Posted by Geoff M. Beck on Tue, 21 Dec 2004 03:01 | #

This was a particularly interesting spot in the article you linked to…

...when in one particular year, 1806, six sodomites were executed and only five murderers.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:16 | #

John,

It depends what you are laughing at, mate.  It would be a strange sort of social conservative who found the rising tide of crap all around him a cause for mirth.  But, anyway, I wrote the piece with a certain liguistic inflation (not to say license since it was a complaint about license) which I would expect a man of your perspicacity to appreciate immediately.

Posted by Pericles on Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:01 | #

G.

When you are up to your ears in mud and crocodiles, is it not then that you remember that when you took the job, the first task was to drain the swamp?

Pericles

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:59 | #

Pericles,

If you possess the wisdom to drain this swamp you must find the will to join the great rush to become British, and then you must somehow succeed to the post of Home Secretary.

The pay is only moderate.  But the exes are exceptional.  Only thing is, you should never attend a party thrown by the Spectator.  Your great programme to Remoralise Britain may not survive the evening.

Posted by wintermute on Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:48 | #

I don’t feel sorry for you at all. Being of the generation that matriculated after social conservatives gave the game away, I feel that hand-wringing and lip-biting are not nearly punishment enough.

The near constant privileging of decorum over necessity has now resulted in world historical disaster.

As a person forced to grow up amid a calamity, my thoughts have always been focused on the responsible parties, “social conservatives” among them.

Here is a story about a conversation between two “social conservatives” that took place in 1972:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Graham_Nixon.html

Rev. Billy Graham openly voiced a belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a “stranglehold” during a 1972 conversation with President Richard Nixon, according to a tape of the Oval Office meeting released Thursday by the National Archives.

“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life.

“Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”

So: the president of the United States, supposedly the “leader of the Free World” and the most powerful man on Earth, has seen that certain social trends point towards disaster for his nation.

He remains silent.

His friend, one of the most influential religious leaders in American history, has correctly discerned the same trend.

Both elect to remain silent about it.

Are these honest men? Good men? Can they be said to have any concern at all for their own nation, their own civilization, their own blood?

No, they cannot.

If either of them ever felt, for a moment, that the lives and fates of millions of other people were even remotely commensurate with their own comfort and status, they never gave any indication.

And the rest of us stand by as our nations are invaded and torn asunder, as our traditions are ridiculed and trashed, as our people murdered, and our culture destroyed.

I don’t think Nixon and Graham were cowards, no: I think they were villians. I think that, thanks to a few hundred thousand other “conservatives” during the last forty years, our whole civilization was lost.

And given that not one word was even whispered against those who engineered our destruction, I don’t why we should blame them instead of the people who betrayed us: our own fathers and grandfathers.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:52 | #

Wintermute,

You have drifted several miles off-topic.

Social conservativm had no means by which to hold the line against the pill and its Marcusian exploitation, against narcotics, against the flickering images from the box in the corner of the room, against Hollywood, the music industry, pornography, against the constant press of a liberally-minded legislature in thrall to the headline ideologies of cultural marxism.

In itself social conservatism has very little motive power.  What it has it draws from the generational bonds between us.  Social conservatism is not, therefore, a movement but the cognisance of the way things are done, when they are done wisely.  For some, it is also an understanding that such wisdom arose in accordance with our evolved natures.  It has, therefore, an organic permanence that should serve it right in the long run.  However, European man may not have a long run.

That is the terror of the situation.  Our people are not just asleep to their approaching collective fate.  An ever increasing number of them are not in the least capable of seriousness about it.

And now we come to the meaning of that.  You are, I believe, a white nationalist.  I can grant that white nationalism will profit substantially from this lack of seriousness.  The unintended effect of a movement predicated on such human material will be the very reverse of that which white nationalists seek.  A stable solution is not to be found in waving flags of red and black and white.

We want the same thing, you and I.  We do not yet agree on the means to deliver it.

Posted by wintermute on Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:43 | #

A stable solution is not to be found in waving flags of red and black and white.

I am not waving such a flag and it is dishonest for you to suggest that I am.

By raising the spectre of Naziism, you are trying to both inhibit discussion of the Jewish Question, and to minimize the harm done by ignoring it. Would you level the same charge at Belloc?

It is the refusal to discuss the question which results in the radicalism that you decry.

This refusal is very definitely part and parcel of the ‘social conservative’ sense of propriety, though there are also considerations that even more venal: Nixon and Graham are excellent examples.

In itself social conservatism has very little motive power.

Surely an ideology of no motive power is not one we should be looking to, or nostalgically remembering, in times of absolute emergency.

An ever increasing number of them are not in the least capable of seriousness about it.

I cannot reply to this, since I do not know what you mean by it. What do you mean by ‘serious’? By my lights, we cannot guess what people are capable of, since they have systematically denied actual information about what is happening. We should explain “the terror of the situation” to as many as possible. Do you disagree?

You are, I believe, a white nationalist.

I don’t think of myself in those terms. I think in terms of classical liberty, which more and more seems to me to be an epiphenomena of the populations that are called “White”. That I include considerations of race in my political thinking does not make me a Nazi, a skinhead, or a “white nationalist”. Maybe I’m just a no-modifier “conservative”, who does not share the same preferred set of blinders as his fellows. Had that possibility occured to you?

I can grant that white nationalism will profit substantially from this lack of seriousness.

I have no idea of what you mean by this. If you mean to say that lower class yahoos, who are the ones who directly bear the brunt of our ‘enlightened’ upper classes policies on diversity, both in their living situations and their employment prospects, are turning to various forms of street theater in their pain, then I agree with you.

Don’t you think it is our responsibility, as representatives of the financial and cognitive middle and upper classes, to formulate approaches besides “social conservatism”? Do you disagree with my post that “social conservatism” has failed the people of our civilization greivously? Isn’t it possible that the other considerations you raise would be better tended if they were not seen as ends in themselves, but as part of the care we owe to our co-racialists and our common civilization?

And finally, wouldn’t people show more care with these things, if the fact that they were members of a collectivity were restored to them? Have the “Marxian headline ideologies” wafted off a cabbage patch, or are they part of an extremely aggressive form of ethnic warfare which seeks to destroy pre-existent bonds between people of European descent? Wouldn’t our people show less interest in these ideologies if they knew they were being propagated by persons who meant them ill?

You speak of “headline ideologies”. Who owns the papers?

  The unintended effect of a movement predicated on such human material will be the very reverse of that which white nationalists seek.

Will serious consideration of our situation spontaneouslsy arise from the continuation of policies and approaches that have led us into this mess?

I can’t think that you believe that.

And, putting to the side what “white nationalists” want, I think you must agree that the course charted by the Right over the past century has been disastrous. Do you think my little autopsy inaccurate in its particulars? Then I would have no objection to being corrected.

White Nationalist or no, I think ignoring the foundational effects of race and ethnicity in civilization to be an invitation to disaster. Do you disagree?

However, European man may not have a long run.

Perhaps if someone had bothered to tell him that he existed . . .

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:07 | #

Wintermute,

First, social conservatism is not an ideology.  It is the truth of our evolved natures written in our traditions and mores.  The pathologies that have accompanied the move away from social conservatism are plain enough proof of that, and I wouldn’t expect to have to debate the point with many on the right - save, obviously, those interlopers who are socially liberal.

Social conservatism has not failed, of course - except that we have moved away from it.  It is nature, fundamentally -  a return to which would seem to me to be the inevitable corollary of finding ourselves again.  What I lamented at the close of my original, slightly tongue-in-cheek article is that our people lack the life-seriousness requisite for the task.

Now, this issue of seriousness:-

It is my contention that the wartime generations were the last great flowering of Western Man.  They and their forefathers were extraordinarily creative, courageous and resourceful.  They exemplify the Natural virtues that we have lost.  You and I can argue and counter-argue about how that came to pass, be it the effects of the pill on sexual mores, Jews on culture war, immigration or whatever.  But it’s a fact that you conclude your last comment with the words, “Perhaps if someone had bothered to tell him (European Man) that he existed.”  Well, why would he not know that he existed, except that today he is leading a lightweight and anomic existence?

Lastly, you ask whether, essentially, “naming the Jew” would bring our people to the rediscovery of their duty to survive.  I am afraid this is a shallow and simplistic reading of our situation.  Harmful influences may be discouraged.  People may even start to say and believe different things.  But the human material itself, its social appetites, its depth won’t change.

On the contrary, a lightweight and anomic existence is precisely the grounding required for renewed group hypnosis and group psychopathy.  I am sure this doesn’t need a detailed illustration as to its potential outcome.

It’s refreshing to debate the interface of white nationalism and conservatism.  Thanks for the opportunity.

Posted by wintermute on Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:55 | #

It’s refreshing to debate the interface of white nationalism and conservatism.  Thanks for the opportunity.

As you find it so refreshing, surely you won’t mind if I re-introduce some points that you’ve missed?

I didn’t think so.

*I am not waving the Nazi flag and it is dishonest for you to suggest that I am.

*It is the refusal to discuss the question which results in the radicalism that you decry.

*Conservatism, as it is commonly thought of, has failed disastrously.

*We cannot foreclose on the potentialities of the common man, as he has not been given accurate information about his situation. What you call ‘unseriousness’ may simply be a symptom of the system of rule he currently suffers under.

*That I include considerations of race in my political thinking does not make me a Nazi, a skinhead, or a “white nationalist”.

*Don’t you think it is our responsibility, as representatives of the financial and cognitive middle and upper classes, to formulate approaches besides “social conservatism”?

*Have the “Marxian headline ideologies” wafted off a cabbage patch, or are they part of an extremely aggressive form of ethnic warfare which seeks to destroy pre-existent bonds between people of European descent?

*Wouldn’t our people show less interest in these ideologies if they knew they were being propagated by persons who meant them ill?

*You speak of “headline ideologies”. Who owns the papers?

*Will serious consideration of our situation spontaneouslsy arise from the continuation of policies and approaches that have led us into this mess?

*Ignoring the foundational effects of race and ethnicity in civilization is an invitation to disaster. Do you disagree?

I’m so glad you’re enjoying our little discussion, gw, but it isn’t really a debate unless you are being responsive to the questions as asked.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:46 | #

Wintermute,

1. I did not say you were waving a Nazi flag.  I have said twice, in different ways, that anomie would assist the development of organised racial extremism in the event of a late, ie highly critical, awakening.

2. There is no refusal to discuss the Jewish question.  There is a refusal to give rein to white anger and resentment, since it is self-defeating and disfiguring to the people you and I love.

3. Political and social conservatism, in particular, have been replaced by liberalism.  I will post on political conservatism over the coming year, and it is too big a historical subject to cover here.  In thumbnail terms, we have not seen conservatism since Burke and Disraeli.

I have endeavoured to show that social conservatism is the natural life of Western Man, to which we shall no doubt gravitate if we survive.  I regret that I see no way to overcome our current anomic condition, whereby such a return could be expedited.

4. I do not wish to foreclose on my brothers.  I wish them every good I possibly can.  But as a thinking conservative I must speak the truth as I see it.  The bottom line is that my father or my grandfather’s generation would have had a better chance of awakening permanently and acting in their interests than mine or my children’s.

5. I have not called you a Nazi or whatever.

6. Social conservatism is not an approach to anything.  It is our true home.  Approaches are essentially political.  Politically, I am a nationalist conservative and an English nationalist.  That’s my approach.  It is certainly our responsibility to formulate a more coordinated and, for heavens sake, successful way forward.  I am aware that in England there are movements afoot in this direction but I can’t speak of them yet - and will not do so if it would harm them.

7. The Marxian assault is more than a Jewish phenomenon.  The leaders of the English political left are white gentiles who truly yearn for equality and who see absolutely no racial sacrifice in their efforts.

8. “Our people” are not interested in race replacement as a policy.  They haven’t bought it from a wandering Jew.  Our liberal-left elite did, of course.  But as a policy (rather than a set of alien values) the people only bought it by default as a result of complex political and electoral developments.  Our mutual problem, then, is how to raise the issue on the political agenda, above economic and social considerations (see 10 below).

9. “Headline” does not refer to newspapers or the media.  Such literalism was not intended.

10. Notwithstanding that portion of the quality of public consideration which is contingent on the quality of the considerers, the short-term answer is staring us in the face in the Netherlands right now.  People do awaken at whatever threat threshold applies.  But that awakening is not necessarily of a sustaining kind, since it is dependent on an externality (threat level) which may wax and wane and which is susceptible to media “spin”.  The only secure, long-term answer is for a sufficient number to acquire a suitable set of well-considered personal convictions - notwithstanding that portion of the quality of public consideration ...

11. Ignoring the foundational effects of race and ethnicity is certainly not my way.

And I do enjoy the debate, Wintermute, though you are an aggressive interlocutor.

Posted by wintermute on Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:39 | #

1. I did not say you were waving a Nazi flag.

This is very slippery of you, as your exact statement reads,  “A stable solution is not to be found in waving flags of red and black and white. “

Who, pray tell, was this statement directed at?  Is there someone here who is proposing we hoist a flag of “red and black and white”?

All I can say is, at least I didn’t kill my own mother and devour the corpse! (not that I’m indicating that you’ve done this, by the way, I’m just saying it).

2. There is no refusal to discuss the Jewish question.

Non-responsive. I am indicating that certain forms of excess which you find deplorable are caused directly by a refusal to engage the facts of ethnic warfare, as it has successfully been pursued by the Jews against the West for over a century. The silence referred to is the silence of a generation.  I am not indicting this particular forum for the undergoing of the West, though I am concerned that it not continue failed policies. 

3. Political and social conservatism, in particular, have been replaced by liberalism.

Agreed, but this only delays our reckoning. What was the weakness in conservatism that it was replaced, wholesale, by liberalism?

My statement, that social conservatism has been a ruinous failure, still stands.

Please see my example with Nixon and Billy Graham, above, for the reasons why.

4. The bottom line is that my father or my grandfather’s generation would have had a better chance of awakening permanently and acting in their interests than mine or my children’s.

Yes, this is why I find our father’s and grandfather’s generation so deplorable. The current situation may be placed sqaurely in their laps, and I for one find their failure far more contemptable than any actions Jews might have taken. We have been betrayed by our own blood, on account of their cowardice and folly.

5. I have not called you a Nazi or whatever.

See #1, above.

Posted by wintermute on Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:47 | #

6. It is certainly our responsibility to formulate a more coordinated and, for heavens sake, successful way forward. I am aware that in England there are movements afoot in this direction but I can’t speak of them yet - and will not do so if it would harm them.

Can’t parse that last statement. I, too, will observe a prudent silence, until I understand what we are talking about. I will also take it as agreed that, as ‘conservatism’ has been a failure,  new approaches must be tried.

7. The Marxian assault is more than a Jewish phenomenon. The leaders of the English political left are white gentiles who truly yearn for equality and who see absolutely no racial sacrifice in their efforts.

Jack Straw isn’t a gentile. The whole Blair government, like the Clinton and Bush administrations, stinks to high heaven of gefilte fish. I know for a fact that your Racial and Religious Relations Acts are based on Group Libel Laws, drawn up by British Jews. Didn’t Robert Maxwell actually turn out to be a Mossad agent? And of course, there’s Conrad Black, who is technically a gentile, though married to a Jewess and best friends with Richard Perle. A few words of wisdom, gw, from Ezra Pound to what’s left of your nation, would to heaven they had been listened to the first time around:

And it would be better for you to be infected with typhus, and dysentery, and Bright’s disease, than to be infected with this blindness which prevents you from understanding HOW you are undermined, how you are ruined.

It is an outrage that any clean lad from the country - I suppose there are STILL a few ENGLISH lads from the country - it is an outrage that any nice young man from the suburbs should be expected to die for Victor Sassoon, it is an outrage that any drunken footman’s byblow should be asked to die for Sassoon.

You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew. Your allies in your victimized holdings are the bunyah, you stand for NOTHING but usury.

And the big Jew has rotted EVERY nation he has wormed into. A millstone. Well, an exceptionally good swimmer MIGHT conceivably be cast into the sea with a stone tied round his neck. He might perhaps untie it. If he were a Scotchman, he would remember his jackknife, before being thrown overboard.

Your infamy is bound up with Judaea. You can not touch a sore or a shame in your empire but you find a Mond, a Sassoon, or a Goldsmid. YOU HAVE NO RACE left in your government.

God knows if it can be found still scattered in England.

IT must be found scattered in England. The white remnants of England, the white remnant of the races of England must be FOUND and find means to cohere; otherwise, you might as well lie down in your grave yards.

For two centuries, ever since the brute Cromwell brought ‘em back into England, the kikes have sucked out your vitals. A mild penetration, for a hundred years they have bootlicked your nobility and now where is your nobility? You had at least the semblance of control; you had, let us say, some influence with the Lords of Judaea as long as they WANTED your titles, as long as Levy Levinstein Lawson WANTED to be addressed as Lord Burnham. You could turn the worst edge of their avarice, or rather you could turn it OFF, the upper or huppar clawses; and turn it ONTO the peer. As you did without mercy.

I see NO remedy in your parliament. I don’t mean as parliament. I mean in the personnel. It is your problem. You do not NOW even elect your own parliament. Whether WITH an election you could get anything save old dead meat, I do not know. During the last war a few men had a glimmer of instinct. On whatever formula, they called it pacifism. Was it? All of ‘em I ever met were pugnacious. Was it an instinct to save the butt end of the RACE by not fighting? Is it a mistake to combat Germans by force?

Is there a RACE left in England? Has it ANY will left to survive? You can carry slaughter to Ireland. Will that save you? I doubt it. Nothing can save you, save a purge. Nothing can save you, save an affirmation that you are English.

Whore Belisha is NOT. Isaccs is not. No Sassoon is an Englishman, racially. No Rothschild is English, no Strakosch is English, no Roosevelt is English, no Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Khan, Baruch, Schiff, Sieff, or Solomon was ever yet born Anglo-Saxon.

And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you have murdered your empire, and it is this filth that elects your politicians.

In the year 1942 Anno Domini, there is only one start you can make. And that is a start toward being England. A refusal to be a province of Israel, or an outpost of Yankee-Judaea.

Posted by wintermute on Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:48 | #

8. “Our people” are not interested in race replacement as a policy. They haven’t bought it from a wandering Jew. Our liberal-left elite did, of course. . . Our mutual problem, then, is how to raise the issue on the political agenda, above economic and social considerations (see 10 below).

This, in response to the question, Wouldn’t our people show less interest in these ideologies if they knew they were being propagated by persons who meant them ill?

Until told otherwise, I am taking your answer as a “yes”.

9. “Headline” does not refer to newspapers or the media. Such literalism was not intended.

And yet, it is certainly applicable. Who dreamt up, financed, and organized the ideologies that destroyed us? And who turned the Ring-like power of the mass media against all who were opposed?

This isn’t rocket science, you know.

10.  The only secure, long-term answer is for a sufficient number to acquire a suitable set of well-considered personal convictions - notwithstanding that portion of the quality of public consideration ...

Unless I am mistaken, the statement this is a response to was, Will serious consideration of our situation spontaneously arise from the continuation of policies and approaches that have led us into this mess?

I think the answer is still “no”.

11. Ignoring the foundational effects of race and ethnicity is certainly not my way.

But it is the way of every conservative, minus Pound, Ford, Joyce, and Lindbergh. It is the reason we have lost everything. Compare Ezra Pound’s “You have no RACE left in your empire” to Churchill’s “There will always be an England”. Why are Pound’s words still applicable, while Churchill’s laughably beside the point? Thus, to support ‘conservatism’, social or otherwise, or to prevent a serious minded anatomizing of its failure, is to share in is fatal errors. Conservatives have been very dogged and clever in the last century for not openly speaking out against the racial war being waged against us. In too many cases, they are complicit with our enemies. You say that ignoring race is not your way, and that’s all to the good, but you must admit that ignoring race has been the way of the conservative for a century, and now we stand to lose our whole civiliation. That, too, is indisputible.

And I do enjoy the debate, Wintermute, though you are an aggressive interlocutor.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I, too, am enjoying our discussion, though you are an interlocuter who is quite adept at disguising his aggression.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:18 | #

Wintermute,

May I remind that my post was about social conservatism and the anomic results of permissiveness and liberty.  It was not about the politics of Conservatism.

My view on the latter is that we have not seen a conservative Conservative Party in Britain for a very long time indeed.  Churchill, for example, was not a Conservative.  By the same lights I am not convinced that America has ever seen a truly Conservative Party.

We agree that Conservatism has been overtaken by liberalism.  From this you adduce its failure.  I tend to the view, however, that Tories were always a constituency for ideas in a way that Whigs perhaps were not (obviously, I am speaking of British politics here).  In the end, Tories were dazzled by certain egos who were never very Conservative and the emphasis shifted fatally to Whig-tinged ideas and thence, much later, to a soul-less pursuit of socialism in Britain until 1975 and modern or culturally-marxist liberalism thereafter.

I have also said I will post on this matter at length at some opportune time - probably in the form of an upcoming book review.  Meanwhile ...

I have endeavoured to separate social conservatism from Conservatism.  I’m not sure why you insist on conjoining them.  It is true that social liberalism is a product of that liberalism which can be traced right back to Locke’s Tabula Rasa.  But social conservatism is not a product of Conservatism.  It is a product of our evolved natures.  Conservatism, meanwhile, is predicated on certain political principles and arises only when these are proposed for or instituted in public policy.

As I have noted, for complex historical reasons they were misplaced long ago, much as one might misplace one’s glasses as a matter of fact!

However, by its own lights true Conservatism treats of race and nation by its fundamental interest in a stable social order.  In Conservatism the principle of laissez-faire economics does not therefore concurr with open borders, and religious and ethical tolerance likewise.  Personal liberty does not preclude responsibility to one’s kinfolk - quite the contrary, it renders it natural and inevitable.  Conservatism runs with the grain here.

Conservatism in the sense I mean it uniquely offers the opportunity to take back both the language and practise of politics.  I find that an extraordinarily exciting idea worth arguing for.

By contrast old Ezra only depresses me.  His raving monotone demonstrates everything that is vulgar and instantly dismissable - and therefore self-defeating - about the nationalist impulse.  We cannot afford to be so easily dismissed.  We cannot afford to be so easily ghettoised.

May I also remind you, old Ezra’s missive is also quite possibly contrary to current law - which we must obey.

Posted by wintermute on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:46 | #

May I also remind you, old Ezra’s missive is also quite possibly contrary to current law - which we must obey.

There is simply not enough venom on earth to adequately reply to such cravenness.

I do feel, though, that it is necessary to correct your observation on Pound, that his ‘raving monotone’ demonstrates everything ‘vulgar’ in nationalism: it is he who is noble on account of his courage, and you who are common on account of your cravenness. That he had the truth on his side, and you do not, is further confirmation of what both sides bring to the debate.

It is not hard to see who is the great man, and who the bourgeois gone sweaty in the face of convention.

Speaking of, here are some entries from the diary of Anne Lindburgh. Perhaps you can see some of yourself in her fears and hopes:

September 11, 1941:
Then [he gave] his speech, throwing me into black gloom. He names the “war agitators,” chiefly the British, the Jews, and the Administration. He does it truthfully, moderately, and with no bitterness or rancor, but I hate to have him touch the Jews at all. For I dread the reaction on him. No one else mentions this subject out loud . . [Charles], as usual, must bear the brunt of being frank and open. What he is saying in public is not intolerant or inciting or bitter and it is just what he says in private, while the other soft-spoken cautious people who say terrible things in private would never dare be as frank in public as he. They do not want to pay the price. And the price will be terrible. Headlines will flame, “Lindbergh attacks Jews.” He will be branded anti-Semitic, Nazi, Führer-seeking, etc. I can hardly bear it. For he is a moderate. . . ..

September 13, 1941:
He is attacked on all sides: Administration, pressure groups, and Jews, as now openly a Nazi, following Nazi doctrine.

September 14, 1941:
I cannot explain my revulsion of feeling by logic. Is it my lack of courage to face the problem? Is it my lack of vision and seeing the thing through? Or is my intuition founded on something profound and valid?

I do not know and am only very disturbed, which is upsetting for him. I have the greatest faith in him as a person, in his integrity, his courage, and his essential goodness, fairness, and kindness, his nobility really . . . How then explain my profound feeling of grief about what he is doing? If what he said is the truth (and I am inclined to think it is), why was it wrong to state it? He was naming the groups that were pro-war. No one minds his naming the British or the Administration. But to name “Jew” is un-American, even if it is done without hate or even criticism. Why?

Because it is segregating them as a group, setting the ground for anti-Semitism . . . I say that I would prefer to see this country at war than shaken by violent anti-Semitism. (Because it seems to me that the kind of person the human being is turned into when the instinct of Jew-baiting is let loose is worse than the kind of person he becomes on the battlefield.)

September 15, 1941:
The storm is beginning to blow up hard. America First is in a turmoil. . . . He is universally condemned by all moderates. . . . The Jews demand a retraction. . . . I sense that this is the beginning of a fight and consequent loneliness and isolation that we have not known before. . . . For I am really much more attached to the worldly things than he is, mind more giving up friends, popularity, etc., mind much more, criticism and coldness and loneliness.

September 18, 1941:
Will I be able to shop in New York at all now? I am always stared at, but now to be stared at with hate, to walk through aisles of hate!

Questions you must ask yourself, gw: Will you be able to shop in New York at all now?

Posted by wintermute on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:48 | #

Also, you will have time, perhaps some years, to consider the truth of Pound’s complaints, right up til that day when that boot comes down on the human face, forever.

Tell me, gw, when the Diversity Goons come to take away your offensive literature - and website - will you complain then? Or refrain from such vulgar - and dismissible - shenanigans?

A final warning from the great man to yourself: The white remnants of England, the white remnant of the races of England must be FOUND and find means to cohere; otherwise, you might as well lie down in your grave yards.

Perhaps too vulgar for oh-so-refined ears as yours, gw, but true nonetheless and considerably more timely now, now that you stand at the threshold of extinction, than they were sixty years ago, when you decided to slaughter your own blood for the sake of the Jew.

Count every minaret in London as cosmic jugement on your ‘conservatism’, gw, for that is what it is.

And be mindful: It is not a far-flung Empire which we stand to lose this time, but our own selves, our own homes, and our own blood.

We must work out our salvation with due diligence.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:34 | #

However, by its own lights true Conservatism treats of race and nation by its fundamental interest in a stable social order.  In Conservatism the principle of laissez-faire economics does not therefore concurr with open borders, and religious and ethical tolerance likewise.  Personal liberty does not preclude responsibility to one’s kinfolk - quite the contrary, it renders it natural and inevitable.
Indeed.  I would interpret this as an understanding that conservatism is part and parcel of what I term a “natural order”.  And, as far as you have gone, I agree with you completely, guessedworker. 

Questions that you might profitably ponder: 

What, precisely, has disrupted this order?  How could the order have been disrupted from within, i.e., by members of the community that constitutes this “natural order”?  How could the enforcement mechanisms of its moral system have been overwhelmed to allow the self-destructive developments decried by “social conservatives”?  Could an individual overwhelm those enforcement mechanisms?  How about a confederation of individuals intent on subverting the natural order for purposes of individual gain?  What would cause such highly egoistic individuals to remain loyal to one another in the face of efforts to normalize their behavior through reward or punishment?  Is there any confederation that is better equipped to effect such an anti-social agenda than a group (1) that is tied together by 5000 years of common history and ancestry, (2) whose members share a high degree of genetic similarity with one another and are genetically distant from the other members of the broader society, (3) whose members have developed and, for millennia, enforced a moral code under which the good of the group is the only good, (4) whose members have stood the test of 200 generations of natural selection for ethnocentrism, (5) whose members have been inculcated with a sense of a shared fate (e.g., the Holocaust story), and (6) whose members have been indoctrinated for millennia with an ideology of group identity and “otherness”? 

It is a cliche on American television for the police detective to ask in respect of a crime, who had the motive and opportunity?  Is this question not equally apposite in the case of the destruction of the social order?

Moreover, you might ask yourself, is the notion of internal infirmity or societal suicide consistent with evolutionary principles?  Have you read David Sloan Wilson’s books?  Have you read Christopher Boehm’s “Hierarchy in the Forest”?  Have you read Matt Ridley’s “The Origins of Virtue”?  What do you think of the germ theory of disease?

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:51 | #

Social conservatism has not failed, of course - except that we have moved away from it.  It is nature, fundamentally - a return to which would seem to me to be the inevitable corollary of finding ourselves again.

Yes, it is nature.  But what does it mean to “find[] ourselves”?  Could it mean that we must lose our non-selves?  Are you talking about separating the “us” from the “them”?  Is there some otherway to restore the organic essence of your “social conservatism”?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:42 | #

Wintermute,

I understand Pound’s meaning.  You will not educate me for I am educated.

I criticise Pound’s language for its luridity.  White Nationalism itself is not lurid, of course.  But it is much weakened by the manner with which luridity is rejected by our natural audience.

You tackle the problem head-on, like a guy whose pick-up is stuck in the sand, so he buries his foot on the throttle.  You might shift the whole damned beach, I suppose.  But there’s no sign that you are doing so yet.

I disagree with that tactic and calculate that lightening the load will give more traction on our audience’s tolerance.  Of course, some of the load will have to be picked up by others later.  But I can live with that if progress is made.

The other thing, Wintermute, is that we have some time - maybe two decades - in which to try the “light English model”.  If it produces no results then, obviously, there are going to be a lot of feet pressing pretty goddamned hard on that throttle.  Mine among them.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:24 | #

Ben,

For a minute there I thought I was in conversation with a Pre-Burkean Conservative.  Not, you understand, that I am disappointed to find you are speaking about dem Joos yet again.  But, anyway, I agree that the identities behind most Bad Ideas Of The 20th Century were invariably Jewish.  They didn’t invent the Bad Idea of invading Czechoslovakia, of course - or Poland, Belgium, Holland, France, Denmark, Norway, Ukraine, Russia et alia. But they did invent some corkers and did so, by my judgement, in full cogniscance of their racial origins.  Why wouldn’t they?  I would in their place.

But what responsibility did such actors have for the social liberalism of our times?  For example, was the pill a Jewish plot?  Nope.  What was, then?  Well, there was Herbert Marcuse.  There was the counterculture and feminism, both of which benefited from significant Jewish participation.

But, actually, these are symptoms of social liberalism, not its causes.  One has to go back to the arising of anomie, since social liberalism is its consequence, and not the other way around.

And anomie is not the final causative either, of course, because it, too, has a cause - and that’s social instability.  And what were the great causes of social instability in the 20th century?  Obviously, the loss and dislocation of two World Wars.

You see, even if every Jew was exactly as the blackest-hearted WN thinks, it still wouldn’t be enough to answer for our fall from social conservative grace.
But two world wars ... two moral tsunamis?  That has resonance, yes?

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 02:22 | #

And what were the great causes of social instability in the 20th century?  Obviously, the loss and dislocation of two World Wars.

Surely, these wars themselves had causes.  Regardless, how do you explain what has happened in the USA?  The USA was not appreciably weakened by either war.  Indeed, shortly after the first war (in 1924), the USA had the strength of character to enact and enforce a sensibly restrictionist immigration policy.

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 02:37 | #

For example, was the pill a Jewish plot?  Nope.

I’m not implying that there was a “plot”, but you may be interested to know that the invention of the pill is credited to Carl Djerassi, a Jew.

Posted by wintermute on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 02:58 | #

I criticise Pound’s language for its luridity.

guessedworker: . . .  that would do more to inculcate compassion and understanding for these unfortunates than any amount of shit-brained culture war.

guessedworker: Liberal-marxists don’t give a blow job in a blind alley for homosexuals . . .

Is a gay panic during peacetime notably less lurid than an address delivered under conditions of world historical catastrophe?

You also remain silent on the question of Pound’s forensic analysis of what was left of your nation, in the middle of the last century. Questions of style aside, is there truth in it, do you think?

Finally, do you think that your slightly hysterical phrasing of the “homosexual question”, namely:

guessedworker:. It is what it is: a war to the death.

might not be better applied to other groups?

I say this because we can all see, from your postings today, that you are capable of strong feeling, strong language, vulgarity, and the identification of threats to life. Given that these items are still to be found in your behaviorial skill set, could we not at least attempt to deploy them against groups which actually are engaged in a war to the death with Whites?

I disagree with that tactic and calculate that lightening the load will give more traction on our audience’s tolerance. Of course, some of the load will have to be picked up by others later. But I can live with that if progress is made.

Some John Jay Ray posts, from earlier today and yesterday:

John Jay Ray:Ethnicities are ALWAYS intermingling and changing. Read a history of the British Isles sometimes—Britons mixing with Romans, mixing with Anglo-Saxons, mixing with Normans mixing with Irish, mixing with Scots and constantly mixing with refugees from the many wars of Europe. And the Australian ethnic mix has always been changing too. The only stasis is death. I personally think that replacing a lot of Australian and British yobbos with polite Indians would be a distinct improvement—and one that will no doubt happen.

John Jay Ray:I myself think that real diversity is strength and so does the Queen of England.

John Jay Ray: The English egg has now been thoroughly scrambled and the dark-skinned population is not going to go away.

Note the quickness to hide behind the Queen’s skirts in the second quote, and the obvious satisfaction with the End of Britian in the third. The first quote relies upon a very sophisticated rhetorical legerdemain, and does not speak highly of JJR’s intellect or character.  This impression is reinforced by his front page calls for the reparations of Muslims, and his open claim that there are no good Arab Muslims. Why is Pound vulgar - and possibly illegal -  for pointing out the Jewish causes of the last war, while your top poster can call for the wholesale deportation or Arabs with impunity? Why not the deportation of Jews instead? Why not the claim that there are no good Jews, rather than no good Arabs? To ask the question is to answer it. You in the UK, I in America, he in Australia: all live under one dispensation, the Hebraic one. Ideas that are or might be helpful to Jews are legitimate. Other ideas are . . . forbidden. Of the three of us, JJR has the best whisker-twitch response to shifts in the wind, and acts accordingly. Indeed, he is so overly sensitive to these changes that you could stick an iron bar up his backside, and call him a barometer.

Posted by wintermute on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 02:59 | #

In all honesty, gw, can this man even remotely be considered a conservative? I won’t insult anyone’s intelligence by pretending he is a defender of the West and its peoples. Am I an unreconstructed vulgarian for pointing out that he and the peoples of the West may in fact be working at cross purposes? How much longer will such misdirection be presented to our own blood as “conservatism” and given the imprimatur of propriety by obviously respectable and intelligent people such as yourself? Will the constant reprinting of Lawrence Auster’s opinions, or Denis Prager’s, or David Boxenhorn’s assist the people of the West in rediscovering themselves? Or is a fatal diversion, isomorphic with Nixon and Graham babbling about “good Jews” and observing a polite silence while their societies were utterly destroyed?

The other thing, Wintermute, is that we have some time - maybe two decades - in which to try the “light English model”. If it produces no results then, obviously, there are going to be a lot of feet pressing pretty goddamned hard on that throttle. Mine among them.

Life is short and uncertain. The fatal course of “conservatism”, however, is well known. Isn’t the best definition of madness the repeated application of the same behavior in the expectation of a novel result? There are millions who would happily take to our cause if only it were legitimated for them by the culture bearing strata of our civilization. When another well intentioned conservative outlet again plays coy with the vital facts of Race,  it not only guarantees its own irrelevance, but reiterates the imperatives of the dominant discourse, namely that Race and its relation to culture is a shameful fact that no-one must ever speak of. Look again at John Jay Ray’s posts, above. Do we really have twenty years to spare on this sort of misdirection?

You, and everyone else here, must consider: has conservatism helped the people of your nation, or has it brought them to edge of extinction? And given that John Jay Ray, who looks forward to the replacement of his poorer and less intelligent relations with racial aliens, is now the face of “majority rights”, what may we expect of this new movement? I submit that twenty years of this new pretender will be more ruinous than the conservatism that has gone before it, as it will tend to crowd out real alternatives that will offer us life and hope, instead of the same failures of nerve with bright new names.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:29 | #

Ben,

A long time ago the great Emile Durkheim (another Jew, I’m afraid) discovered that suicide, of which he identified four types, varied markedly by the measure of societal instability.  Durkheim was a great proponent of the family for the psychological stability it bestowed upon young minds.

I accept his thesis.  I do not hold it up as “the great explanation of everything.”  But I think it provides an important key - not the only one - to understanding how the conservative concepts of stability, family, faith, duty, responsibility, self-sacrifice, the pursuit of virtue, nobility of the soul as an ideal etc were rejected for the liberal concepts of self-expression, self-definition, self-indulgence and, therefore necessarily, equality and tolerance.

The psychological impetus towards these latter things is subtle in its arising.  It isn’t a matter of tanks flattening the family farm in the Falaise gap circa August 1944.  The shadow cast by warfare upon my generation was extremely dark, because we were brought up in the expectation that, like our grandfathers and fathers, we would be called upon to make sacrifices for our nation.

I am English.  But Americans who reached service age in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s - the baby boomers - lived in exactly the same shadow.  Indeed, it is impossible to imagine Haight-Ashbury, Woodstock and the counterculture without Nam.

Of course many of the societally damaging movements which sprang up in those frenetic times were informed by the thinking of Jewish philosophers and writers - and from the kicking over of so many traces Jewish actors such as the pornography and media barons have profited thereafter.  I understand that.  I allow that all that activity will, to varying extents, have proceeded in the cognizance of Jewish ethnic interests.

But there are greater currents in our sea even than those.  We need to be clear about that, Ben, and put, for example, Wintermute’s unfortunate knowledge of Derrida in its proper context.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:11 | #

Wintermute,

You should check my piece on the death of Arafat - some extremely strong terminology (which I don’t regret at all).

Anyway, the point where I vary from the great Ezra is that I don’t spit in anyone’s face.  So, for example ... the godfathers of culture war were Jewish (plus Sn Gramsci - ethnicity uncertain).  Culture War, as you must know, breaks down into four basic units: race, gender, sexual disorientation, physical disability.  They combine with the object of dismantling white cultural hegemony - sociology-speak for race war.    This you also know.

When, as I frequently do, I write about culture war I employ invective against its purpose and effects.  This is surely legitimate.  In a much more even voice I point out where these confounded ideas came from - and occasionally disparage their suppositionary linkage to older (gentile) ideas.

Now, my readers are intelligent people - like you, in fact - and will mentate on the matter if they choose, forming what convictions they will.  I can’t tell them what to think, and don’t want to.  I respect their intellectual autonomy.  I also respect the fact that old Ezra would not get a hearing from them today.  And neither will you, by and large.  Later maybe - if independent conservative thinkers and writers cannot produce a fundamental shift in and to the political right.

The reasonableness of my method may anger you.  But it is also reasoned.  And yes, it is grounded in a Conservative analysis of our troubles that lacks the razor point of the WN spear.  But within it lies the possibility - I don’t put it any stronger than that at this time - of the emergence of a fully-structured programme.

The one really intractable problem is social liberalism.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:25 | #

The one really intractable problem is social liberalism.

Interesting that you choose to characterize the problem as an absraction.  As such, the problem will be rather difficult to tackle, don’t you think?  How do you propose to do so?  By opposing falsehood with truth?  In other circumstances, that would work, but we have no access to media of mass communication.  Our small-scale efforts will certainly be overwhelmed by the relentless propagation of harmful memes through the apparatus of public opinion formation.  It seems to me, that the first order of business is to shut off the meme machine.

Posted by exPF on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:47 | #

I don’t think Wintermute properly grasped the meaning of your social conservatism, instead I see him smearing it with guilt-by-association by linking it somehow to previous generations of whites and their blunders at political strategy, then inveigling you into a wider argument about cause and effect.

Wintermute seems bent on socio-cultural-political coup which encompasses the whole span of politics, extending even to manners, which would radicalize whites - and he doesn’t want them burdened with any sense of decorum or undue niceties when their existence is at issue. I understand that and advocated the same, when I could not understand a world in which people still make niceties, subtleties, and manners an issue. I couldn’t concentrate on Calculus in school because the teacher was Indian and many of the pupils chinese—clearly, far more significant than analysing rates of change is analysing the causes and reasons behind the manifest change which had taken place in front of one’s eyes! I think there is some sense of anger that attention should be paid to *any* facet of social existence if due attention is not paid to the most crucial aspects of it: i.e. who actually comprises our society. Essentially Wintermute was reaffirming (in my view) the subordination of manners and social mores to ethny.

But I think your point GW is the more substantial of the things mentioned - how the breakdown of social mores contributes to an anemic, anomic, fundamentally unserious life. This unseriousness can then be exploited for purposes of mass hypnosis, as you mentioned.

I think one arrives at social conservativism “as the years roll on” and one sees the importance of stability and the dangers of constant flashy dynamism in social life. A white man will probably become, should he not be prevented, naturally socially conservative given enough years. Whether our society reflects these mores is determined by whether the “elders” have more or less say, in my view.