.  Avoiding slippery slopes was not my point. 

Believe me, I would have no problem with Greater Greece.  Hell, as far as I’m concerned we can bring back the Byzantines, Emperor and all. 

The point I was making is: when you begin revisionism, it sets precedents.  It is infectious.  It can swiftly lead to wars and violence, in a time when the peoples of Greater Europe ought to be working together.

Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:52 | #

when the peoples of Greater Europe ought to be working together.

Working together to expel the foreign influence and corruption, that is.  Not “working together” in the sense of the neoliberal Jewtopia of the EU.

Posted by Diamed on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:34 | #

Wen Jiabao of China and Putin come to mind.

I would trust nearly anyone here at MR to be dictator, heck I’d even prefer Silver even though his first order would be to arrest and execute me.  You don’t seem to realize how terrible a position we’re in.  I would gladly die if it meant anyone here getting in power, because we all understand the fundamental need to preserve the white race.  No matter how evil, bumbling, or disastrous a MR dictator would be, it could never match the current democracies of the world.  The majority of American children are non-white.  We are losing the white world under our noses.  And you’re worried about dictatorial abuses of power?  It is impossible to do worse than our current leadership.

Posted by Dave Johns on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:10 | #

“Wen Jiabao of China and Putin come to mind.”

As white-preservationists, we know demographics is everything.

China doesn’t have a demographic problem; on the contrary, they have too many Chinese in China.

On the other hand, Putin’s Russia is in a demographic crises of unprecedented proportion. In fact, two out of every three pregnancies in Russia are aborted. The fertility rate in Russia is an abysmal 1.4. That 1.4 number factors in the high fertility rates of non-white immigrants into the overall rate. Remove the immigrant fertility rate from the equation and the fertility rate for native Russian women would be much lower than 1.4.

So tell me again why Putin is such a good dictator?

Bottom line: Modern-liberalism must be discredited and rooted out of our culture before we can solve and reverse the damage already done. If that ultimately requires a pro-white dictator, then I’d be for one.

Posted by Diamed on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:58 | #

Putin didn’t cause that crisis, but he’s trying to solve it.  Furthermore he has not allowed immigrants into his country, but again is stuck with the remnants of the Russian Empire which incorporated non-whites long ago.  I recently saw in a documentary that 30,000 turks fled Russia to a ‘new life’ in the USA free of racism.  That’s a clearcut example of Putin good, democracy bad.  Putin must act within the means he has, a very shaky economy, downtrodden people, and the inherited ills of hundreds of years of imperialism and communism.  Given the tools he has to work with, I’d say what little he has accomplished is miraculous.  If you let me go back a little in time I could give you Peron and Pinochet, Ian Smith of Rhodesia and hundreds more examples of 1st world dictatorships.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:25 | #

“Given the tools [Putin] has to work with I’d say what little he has accomplished is miraculous.”  (—Diamed)

Well, getting those 30,000 Turks to leave Russia voluntarily and of their own accord was certainly a master-stroke, that’s for damn sure! 

We should hire Putin to come over here and employ the same techniques to get rid of our eighty million Mexicans (forty million here illegally, forty million “legally” if you can call the Jewish 1965 immigration law and the Jewish diversity lottery “legal,” admittedly a very big if). 

Oh and while he’s here maybe he could get rid of the U.S.‘s very own Jewish Oligarchs the way he sorted out the Russian version of that phenomenon a few years back?  I mean, visibly the man knows how to get certain things accomplished. 

What’s this bail-out going to be worth, two point five trillion?  I think that’s it.  I’d rescind the bail-out and pay Putin personally two point five trillion dollars to get those two tasks accomplished over here:  get rid of the Mexicans and the U.S.‘s version of the Jewish Oligarchs.

Posted by Valerian on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:05 | #

This is my first comment on Majority Rights but I’ve been reading this site since the beginning of this year. I actually started out as an anarcho-capitalist Libertarian when I was 18 but progressively I started reading about National Anarchism, New Right thinkers like Sunic and Benoist, and white nationalism itself. I’m 21 now, still learning about the world around me and still striving for knowledge and wisdom, for that reason I had to discard a lot of previous ideas I had and I also had to go through a personal metamorphosis on how I view the world. Reading articles on here and reading the feedback has influenced me a lot and I really appreciate the dialogue that’s formulated on this site. he

With that introduction out of the way I want to go ahead and say a few things related to the discussion. From reading the article about the nature of the economy on Greece and the EU, I am more and more reinforced with the idea that Nationalism is really our only option. On a personal note, I still hold classical liberal ideals and not the “atomized” individualism that has really swept up a lot of Libertarians and fellow white people here in shitty California. Towards the end of his life, Murray Rothbard, probably the beginner of he Libertarian movement, realized that ethnic groups, cultural groups, and other self described groups do exist and that they do need self determination.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard134.html

I’ve argued for this case on an anarcho-capitalist group on myspace sometime earlier this year and those people were never able to break out of their misconception of the world. Now that I’ve strayed away further from that bleak individualism that so encapsulated my mind and still further, all those minds that still call themselves libertarians, I can finally realize myself further in this world. The realization is that we are all products of past cultures, genetics, and everything is interconnected by cause and effect. I would have never gotten those earlier Libertarian ideals living somewhere in bum fuck China. I’m a product of the anglosphere; countries that are descended from anglo-saxon forbears that also brought a certain political culture and worldview through the ages. Unfortunately, the great common law practices and legal foundations that underpinned the anglosphere for so long have been undermined by modern liberalism that unfortunately came from some of the exegesis already noticed in the anglosphere worldview, the Jacobin bastardization of civilization, and that dickhead Marx. Now we have a universalist creed that permeates through our institutions, media, political culture, churches, businesses, schools, and so forth that corrupted the true nature of the world. The true nature being that every thought,action, deed, convention, opinion, formulation, and indeed, every practice that use westerners practice was consecrated by our forbears and in 3 words: tradition, culture, and biology.

Nationalism is going to win for Greece, for Spain, for Britain, for China, Japan, any of them! The solution is in Nationalism because there is no universal creed that can unite all countries and facts are interpretations, as Nietzsche said. Greece will find itself and it’s own unique solution through the medium of Nationalism and so will everyone else. And because of the monster known as modern liberalism has awakened the truth in all of us Europeans, now we are united by White Nationalism. Keep fighting the good fight, all of you!

Posted by hey_you on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:18 | #

Nice to meet you Valerian.

Note that in that link which contains Rothbard’s writing he sounds like your typical leftist/universalist/communist Jew (even though he sold himself as a conservative liberatarian anarchist) when he writes: “To those of us who glory in ethnic diversity and yearn for national justice…”

Posted by John on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:45 | #

Diamed:

I think the last decent president of America was Eisenhower

Are you kidding me? The guy who was responsible for horrid conditions and mass starvation in the Allied POW camps in Germany? Who sent soldiers to Little Rock Arkansas to force-integrate Central High School? You’ve got either a poor knowledge of ‘40s and ‘50s history or a pretty loose definition of “decent”, my man.

Posted by snax on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:14 | #

GW said:

From Madrid to Moscow, Greeks living abroad, left-wing activists and other sympathisers took part in demonstrations in solidarity with the six days of rioting which has hit Greece.

The protests marked a dangerous escalation in the crisis that has engulfed Greece since 15-year-old schoolboy Alexis Grigoropoulos was shot dead by a police officer on Saturday night in Athens.

In Copenhagen, police detained 63 people who threw bottles and paint bombs at riot police late on Wednesday.

In Madrid, nine people were arrested when around 200 people chanting “police killers” targeted a police station, shops and banks.

In Barcelona a Greek woman and another unidentified foreigner were arrested during a similar demonstration.

In France, arsonists torched two cars outside the Greek consulate in Bordeaux, scrawling slogans in support of Greece’s worst riots since the country was ruled by a military junta in the early 1970s.

Graffiti sprayed opposite the consulate read “Support for the fires in Greece”, “Insurrection Everywhere” and “The Coming Insurrection” – the latter the name of a book which the French government alleges has inspired a network of “ultra-left” anarchist groups.

In Turkey, about a dozen left-wing protesters daubed red paint over the front of the Greek consulate in Istanbul. Protesters threw petrol bombs at Greece’s embassies in Moscow and Rome.

Do you really believe Greeks all over Europe (despite the double standard) are spontaneously rising up against the rare excessive police action against illegal immigrants in their homeland? BS! This is a test-run for what’s gonna follow across Europe - how to provoke a “situation”; how to man it; how to respond to it; and how to portray it.

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:52 | #

Valerian: “Nationalism is going to win for Greece, for Spain, for Britain, for China, Japan, any of them! The solution is in Nationalism because there is no universal creed that can unite all countries and facts are interpretations, as Nietzsche said. Greece will find itself and it’s own unique solution through the medium of Nationalism and so will everyone else. And because of the monster known as modern liberalism has awakened the truth in all of us Europeans, now we are united by White Nationalism.”

Welcome, Valerian.  Sounds like you are on an exciting intellectual journey.  If I could recommend 2 books to you (assuming you haven’t read them), they would be The Culture of Critique (and the trilogy is worth reading) and Imperium.  I’m curious to know how you differentiate between ethnic nationalism (which is what you are presumably describing in the first sentence) and White Nationalism.

Posted by Diamed on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:15 | #

John—

  That completely skipped my mind.  When I think Eisenhower, I think the baby boom, good economy, interstate highway system, and my favorite: “Operation Wetback” where he gathered up all the illegal alien hispanics he could find and threw them back across the border to Mexico.  I guess he had some issues too but compared to the presidents around him I’d still say ‘decent.’

Valerian—

  Welcome aboard!  I used to be a big fan of Ayn Rand too, read all her books etc, until I realized she was completely ignoring genetics.  After reading some more serious books like Bell Curve, Understanding Human History, IQ + Wealth of Nations, I realized Ayn Rand was living in a dream world and nothing she said was applicable to reality.  It is absurd for any philosopher to ignore such instinctual needs as family and nation and apply zero value at all to genetic relatedness, while simultaneously ignoring the impact of genes on intelligence and behavior which produces the very traits she so admires: reason, productivity, inventiveness, freedom, etc.  To properly follow Ayn Rand’s creed, you must admit it’s irrational to value your family more than any other person, and if a non-family member is objectively better (more rational, freedom oriented, more productive would be Rand’s parameters) then you would perforce have to abandon your family in preference to the newcomers.  It’s no wonder family didn’t exist in any of her books, and all of her ‘love’ relationships were simply short-term flings until her heroine found a new better guy to screw.  The whole thing is disgusting when you get to the bottom of it.

Posted by Dave Johns on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:35 | #

Ayn Rand’s farts sound like Vivaldi compared to some of the dissonance that many at WN sites purport as logic.

Posted by Guest on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:05 | #

2- Is there anyone that comments here at MR whom you would trust as your all knowing, all caring, dictator?

Posted by Dave Johns on Friday, December 12, 2008 at 01:15 PM | #

Wintermute I would think would be a good one, unless and until The Avatar returns.

Posted by silver on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:16 | #

GW, you of all people should know that we are already in the Kali Yuga and have been for a long time

Mucking it up for five thousand years, according to that article.  So much for “Traditionalism” coming to the rescue of anything then.  Of course, when the whole thing is supposed to last for over four hundred millenia, being off by a few thousand years isn’t a biggie.

But I wonder why GW “of all people” should be expected to have known we’re already in the Kali Yuga. Maybe because it comes from the Sanskrit “Kali,” meaning “people,” and “Yuga”, meaning “who make it up as they go.”

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

Actually, racism would still be a good idea (based on having experienced the alternative) even if determinism was completely false.

Who is “Ayn Rand”?

Ayn Rand was a… oh.. har har, I get it.

He says “the purpose of government is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them. By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite view that rights are granted by the state. If we accept that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away.”

It’s something I’ve been puzzling over for the last few days.
</quote>

You’ll puzzle because, really, there’s stuff all difference between the two.  Six of one, half a dozen of the other.  Someone, whether it’s a government man or a beatnik with beads braided in his beard, still decides which “rights” an individual possesses (or should be considered to possess), and which he doesn’t.

<blockquote>How else to explain the rise of mass nationalism and all the people willing to die for their kin/ethny?

Excellent question.  Because for hundreds of years before its rise he was busy dying for the glory of monarchs—just as happily, mind you—he’d never ever even see, and who don’t appear to have given nearly as much of a stuff about his individual worth as despised liberal democracies do.

Turks out of ?????!

Or, as Father John, would say, Orthodoxia ki thanatos!—which actually means “orthodoxy and death,” so its utility as a battle cry is dubious, but then every revolution can always do with a little spiritual encouragement from a renegade theologian, even a third rate one like Father John—which actually fits in quite well with WN, everything else being decidedly third rate about it.

Its a slippery slope, Fred.

Not for Scrooby.  White makes right.  Problem solved.

(Your fundamental error is considering this Scrooby creature a rationional entity.  It isn’t.  It’s thoroughly emotional.)

Nonsense.  There can never be any individual rights.  YOU are not the end goal of life.  More and better life, is the end goal of life.  YOU are not an end, YOU are a means to further evolution towards perfection.  An individual is mere fertilizer, fodder for the future.  Millions of generations of living beings have been devoured or devoured so that you might be born, not because they want you to be happy, but because you have been given the torch to pass on to the next generation.  Nobody died, nobody labored throughout their life tending for and raising you, so that you might enjoy your individual rights.  It was all so that life might progress and prosper.  Don’t get cocky, and more importantly, don’t steal the sacred trust and treasure LOANED but not GIVEN to you for your own selfish ends, your entire genome is the collective wealth of the millions of generations that came before you, and it is meant to be passed, INTACT with VALUE ADDED, to the next generation.  You do not own it, you have no right to it, you have no right to anything.  We are one link in the great chain of being, hardly the last link, we exist merely to connect the past to the future.  It’s fine to enjoy yourself while you’re doing this, but never at the expense of that link.  Some things are more important than you!  Christ how stupid that I even have to tell grown adults this.

The purpose of life as you see it isn’t incompatible with individual rights. 

Worded less bombastically, that would be a noble conception of one’s genetic endowments, and an effective way of convincing people not to spurn theirs.  But it isn’t “stupid” that you should have to explain it to people; it’s only to your detriment for you to continue to think so.  (What is really stupid is NSists forever speaking through clenched teeth and then being surprised people pay their message so little heed.)

From reading the article about the nature of the economy on Greece and the EU, I am more and more reinforced with the idea that Nationalism is really our only option. On a personal note, I still hold classical liberal ideals and not the “atomized” individualism that has really swept up a lot of Libertarians and fellow white people here in shitty California.

“Classical liberal ideals” is just a fancy way of saying “truth.”  Older, supposedly “conservative” ideas were abandoned and replaced by newer ones because the newer ones were truer.  Classical liberalism is just “applied reason.”  That’s why religion got canned, slavery was abolished, women given the vote etc.  Sadly, it led to multi-multi too.  But that’s humanity: people blunder, even when they’re doing their best not to.

All that said, “nationalism” is one way out, sure, but it’s important not to lose sight of why nationalist ideas fell into such disfavour after the war.  If (racialist) nationalism does prove a way out, in my estimate it’ll be because people back into it, not because the hate-‘em-all nazi types win peoples hearts.  Through conversations with WN newcomers on sites like Stormfront, I’ve got plenty of anecdotal evidence to back this view up; as well as the logical expectation that people (whites, anyway) will opt for the less extreme ideology that still gets the job done (which, in this case, is certainly something much less severe than hate-‘em-all nazism)—even if that’s only because it’s so much easier to have a friendly fireside chat about race with an easygoing (still somewhat reluctant) racialist like myself than it is with a nazi firebrand.  I like to think I could put my views to someone vastly racially distinct from myself (a Chinaman, say, or a Kenyan) without him walking away horrified or even offended.  The average WN spokesman, like David Duke, or even something milder and much more intelligent like Jared Taylor, doesn’t come close to giving that impression.

It’s good to see intellectually oriented youngbloods (not that I’m much older) take up the racialist cause.  It would be a great pity, I think, to see you go down the road of the hardcore zealots. 

I would trust nearly anyone here at MR to be dictator, heck I’d even prefer Silver even though his first order would be to arrest and execute me.

Aw, that’s the nicest thing anyone’s ever said about me.  Listen you old coot, I wouldn’t shoot you.  It’s you who insists on doing everyone else in.  I’d happily simply separate and then live and let live—hell, even co-operate.  It’s scandalous that racism has allowed itself to be permeated with hatred.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:00 | #

Sadly, it led to multi-multi too.

This is abjectly, profoundly and manifestly untrue. Clearly, CLEARLY it has been documented time and again that the perversity served upon classical liberalism was organised, financed and led by official Jewry. At no time were Jews alone responsible for the movement, however, Jewish organizations were fundamental to the conceptualization and implementation of human rights policy that so bent and twisted classical liberalism.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:16 | #

The Brussels Journal   12.12.2008

From Meccania to Atlantis - Part 4: Tribe

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3684

Posted by silver on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:19 | #

This is abjectly, profoundly and manifestly untrue. Clearly, CLEARLY it has been documented time and again that the perversity served upon classical liberalism was organised, financed and led by official Jewry.

They pulled it off by appealing to reason, though.  A man’s “reason” is always nested inside a certain social context and it probably has to be considered that absent that social context—the “spirit of the times,” in this case—reason wouldn’t have led to what we/you now have.  Jews today are most responsible for preventing reason from being able to correct itself, what with their myriad “hate speech” laws, commissions, watchdog groups etc.  I think it’d be much more fruitful to highlight Jews’ role in stifling the emergence of corrective mechanisms than their role in subverting reason.  At least they could be recruited in ammending the former, whereas the latter is a bygone.

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:18 | #

silver: “All that said, “nationalism” is one way out, sure, but it’s important not to lose sight of why nationalist ideas fell into such disfavour after the war.  If (racialist) nationalism does prove a way out, in my estimate it’ll be because people back into it, not because the hate-’em-all nazi types win peoples hearts.  Through conversations with WN newcomers on sites like Stormfront, I’ve got plenty of anecdotal evidence to back this view up; as well as the logical expectation that people (whites, anyway) will opt for the less extreme ideology that still gets the job done (which, in this case, is certainly something much less severe than hate-’em-all nazism)—even if that’s only because it’s so much easier to have a friendly fireside chat about race with an easygoing (still somewhat reluctant) racialist like myself than it is with a nazi firebrand.  I like to think I could put my views to someone vastly racially distinct from myself (a Chinaman, say, or a Kenyan) without him walking away horrified or even offended.  The average WN spokesman, like David Duke, or even something milder and much more intelligent like Jared Taylor, doesn’t come close to giving that impression.”

This fireside chat reminds me Vlad over at Takimag saying that Captainchaos should be ignored because he couldn’t imagine Burke drinking tea with him.  Every movement has unsavoury elements.  Often they are paid by the movement’s opponents (which is one reason the German government hasn’t been able to ban the NPD).  But I question your assertion that David Duke or Jared Taylor are such people.  Both are polite and erudite.  Maybe you know something that I don’t.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:30 | #

Desmond Jones: “Clearly, CLEARLY it has been documented time and again that the perversity served upon classical liberalism was organised, financed and led by official Jewry.”

Clearly, CLEARLY Classical Liberalism is inherently vulnerable to the machinations of our racial enemies.  If not, then how do we find ourselves here?  You attack GW for his attacks on National Socialism yet it seems you would re-enthrone that which has historically failed.  His vision of a system to secure the existence of our people is apparently more muscular than yours.  Just what positive prescriptions do you have to “secure the existence of our people and a future for White children?”

Remember, the standard is not what is pretty in pink on paper and what warms the heart; it is what will work.  It seems self-evidently to me that the more muscular the solution the more likely it is to work.  Because, it is what opposes you that defeats you, and if what opposes you cannot defeat you then you will win, no?

Posted by Diamed on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:07 | #

I respect Seiyo, he’s light years ahead of the masses, but look what we find under the rock.  The exact same problems that seem to pursue us everywhere we go, the same bullshit that means we can never make any real progress, the same maze we can’t quite escape to the true world of infinite brightness and clarity.  Go figure, Seiyo is a JEW and therefore he has no right to even address us whites on what we should do to pursue our own interests.  Go figure, the entire article exists to help out jews at the expense of whites and make sure jews get in on this new revolution and lead it as a false, denatured menshevik opposition to their jewish comrades in the multicult.  We couldn’t let a white nationalism get out of hand like the Nazis and actually challenge the bankers and jewish overlords around the world can we?  It has to stay in its place, weak and helpless and denatured and defanged so that it can never hurt anyone and never succeed.

1.  Seiyo says there is tons of evidence of the Holocaust and tons of witnesses.  I’m amazed, seeing as how Holocaust scholars like Hildberg and Pressac themselves admit there is NO evidence of the Holocaust, neither physical nor documentary.  They then spin giant yarns about eye witness testimony and ‘criminal traces’ on completely innocent documents, but at least they have the intellectual honesty to admit there is NO, ZERO evidence.  What does he know we don’t?  Is he sitting on a secret warehouse of gas chambers and documents signed by Hitler ordering the gassing of all jews with diesel engines, which, prima facie, proves the whole holocaust is a farce?

2.  What is Christianity worth? Just a 2,000 year old fairy tale full of ludicrous lies.  No one has ever seen a miracle or video taped it, there is no evidence of anything supernatural in the universe.  Good does not prevail against evil, usually it is the other way around, and there is no justice on this earth.  Nothing about reality shows any slightest evidence for the existence of God, not materially and not ethically.  The laws of physics and evolution explain everything that has happened from the big bang to today just fine, no extra parts needed, Occam’s razor require we cut out middlemen like God.  It is Christianity that has tried to make everyone equal, all sons of God etc, and destroys the racial consciousness of anyone who holds it.  Christianity, and the insane talmudic Judaism that went before it (we are all mere beasts without souls whose purpose is to serve as slaves to Jews), should never ever be allowed into a new white state.  Those terrible jewish religions must be once and for all stamped out before we enter a new society.  A man cannot serve two masters.  Either it is God and the jewish book of lies, or it is Race and Truth.  I see no point entering a new society with the same seeds of destruction already present just like the old one.

3.  Again with the libertarianism and the endless praise of jews like Friedman, Von Mises, Rothbard, the Austrian School,etc.  When will it end?  Must everyone in the world live by jewish philosophy?  Are our only choices Marx, Rand, Friedman, Boaz, or Jesus?  How about Nietzsche, Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Hume?  I am so sick of being given jew choice #1, jew choice #2, jew choice #3 etc and then being told any non-jewish philosophy is ‘beyond the pale extremism and hate-mongering’ and must be rejected.  Anyone who has read Salter must know that more of our genes exist in our race, by a factor of million to one, than our own children.  If people are willing to support their family or children in times of need, they should be a million times more willing to support their race!  Socialism, charity, nationalism, makes a million times more sense than love of your own children.  You are not throwing your money away, you are making the best possible investment into your genome and your culture, which so long as the genome remains, fellow believers will always spring up instinctually, naturally, from the heart outwards.  Anyone who talks of race as a unifying factor and then goes on to discuss capitalism and libertarianism, who even mentions Salter in his essay, but completely misses the point, that your race is your FAMILY. . ugh you get my point.

4.  Seiyo talks about allowing in all sorts of ‘assimilated’ non-whites, especially requiring we let in jews, thus showing his hand about the one thing he ever actually cares about.  There is no such thing as an assimilated non-white, because their genes are not ‘assimilated.’  Earlier on he puts an upper limit of 5% nonwhites in a healthy white society, I can agree to that but it’s hard to tell if he’s serious about that when he’s so eager to toss anything into the soup later on in the essay.  Which is it Seiyo?  If you let people in on the criteria of ‘whether they are assimilated or not,’ there is no upper limit.  If there are more ‘assimilated’ non-whites in the world than there are whites, we must out of fairness and justice allow them all in and be a minority in our own new state.  Given there are seven billion people on earth and whites are a tiny minority (white women of childbearing age are now 3% of world population), I could easily imagine a lot more ‘assimilated’ non-whites existing than whites themselves.  Allowing in non-whites to the very last enclave of white survival does not seem very reasonable if you assume Seiyo is honestly trying to help us.  For our last stand, our very last attempt to preserve the white race at the eleventh hour, he wants us to import millions of blacks, latinos, asians, and jews he decides are ‘christian’ and ‘libertarian’ enough to pass muster.  Is this honest?  I have a better solution.  Whites become 90% of world wide population and then assimilate happily with the 10% of remaining ‘good life’ we deem enriching.  From a position of strength, we gather together all the elements of non-whites we like and put them in our society, just like Seiyo likes.  Only this time it doesn’t mean we go extinct.  Wonder why he didn’t propose that?

5.  Last, his anti-supremacist blather.  He keeps insisting we don’t feel any hostility towards non-whites, nor any love for whites, nor compare any two objective numbers like crime rates and come to a common sense conclusion like, “gee, it seems whites are better than blacks, at least we don’t rape everything that moves.”  I have read too much South Africa Sucks to call those #*)!# my equal.  They rape 6 month old babies, cut off genitals for their witchcraft, rape 70 year old grandmothers, torture and murder whole families then take a cellphone and the cops label the crime a ‘robbery’ and the motivation of the criminals ‘poverty.’  Those people disgust me, I loathe them, I HATE them.  If you don’t hate that which hurts what you love, that which stands as a symbol, the complete opposite, the antithesis and nemesis of all that you love, then sorry you don’t love either.  Supremacism is just truthism.  He would require we live in a world of nonsensical formula like ‘we are all equal’ and ‘everyone is special in their own way.’  And yet we KNOW whites are superior in every way.  We are more moral, more beautiful, more intelligent, more developed, more artistic, more inventive, more courageous and effective in war, more physically capable in athletic events (just compare white medal counts in olympics to nonwhite and then look at world population!).  At the blood river a few hundred boer settlers took down an entire African tribe (who of course treacherously surprise attacked them and killed all the men, women and children they could)  At the battle of Plessy a few redcoats defeated an army of tens of thousands of Indians.  Why must we pretend we are equal?  In any competition, any fair measure, of anything, we are superior!  But Seiyo demands we jettison all love of self, hatred of the other, or objective fidelity to truth, all so that we can be PC and ‘pure’ enough to enter his pearly gates.  Well no thanks, his new country is like he said just 1955 all over again.  And what was one of the most important characteristics of 1955?  That it held the seeds of destruction that would eventually, inevitably take us to the year 2008.  What is the point of starting over with the same inevitable end?  I don’t wish to go backwards, I want to go Forwards to a new society with a new morality and new standards that will last forever, or as long as possible, so strong it can never be threatened again.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:36 | #

”racism would still be a good idea (based on having experienced the alternative)”  (—Silver)

What do understand by “racism”?  What’s “the alternative” that you refer to?

” ‘How else to explain the rise of mass nationalism and all the people willing to die for their kin/ethny?’

“Excellent question.  Because for hundreds of years before its rise he was busy dying for the glory of monarchs—just as happily, mind you—he’d never ever even see”  (—Silver)

Here Silver refers to the idea they’ve been teaching in colleges that nationalism was non-existent before a couple of hundred years ago or something like that, an idea that was either invented by the Jews or ought to have been (it’s right up their alley):  it’s false and merely one more deliberate attempt to disarm those who question the current forced race-replacement régime.  Tribalism and nationalism have always existed, in an unbroken line.  (Tribalism exists today:  Jews are the biggest example of it, yet they, the world’s biggest tribalists, the world’s biggest nativists, derisively call everyone else “tribalists” and “nativists” in an effort to disarm them and get them ripe for plunder and destruction.)  Nationalism’s documentation among Euro peoples extends back to the Trojan War and every stage of civilization since.  At most stages it’s obvious; at certain ones you may have to read between the lines to see it, the way you’d have to five hundred years from now if the Jews of that future date cite the present as proof nationalism “didn’t exist among Euro peoples in 2008, since Euros let themselves be overrun by other races.”  Reading between the lines would reveal Euros in 2008 are not fully in control of their own governments who are the ones forcing that on them.

” ‘Turks out of ?????!’

“Or, as Father John, would say, Orthodoxia i thanatos!”  (—Silver)

No, my call for Turks to get out of Greece refers to way more than Islam versus the Greek Orthodox Church.  It refers to that plus the rest of Greek versus Turkish racial/ethnocultural history, tradition, identity and biological ancestry.  Turks in their aggregate are not and cannot be Greeks in theirs.  It’s the latter who are to populate Greece, not the former.  Why?  Because some things are right in this world, and some things wrong.

”Not for Scrooby.  White makes right.”

Not without limit.  For anti-race-replacement purposes it does, up to a point.

”Worded less bombastically”

There’s no “bombast.”  None.  It’s nothing to do with “bombast.”  It’s normal for people to express themselves with feeling when their race is being genocided ... Don’t you think, or am I wrong?  Hey I don’t claim to be infallible but genocide is kind of like ... well, you could think of it as ... kind of a big deal I guess you could call it.  You know — a whole race going out of existence and all that, changed into Negroes, Mexicans, you name it ... especially when that race happens to be yours.  It’s ... you know ... I don’t know how to put it exactly, it’s ... well … it upsets people, I guess is the word.  Genocide upsets people, mainly, you know, the ones getting genocided.  OK it’s weird, I guess people are strange that way, but you know how people are, you can’t reason with them.  But it’s not “bombast,” that’s the wrong word for it.  “Upset” is a better word.  They’re a little upset.  At being changed from white to Negro by the Jews.  Hey maybe if the Jews had asked them first they wouldn’t mind so much, but nobody asked them.  A guy can get ticked off, it’s understandable.  Ask a guy first, then genocide his whole race.  That’s the decent way to do genocide, but the Jews wouldn’t even do that.  They never asked. 

Notice that people like Silver who get the vapors and immediately swoon dead-away into a shock-like state of quivering, twitching faint whenever Euro genocide victims express themselves with feeling are never bothered in the slightest, but manage to remain completely composed, when the other side’s activist rank-and-file breathe the most shocking, threatening, intense homicidal, genocidal hatred against Euros.  The other side’s activists spout all that stuff constantly and Silver is unfazed.  But let anyone on our side betray a little feeling in questioning the necessity of our deaths-by-genocide and Silver instantly collapses on the ground twitching and quivering and needs an oxygen mask and electroshock paddles applied to his chest.  Anyone understand the inconsistency?  “Go figure,” as the Jews say. 

”What is really stupid is NSists forever speaking through clenched teeth and then being surprised people pay their message so little heed.”

Translation:  “We’ll genocide you.  Yes you heard that right:  you’re going to be genocided.  But don’t you dare look as though you’re protesting through clenched teeth or we’ll pay your message little heed!”

”Classical liberalism is just ‘applied reason.’  That’s why religion got canned, slavery was abolished, women given the vote etc.  Sadly, it led to multi-culti too.  But that’s humanity:  people blunder, even when they’re doing their best not to.”

Right, a white genocide here, a white genocide there, hey people make mistakes, they need time.  While they’re going through the learning process, what’s all the fuss about?  Can’t everyone cut them a little slack?  What’s the big deal???

”If (racialist) nationalism does prove a way out, in my estimatation it’ll be because people back into it, not because the hate-’em-all nazi types win peoples hearts.”

99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the “hate-‘em’all nazi types” Silver refers to are agents provocateurs in the employ of the Jewish-created Department of Homeland Security, the Jewish-influenced FBI, the Jewish-influenced BATF, the Jewish-created Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Jewish Mossad, the Jewish ADL, the Jewish SPLC, probably also the Jewish-influenced British MI5 and the Jewish-influenced puppet government of Occupied Jewrmany.

”people (whites, anyway) will opt for the less extreme ideology that still gets the job done”

That’s what I and everyone here opt for:  the least extreme solution that gets the job done. 

”which, in this case, is certainly something much less severe than hate-’em-all nazism […] nazi firebrand”

Oh, the ADL’s agents provocateurs you mean?  Them???  Well, of course they don’t opt for “the least extreme solution” — they’re paid by Abe Foxman to stir up trouble so he can pull in a few million more from gullible paranoid Jewish businessmen in his next fund-raising drive.  Did you expect anything different? 

”I like to think I could put my views to someone vastly racially distinct from myself (a Chinaman, say, or a Kenyan) without him walking away horrified or even offended.”

That Chinaman’s and Kenyan’s views on race make Adolf Hitler look like the Rev. Barry Lynn of Amerikwans United for the Separation of Church and State.

”The average WN spokesman, like David Duke, or even something milder and much more intelligent like Jared Taylor, doesn’t come close to giving that impression.”

Impossible to put the racial truth in milder form than is done by David Duke and Jared Taylor.  You, Silver, are, once again, an unmitigated asshole.

”It would be a great pity, I think, to see you go down the road of the hardcore zealots.”

“Like Fred Scrooby:  whatever you do, DON’T go down that road; he’s hard-core.”

”Clearly, CLEARLY it has been documented time and again that the perversity served upon classical liberalism was organised, financed and led by official Jewry.  At no time were Jews alone responsible for the movement, however, Jewish organizations were fundamental to the conceptualization and implementation of human rights policy that so bent and twisted classical liberalism.”  (—Desmond Jones)

Well said by Desmond.  The other thing the Jews perverted with their polluting touch was socialism.  Proudhon’s socialism, Prussian socialism, and national socialism (including what exists today in Israel, which is Jewish national socialism) are normal forms; Jewish bolshevism is a perverted form, the product of degenerate Jewish minds.

”Every movement has unsavoury elements.  Often they are paid by the movement’s opponents (which is one reason the German government hasn’t been able to ban the NPD).”  (—Dasein)

Correct.  99.999999999999% of that stuff comes from agents provocateurs working for the other side or for government.

”But I question your assertion that David Duke or Jared Taylor are such people.  Both are polite and erudite.”  (—Dasein)

Correct again but don’t expect certain complete and utter assholes to pay attention.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:52 | #

Just to be clear:  I support the NPD, a middle-of-the-road, slightly left-of-center party.  It’s exactly what I am:  middle-of-the-road, slightly left of center.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:38 | #

I respect Diamed but have to say I just read Takuan Seiyo’s piece and I find it a major contribution.  I congratulate Takuan on it and Paul Belien on publishing it!  Absolutely first-rate piece.  This piece would have been unimaginable in that journal not two years ago.  Things are moving steadily in exactly the right direction.

The piece’s flaws:  1) Takuan may not understand the Jews or Euro criticism of the Jews’ behavior, whence his condemnation of “anti-Semitism” in the way he condemned it.  That’s OK because it’s of secondary importance, while he got the stuff of primary importance right.  It’s also possible he feels he must distance himself from “the anti-Semites” in order to be “taken seriously” as he broaches the extremely sensitive topics of race and leftist Jewish nation-destruction, neither of which he shrank from.  I saw no big fault there.

2) His condemnation of “Holocaust denial” was totally wrong but also of secondary importance given the main topics he was dealing with.

Overall, this was an extremely good piece, a hugely positive contribution.

Posted by silver on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:44 | #

But I question your assertion that David Duke or Jared Taylor are such people.  Both are polite and erudite.  Maybe you know something that I don’t.

I only know what I’ve seen and heard.  Youtube some David Duke interviews.  Tell me his answers don’t come through clenched teeth.  Who but those already inclined and only requiring the slightest budge would be moved by that?  And it’s the content of his replies as much as his tone that bothers me.  A TV appearance is an awesome opportunity to demonstrate that racialism has something important to say and to inspire people to find out more about it.  Allowing yourself to be constrained to specifics by some scumbucket reporter doesn’t allow to create that impression—for instance, Wolf Blitzer’s pointed “Do you hate Jews?” and frickin Duke hesitates and waffles!  Geezus, I thought to myself.  Why not a gregarious, “Oh come on Wolf, this isn’t about “hating” anybody. <laughs> Sure, sometimes when you notice spectacular injustices you’ll sound shrill, but it’s more important to talk about the injustices that are being done to white men and women in this country.. etc.”?

Duke’s by now toxic, so I don’t think even that would have helped much.  But come on, someone else can’t come along and do that?  Someone else without a hood/robes or Nazi uniform past?

Now Taylor, yes, he’s extremely erudite and very polite.  But, my God man, racialism cuts to the heart of what a man is.  Like it or not it’s delicate.  Creating an environment where it can be discussed at ease—an essential development, imo—requires a lot more than erudition and politeness.  It requires a recognition that you’re treading on hallowed ground.  Not to convince the schlimazel caught in the heart of some enriched territory.  He only needs the slightest budge.  But to convince the chattering classes that racialism isn’t “racism” (it is, of course, but they need the distinction), the rank, simplistic, simple-minded, reactionary, “hate” spewed by “white trash.”  To convince them that, properly understood, racialism is positive, in its own way “revolutionary,” superior, an advance, that, by necessity, it provides for the downtrodden and reins in the greedy.  That the issues racialism raises require the most urgent attention is a realization they can then come to on their own, or the ante can later be upped.  But even the most erudite (and principled) formulations—this is where the Taylors come in—that can immediately be reduced to white=good, niggers=shit; separate or die loses these people.  Don’t ask me why it does, it just does. 

Most of you want racialism to be simple and you want solutions to be simple. And the suggestion that the issues it raises are complex seems to anger you.  But you’ve been trying your way for decades now.  Isn’t it time for a fresh approach?  Remember, even if events cause “inevitablism,” and every white man becomes a foaming-at-the-mouth WN, you’re still tasked with achieving separation, without which no white future can be considered secured.  Anything and everything which eases the path to achieving that separation should be pursued, and anything which would obstruct it abandoned as counterproductive. 

But let anyone on our side betray a little feeling in questioning the necessity of our deaths-by-genocide and Silver instantly collapses on the ground twitching and quivering and needs an oxygen mask and electroshock paddles applied to his chest.  Anyone understand the inconsistency?

Oh, you… you.. idiot.  I don’t begrudge your (their) outrage per se.  I begrudge its expression because it turns away potential support.  I don’t know which circles you move in, Scrooby, but I couldn’t imagine ever broaching the issue among the sort of lower-level movers and shakers I occasionally rub shoulders without setting off heated protestations about “racism” and “hate” and blah blah blah.  Even if they privately agree with much of what they vaguely understand (or think they do), intellectual racism is too final for them.  Just try it if you disagree.  In fact, I think you should share your experiences.  Come on, since I’m such an “asshole,” why don’t you tell us of your stunning successes?  Hmm?  Whether you like it or not, people respond to what they’ve been taught (by the usual suspects), and anything smacking of it faces an incredible uphill climb.  It’s not enough that much of the time the other guy will privately agree with you while trying to slow you down or shut you up.  It’s not enough that he privately (intensely privately, strictly within the confines of his own mind, and often not even there but in his subconscious) sometimes smirks to himself about how much better than a nigger or a gook he is, and that he’d never bring one home.  That acts as a safeguard, but good God, it’s not remotely enough.  That’s something most people could never allow themselves to bring into the open.  But, as even my good friend Michael Rienzi will certainly agree, such feelings must somehow become explicit, but, I add, they must do so in a way that encourages—not discourages—others to make their feelings explicit, and in such a way that those feelings made explicit lead to or support achieving separation.  Not much else, I’m afraid, cuts it.

Now, one might well wonder by what authority I can make such pronouncements.  After all, it was only some eighteen months ago I was being a petulant, childish “anti.”  I don’t really have any satisfactory answers to that question, except to say I’m a quick study.  More importantly, however, I don’t ask that anything I say be accepted on authority.  Just consider it.  Weigh it up.  Compare it to the tried and tested—and found wanting—alternative.  What is there to lose?  (What is there to gain by calling me an asshole?)

I respect Diamed but have to say I just read Takuan Seiyo’s piece and I find it a major contribution.  I congratulate Takuan on it and Paul Belien on publishing it!  Absolutely first-rate piece.  This piece would have been unimaginable in that journal not two years ago.

His piece was outstanding. It hit all the right notes.  Notably, he even addresssed the very important issue of where “slight outsiders” like himself fit in.  That’s the direction I’d like to see racialist nationalism go.  You can be as uncompromising as you like, but understand that not everyone who, strictly speaking, would compromise your racial interests is your enemy.  How many other Takuan Seiyos are there out there who would speak out if they didn’t feel doing so was a death sentence?  There’s no reason—there’s no good reason—to exclude such aid, or to speak in a manner that suggest you do (I won’t name names, but no Scrooby, it’s not you I have in mind).

Posted by Dasein on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:58 | #

Silver: “I only know what I’ve seen and heard.  Youtube some David Duke interviews.  Tell me his answers don’t come through clenched teeth.  Who but those already inclined and only requiring the slightest budge would be moved by that?  And it’s the content of his replies as much as his tone that bothers me.  A TV appearance is an awesome opportunity to demonstrate that racialism has something important to say and to inspire people to find out more about it.  Allowing yourself to be constrained to specifics by some scumbucket reporter doesn’t allow to create that impression—for instance, Wolf Blitzer’s pointed “Do you hate Jews?” and frickin Duke hesitates and waffles!  Geezus, I thought to myself.  Why not a gregarious, “Oh come on Wolf, this isn’t about “hating” anybody. Sure, sometimes when you notice spectacular injustices you’ll sound shrill, but it’s more important to talk about the injustices that are being done to white men and women in this country.. etc.”?

Duke’s by now toxic, so I don’t think even that would have helped much.  But come on, someone else can’t come along and do that?  Someone else without a hood/robes or Nazi uniform past?

Now Taylor, yes, he’s extremely erudite and very polite.  But, my God man, racialism cuts to the heart of what a man is.  Like it or not it’s delicate.  Creating an environment where it can be discussed at ease—an essential development, imo—requires a lot more than erudition and politeness.  It requires a recognition that you’re treading on hallowed ground.  Not to convince the schlimazel caught in the heart of some enriched territory.  He only needs the slightest budge.  But to convince the chattering classes that racialism isn’t “racism” (it is, of course, but they need the distinction), the rank, simplistic, simple-minded, reactionary, “hate” spewed by “white trash.” To convince them that, properly understood, racialism is positive, in its own way “revolutionary,” superior, an advance, that, by necessity, it provides for the downtrodden and reins in the greedy.  That the issues racialism raises require the most urgent attention is a realization they can then come to on their own, or the ante can later be upped.  But even the most erudite (and principled) formulations—this is where the Taylors come in—that can immediately be reduced to white=good, niggers=shit; separate or die loses these people.  Don’t ask me why it does, it just does.”

I’m not an orthodontist, so I can’t tell you whether he is speaking with clenched teeth.  Blitzer asks the question twice, and Duke’s response each time is completely appropriate.  As for the hesitation, I didn’t see this.  It did seem at some points in the interview as if the connection was poor or had a lag.  But this interview is recent.  Surely someone as ‘toxic’ as Duke must have lots of stuff you can point to.  I’ve heard him interviewed a number of times, everything from his Donahue appearance almost 20 years ago to his interview on Irish radio a few years back.  He’s always come across as a thoughtful, decent person.  That he is uncompromising in his exposure of Jewish misdeeds is the singular reason that he is ‘toxic’ (or rather, that people think that disparaging him will win them points and prove that they are ‘good guys’).  As for Duke’s past, I am unaware of any ‘Nazi’ activities.  And that he got involved with the KKK as a very young man shows me that he was outraged by the treatment of Whites at the time (e.g. forced busing of Whites into Negro schools).  He’s a principled man.

With regards to creating an environment where racialism can be discussed at ease (not sure if a fireside is really the best place for this), the people who have the biggest problem discussing this are other Whites.  If some overly sensitive African or Chinese person can’t discuss things without storming off, that’s their problem.  Our problem is to find a way to make the message palatable to other Whites.  Taylor does this brilliantly.  Whites seem to have an acute sense of fairness.  Explaining the reciprocal nature of ethnic nationalism and pointing out the hypocrisy of our opponents are winning arguments.

Posted by Guest on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:38 | #

Duke was a NS at one time. He is a lifelong fighter for our race’s survival.

He was inspired by a heroic American, GLR.

I say to all the: “NAZIS ARE SCUM AND SHOULD GO BACK UNDER THE ROCK THEY CAME FROM” crowd that put on your nice Calvin Klein duds and say sweet things about Jews and see how far you get saving the race.

BTW, he dresses like a slob, but in a suit and tie nevertheless, says nice things about Jews, hates Islam, and yet BNP Griffin doesn’t look like his party is going to save the English let alone any thoughts of the race as a whole.

Are good people in the BNP? Unquestioned. Is it the vehicle to save England? No.

Extreme conditions call for extremists.

As far as an economic plan to save America read Matt Koehl’s THE GOOD SOCIETY speech.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:44 | #

In some regards Takuan is more than a little confused.  An addendum to his latest long essay says,

”Jews as a people, particularly the Ashkenazi ones, ceased being a tribe more than 100 years ago. “

His degree of confusion there speaks for itself and requires no further comment. 

Then Takuan said something that could have been lifted straight out of JJR:

”there are major schisms among Jews even about such supposed issues of tribal evolutionary strategy as Zionism, the Jewish religion, homosexuality (strictly forbidden in Judaism), support for the Democratic Party and more.”

Ah, but none about race-replacement immigration:  they all support that with a fervor resembling religious fervor, with exceptions worldwide that can be counted on the fingers of both hands, i.e., virtually without exception do they support it with religious fervor.

So, he’s confused. 

But look what he’s pulling off:  he’s positioning himself as a moderate while strongly enunciating his endorsement of almost every essential “plank” in the MR.com “party platform.”  That’s obviously good.  In fact, we couldn’t ask for better.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3688

Posted by Guest on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:46 | #

If Kevin MacDonald’s carefully documented tomes are correct then:
Jared Taylor.
Censors the TRUTH about the Jewish conspiracy.
Denying White people information about WHO is, was, will be, behind the invasion of White countries by non-Whites, behind HATE CRIME laws, behind HATE SPEECH laws, behind Holocaust research laws, behind the disarmament of civilians, etc is far from a political move it is a SABOTAGE of White survival.

JT chose the CHOSEN, over the White race.

The violence in the streets is emphatically a SYMPTOM of a CAUSE.

SYMPTOM: http://newnation.org/

Cause: http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/culturec.html

JT yaps about Islam but CENSORS like a Stalinist on the tribe.

Posted by Diamed on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:47 | #

Skip this if you aren’t interested, but I’m going to counter Seiyo’s response as well.  Years ago this person, like Fjordman, opened my eyes to a lot of things and I thought they were sages of wisdom, but now that I’ve learned more I just get frustrated with their lack of intellectual progress and mental development.  They are eternally stuck in PC ruts and never try to learn the objective truth for fear it might upset their respectability.

1)  To simply label anyone who criticizes a jew as an antisemite is a fallacy.  Whatever the label is, the only question that matters is if what he says is true or false.  Thus all such derogatory dismissive labels are an act of intellectual cowardice and refusal to debate.  Instead of ad hominem attacking the speaker, he should have addressed where the person is wrong, and if he cannot, he should yield the point.

2)  “True history must teach about the massive Jewish complicity in the Bolshevik’s rise to power, including in the 1919 Munich Soviet Republic that may have put Hitler over the edge. But this calls for learning also why Jews had been pushed in this direction by their rejection by Christian society.”

  Oh so now it’s our fault.  This is what the jews always say.  Whenever they do anything wrong, they refuse to take responsibility and say “You made me do it!”  “You hateful bigots make me do it!”  “I would never do anything wrong if I weren’t such an oppressed victim!”  First off, being oppressed does not give you the right to do evil.  Second off, no one makes anyone do anything else, you always have the choice between right and wrong.  Third off, bullshit, Jews started this war on Europe not the other way around.  They barged into our territory from abroad, refused to interbreed, refused to adopt our culture, and infiltrated into the most disreputable jobs like collaborators with the muslims in Spain, usurers, tax collectors—and by the 20th century drug runners, gambling den owners, organized crime, prostitution rings, movies favorably depicting murderers, transvestites, modern art that enshrined the grotesque and the meaningless—you name it.  Their endorsing of communism and freudian psychoanalysis was just one part of their endless series of subversive and destructive acts against European civilization.  They have never been innocent.  The first time jews ever entered the stage they were genocidalists invading and slaughtering a completely innocent people and then brag about it in their bible, declaring the whole world belongs to them and all heathens must become their slaves.  How on earth did we make them do that?  What’s their excuse that time?

3)  “But Jews as a people, particularly the Ashkenazi ones, have ceased being a tribe more than 100 years ago.”  What is this nonsense?  No matter how you look at it, jews support other jews, here and in Israel, more than anyone else, at the expense of everyone else.  They have stolen trillions of our dollars to enrich themselves with, by fraud, lobbying the government, deceit, and gaming the system.  They have thrown us into war with their tribal enemies, making us pay trillions and lose thousands of people to satisfy their vendettas and protect their people.  All this not 100 years ago, but more like just within the last 5 years.  In 1965 it was jews who were the major force behind immigration reform that destroyed America.  And in 1917 (still within a century) it was American jews funding Russian Bolshevik jews who hijacked and murdered that country.  Doesn’t that seem in the least tribal?  Churchill certainly thought so.  Here was his article on the matter:

“This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new. From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders.”

4)  “This business of superior–inferior is for idiots; always has been. Superior in what way, for what purpose? Truth calls for teaching about racial differences, some of which confer advantages on nonwhites, as any witness to an Olympics or to an English spelling bee will tell you.”

    First off, spare me the ad hominems.  Dismissing your opponents as ‘idiots’ is meaningless and just shows your incapability of actually proving what is claimed false.  I will answer your question which you apparently think is rhetorical and unanswerable.  I’ve explained superior many times, though it seems your mental ability cannot conceive of any way to judge or value humans and are left in a perpetual fog where you cannot assign any value to anyone or anything, and thus can’t tell any difference between two people, be they rapists or heroes.  A superior person is anyone who scores higher on an objective quantification, possesses a higher degree, of that which we have assigned value.  Since it is impossible to go through life without valuing anything or having any values, it should be obvious that everyone is either superior or inferior to everyone else.  Since not all values are equal, but in our head we prioritize first our higher values, then secondary values, then tertiary, and so on, it is meaningless to say ‘in what way, for what purpose?’ as though all values mattered equally.  I value Truth, Beauty, Love, Virtue, Honor, and Pride, as well as the evolutionarily necessary values Life has instilled within us Power, Complexity, Intelligence, Adaptability, and Resilience.  I submit to you that running fast, or winning a spelling bee, is not as valuable or important, in a proper hierarchy of values that can distinguish between things of primary importance and third-rate fluff, as traits whites most commonly hold like honesty, courage, artistic excellence, a love of freedom, a cultivation and reverence for natural beauty including the steady cultivation of our own genome that has made us the most beautiful people on earth, an adherence to logic instead of mysticism, and a love of justice over arbitrary or tyrannous acts.  In these categories and more, whites fall short of NO OTHER RACE on Earth.  We are not outcompeted by Asians, Jews, Latinos, Arabs, Blacks, Subcons, or Australian Aborigines or Inuit.  Thus, whites are superior, and the rest are inferior.  Tell me what you value, and your heirarchy of values, and I will tell you who You think is the superior race, and who is the inferior race.  If you have no values or no heirarchy of values, it’s true you cannot label superior or inferior.  But as an adult, is it really okay to go through life in such a moral haze, with no values and no priorities about what’s important about life and what isn’t?  If you intend to win an argument by throwing away your soul or any attempt at a moral, meaningful life, then have at it, but don’t expect us to follow your lead.

Here I will make a formula for you so that it cannot be any clearer to someone who is seemingly so confused:

List 5 things you value, in order, from 1 to 5.  #1 will be given 5 points, #2 4, #3 3, #4 2, #5 1 point, corresponding to how much you care about each value.  Now, take a person you know, and assign them a number 1 through 5 where 1 is they have very little of this valued trait, and 5 they have very much of this valued trait.  Multiply the first number by the second in each category, add them up, and there is your objective quantification of the value of said human being.  Do this to another person.  Compare the two scores.  If one is higher, label him ‘superior.’  Label the second one ‘inferior.’  Bake in oven for 5 minutes and enjoy.

5)  “Which means that whatever statements one makes about any group of people, however true, are true so only in the statistical sense. There should always be room for those removed by more than one sigma from the mean.”

Fine, suppose we do make room for all these people, it should change nothing about the overall decision to favor whites above all others, it is irrelevant to the larger question which should be ‘should the superior supplant the inferior, or the inferior the superior, on this green earth?’  Nevertheless, how can you assure me that these abnormal people of other races well beyond the mean, will not REGRESS to the mean with their children?  You know, how genetics works and all?  Or did you skip that lesson?  And how can you assure me that people who have well above average intelligence, still don’t inherit other bad racial traits like well below average looks, or well above average dishonesty and trickery, or well above average tendency to violence and psychopathy, or well above average conformism and tyrannical inclinations, etc?  Can you find me a racial specimen that is above average not just in IQ, but in everything and then assure me their kids will act the exact same way?  And if you do find this asian/jew/black/latino superman and demand he be allowed in, what have you really achieved?  Couldn’t we have instead simply devoted ourselves to eugenically creating just such a wonderful specimen within our own people, and not just one but millions of them, who are all organically, naturally our children and beloved race?  What can foreign races do that we cannot?  Why do we need them?  Let us develop ourselves instead of relying on others. And if they are so great, let THEM develop THEMSELVES instead of relying on US.  Why are we the perpetual sucker?

6)  “Maybe some of the fruitbars are salvageable, and for that purpose maybe at least an attempt at argument is justified. Ultimately, however, one has to be aware that unalloyed racial hatred is a disease, and one that requires quarantine. It’s the evil twin of Body Snatching, after all, though manifested as counter-matter in a parallel universe.”

Quack Quack goes the duck.  Bow-wow goes the dog.  Is this argument or just blather?

Posted by snax on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:34 | #

Anyone who has read Salter must know that more of our genes exist in our race, by a factor of million to one, than our own children.  If people are willing to support their family or children in times of need, they should be a million times more willing to support their race!  Socialism, charity, nationalism, makes a million times more sense than love of your own children.

What’s the pithy genetic-numerical argument for not supporting humanity over one’s race and children, then, or even all life before humanity?

Posted by BB Wolfe on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:44 | #

Anybody who would put the interests of “the race” (or even “all humanity”) over and above the interests of their own children is not worth the gift of life at all. It’s the kind of nonsense that has been spewed by childless Utopian crackpots for hundreds of years.

Posted by snax on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:51 | #

Fred wrote:

Here Silver refers to the idea they’ve been teaching in colleges that nationalism was non-existent before a couple of hundred years ago or something like that, an idea that was either invented by the Jews or ought to have been (it’s right up their alley):  it’s false and merely one more deliberate attempt to disarm those who question the current forced race-replacement régime.

This site could do with a few articles on the academic (and therefore Jewish) view of European nationalism. The “Imagined Community” of Benedict Anederson has been mentioned once or twice, but its title lead to it being prematurely dismissed. Anthony D. Smith’s “ethnic origins theory”, a thinly veiled apologia for Israel represents the most useful vehicle - and there’s nowt wrong with a little free-riding now and again.

Posted by snax on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:14 | #

Then Takuan said something that could have been lifted straight out of JJR:

”there are major schisms among Jews even about such supposed issues of tribal evolutionary strategy as Zionism, the Jewish religion, homosexuality (strictly forbidden in Judaism), support for the Democratic Party and more.”

Ah, but none about race-replacement immigration:  they all support that with a fervor resembling religious fervor, with exceptions worldwide that can be counted on the fingers of both hands, i.e., virtually without exception do they support it with religious fervor.

Really, none of those “issues” are controversial within the Jewish “community”. Zionism attracts something close to 100% support: the Jewish religion, as something specifically for ethnic Jews and only ever open to the kind of “gentiles” who’ll jump through hoops to prove they don’t care about their own people, but do care about the Jewish people, attracts something close to 100% support; homosexuality is seen, by something close to 100% of Jews, as either a wedge issue to undermine non-Jewish majority identitarianism or as something inimical within the tribe to its long-term interests (the factions rarely, if ever, cross horns); Jews who support Republicans do so because they think it’s good for the Jews: all told, close to 100% of jews vote for the party they think best defends Jewish interests. Neither party is good for any ethnic group but the Jews.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:45 | #

“This site could do with a few articles on the academic (and therefore Jewish) view of European nationalism.”  (—Snax)

But why?  Most here, I suspect, would find such articles agony to read — I for one certainly would, at any rate.  You know what the Jews will say — they’ll denigrate Euro nationalism, try to invalidate it, libel it, blame it, say it’s not real the way they say the Euro race isn’t real, and so on. 

Is it perhaps because you had to endure that in college from your Jewish professors and want finally to lay it to rest in your own mind, that you would welcome such discussion here?

Posted by snax on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:14 | #

No, Fred, I think “that which needs be laid to rest” could better be done here than anywhere, and it needs be, because so many thinking people were forced to endure it at university. It is best done here because this forum provides a voice for the most articulate nationalists and “deconstructionists” of the orthodox academic viewpoint on these matters.

Posted by snax on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:18 | #

I don’t know to what extent you’ve engaged with the most referenced works on nationalism, but I do know they influence even the most junior opinion-former in our societies. Vicars, teachers, the English graduates who staff newspapers, and so on… all are steeped in the sociology of nationalism we must combat.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:07 | #

“Years ago this person [Seiyo], like Fjordman, opened my eyes to a lot of things and I thought they were sages of wisdom, but now that I’ve learned more I just get frustrated with their lack of intellectual progress and mental development.  They are eternally stuck in PC ruts and never try to learn the objective truth for fear it might upset their respectability.”  (—Diamed)

That’s more true of Fjordman than Seiyo.  FJ stubbornly refuses to openly acknowledge certain truths which I suspect he glimpses in his own brain but is scared of or embarrassed to address.  He’s staying in his “comfort zone,” namely, culturalist Moslem surveillance.  Seiyo, on the other hand, clearly is not standing still like FJ but is taking giant leaps in the right direction:  just in, say, his last half-dozen pieces he’s leap-frogged over something like eighty percent of the PC crap FJ hasn’t dared to challenge to get right to the nub of a few of the most crucial issues.  Yes Seiyo is mistaken on anti-Semitism which he gets just about totally wrong, he’s mistaken on the Holocau$t, he’s mistaken on “racism” to an important extent.  But none of those is the central issue.  The central issue is race-replacement, and that Seiyo gets about 90% right, leap-frogging right over a goodly number of ditherers supposedly broadly sympathetic to our side but seemingly unable to take the final step, unable to finally commit.  He’s leap-frogged right over FJ for example, leaving him in mired in his meaningless neocon-symp limbo which ultimately goes nowhere except to help advance the agenda of brazen diaspora-Jewish pro-race-replacement Zionists.  That agenda, which ignores race, leaves Euro peoples with, in the last analysis, naught.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:29 | #

The other thing is, What’s going through Paul Belien’s mind?  Why hasn’t he been spiking Seiyo’s recent very bold articles?  Belien is Catholic, therefore presumably a follower of the current Vatican line favoring the replacement of the Euro race with non-whites.  Why has he been publishing stuff such as Seiyo’s new outright call for retention of the intactness of the Euro races, something heretofore, because of its reference to race, strictly forbidden by the European establishment, and also something diametrically opposed to current Vatican teaching which strongly, stubbornly endorses forced race-replacement?  Maybe Belien is onto race now?  Maybe he gets it?  Or maybe he’s mad at the Vatican, as well he should be, for its stance not only in favor of replacing all Euro peoples with Negroes but replacing all Christianity with Islam?

As for what’s motivating the body-snatchers (to apply the metaphor Seiyo aptly uses in other applications) who are presently in charge in the Vatican, it can only be communism (they’re communist infiltrators who’ve succeeded in moving up the ranks through the West’s foundational institutions as planned decades ago when they started at the “ground floor”) or hopelessly twisted homosexualism, so twisted that though they continue to oppose homosexual “marriage” they endorse the standard warm homo sympathy for race-denial, miscegenation, and race-replacement.  (And no, I’m not forgetting exceptions to the rule, such as our departed comrade Alisdair Clarke.)

Posted by silver on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:24 | #

Re Duke.  Okay, I’ll watch the Blitzer interview again.  I’m on dial-up here, so it’s a pain, but I have mellowed with respect to “WN” since I first watched it so maybe I was just wanting to hang him.  I think I’ll stand by my assessment on the Iranian holocaust conference interview, though.  Way too much hesitation, incoherence and agigation on that one.  Either that or we’ve got wildly divergent ideas of what those terms mean.  Or maybe I’m simply seeing it from the perspective of what might get a liberal (at least a race liberal) to pay attention, to forage further for himself.

With regards to creating an environment where racialism can be discussed at ease (not sure if a fireside is really the best place for this), the people who have the biggest problem discussing this are other Whites.  If some overly sensitive African or Chinese person can’t discuss things without storming off, that’s their problem.  Our problem is to find a way to make the message palatable to other Whites.  Taylor does this brilliantly.

Well that’s who I’m talking about, whites.  I simply include others in order to highlight a level that I believe white discourse needs to reach before the mass of whites will engage in it (that being the possibility of putting it before non-whites without them bolting or retching).  Taylor is very, very good.  But he could be better.  He could be and, I’ll say, needs to be, much better.  And all of it without compromising on principle at all.  In fact, by being better he could even improve on principle.  What does he go around saying now?  “Complete freedom of association”?  So he’s a “slow decliner” then.  Freedom of association won’t get the job done.  But he preaches it, I figure, because he fears anything more would earn him the “extremist” label (and shutdown white minds).  By being better on race, he could advance the entire program and really begin to engage minds. 

That’s why I don’t get his conferences.  IQ, IQ, IQ. Okay, that’s important, it’s important to establish its heritable nature, but really it’s only a small part of the whole picture.  And then the “we’re being crushed, we must fight” speeches.  Yeah, oh-kay.  Who there isn’t aware of any of this?  I don’t get what these conferences are supposed to achieve, I really don’t. 

Imagine, on the other hand, conferences featuring speakers who advance a positive program about what can be done, and they do it in the sort of non-hateful-as-a-feature manner (non-hateful almost by necessity, as though hatred itself destroys the basis of what is being discussed—not stricly, of course, but, in my view, very nearly).  He’s already Jew-friendly, so why on earth not feature a couple of Jews who can see the obvious good sense in all this?  They already hum and haw and slink away when it comes time discuss what might actually be done (the Harts, the Levins, not to mention the Weissburgs).  This gives them the opportunity to discuss real solutions.  Wasn’t Bill White bitching that some (dot) Indians were at the last conference?  Presumably Taylor doesn’t see them as racial kin, meaning he wouldn’t want them in his part of any final racial territorial settlement, but why have them there unless you’re hoping to win some co-operation from them?  In that case, it makes perfect sense to actually advance a program, or to at least discuss what the features of such a program might be, so that such hoped-for allies can get a sense of what it means for them. 

Doesn’t that mean, though, having to leave off a little on bashing favorite sitting ducks like the Hmong and Guatemalans?  (And I know as far bashing goes it’s ultra-mild bashing, but still.)  Obviously there’s a place for that.  But does he have to do it? 

Whites seem to have an acute sense of fairness.  Explaining the reciprocal nature of ethnic nationalism and pointing out the hypocrisy of our opponents are winning arguments.

Well, no, actually.  Because you’re still left with a mass of doctrinaire liberals who are already aware of those arguments.  But their rationale is that since you “can’t do anything about” multiracialism it’s pointless to talk about it.  Pointing out hypocrisy etc is fine, and yes, it’s winner as far as it goes.  The problem is it doesn’t go far enough.  Everything needs to be judged by separation, by the only measure that absolutely ensures survival.  Whatever negates or threatens to negate securing complete and permanent separation must be considered at least risky business, if not actually counterproductive.  Pointing out hypocrisy, as I said, is fine, and, yes, it can be expected to increase animosity and lead to greater balkanization [why does Rienzi get credit for this?  As if it wasn’t occurring naturally.  What else do we credit him with?  The earth turning?], but that is only an interim or halfway measure: it buys time by minimizing miscegenation, but of itself it makes no mention of securing eventual permanent separation, and that, I’m afraid is a risk. 

The other thing is, What’s going through Paul Belien’s mind?  Why hasn’t he been spiking Seiyo’s recent very bold articles?

Maybe he’s been reading Majority Rights and he’s realized that speaking up for racial interests can be done perfectly respectably (by the standards of tottering race liberals).  If that’s the case, no need to thank me, Mr. Belien.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:01 | #

It’s a damn good thing Silver showed up in MR.com’s comments threads — he’s got all the racists here sorted out, put in their place, and more or less shut down, and has ever-so-brilliantly shown the world how to do it the right way for once, so that Jews and Negroes won’t get scared of us and will realize they never should have opposed us in the first place.  God we’re so lucky Silver has deigned to grace this site with his magnificent superiority!

Posted by AL SPANKER on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:35 | #

Anybody who would put the interests of “the race” (or even “all humanity”) over and above the interests of their own children is not worth the gift of life at all. It’s the kind of nonsense that has been spewed by childless Utopian crackpots for hundreds of years.

Posted by BB Wolfe on Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 10:44 PM | #

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said upon the occasion of his son’s martyrdom against the Israelis that no special concerns should be made due to the fact that he was the leader of the militia.

He said his son died with honor doing what needed to be done and that so many sons of others had already made the same, supreme, sacrifice.

Do you think he did not, does not still, love his son? Yet because Nasrallah is a MAN, a PATRIOT, for all of the Arabs of Lebanon, Catholic, Sunni, Shia, he does what NEEDS TO BE DONE.

If only WE had men like that in the movement, such as it is.

Posted by silver on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:46 | #

It’s a damn good thing Silver showed up in MR.com’s comments threads — he’s got all the racists here sorted out, put in their place, and more or less shut down, and has ever-so-brilliantly shown the world how to do it the right way for once, so that Jews and Negroes won’t get scared of us and will realize they never should have opposed us in the first place.  God we’re so lucky Silver has deigned to grace this site with his magnificent superiority!

Yeah, fun-nee. 

Obviously I haven’t done that, Scrooby.  But why on earth do you so staunchly oppose even the attempt?  Why can’t there, even only theoretically, be a “right way,” or a more honorable way (more right and more honorable than “mystery meat” and “Island of Dr. Moreau”—and that’s only tip of it)? 

You know what, yes, you’re quite right: I think you are fortunate to have someone point out some of things I have.  I can’t see how there can be any rational disagreement with them.  You certainly haven’t provided any: only smears (usually incredibly silly ones).  The impression one gets of you is a small-minded man content to fulminate online with a coterie of like minds, breaking rhythm only to hush up and dismiss anything which disturbs the cozy atmosphere.  Buddy, they’ve got men’s clubs for that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:29 | #

“Why can’t there [...] be a ‘right way,’ or a more honorable way (more right and more honorable than ‘mystery meat’ and ‘Island of Dr. Moreau’  —  and that’s only tip of it)?”  (—Silver)

 

“Only the tip of it”? ...

Only the tip of what? ...

OHHHHHHH, you mean like ‘groids, ‘gloids, ‘ttoids, ‘loids, stuff like that? 

Is THAT all???

OK look, I was trying to be inclusive there, Silver — you completely misunderstood me!  I wanted to make them all feel they had a nick-name that rhymed with the others and sounded cool, so they could feel they fit in.  I mean, Subcon doesn’t sound like anything, doesn’t rhyme with anything, neither does, let’s say, Mongoloid, but as ‘gloids and ‘loids (‘loids short for australoids, the original Subcons) they’ll really feel like they belong, like they’re included.  I mean, how cool is that?  I did it for them, Silver, I figured they’d LOVE that.  See, you misconstrued me Silver, I was being very very very inclusive there, trying my best to be welcoming and show a considerate attitude.

As for “mystery meat” and “the Island of Dr. Moreau,” I can explain that — see, I was under the impression I had to be up-front and honest with the readership in terms they could understand, you know, let them know what was really going on with immigration, and, well, how to get it across without using scientific language that bores the average layperson, and I knew there was this movie called the Island of Dr. Moreau that lots of them had seen, where this nutcase mad doctor makes people into mystery meat in his lab, so I figured that was a great way to get my point across as to what’s happening out there nowadays with immigration.  See?  So you see, I was really explaining it the right way in a way they could understand but you misundersood, but that’s OK, it was an honest mistake on your part.  We’re still friends I hope!

“But why on earth do you so staunchly oppose even the attempt? [...]  I think you are fortunate to have someone point out some of things I have.  I can’t see how there can be any rational disagreement with them.”

 

You’ve got me wrong, Silver, I don’t oppose it.  Look, how’s this — you can work on the wets your way, and the rest of us can give it to the steadier sort kind of ... well ... unvarnished.  Deal?  I think we can work this out, m8.

“You certainly haven’t provided any: only smears (usually incredibly silly ones).  The impression one gets of you is a small-minded man content to fulminate online with a coterie of like minds”

Well no, I’m not small-minded at all — look, using my system they can even call us ‘zoids (short for Caucazoids).  I mean, how broad-minded is that?  See how fair I am, m8?  Silver I tell you, you’ll search far & wide before you’ll find another so broad-minded as yours truly!

Posted by Batman on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:48 | #

The opinion of Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (given the title Mahatma) on Parliaments and democracy in general from his book Hind Swaraj in the chapter called ‘The Condition of England’. Here the Editor represents Gandhi.

Reader: Then from your statement I deduce that the Government of England is not desirable, and not worth copying by us.
Editor: Your deduction is justified. The condition of England at present is pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in that plight. That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile. woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms. but exactly fit the case. That Parliament has not yet, of its own accord done a single good thing. Hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it as under the control of ministers who change from time to time. Today it is under Mr. Asquith tomorrow it may be under Mr. Balfour.

Reader: You have said this sarcastically. The term “sterile woman” is not applicable. The Parliament being elected by the people, must work under public pressure. This is its quality.
Editor: You are mistaken. Let us examine it a little more closely. The best men are supposed to be elected by, the people. The members serve without pay and therefore it must be assumed only for the, public weal. The electors are considered to be educated and therefore we should assume that they would not generally-make mistakes in their choice. Such a Parliament should not need the spur of petitions or any other pressure. Its work should be so smooth that its effects would be more apparent day by day. But. as a matter of fact. it is generally acknowledged that the members are hypocritical and selfish. Each thinks of his own little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive. What is done today may be undone tomorrow. It is not possible to recall a single instance in which finality can be predicted for its work. When the greatest questions are debated. its members have been seen to stretch themselves and to doze. Sometimes the members talk away until the listeners are disgusted. Carlyle has called it the “talking shop of the world” Members vote for their party without a thought. Their so-called discipline binds them to it. If any member. by way of exception. gives an independent vote. he is considered a renegade. If the money and the time wasted by Parliament were entrusted to a few good men. the English nation would be occupying today a much higher platform. Parliament is simply a costly toy of the nation. These views are by no means peculiar to- me. Some great English thinkers have expressed them. One of the members of that Parliament recently said that a true Christian could not become a member of it. Another said that it was a baby. And if it has remained a baby after an existence of seven hundred years, when will it outgrow its babyhood?

Reader: You have set me thinking. You do not expect me to accept at once all you say. You give me entirely novel views. I shall have to digest them. Will you now explain the epithet “prostitute”?
Editor: That You cannot accept my views at once is only right. If you will read the literature on this subject you will have some idea of it. Parliament is without a real master. Under the Prime Minister, its movement is not steady, but it is buffeted about like a prostitute. The Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare of Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon securing the success of his party. His care is not always that Parliament shall do right. Prime Ministers are known to have made Parliament do things merely for party advantage. All this is worth thinking over.

Reader. Then you are really attacking the very men whom we have hitherto considered to be patriotic and honest?.
Editor: Yes, that is true. I can have nothing against Prime Ministers, but what I have seen leads me to think that they cannot be considered really patriotic. If they are to be considered honest because they do not take what are generally known as bribes. let them ‘be so considered, but they are open to subtler influences. In order to gain their ends, they certainly bribe people with honors. I do not hesitate to say that they have neither real honesty nor a living conscience.

Reader: As you express these views about Parliament” I would like to bear you on the English people, so that I may have your view of their Government.
Editor: To the English voters their newspaper is their Bible. They take their cue from their newspapers which are often dishonest. The same fact is differently interpreted by different newspapers, according to the party in whose interests they are edited. One newspaper would consider a great Englishman to be a paragon of honesty, another would consider him dishonest. What must be the condition of the people whose newspapers are of this type?

Reader: You shall describe it.
Editor: These people change their views frequently. It is said that they change them every seven years. These views swing like the pendulum of a clock and are never steadfast. The people would follow a powerful orator or a man who gives them parties. receptions. etc. As are the people, so is their Parliament. They have certainly, one quality very strongly developed. They will never allow, their country, to be lost. If any person were to cast an evil eye on it. they, would pluck out his eyes. But that does not ‘mean that the nation possesses every other virtue or that it should be imitated. If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined.

Reader: To what do you ascribe this state of England?
Editor: It is not due to any peculiar fault of the English people, but the condition is due to modern civilization. It is a civilization only in name. Under it the nations of Europe are becoming degraded and ruined day by day.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:35 | #

Batman above.  9.48am

“Reader: To what do you ascribe this state of England?
Editor: It is not due to any peculiar fault of the English people, but the condition is due to modern civilization. It is a civilization only in name. Under it the nations of Europe are becoming degraded and ruined day by day.”

This cuts to the chase.  Western democracy no longer functions, it is no longer fit for purpose.  There are many reasons this is so, the point is, modern liberalism recognises this condition and has come up with plan B - cultural Marxism.

Sadly, cultural Marxism is destined for failure, but in doing so will have culled the World’s population to a mere fraction of what is is today.  Is this a good thing or no?

Is one of the World’s basic problems too many people?  Too many for any kind of governance (parroting as required) to succeed, I suspect so. 

Perhaps it back to the Tribal Chief and his elders.

________________________________________//__________________________________________________

Here’s something else.

Reported in the Mail (UK) today is a piece about a man who was beheaded (no you haven’t misread, I repeat, beheaded) in the city of Manchester England.  According to the report, there was an altercation between neighbors over the loudness of music being played…...

“A pensioner was decapitated and his head dumped in a wheelie bin apparently after a disagreement over noise.
Patrick McGee, 63, was ambushed in his front garden as he returned home from a meeting.

The attacker cut off his head, then picked it up and dumped it in a nearby wheelie bin.”

Well I never!

Was this report given any sort of prominence?  No way! This piece was displayed among the usual goings on of everyday life in modern Britain.

Come to think of it, the last sentence in Batman’s post above is spot on - G-d ‘elp us!

Posted by Bill on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:48 | #

Ooops! - forgot this. (above)  Item has been moved, it is now LHS….“Pensioner beheaded”....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:50 | #

The suspect is described as suffering from mental illness, Bill.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:55 | #

And Filipino, apparently.

Posted by snax on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:45 | #

  Anyone who has read Salter must know that more of our genes exist in our race, by a factor of million to one, than our own children.  If people are willing to support their family or children in times of need, they should be a million times more willing to support their race!  Socialism, charity, nationalism, makes a million times more sense than love of your own children.

What’s the pithy genetic-numerical argument for not supporting humanity over one’s race and children, then, or even all life before humanity?

Posted by snax on Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 10:34 PM | #

There is a quick and correct answer to this question, isn’t there?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:01 | #

snax,

50% of our genes are carried by our children.  100% of our genes are carried by our race, though the race’s genes may be hundreds of times more varied than those of any single individual.

Posted by Dasein on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:37 | #

50% of our genes are carried by our children.  100% of our genes are carried by our race, though the race’s genes may be hundreds of times more varied than those of any single individual.

A minor point to start, but would it not be better to promote use of the term allele instead of gene?  Relatively few alleles (and no genes) are exclusive to one race.  To me this terminology, because it will be misunderstood by some racialists, has the potential to be used as a trap by the ‘race is a myth’ proponents.

GW, I’d be interested in your answers to a few questions.  Should I prefer an individual who has, say, 50% of my alleles, to 10000 individuals who share 10% of my alleles?  What is the proper tradeoff between individuals who are more similar to my combination of alleles, versus populations that contain these alleles?  If my financial goodwill can mildly increase the reproductive success of 1 co-ethnic in my village, would I not be better served by donating the same amount and vastly improve the reproductive success of an entire African village?  If I could trade my child for 10 clones, should I not do it?  Maybe these are questions that have simple answers, I’d be curious to hear yours.  I think Salter’s work explains many things, like why we are more comfortable in communities of genetically similar people, but I think there is a tendency to apply it in an overly reductionistic manner. If you get a chance, I would also be curious to hear your response to http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/an_exercise_in_critique/P100/#c66423  Many. thanks.

Posted by AS on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:12 | #

And Filipino, apparently.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 02:55 PM

Searched all over cannot get an enthicity on perp where did you find that he was a flip?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:36 | #

Western democracy no longer functions, it is no longer fit for purpose.

How does that differ from any government including the Polish Catholic aristocracy especially when it serves an economic interest?

The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the Statute of Kalisz was issued by the Duke of Greater Poland Boleslaus the Pious on September 8, 1264 in Kalisz.

Following are abridged excerpts from the forty-six chapters of the Statute of Kalisz:

  1. ... If any Christian should accuse any of the Jews in any matter whatsoever, even a criminal matter, he shall not be admitted to testimony except with two good Christians and also with two good Jews…

  2. ... If any Christian shall sue a Jew, asserting that he has pawned securities with him, and the Jew denies it, then if the Christian refuses to accept the simple word of the Jew, the Jew by taking oath must be free of the Christian.

  7. ... If a Jew and a Christian fighting with each other engage in hitting or wounding, then neither the judge of the city, nor the consuls, nor even anybody else, but only the palatine of the Jews or his surrogate shall judge them, and the place of the trial shall be with the Jews…

  12. ... If a Christian gets into an argument with a Jew in any way, and if that Christian wounds the Jew with a bloody or livid wound ... then the Christian ... must and shall be required to give to that Jew five marks for a blow to the jaw by any finger, ten marks for a livid wound, but for a bloody wound half of his possessions both movable and immovable to the aforesaid Jew…

  13. ... If… any Christian kills one of the Jews ... then (he) ... must be punished with the imposition of death, a head for a head, and it is not to be done otherwise in this matter.

  16. ... If any of the Jews enters into the home of any Christian, none of the Christian people must offer him any impediment, physical inconvenience, or annoyance.

  17. ...Any Jew may freely and securely walk or ride without any let or hindrance from city to city and province to province in our realm, in accordance with the law of secure liberty in all our cities or provinces without let or hindrance on the part of their subjects, and any Jew in our realm may freely, securely, and without any let or hindrance take with him his goods, property, or whatsoever merchandise he wishes or is able to have, and to sell such things and buy others, and to alter and convert them to his own satisfactory uses; he may freely and securely delay or stay in a place of the city of town without let or hindrance, for as long as it suits him… they shall pay customary tolls just as other Christians do, and nothing else.

  20. ... Wherever the Jews have an inn in any city or town of our realm, they may slaughter sheep and cattle for meats for their own use, and if any meats should be displeasing to them according to their custom and will, then they may sell these in whatever way they are better able or seems good to them.

  22. ... If any of the Christians rashly and presumptuously jeers at their synagogues, such a Christian shall be required to pay and must pay to our palatine their guardian two talents of pepper as punishment.

  29. ... If any of the Christians, not observing or heeding our statutes, should violently enter into the home of the Jew seeking whatever property of his own… that Christian must be judged as a bandit and robber.

  30. ... No Christian may summon any Jew into the ecclesiastical court in any way whatsoever, or for whatever property or summons he be summoned, nor shall the Jew make answer before the judge in the ecclesiastical court, but the Jew shall appear before his palatine appointed for that term, and furthermore the aforesaid palatine, along with our governor for that term, shall be required to defend and protect that Jew, and prohibit his responding to the summons of the ecclesiastical court.

  39. ... If any Jew is to be prosecuted by any Christian alleging that the Jews of necessity annual use the blood of Christians or the sacraments of the Church of the Christians, concerning which the statues and constitutions of Pope Innocent teach us that in such matters they are not culpable, since this is against their own law; and if despite this any Christian… accuses any Jew of such things, then… he must prove it with three good propertied Jews in our realm… and… four Christians… If by such testimony the Christian proves (his case) against the Jew, then the Jew shall be deserving of death and must be punished with it; and whenever the Christian does not adduce such testimony, and is not able to prevail against the Jew, then he alone is to be condemned…

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:49 | #

AS,

The BNP report “The Daily Mail website initially reported that a 31-year old man “thought to be of Filipino origin” had been arrested in connection with the murder, but the Daily Mail’s report was later censored to remove any reference to the ethnic origin of the suspected assailant.  The truth will no doubt emerge in due course.”

Since the story has been binned by the nationals, and the perpetrator, if insane, will not stand trial, we will never know.

Posted by silver on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:23 | #

Is THAT all???

No, actually.  That too is only the tip of it. 

You’ve got me wrong, Silver, I don’t oppose it.  Look, how’s this — you can work on the wets your way, and the rest of us can give it to the steadier sort kind of ... well ... unvarnished.  Deal?  I think we can work this out, m8.

*Crosses forearms*  No deal!

“Unvarnished,” you say.  No, pal, it’s got your varnish slapped thick all over it.  That’s what you don’t understand.  (Wasn’t there a thread on “Social Construction” a short while back?  You should look into it.)

Hey, and how about life itself?  You just as big on giving people the “unvarnished” lowdown on that: You’re born, you eat, shit, fuck (if you’re lucky), and you die?  Me, I prefer to imbue it with a touch of…well…majesty. 

We’re poles apart…“m8.”

(But hey…here’s my far less disingenuous attempt at an olive branch: You think I don’t know the score?  When I rail about you (plural) railing about everything, you think I don’t know the score?  You think I read revisionism (not just gas chamber; broad 20th century and earlier) and don’t think to myself holy fucking holy shit?  Well I do, I know it and I think it.  But when I stop myself and consider how much undeniable good has issued forth from the ensuing “liberalism” (loosely defined), there’s a sense in which it’s all been worth it—particularly if you/I/we/any decent man make it through “it.”  You mightn’t get my meaning here, but it’s that sort of check on yourself you (plural) lack and which you (singular, in particular) need to develop.  I doubt you’ll go far—at least not as far you can—without it.)