|
|
|
If Panarin is right, how might America divide? Drudge and Bloomberg but no major US news gatherer has covered the impolitic opinions of Prof Igor Panarin, a leading Russian political analyst who was interviewed yesterday by Izvestia. This is a guy who predicted in 1998 that the American economy would collapse and America itself would be torn apart by conflicting regional ambitions. He is reported by Drudge as saying:-
So, is there a serious chance that Panarin is right - at least about a break-up of some kind? Is perhaps white secession an opportunist gambit requiring rapid racial assortation rather than a grand and long-deliberated plan? If so, an internal volition would drive the process of white decision-making, and largely do away with the work of raising racial consciousness. And the problem of an all-powerful, jealous and malign Federal bureaucracy spiking every attempt to jump-start a secessionary process also falls away. Some planning there would still need to be, of course. But under immeasurably more propitious circumstances for a clean and quick outcome. Well, I guess it’s something to talk about over the winter evenings. Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:19 | # People will only risk war if their security is already non-existent. For far-sighted members that’s already true, we realize our very existence is being threatened. For the rest, however, crime is under control and they can always move away from ‘the disadvantaged.’ What reason for them to do anything? Better to just sit and watch tv than worry about pure abstractions. But what if, instead of an ethnic gang banging down your door, it is your Sheriff’s deputies banging down your door with an eviction notice in the dead of winter? In what way does it matter whether your security is threatened by gangsters or banksters? I never thought the banksters would be as stupid in their greed as they have proven to be. It’s incredible. Things are moving too fast for the Obamanation to get its “national service” ramped up to enslave the population in comfortable security. At this point they really have only the citizen’s dividend. They tested out the mechanism of sending checks directly out to the taxpayers and all they had to do was do that over and over until hyperinflation brought everything else up to the level of the housing bubble and debts were monetized—and things would have been as “stable” as was the Weimar Republic. Instead they’ve taken a route that looks like it will trigger hatred of the government without even the brain-dead delaying tactics of the Weimar idiots. Is this divine intervention? 3
Posted by Cobus on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:36 | # There’s nothing new here. I think it’s notable that the professor generally leaves out the role of race in the coming troubles. Perhaps the prospect of an American race war is too horrible even for foreigners to contemplate…? The significance of these prophecies isn’t in the various details, but in the fact that credentialed observers are starting to talk about the collapse and break-up of the US in the first place. 4
Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:51 | # James You seem to write with glee over the possibility of an asian controlled Northwest. Do you think a majority of Native Born White Americans would be enthusiastic about large tracts of their homeland being handed over to china and several other nations? It is not obvious that they would be. This guy leaves out the very real possibility of a White backlash. I will say this though, If American dissloves into raced based micro-states, there will be 0 tolerance for Jews in the White areas. Gerald Celente is predicting the same thing. 5
Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:58 | # Sorry James Bowery you didn’t make the statements I thought you made. As someone has already mentioned the rapid racial awakening is left out in Panarin’s analysis. I would like to see an economic collapse very soon. However, I can not predict that an economic collapse will happen any time soon. 6
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:15 | # Jupiter, I’m not so interested in the precise fault-lines as I am in there being anywhere for Euroams to go to exclude the vectors. Its true that the loss of carrying capacity has been catastrophic, but not as catastrophic as nonconsenting Euroams having the parasites free-riding them into the dirt when the creation of carrying capacity almost beyond imagining is our potential as life’s universal warriors. 7
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:33 | # “Its true that the loss of carrying capacity has been catastrophic,” - James Bowery If the country implodes into balkanization, where will the loyalties of White military men lie? What of the military bases, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and military equipment? It is important that the White race have those under its control when it all comes crashing down. And if we do have those, we will be in a position to take back everything that has been stolen from us. If we have those others will not be able to oppose us, and if they cannot oppose us why should we not take back what is rightfully ours? Further, it is our duty to our White brothers in Europe, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa to liberate them from genocidal race-replacement regimes. If we have control of America’s military might doing it will not be hard. 8
Posted by Spanky on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:37 | # Tom Chittum wrote a book about this years ago CIVIL WAR TWO Capitalism is the flipside of Communism, both kosher. Do not expect a sense of group identity among Whites. DO expect their continuing subservience to COLORED people as they are further processed by the Koshers It will all be as Earl Raab predicted. Better start BELIEVING that ZOHAR is the most magnificent film ever made. 9
Posted by Armor on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:32 | #
If there is an uprising in a European country, and the race-replacers get replaced by a nationalist government, I hope the new government will send its army to topple the race-replacers in the neighboring country. Then, the two liberated countries can liberate a third one, and so on. But liberating North America would be a daunting task! 10
Posted by Praxis on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:22 | # The future is a multiracial police state with a sprinkling of mud front men, jews pulling strings from behind the scenes, and a multiracial servant class on the bottom. White and imported Asian technocrats in the middle will keep the system afloat. The productivity of capitalist slaves in Asia, Africa, and South America will prevent the living standards of America’s multiracial servant class from falling too low. Think Walmart. There will be no sudden downward spiral resulting in anarchy. The majority of us are not threatened with the loss of our computers, television, air conditioning, dishwashers, washing machines, or bank-owned shelter. Financial “losses” for most will be limited to the “value” of our bank-owned “property” and retirement accounts, which were built on real estate speculation and grossly inflated in value. Case in point, little pink tract homes in SoCal “purchased” with 10% down and a loan for $119K in 1987 were never worth anything close to the appraised amount of $425K in 2005. Yes, the system can be kept afloat. White cultural dissolution and economic devolution must be gradual; else we’re liable to jump out of the pot. What’s happening is the white middle-class is in the process of being taught to put off retirement and to make do with less, and less, and less. The days of easy money for middle-class whites are coming to an end. Higher taxes, deferred retirement, smaller pensions, greater ethnic employment competition, smaller wages, less mobility, greater economic dependency, etc., etc. – these are what we face. In companies where white males are a minority of the workforce, they tend to seek out or create situations where “examples” can be made of other whites. This is done to acquire non-white approval, elevated status, and for financial gain. The fewer whites in the company, the worse it gets. There is no “coming together.” This is your children and grandchildren’s future, unless we make secession work. 11
Posted by Praxis on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:14 | # People wonder about the military. Would its white officers and enlisted support us? The answer is, probably not. Two reasons: 1. We presently lack political legitimacy at every level, everywhere within the United States. No general and crew will dare stage a coup d’état or send one or more brigades or divisions our way without the social assurances which come from political legitimacy. For secession to work territory, economic independence, ethnic/cultural homogeneity, and political legitimacy are required (in that order). Political legitimacy at state levels mean militia funding, access to National Guard equipment, and (possibly) help from unexpected quarters of the armed services if the SHTF. 12
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:53 | # I think we need hard metrics, Praxis. As I said, I was taken by surprise at the degree of stupid greed exhibited by the banksters and their revolving-door government homeys. They are not in possession of their full faculties here. The big metrics to keep an eye out for are: f = Homeless * Empty houses&apartments; What we’ve witnessed thus far is an instant response of trillions of dollars sent to the top of the financial pyramid with very little observable trickledown—coupled with lackadaisical responses to the ground truth of the working families when they had an already-demonstrated instant-response capability in the tax-rebate stimulus machinery. Obama comes out with a plan to pull an FDR using a fraction of what has already gone out to the banksters—and trickling it out over the next few YEARS. In Iceland—ICELAND for crying out loud—they have crowds of political protesters engaging in physical and injurious conflict with the bankster-owned police. I think it is quite probable these guys aren’t in control of themselves let alone the political economy. 13
Posted by the Narrator.. on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:28 | #
It’s possible that what he is describing is more of an organized breakup (a restructuring) of the United States rather than a spontaneous falling apart. And of course after this “restructuring” the North American Union can come into its own to facilitate the new reality. The Drudge Report doesn’t have the full article. Here is the rest of the article,
... 14
Posted by Eman on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:14 | # “The dollar is not secured by anything. The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.” Precisely because of the fact that the dollar is not secured by anthing and trillions are created out of thin air by the Federal Reserves (not federal, no reserves) that the debts don’t actually mean anything because the money is/was baiscally ‘fake’ to begin with. As long as the U.S. government can continue to ‘service’ the debt (pay interest on it, etc), the system will unfortunately not collapse. Re: Diamed “Secession will not occur due to a bad economy, when has it ever done that?” In some circles it is believed that The South seceded from the American union because many influential Southerners owed Northern banks and financiers hundreds of millions (collectively about $250 million, I believe) which it never had any hope of paying back. 15
Posted by Shane S on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:45 | # The depth if ignorance of the current climate of the United States is starting to make us Europeans look quite bad indeed. After living in North America for 11 years, I believe I can offer some insight into the current state of affairs. It is ignorant theorists like this who also would never have thought the American populace capable of electing a minority to presidency. The break up of the United States based mainly upon ethnic lines is bizarre and uninformed. Keeping in mind that the United States represents the most diverse first world nation in the world, while it does have it’s divisions it also has the most experience of integration of those communities. If the “states” were to divide it would certainly not be into the 5 divisions picked at random by the author. The northern states have no affinity with Canada at all. If it were to divide it would be much closer to the electoral lines that you have seen during election times. The south or “red” George Bush states vs. the educated remainder of the country. The northeast (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut , Massachusetts) are fairly well educated and “Europeanized”. The west coast (California, Oregon, Washington) are also enlightened and are “Americanized” it is the south and the center of America where the great ignorant disconnect happens. You can see this in the split in the electoral polls. While there is tension between the Blacks and Whites, there is more tension now against the new immigrants mostly being from Latin decent. All other racial groups in terms of the stability of the country are unimportant. The dollar is no longer the dominant currency in the world, however the Euro nor the Pound will be either. This economic crisis is caused by every country’s debit issues. Homes in Ireland and Britain were more heavily debit mortgaged than in the States. When the states catches a cold the rest of the world catches the flu, this time the states have been on the edge of recession for over a year, the pound almost the same time. Like Domino’s you pull one and the rest fall down. I do not know what to expect without a currency leading the world. Certainly it will lead to more volatility and uncertainty. Although it is nice to see the demise of a super power and it’s currency.. I fear for what will replace it. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:51 | # Shane S, The model of Man as Homo economicus would also fall, within a general collapse of federal America. You are not thinking about what exists already, and may contribute to the replacement of that model. For us, it is a given that the “given” in Man - his nature - will survive any political-economic collapse. What, after all, would there be holding together the nexus of ideas which invest absolute value in diversity as a unifier rather than, as the name would imply, a diversifier? Diversity-as-unifier is not some mighty post-racial universal truth or a sound principle of any kind of tolerable life, but only a modus operandum of the elites. The question which really underpins racialist “Collapse Theory” is whether the natural will to segregate is stronger in European peoples than the will to individualism, given that we have all only ever known the individual life. I doubt it. Others don’t. 17
Posted by the Narrator.. on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:55 | #
Judging the rest of your comment it’s obvious you don’t know sh*t about the United States.
I agree that the south has become a bastion of ignorance. This is because the population of the South is now (factoring in illegals) just above half White. So the South today looks a lot like Brazil. So you are right to describe it in derogatory terms.
Well, since Obama carried Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin etc.. I agree with you that there are some seriously disturbed people in the mid-west.
The above tells me that you have zero experience in America. If you’ve really been in America for ten years you must have spent it all in one room.
Well, once again we agree. There have been two super-powers this century, the USSR and the USA. And though they differed in many aspects, they shared one thing in common. A misguided belief in Multiculturalism! Of course, whereas the USSR started out with the multicult, the USA has only come to entertain the ridiculous notion in the past 30+ years. Yet both used coercion and force to bring about what little “integration” that/has occurred. And we can also see how people react when freed from the clutches of Superpowers from the example provided by the end of communism in eastern Europe. So yeah, I agree, it would be nice to see the other Superpower follow the previous ones example… 18
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:20 | # it also has the most experience of integration of those communities The relative lack of experience is precisely why the midwest (Illinois notwithstanding) went for Obama—but the generally increasing experience is precisely why I tend to differ with Guessedworker’s assessment that individualism will trump family and ethny when the chips are down. People who have actually walked the walk prescribed by the elites, in what GW accurately termed their modus operandum of “diversity as unifier”, become polarized: Either they succumb to the extended phenotypics of the virulent environment (some fulfilling GW’s cynicism), or they acquire an immune response of some kind and would do literally anything to escape. Of course, fleeing to the whiter areas become very problematic due to the relative naivety of those areas—so this does recommend the question: “Flee to where?” 19
Posted by the Narrator.. on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:10 | #
That should have read, ‘White’, instead of non-White….
I agree. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:12 | # James, I don’t see white Americans responding to economic collapse in the framework of kinship versus individualism - at least at first. So in an entirely new situation, it may not be a straight contest between white racial segregation and multiracialism It is probable that racial, religious, social, economic and maybe even political bindings and/or assortations would take place initially. That’s why I said to Shane that the “given” may contribute to the replacement of that model [of Homo economicus]. Contribute, not dictate. Whiteness may, therefore, characterise some non-racial groupings and diversity may characterise others. America could be a communal patchwork which, while it obtained, would not be helpful from the gene-flow aspect. This would be the context in which the decisive contest of kinship versus individualism would come to be played out. Racialists would have to hope that individualism and civic attachment would prove weaker than “the given”, and the pull of kinship and the push of disorder would fuel a long, slow and permanent secondary assortation. But waiting for that would be some act of faith. Better to take nothing for granted, and plan away. 21
Posted by du toit on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:28 | # So basically, you’re all telling us that we’re f*****. Great. Thanks guys. What now? Flee to where,? We’re looking at South America. 23
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:28 | # GW writes: Better to take nothing for granted, and plan away. Which is part of the reason I pose my question “Flee to where?” I originally fled to the rural Pacific Northwest when afforded the opportunity, but found that even surrounded by communities whose public services had been overtaken by Mexicans, the founding stock Euroams would try to out “liberal” each other to try to live down their feelings of shame over living in a predominantly Euroam community. I decided to move to Iowa, in minor-part because there was at least some evidence from the Postville raids that some rationality was starting to set in (mainly it is where I was born and bred, so I hoped I could provide _something_ of a shield for just a precious few of the youth among my particular sub-ethny). However, there is another even more serious problem with the formation of assortative migration by what Kevin MacDonald refers to as implicit cognition: About half of those in white flight are engaging in a flight from their own rising awareness that their explicit cultural rules against “racism” are misleading. They are actually seeking environments where they can continue to deny the importance of race so that they don’t have to commit sins of the mind against multicultural theocracy. Moreover they can posture as “the light unto the hicks” from the heart of the multicult itself (only slightly less despicable than their urban-counterparts: gated-community limousine liberals)—and are therefore in a deadly embrace with the self-loathing of the founding Euroams of those communities. These people are particularly vicious towards those who have developed immune responses due to their direct experiences with multiculturalism and have fled to the same areas. This makes implicit Euroam assortation very treacherous. 24
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:47 | # du Toit: “So basically, you’re all telling us that we’re f*****. Great. Thanks guys. What now? Flee to where,? We’re looking at South America.” No, du Toit. If we can ever get enough of our people galvanized, here is what we will do, nicer measures failing: ETHNICALLY CLEANSE ALL THE SCUM FROM OUR LEBENSRAUM! Oops, did I say that out loud? 25
Posted by Diamed on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:16 | # Speaking of Macdonald, did you see his wonderful piece at vdare.com? Furthermore, isn’t it a huge step forward for Vdare to host Macdonald? I was happy all around. Macdonald says that all whites are simultaneously racist and anti-racist. They are instinctually racist and act as Though racism were motivating their behaviors. But their conscious, rational brain is churning out endless lies and propaganda to mask their own behavior from themselves and insist they are diversophiles even though they have no diverse friends, lovers, neighbors, etc. These people will indeed flee diverse areas only to resettle in an all-white zone and preach the virtues of diversity and vote for more liberal laws and more non-white immigration. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who has actively experienced black dysfunction or crime but continues to espouse the vibrant enrichment of diversity must simply be put down like a rabid dog. The Amy Biehl syndrome has utterly taken over their brains, there is no saving them, regardless of what arguments one might use. The ‘fence-sitters’ are those whites who have basically never met a non-white or lived near a demographically meaningful number of non-whites and thus take all their opinions from the mass-media. These people if programmed a different way would hold the exact opposite opinions, and thus are up for grabs. Furthermore, many of these people despite all the brainwashing if they ever once got a personal view of the truth would throw it all away and join the resistance. What is sad is most ‘liberals’ are only liberal because it wins status, popularity, and prestige. And most ‘racists’ are silent and ashamed of themselves and never speak up for fear of losing status, popularity, and prestige. What this means is if the intellectual circles and celebrities and government were to all espouse racism and show how glamorous, prestigious, powerful and wealthy you were if you were a racist, a sea change of the sheeple would immediately reverse prevailing views. This is why a top-down solution is superior to a bottom-up one. The common folk will do anything for status and to avoid ostracism, but what is high-status depends entirely on the trend-setters at the top. “white trash” used to mean anyone who associated with blacks. Now it means the exact opposite, anyone who Doesn’t associate with blacks. So here we have the exact same term meaning completely opposite things based on who is setting the trends. Hardly anyone’s views are determined by the truth. Nor will continuously arguing for the truth qua truth change many people’s minds. Highly principled people who revere the truth and will die in its name are some tiny percent and we have probably recruited every single one of them to the cause already. Further resistance must come from either the direct harm done to fence-sitters who for the first time meet non-whites, or from a change in fashion given from the top. I don’t see the first case being enough since Brazil and South Africa and the like never saved themselves through such a process, nor do I see the second case being enough since it is impossible to recreate what’s high-status and fashionable without control of the media and vast amounts of wealth/powerful positions in govt. I don’t see any reason to believe secession or a sea-change in opinion leading to a pro-white takeover can occur given the layout of the battlefield. That is why a retreat into a micro-community cult which has lots of kids and organically grows the ranks of people with a different view on what makes someone high-status and full knowledge of non-white harm by direct indoctrination and refusal to mingle with those who would poison our children’s beliefs is the best solution. It is the only one that doesn’t depend on such worthless people as the outside world. It is the only one that depends on such wonderful people as the heroic truth-seekers that racists are today. 26
Posted by Guest on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:14 | #
Overall that was exactly what I perceive to be the future. Good post Praxis. Kevin MacDonald, Wednesday 11/19/08:
Does anyone here actually MINGLE with the White population in America? If you think THAT is the SALVATION of the race… Let’s face it, this is Darwinism in action. MacDonald explains how it goes:
27
Posted by Armor on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:14 | #
I suppose what you call individualism is for example the idea that any European who feels so enclined should be allowed to procreate with a Pygmy woman, and those who disagree should just shut up and keep paying their taxes. Individualism is the idea that personal freedom of the brainwashed and the irresponsible is more important than our national survival. Only white people could come up with such a crazy idea. But on the other hand, I think white people care much more about the common interest than most non-whites. So, our problem is not really individualism, it is something more perverse.
But you mainly hear from people who conform to the intimidating leftist media ideology, while mentally sane people remain silent. If there was an anti-leftist revolution, the PC crowd would learn the new catechism and start reciting the new PC lessons. I suppose something like that happened 20 years ago in Central and Eastern Europe. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:57 | # Armor, My apologies for not being clearer about individualism. But James well understands what I mean by it, and I didn’t trouble to set the whole thing out. To make it perfectly clear, imagine that there are two Armors living in the one man. One is a loyal and true Breton, an uncomplicated, natural man whose ultimate purpose is the good and, especially, the continuity of family, kin and tribe. But alongside him is another ... a brother for sure, but a proud and determined younger brother who was born to strengthen the first Armor, to bring to the household a certain independence because the often cold and food-scarce landscape could not support the tribal numbers that would have favoured cooperation and conformity. Now fast-forward to the fateful day when for the first time warfare in the tribal interest was replaced by warfare for the king. Fast forward through the centuries of unjust dominance by selfish interests, whether royal, baronial, lordly or ecclesiastical, in which the interests of the tribe were overridden and, eventually, forgotten. Come to that moment in time when a small philosophical voice in the darkness of servitude finally pronounces the first words of the New Freedom: “No one other than the individual himself shall possess the right to dispose of the physical life of the individual.” Out of that moment has come everything we know as liberalism - a creed that only answers to the younger Armor, who is as proud and determinedly independent as ever, and who has assumed that, because the polity makes no mention of his elder brother, there is in reality no one but him, and nothing that matters besides his personal good and his personal continuity. That’s the liberal deal. 29
Posted by Dave Johns on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:12 | # It all boils down to this: If white women don’t support us in our quest for the preservation of the white race, we are doomed. As it stands now93, most don’t. 30
Posted by Armor on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:40 | #
I can understand how the implicit processing in my brain, which is unconscious, can be influenced by brainwashing technics. What I don’t understand is why people do not use their explicit processing a little more, so as to debunk the explicit messages they are receiving on race. They must think it is safer to play along. 31
Posted by Dave Johns on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:47 | # IDIOTS! If enough white women don’t want to birth white children, we’re through! 32
Posted by Diamed on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:27 | # Not so fast, who says we have to respect their wishes? Enough white men decide they want white women to have white children, it doesn’t really matter what said white women want. So you see, the problem is always Will, nothing else. It will always be nothing but willpower. The will to do what must be done is the solution to Any problem you could pose. The limiting reactant is will, not women, money, numbers, etc. Just will. 33
Posted by silver on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:51 | #
That’s more than a bit simplistic. But even then, it’s a better deal than the “king” gives you. I don’t know why you insist on blaming liberalism when it’s the king who is your problem. But kings are “natural,” so you’d best be careful how stridently hereditarian you make your “conservatism.” 34
Posted by silver on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:56 | #
That’s because they insisted on territory at the expense of homogeneity. The very first thing you need is a homogeneous redoubt. Then even if everything else fails, you have that. Without that, everything, in time, will be lost. If the “redoubt” is fair and commensurate, perhaps it will be sufficient. 35
Posted by Guest on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:10 | #
I think it is that genetically the White race is much weaker than it has been previously. There you saw the Bernay propganda techniques effectively able to turn Whites in America into crazed killers with a bloodlust for killing all things Aryan. So the Superior genes were wiped out by a gang of maddened swine crazed with semitic hate. WEAK, DECADENT that is the state of the race today. The YIDDISH speaking husband of a jewess, Felix Dzerzhinsky, slaughtered thousands, if not millions, of good Russian Christians. 36
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:13 | # “The limiting reactant is will, not women, money, numbers, etc. Just will.” - Diamed The key to leadership is getting people to believe in a common vision of the Good. Then, instructing them in how it is to be achieved. Once achieved, and the people like it, having tasted the pudding and found it tasty, the leader has credibility. It can never be just will and force. The leader says he will do a thing and he does it, with the help of the people, but they must appreciate what he has led them to, or it will never work. If you want White women to come and live in micro-communities, you must make said a congenial place for White women. 37
Posted by Praxis on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:27 | # Mr. GuessedWorker, Panarin doesn’t reveal profound knowledge and experience of North America. Most of his geopolitical ideas merely repeat the present commercial interests of Russia’s ruling oligarchs and siloviki. Given this, the article doesn’t provide a basis for serious discussion. 38
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:37 | # Praxis: “For secession to work territory, economic independence, ethnic/cultural homogeneity, and political legitimacy are required (in that order). Political legitimacy at state levels mean militia funding, access to National Guard equipment, and (possibly) help from unexpected quarters of the armed services if the SHTF.” Now there is a scenario that sounds reasonable to my layman’s ears. Wouldn’t it be nice if the break-away territory in question just happened to have a military base with some WMD? Another useful tactic might be to egg on other racialist-separatist movements, like Aztlan. 39
Posted by Praxis on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:19 | #
It would be nice but secessionists cannot depend on it. Neither can they depend upon renegade generals in the armed forces. 40
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 04:32 | #
Louisiana is 70% white. Alabama is close to that as well. 41
Posted by the Narrator.. on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:54 | #
I corrected the above non-White part in another post. It should read, “in the neighborhood (factoring in illegals and taking into account the census’s generous definition of White) around 50 to 55% White. It’s just a ballpark estimate, but one based on the current information available as well as personal first hand experience. The Census.gov website, the official government census site, gives Louisiana’s non-hispanic White percentage as 62%. So the most up to date, official, statistical information from Uncle Sam is at least two years old. And some of the other most current Census info is up to 8 years old. (for example the percentage of homes where a language other than English is spoken in Louisiana -and it ain’t all French- and the percentage of foreign born persons.) Both categories are based on info that is almost a decade old. The mass influx of illegals is not taken into account. (And when it is it is dramatically under-estimated.) And on top of that the census counts Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, Egyptians, Turks, Jews, Jordanians, Syrians, Assyrians, Lebanese, Iraqi’s, Iranians and others as non-hispanic “White”. And their numbers are anybody’s guess. Same goes with the Jews. Some sources report them as being just over 5 million, while others give them as being over 7 million. Which still seems low. Again though, factoring in all of the above, it would not be impractical to subtract about 10 percentage points off of any number given by the government in regards to population estimates. Another example of the governments intentionally convoluted numbers is the total population and estimates therein. Based on 2007 census “survey”, (released in 2008) non-Hispanic Whites account for 65.8% of the total population….out of an estimated 301 million people. So according to the survey non-Hispanic Whites number about 198 million, based on an est. pop. of 301 million. Now if you subtract the number of middle eastern “Whites” (around 10 million) from that number, Whites number about 188 million in America. My own state for example is officially over 90% White. I don’t have any studies to back me up here, but…. My estimates my be off, but using the above calculations and what I see with my own eyes, I fear they’re not… below is a story (the link to which is on my blog) from rural Kentucky. A state that is “officially” 88.4% non-hispanic White.
The above town, Shelbyville, is in rural Appalachia and has a population of just 10,000. ... 42
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:01 | # GW May I request that MR link to Signals From The Brink. I keep meaning to say this. I always used to click thru from JWH’s to Narrator’s. But now… 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:09 | # Signals From The Brink is linked as requested. It is well merited. My apologies to the Narrator for not having done so earlier. 44
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:24 | # Praxis writes: People wonder about the military. Would its white officers and enlisted support us?.... If ordered to do so, they would likely RPG your home with dog, wife, and children inside without giving it a second thought. I wonder how the military indoctrination gets around the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? So far as I can see, there are 3 levels to the military mind: 1) Perceived legitimacy by their “nation”—essentially a political sensibility. As the economic crisis unfolds, I can easily see the political mind becoming febrile. That leaves the President vs their reading of Constitutional Law as intended by the Founders. In light of this, it is quite an coincidence that Obama may be the first President in history to be a lawyer specializing in the Constitution—and one who almost certainly would find little common ground with the Founders in his interpretation of their intent. 45
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:45 | # Signals from the Brink is one of THE BEST blogs on the internet today (and the man writing it, The Narrator, one of the internet’s clearest minds). Everyone should add it to his favorite places: 46
Posted by Reality-Based Internet on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:44 | # So far as I can see, there are 3 levels to the military mind: Perceived through the lens of the mass media. This is the only contact the bulk of that closed society has with any ‘nation’. See OER extract below for the working definition of “legitimacy”. Determining this intent is not in their job description. That function is considered to be delegated to the judicial system. This is the US Army Officer Efficiency Report form. Note PART IV- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - PROFESSIONALISM, block 13 : “Supports EO/EEO?” Rating conducted annually or more often depending on circumstances. 47
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:36 | # Any white career military reading this thread: just go with the flow, tell them what they want to hear, so you’ll get promoted instead of weeded out. Don’t tell anyone your real views, not even your best buddies: there are spies and blabbermouths everywhere. If the crunch comes we’ll need you on our side and it’ll be the West’s most important battle since the Trojan War that you’ll be fighting. Alongside your people where you belong. KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND MOUTHE ALL THE PC PLATITUDES THEY WANT YOU TO MOUTHE. GET PROMOTED. WE’LL NEED YOU WHEN YOU’RE HIGHLY PLACED. 48
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:52 | # Reality-Based Internet writes: 3) Their oath to support the Constitution as intended by the Founders. Determining this intent is not in their job description. That function is considered to be delegated to the judicial system. They can’t escape it that way. Their oath is not to their job description and not to the judicial system but to the Constitution. If they interpret the Constitution as delegating all questions of Constitutionality to the judicial system, then there is no point in their having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution as opposed to the judicial branch. 49
Posted by the Narrator.. on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:16 | # Thanks Lurker. And thank you Guessedworker. And Fred, I’ll consider that praise from Caesar. Thanks… 50
Posted by Praxis on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:36 | # Determining this intent is not in their job description. That function is considered to be delegated to the judicial system. I concur. Oath [1] I, (Name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (State Name) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [1] that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; [1] and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (State Name) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.
No part of the oath is optional under Federal Law. 51
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:50 | # What does the truth table look like when the President gives unconstitutional orders or even makes war on “we the people”? 52
Posted by Praxis on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:54 | # They can’t escape it that way. They must. The Oath requires it. The rare public exception made for reasons of political expediency does not invalidate long established precedent. Renegade officers staging a coup d’ etat or sending brigades/divisions our way are outlaws. It is foolish and suicidal to count on such help. Those who do cannot be taken seriously. 53
Posted by Praxis on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:58 | # What does the truth table look like when the President gives unconstitutional orders or even makes war on “we the people”? Those who arbitrarily act on behalf of we the people are domestic enemies. 54
Posted by Praxis on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:01 | # when the President gives unconstitutional orders It’s not going to work, James. Constitutionality is determined by the courts. End of story, as far as the military is concerned. 55
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:17 | # Those who arbitrarily act on behalf of we the people are domestic enemies. That sounds a whole lot like a President who arbitrarily chooses to not enforce the border. 56
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:20 | # Renegade officers… sending brigades/divisions our way are outlaws. It is foolish and suicidal to count on such help. Those who do cannot be taken seriously. That may be true but it begs the question. 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:33 | # In ancient Rome comets and meteors were considered an omen. But wait, didn’t Peter Brimelow say the U.S. Empire was Rome in the Age of the Twelve Caesars? A meteor fell out of the sky a few days ago: 58
Posted by Praxis on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:40 | # Political legitimacy at state levels mean militia funding, access to National Guard equipment, and (possibly) help from unexpected quarters of the armed services if the SHTF.” The word “possible” was inserted to downplay expectations in terms of help from unexpected quarters of the armed services. Access to National Guard equipment is important; however, look for immediate changes to be made in the mission, structure, and equipment assigned to NG units located in states where we’ve gained political control - all courtesy of DoD and DoA. The objective would be to neuter us, of course. If push comes to shove, something else must exist. Discussion of specifics, however, would be counterproductive. 59
Posted by Praxis on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 21:42 | # That sounds a whole lot like a President who arbitrarily chooses to not enforce the border. There is no moral equivalency. The President is CinC. His moral and legal authority to act or not, as the case may be, is greater than our moral authority to enforce the law. We haven’t prosecutorial immunity. The President does have immunity, for all practical purposes. We the People of the United States elected Obongo. Although political legitimacy within secessionist territory may turn out a handful of renegade officers, with so little time remaining it is counterproductive to pine for a Seven Days In May. We must dirty our hands or fail. 60
Posted by Reality-Based Internet on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:57 | # What does the truth table look like when the President gives unconstitutional orders or even makes war on “we the people”? “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper none dare call it treason!” 61
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:04 | # Takuan unfortunately refuses to identify the problem as race. He pretends it’s Islam, and in so pretending renders his latest piece a disappointment and largely useless — although there’s some inspiring language in it, language exhorting Euros to resist, which if you imagine it’s exhorting resistance to the real problem, race, is helpful: 62
Posted by Guest on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:25 | # Fred, Takuan, described as “a multiethnic and multilingual Euro-American immigrant” who lives in Japan. Just why was he hanging around in Israel all those times? Inquiring minds want to know. The easiest RED FLAG of these writers is to watch if they paint Islam as THE GREAT THREAT. So one sees purported WNs saying things like,“We and the Israelis are in the same fight”, or “Why do you guys talk about Jews it is the moslems who are the problem”. Yeah thanks Schlomo. Takuan—does he have a condo in Tel Aviv? 63
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:55 | # Guest, the vibe I get with Takuan is he sees the race dimension of this invasion as more important than the Islam dimension but something makes him hang back from saying so. What gives me that vibe is what seem to me unmistakable hints which he’s dropped here and there. I could be completely wrong. If something’s holding him back, I don’t know what it would be. The first thing you think of is caution on the part of Paul Belien lest he himself, Belien, get arrested for expressing forbidden views, and the site shut down. But that can’t be it, because the views on Islam which Takuan and Fj express over there are just as risky as ones on race would be. (I could be completely wrong there also, of course — maybe the Belgian Socialists are harsher about forbidden views on race than about forbidden views on Islam?) For the record, Takuan gave his ethnicity in a recent comments thread over there: he’s Polish Catholic. The “multi-ethnic” thing, which he bills himself as, must refer to some Jewish admixture (which he’s also mentioned having), because he’s apparently wholly white, not mixed-race. (And yes I know Jews aren’t wholly white in the sense of Euro, but you know what I mean: he’s not mixed Negro-white, yellow-white, Subcon-white, etc.) 64
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:24 | # Another possible factor is Belien’s a Catholic, and as is by now perfectly clear to everyone with eyes, the Vatican is one hundred percent on-board the Jewish race-replacement train. Not only is it on-board now but, looking back — certainly as far as the late-1950s when the Jews first began methodically turning up the racial pressure on Euros — it’s always been less than sympathetic toward Euros where they were targeted by the Jews for race-replacement genocide. Remember, the bad thing about Catholics where the nation-state is concerned is they’ll be loyal to the Pope and the Vatican before they’ll be loyal to their own nation-state, which may explain certain Catholic pundits who’ve either supported or been indifferent to Jewish race-replacement genocide of Euros: William F. Buckley, Jr. (actively, enthusiastically supported the genocide after posing as a “conservative” his whole career), Joe Sobran (has always been one-hundred percent indifferent to race-replacement genocide of Euros; also a “conservative” most of his career, more recently switching to a variety of anarchism), John O’Sullivan (indifferent to it), Paul Belien, a number of others. Of course there are also righteous Catholics: Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Chilton Williamson Jr., James Fulford, Joe Guzzardi, lots of others. Tom Tancredo, all four of whose grandparents immigrated to the U.S. from Italy and were Catholic presumably, is Protestant. James Kalb is Catholic but I don’t know what he was originally. (I’m Catholic but not the “dyed-in-the-wool” variety.) 65
Posted by Guest on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:55 | # That Jewish admixture, Steve Sailor also, perhaps makes them sensitive, however using MacDonald’s standard, if they don’t shine the light on the CAUSE, rather than the symptoms, then they haven’t yet come over to the light. Misdirection, diversion, all tools in the Inner Party toolbox The Catholic Church is totally and utterly foreign to its own historical roots, there was an article in LOOK magazine in 1960s that described it all. I think it was the AJC that paid Malachi Martin for the inside gate to blackmail high-up Catholic clergy and to infiltrate marxist homosexuals into the highest reaches of Rome. The Plot Against the Church, by Maurice Pinay (1962) 66
Posted by Armor on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 03:17 | #
Indeed, he says the problem is immigration to white countries. You only have to read his first paragraph. He doesn’t need to be more explicit. He also says it is not a good idea to import a few dozen millions of sub-90 IQ immigrants. He takes position against muslim immigration, not just against islam. He takes for granted that islam is bad, but he blames the loony left for abetting muslim barbarity in the West. I think it is the right attitude. There is one point where I disagree with him: he thinks most people have been brainwashed, especially the young. But I think most young people in the West, and most local politicans still say they are against immigration. I think the anti-western craziness is still imposed on us from the top. Besides, as someone said in another thread, the brainwashing of western populations is a mile wide but only an inch deep. Most brainwashed people only take a passive part in the destruction of the West. They are not vicious, like the media. Sadly, decent people tend to remain silent, while the stupid and the morally challenged are proud to act as the thought police.
In today’s france, I think most “Catholic” priests will be loyal to leftism and ignore the Pope. I’m not even sure if they still believe in God. 67
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:56 | # Praxis writes: with so little time remaining it is counterproductive to pine for a Seven Days In May. We must dirty our hands or fail. *sigh* The only thing I’m “pining” for is intellectual integrity regarding the psychological structure of the military. I understand your position. “Don’t even think about help from the military.” OK. Gotcha. 10-4. I read you loud and clear. Acknowledged. I’m not so interested in whether the cavalry will arrive in Hueys or whatever as I am in the psychological structure of those deciding one way or the other. This is important because if these guys really lack the integrity that comes from oath-following then they are a different army than one made up by those who follow their oaths. You have NOT made a good case that they would be following their oaths in not siding with us. Your proclamations of “moral authority” for the “CIC” are as empty as the “morality” of a President that, in adhering to the “morality” Nuremberg Precedents and the “morality” of Holocaustianity, refuses to execute Constitutional immigration laws. 68
Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:44 | # “The northeast (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut , Massachusetts) are fairly well educated and “Europeanized”. The west coast (California, Oregon, Washington) are also enlightened and are “Americanized” it is the south and the center of America where the great ignorant disconnect happens. You can see this in the split in the electoral polls.” Shane S, Another has already said you don’t know squat about the USA, and I would heartily agree. I find the pretentious, preposterous, ‘guilt-without-absolution’ liberals of the areas of the USA you mention to be the most mentally deranged on the planet. They’re almost as bad as Frenchmen! (LOL- at least the French have a culture, good food, and a beautiful langauge to their credit) This liberal/multiculti/mania is so far removed from the TRUE Europe - the Europe of Christendom - as to be another race of men in itself…. which would explain why electing a bastard mulatto muslim as Prez makes ‘sense’[!?]. We clearly are in total opposition, both racially, religiously, and politically. As someone noted, [www.spiritwaterblood.com] the areas where conservatism - true conservatism- existed in this recent scam known as a presidential election, have been appropriately dubbed ‘Confederate Switzerland’ ...and I’d much prefer to live there, than in the idiotic state that once I called ‘home’ - the recent Obamania of the deluded Whites here is gagging in its intensity. I have NOTHING in common with these lemmings, if ever I did. The only difference between the Midwest, and the other two areas of Talmudistan you mention, are that one has miserable weather and even more miserable coffee shops (PacNW) and the other is, well,...... so JEWISH! (NY) Neither is a solution, in my book. Bring on the secessionists! 69
Posted by Praxis on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:03 | # James: I’m not so interested in whether the cavalry will arrive in Hueys or whatever as I am in the psychological structure of those deciding one way or the other. Your rationale is interchangeable with the majority of participants on conservative and libertarian boards, including this one, who are looking for US military intervention to aid the Cause or at the very least, US military neutrality. Neither will happen. The US military will shoot at you. James: You have NOT made a good case that they would be following their oaths in not siding with us. Your proclamations of “moral authority” for the “CIC” are as empty as the “morality” of a President that, in adhering to the “morality” Nuremberg Precedents and the “morality” of Holocaustianity, refuses to execute Constitutional immigration laws. Actually, I have made the case. The problem is I disagree with you. I am a secessionist; however, I recognize that, Where secessionists comprise a minority of We the People of the United States, they are criminal. Where secessionists interpret The Constitution of the United States differently, they are arbitrary. Where secessionists are explicitly European-American, they are evil. In propaspheres created by us on the ground we can ameliorate the situation considerably with a clear definition of who we are as a people, a new constitution that expressly recognizes us and our rights as a people, and provide clear reasons as to why the old constitution has failed. 70
Posted by Praxis on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:06 | # James: I’m not so interested in whether the cavalry will arrive in Hueys or whatever as I am in the psychological structure of those deciding one way or the other. Should there be a formula to discombobulate the psychological structure of these individuals there isn’t time left for its discovery, perfection, and dissemination. Far more productive tasks for the Internet crowd would include: 1. A genetically congruent political definition of European-Americans as a people. These would require the formation of a new Committee of Correspondence; one restricted to vetted, selfless, employed, married individuals who can appreciate the problems involved. Obviously, such a Committee would not include “Movement” names. 71
Posted by Praxis on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:27 | # The first security measure for such a Committee is for the life and personal history of each member to be open and transparent to all other members. The second security measure is that each member have something to lose in terms of employment. The third security measure is that each member have something to lose in terms of immediate family. The fourth measure shall not be revealed at this time. Hence the need for selfless individuals. Unrealistic? If so, then all we are doing is spinning wheels. 72
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:42 | # Praxis: The second security measure is that each member have something to lose in terms of employment. Your options are rapidly narrowing to government employees. But then if the goal is to make someone have “something to lose” I suppose an employee of the Obamanational Service as, say, a “community organizer” would indeed have something to lose by participating in that Committee of Correspondence you propose.
But one thing _really_ bothers me here: You use of the a word “arbitrary” that is, in the context of your other uses, almost as problematic as the word “racist” is in dialogue with the enemy, due to conflicting senses of the word that might be intended. 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice. It reminds me the well-worn argument about whether sovereignty is with individuals or with the government. If you genuinely believe that an individual’s interpretation of the Constitution is by chance, whim or impulse as opposed to a sovereign’s necessity, reason, or principle then your “Committee of Correspondence” is a non-starter. 73
Posted by Praxis on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:42 | # Reality is a non-starter in the virtual world, James. Options narrowing to government employees? That is grasping. It is not my fault you’re not qualified or don’t want to participate in “my” Committee of Correspondence - one in which I must be disqualified from participation due to past “Movement” affiliations. You have much to contribute elsewhere, as do I. Or you can do the Committee of Correspondence your way. Better get it right the first time, however, or trust in you will dissipate. Either way, let us not quibble. For my part I shall agree to disagree with you. 74
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:14 | # You will find useful things in these articles of Alain de Benoist, and it is not necessary to agree with every detail. State, individuals, ethnicities etc: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain13.html 75
Posted by Praxis on Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:20 | # But then if the goal is to make someone have “something to lose” I suppose an employee of the Obamanational Service as, say, a “community organizer” would indeed have something to lose by participating in that Committee of Correspondence you propose.
—— All civil officers of the United States other than the President are amenable to the federal criminal process either before or after the conclusion of impeachment proceedings. An impeached President can be prosecuted thereafter. Must he be prosecuted? No law specifically requires it. No law specifically prevents it. This is where the lens of the jewzmedia, a nepotistic bureaucracy and upper-class, and an assortment of useful idiots maneuver congress and a gullible public into making a “democratic decision” as to whether or not the President should be prosecuted for unlawful behavior. The default condition is this: If the President’s behavior is largely consistent with the regime’s interests and goals, then his unlawful behavior will not be prosecuted. ——- Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice lists twelve categories of persons subject to its provisions. Notably absent is the President who as Commander-in-Chief is not subject to military law. According to the Manual for Courts-Martial, (Article 92) a general order or regulation is “lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.” A service member disobeys orders at his own risk. He also obeys orders at his own risk. On the surface it appears that the service member is caught in a game of Catch-22. In practice, however, that’s rarely the case since the question is not whether the service member thinks the order is unlawful or illegal. The question is whether his military superiors (and the courts) think the order is unlawful or illegal. The default (psychological) condition is when a service member receives an order he presumes it to be lawful and legal unless it is patently illegal or directs the commission of a crime. ——- 150 years of legal precedent exists between the present Constitution and the one existing in 1860. Assuming that present demographic changes could be legally and lawfully reversed beginning tomorrow morning, a return to the founder’s “Original Intent” would take at least as many years. Better a new constitution and secession of a new nation than a legal return to the old constitution. Better a new constitution and secession of a new nation than a revolutionary return to the old constitution. We haven’t time for a legal return to the former. A revolutionary return is politically illegitimate, for a diverse “We the People” is in place. If we are to be traitors and criminals in the eyes of the regime – and we are these things no matter what we say or do – then it is better to acquire social and political legitimacy within the territory of a new nation. 76
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:01 | # Towns the Jews haven’t ruined yet: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/authors/Diversity.html (Shhhh! Keep this list quiet! If the Jews find out they’ll start flooding each one of these places with Somalis five minutes later!) 77
Posted by Rebecca Whetstine on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:27 | # It has been a long time since I visited this blog, primarily because I found myself “backing up” on my distaste for xenophobia, practiced with great intellectualization by your core posting public. In addition, I was doing my best to make connections and open myself to learning more about who you REALLY are in this part of the EU, as I was contemplating a life with someone in Bever who reads this blog. “Pandering”, if I were to label from my reactionary personae; “being moderate and respectful” if I were kinder to myself. I am back for a visit, seeing a really interesting article. Interesting save for the fact that it is, predictably, at its’ core, all about White Fear. I find it odd that Flemish people such as yourselves, who share SO much in common, sociopsychodynamically speaking, with American mid-continent Indigenous populations… should have so little insight into your subtle and not-so-subtle Caucasoid bias. Before you lay into me, let me say that I am White. Yet have lived my entire life outside of the mainstream of American culture and its’ power and object-relations value set. Despite that, I do find myself still deeply inculcated into it. Cannot avoid that. I am thrilled that Mister Obama, who is NOT BLack, is our President, even as I recognize that Power put him there and we are yet to see what he can do with and about that. My son is native. This week is the FIRST and only time I have heard explicit mention of the First Nations living on this land from coast to coast. Mr Obama has not had my full heart because of this. All other culture/colour descriptors have had airplay - not the native heart. And so it is from this perspective that I find your intellectualizations puzzling. The only way that this country will be broken up is via machinations on the parts of those many nations who now own large interests in our territories outright. Those who would see our industries gutted and in ruin. And those careerist countries on their way up from the down we have long maintained for them. By and large, the US public top to bottom is now becoming sensitized and incensed at the crass mismanagement of historical proportions that has been wreaked upon us by a largely white male plutocracy of opportunists. In economic terms. it is as if a particularly famous and heinous genocide were recapitulated before the Grandparents were even dead from the first one. Living elderlies now must face another Great Depression, brought on by their own children and grandchildren. Behind this rage, Americans may very well unite as never before. Putin’s assertions are cold war pipe dreams, they are his curse/wish upon America, who was deeply part of the strategic action that took that Iron Curtain down and made Intelligence and Economic warfare upon those suffering people. We were greatly responsible for breaking them up, and now he’d like nothing better than to see this same come to us. But wishing does not make it so! He does not account for the intense stripe of love and pride, essential patriotism that seems to run through our heterogeneous nation. America is young. And the factionalism that does exist is tribal in nature, and not land-based. The factions mentioned are comprised greatly of transplants whose identity, again, is not land-based: it is fealty to interpersonal and shared identities, not based on the holding and inheriting of land with familial blood and mythos associated therein. Patriotism. And embarrassing word for me to utter. I do not recognize myself in the stereotypical face of American patriotism. I don’t wave flags or own them (but know the rules of flag handling and notice that MOST flag-wavers ignorantly abridge the rules as well as a few actual laws as regards the Flag… and yet I am passionate about the workings of Democracy. There is a continued move towards localized sovereignty on the parts of those natives living in Indian Country. A pissing match has erupted in SD, as some Lakota may be recapitulating Civil War hx and printing their own currency. There is talk of neighborhood currency in the cities so as to revitalize and support local businesses. Food cooperatives and growing banks flourish, featuring gleaning and gifting to local hunger projects. Victory Gardens - watch next for a progressive leaping over the White House fence to spade up the roses and plant, instead, edibles to be shared with the ghetto dwellers not so very far away. Do not underestimate us in our plurality. Our defining identity is not in skin colour anymore. We Get It: it is SES (socioeconomic status). This post was written without editing and cozening for perfect phrasing. Your site functionality is poor right now - long delays between the typing of letters and the appearance of these letters. Knowing this, forgive if dysjunction occurs between thoughts and meaning. 78
Posted by Rebecca Whetstine on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:28 | # .... oops, sorry: Panarin. These typing delays make it very difficult to post. 79
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:19 | # Rebecca Whetstine: “It has been a long time since I visited this blog, primarily because I found myself “backing up” on my distaste for xenophobia, practiced with great intellectualization by your core posting public.” You mean we discuss intelligently the way the looming genocide of the White race sucks? Guilty as charged. “Interesting save for the fact that it is, predictably, at its’ core, all about White Fear.” You mean like about as predictable as hearing about “intellectualization” and “xenophobia”? LOL! Just what do you think should be the reaction of the White race to their dispossession and looming genocide, my dear, oh so morally-attuned woman? “I find it odd that Flemish people such as yourselves, who share SO much in common, sociopsychodynamically speaking, with American mid-continent Indigenous populations…” Do you have some kind of software that randomly generates this Marxoid drivel for you? “...should have so little insight into your subtle and not-so-subtle Caucasoid bias.” LOL! Like the way a parent has a bias for their biological children? You think that preferring your closely genetically related kin is the height of unnature and immorality? Just what fucking planet are you from, you breathless, hysterical wench? “My son is native.” Oh, I see now. Your off-spring is mixed, so you have an investment in the genetic interests of Red Indians now too. But you see, we also have genetic interests in the continuity of the genes of our people. You cannot expect the White race to liquidate their very being, their unique genetic constitution, for the benefit of you and your son. Not gonna happen, you got that wench? “This week is the FIRST and only time I have heard explicit mention of the First Nations living on this land from coast to coast.” Gee, sounds like a celebration of blood and soil to me. Everybody else gets to do it except Whitey, eh? Fuck you hypocrite! “...not based on the holding and inheriting of land with familial blood and mythos associated therein.” I’m an American and a proud White man. This is my country. I’ll be damned if I see it torn from me by every piece of turd-world refuse in creation. “Patriotism. And embarrassing word for me to utter. I do not recognize myself in the stereotypical face of American patriotism.” You honestly believe White Nationalism is about the same old patriotard bullshit you see on Fox News? LOL! Stop reading the Huffington Post, my dear old densoid. We don’t like being tricked into fighting a war for the Jews. Get a clue! “A pissing match has erupted in SD, as some Lakota may be recapitulating Civil War hx and printing their own currency.” Sounds like Ingin bias and Ingin fascism to me. “This post was written without editing and cozening for perfect phrasing.” You write like a goddamn Marxoid cyborg, knock the lead out, woman. 80
Posted by silver on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 04:01 | #
If Obama isn’t “black,” how is your son “native”? (Is he your biological offspring?) And I think you’re seeing pretty clearly already what he’s going to do with that “power,” ie, not quite as much “change” as you lefties yet again deluded yourselves into thinking was forthcoming.
Meaning the ground is fertile for sowing the seeds of a “land-based” resolution to the problem—a resolution, to hear me tell it, which would be in everyone’s long-term (and as often as not short-term) interest; a thing of sheer beauty.
The above is apparently supposed to be an example of “Democracy in action.” Then why not white nationalism as an example of the same? These are people who truly do “get it.” SES, Schmess-E-S, nothing. As a famous Jew once said, “All is race. There is other no other truth.” (And “colour”? Not an American then?) 81
Posted by Rebecca Whetstine on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:32 | # Interesting - we have ourselves one anti-intellectual White Supremacist male who uses the language of miscegenation as regards my son. And we get words like “turd” and “fuck” for our efforts. And then we also have someone who clearly thinks only in terms of color, not sociology, rendering him incapable of using language in a purely sociological sense. White Race is a Construct. There is no such thing. No such PURE thing. You are all mongrels, children. The Moors (excuse me: BLACKamoors) mixed with your ancestors way back then. The Anglais fucked the Scots women. WHat else.. this could go on… I guess eventually your hatefullness will be bred out. But meanwhile, it’s a colourful world bathed in your mindless rage. I look around your site and see things that could be of use to a WORLD needing good things for its people. Meanwhile, you nasty little folks den up in the corners here and trade ugly tripe about noses and jews and half breeds and the like. There is no opportunity for matching concepts and discovering commonality. As to your idiot comment about tribal sov. and Democracy? No, I did not say that. You are just pissing in the wind. Had you the desire to know what I mean, you would ask. I suppose we at least know the locale of one pussy pocket of hatred - better to know where they are than to be taken surprise in a blind alley. 82
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:05 | #
God, the Jews have gotten incredible mileage out of that! Coming up with that was a once-in-a-millennium stroke of genius on the part of the Jews! All the feebleminded goys just eat that right up, just adore it. They can’t get enough of it! The Jews should’ve copyrighted that, every Jewish man, woman, and child would be worth billions right now, there are so many goyischer Kopfs who want to use that line on each other. That stuff’s way better than those other great Jewish inventions, The Patriarchy, Whites Are the Cancer of History, and spelling women “wymmynn,” all rolled into one! Lord what a gifted people! 83
Posted by Darren on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:07 | #
Prove it. I have DNA clustering to prove my argument, what do you have? A sociological argument? LOL.
I do not share that particular history in my ancestry, BUT, if we assume for a moment that I am, say, 1% sub-saharan negro, does that 1% make the 99% European Caucasian irrelevant by default? Why shouldn’t we strive to defend our identity and heritage, down to our DNA?
The person who is calling race a social construct is telling us that our racial beliefs (manifested as alleged “hatefulness”) are a genetic construct? LMAO!
I will agree with you here. There is no need to get into colorful language about Jews. I would be happy if Jews, big noses and all, were merely another branch of people living peacefully in their own lands/communities who did not try to impose their ways on us. 84
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:22 | # Rebecca Whetstine: “Interesting - we have ourselves one anti-intellectual White Supremacist male who uses the language of miscegenation as regards my son. And we get words like “turd” and “fuck” for our efforts.”“ But I thought “cozening” was a bad thing? Don’t you like it when men ‘get in touch with their feelings’? “And then we also have someone who clearly thinks only in terms of color, not sociology, rendering him incapable of using language in a purely sociological sense.” So race is only ‘skin deep’? Is ‘chimp’ and ‘human’ only ‘skin deep’? Can we get a chimp to compose a symphony or speak the king’s English if we can only overcome this vicious anti-chimp bias? Why not? Could it be because of millions of years of unique selective pressures that acted on random genetic mutations which were selected for adaptiveness and reproductive fitness? Is that which separates the manifested capacities of ‘chimp’ and ‘human’ concretely, genetically based or not? If so, it is not a “social construct” now is it? It is not merely a matter of social conditioning that serves the interest of power. Same thing with various human groups: they underwent tens of thousands of years of unique selective pressures in divergent climates/geographic locations. You want me to believe evolution stopped at the neck? LOL! I’m sure you are aware it is documented fact that various dog breeds have different temperaments and levels of intelligence as well as diverging appearances, why so? Because of selective breeding (which can be thought of as a proxy for natural selection). Is ‘pug’ and beagle’ a “social construct”? Perhaps in the sense that their creations were, more or less, and act of the will on the part of man; but is not what makes a pug a pug manifested genetically? Strange thing, you keep breeding pugs with other pugs keep getting more pugs, gee, ain’t that a strange coincidink? And, of course, if you breed all pugs and all beagles together, there will no longer be pugs and beagles. This is not rocket science. Your ‘language of sociology’ is in fact the social construct. It is incantational in character. It is in fact a tool you use to bludgeon objective reality and evolved human values into submission so that your will to power can reign. So that what Mizz Whetstine says goes, and all the angry, patriarchal, racist, homophobic, misogynistic White males will scamper away, tales tucked between their legs, when they see you coming. “There is no opportunity for matching concepts and discovering commonality.” You are truly blind. Just what do think goes through my head when I see such drivel as “Caucasoid bias”? Eh? If you will not acknowledge the concrete, genetically based existence of my people and our right to exist there is nothing to say. Why don’t you ask your Indian buddies if they would like to miscegenate, each and every one of them, with Negroes? Why don’t you ask them if they think their peoplehood is merely a collection of “social constructs” and not the concrete ties of a unique bloodline? No, when we ask for ourselves what they undoubtedly would claim for themselves, the right to the concrete genetic continuity of their people, you accuse us of “Caucasoid bias”. There will be no grand cosmic prize at the end of the road for all of Gaia’s children as a result of the genetic annihilation of the White man. It was only the White man, ever, who saw the humanity in other peoples and treated as if they had ‘rights’. Sub-Saharan Negroes have an average IQ of around 70, the IQ tests are in and that is what they say. Occam’s Razor says that is the explanation for their pathetic lack of civilizational development. In South Africa, the Afrikaners built hospitals and schools for their Negroes whilst the Negro tribesmen engage in some of the most gruesome savageries imaginable. The Chinese are already making their play on Africa, do you honestly believe they will be so tenderminded? Do you honestly believe that if it was the Japanese or the Chinese who had conquered North America that their would be one Indian left alive? Are you not aware, that Red Indians engaged in genocide and gruesome savagery against competing tribes as well as White colonizers? Here is the truth: Man is of Nature, and Nature is Darwinian. Different tribes of men compete ruthlessly against each other to secure limited resources. It was the White man who ushered in an era of ‘human rights’ and the like. Tell me, just what do you think is more the “social construct”, ruthless Darwinian competition or ‘human rights’? And answer me this: if you will not grant White people the ‘human right’, the most basic right, the right to exist, then why should White people not also play by your Darwinian standards and do all that is necessary, whatever is necessary, to secure the existence of their people; and to hell with morality? 85
Posted by HH on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:06 | # ‘No such PURE thing. You are all mongrels, children. The Moors (excuse me: BLACKamoors) mixed with your ancestors way back then. The Anglais fucked the Scots women. WHat else.. this could go on…” Not so, Nonwhite admixture in Americans. Black admixture. One researcher claimed that 30% of white Americans have on average about 2% Negroid ancestry, while the other 70% have no detectable trace of admixture (Mark Shriver in Sailer 2002). According to Shriver, for the US White population as a whole, the average sub-Saharan contribution is about .7%. UPDATE: Shriver now says “about 10 percent of [the European-American population] have some African ancestry” (Wade 2002)—much lower than his previous claim of 30%. Incidentally, Shriver is now attributing his own African ancestry to “a Mexican grandmother”, rather than to runaway slaves as he had implied in the Steve Sailer article. [Important] UPDATE II: As more information has come out about DNAprint’s “AncestryByDNA” test (Shriver is affiliated with DNAprint, and his findings mentioned above were made using a version of the ABD test), it has become clear that the ABD test absolutely DOES NOT accurately determine low level admixture in individuals. Thus, any statement from Shriver concerning “admixture” in American whites is meaningless. Recent research on Y-chromosomes and mtDNA detected NO black admixture in American whites (Kayser et al. 2003): . . . African-American genetic contribution to European-Americans is below the limits of detection with these methods. The sample included 628 European-American Y-chromosomes and mtDNA from 922 European-Americans, and the fact that there was no evidence for black admixture whatsoever is significant. The findings here also provide further indication that the ABD test is worthless for estimating “minor admixture”. [Important] UPDATE III: A DNAprint executive now claims “Five percent of European Americans exhibit some detectable level of African ancestry” (ABCNEWS.com, Dec. 28 2003). This represents a third downard revision of the proportion of white Americans claimed by DNAprint to have black ancestry. An amazing lack of consistency (30% -> 10% -> 5%) proves the pronouncements of DNAprint employees on the racial ancestry of Americans are unreliable. People who hereafter continue to cite such claims prove only their hostility towards Americans. UPDATE IV: According to data released by DNAprint (see TABLE:ETHNIC), Greeks, Italians, and Iberians have higher levels of “Sub-Saharan” and “Native American” admixture than do “European Americans”. The “ABD” test remains deeply flawed, and other lines of evidence support the fact that Americans are “whiter” than southern Europeans, but it is amusing to see the hopes of anti-American Medicists smashed by the very company they put so much faith in. Amerindian admixture A study of self-identified whites in a heavily hispanic area of Colorado reported a maternal Amerindian contribution of about 0.97%, which suggests an Amerindian contribution of about 0.5% of total genes—this in an area I expect is greatly above the national average in Amerindian ancestry (Merriwether et al. 1997). Recent research on Y-chromosomes detected no male Amerindian (or sub-Saharan) haplogroups in a sample of 114 white Americans. The bottom line is that American whites certainly have less black ancestry than the Portuguese, and probably have less Amerindian ancestry than Iberians (Helgason et al. 2001 detected 2.27% Arctic Asian and/or Amerindian haplogroups in Iberia). 86
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:38 | # HEY, MIZZ WHETSTINE, READ THE ABSTRACT OF THIS GENETIC STUDY! “We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic You see, Mizz Whetstine? Peoples’ perception of WHAT THEY ARE is accurate to a degree of 99.86%! But isn’t that precisely what your “using language in a purely sociological sense” is for? TO BRAINWASH PEOPLE INTO DENYING THE ACCURACY OF THEIR OWN EVOLVED, HIGHLY-TUNED, TRIBAL PERCEPTIONS?! Your ‘language of sociology’ is a bunch of self-referential bullshit that doesn’t take reality into consideration. It is incantational, it is the vocabulary of a secular religion. IT IS ANTI-WHITE, GENOCIDALIST BRAINWASHING! And that, Mizz Whetstine, is, as they say, ‘ballgame’. Now: Are you with the anti-White genocidalists or are you with those who would grant us our right to exist? I expect an answer. P.S. Just who is it that is committed to anti-intellectualism? LOL! 87
Posted by silver on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:21 | #
The “hatefulness” might be, but racial divisions will remain for centuries. Education can only do so much, and the truth about race, intelligence and social outcome will always be lurking around such that some will always be slighted by it. In other words, the kind of mish-mash of diversity your envisioning isn’t, and never will be, any sort of a strength. That’s why it’d be a much smarter move to separate soon, despite the temporary difficulties this will cause.
I, for one, agree with that.
You said you were passionate about “Democracy,” gave a series of recent events, and then asked us not to “underestimate us in our plurality.” So I naturally assumed the events you referred to were examples of Democracy in action. If I was wrong, okay, what did you mean?
Presumably there are some other groups with whom they don’t share quite so much in common with, sociopsychodynamically speaking. What do you see as the implications of that? 88
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:28 | # Here is something that I wrote in a comment at Takimag that Craig, one of our guys, thought bore repeating; so I’ll post it here: “Why is it not ‘respectable’ to say that our people ought not perish but should live? If that is what is ‘respectable’ then there is nothing redeeming of the existing order that should justly endure. If what is ‘respectable’ is the genocide of our people it is the highest good that that which is ‘respectable’ should burn to ashes, and none too soon.” 89
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:40 | # silver: “I, for one, agree with that.” Silver is smart, sensitive, a stylish dresser and has great taste in men (Aaron Eckert - mmm hmm, sassy!) [Inside joke, Mizz Whetstine, don’t get your panties in a bunch.] 90
Posted by silver on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:26 | #
One possibility for why it’s not considered “respectable” is the tendency to not be completely forthcoming. It’s obviously about much more than “survival.” You want to survive on a certain amount of territory, with a certain number of you. Otherwise, a few tens of thousand of you could “survive” in, say, Saint Pierre and Miquelon. So if you fail to spell out what you mean, it’s understandable that people’s imaginations (with the generous aid of years of propaganda) will go to work for them to fill in the details—and perhaps scare themselves away. And thus is “not respectable” born. All pretty elementary, really. (So, please, calm down: I don’t expect you understand any of it. Don’t get yourself worked up.) 91
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:39 | # silver: “It’s obviously about much more than “survival.” You want to survive on a certain amount of territory, with a certain number of you.” That was an excerpt of a longer comment. I mentioned what you suggest in it. We want North America, Australia, New Zealand, Russian Siberia, Europe and Southern Africa back; personal property of the White man (I mentioned these lands in a comment previous to the excerpted one). If you want me to get you Eckhart’s (apparently spelled with an ‘h’ and an ‘a’) number I can make it happen. I write other people’s tickets for them. Although I don’t know if he digs on Pakis, British or otherwise. 92
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:37 | # Replying to Silver’s comment that we need to specify what land we want (I’m echoing CC here, to make sure Silver “gets it”): we want all of Europe, all of Russian Siberia, all of North America north of the Rio Grande, all of Australia, all of New Zealand, all of Africa south of the Zambezi, and maybe all of the “southern cone” of South America — we’ll have to get our racial experts involved to tell us what’s going on racially there (in other words, are the people of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay white enough?). All of that land is what we claim. Just for us. Does that answer Silver’s question? 93
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:59 | #
LOL! Tell the Bantus, “Hey, you came from the north, now you can go back there. All of you.” 94
Posted by Sacharite on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:20 | # I propose Latin America as a general-purpose dumping ground for the tens of millions of accumulated mystery meat we’ll have to deal with at revolution’s end. They’ll have to go somewhere, and I do not wish to machine gun them into ditches (to avoid upsetting the women, and having to clean up the mess.) The humane solution is to dump them somewhere, and perhaps send food aid and some cash until they’re on their feet. As to Latin America, it’s probably not worth trying to figure out which countries are “white enough”. If they’re true blue/blonde, we’ll take them (understanding that any admixture would be miniscule.) Otherwise, the indolent southern Italians and Spaniards aren’t much of a loss to the race anyway. 95
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:31 | # Sacharite: “They’ll have to go somewhere, and I do not wish to machine gun them into ditches (to avoid upsetting the women, and having to clean up the mess.)” Jesus H. Crimeny, I think we may have lost our way. Save us sinners, Saint GW. 96
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:48 | # Sacharite there’s something about some of your comments that makes me think you’re working for the FBI or BATF — I can’t put my finger on it. 97
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:18 | # Might it be this?:
Nah, couldn’t be. I’ll keep thinking ... 98
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:13 | #
Or perhaps this? 99
Posted by Sacharite on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:45 | # Whoa, let’s not forget who brought up the subject, now: <blockquote> we want all of Europe, all of Russian Siberia, all of North America north of the Rio Grande, all of Australia, all of New Zealand, all of Africa south of the Zambezi, and maybe all of the “southern cone” of South America — we’ll have to get our racial experts involved to tell us what’s going on racially there (in other words, are the people of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay white enough?). All of that land is what we claim. I do not advocate violence, Fred. But if you were forthright, just how do you propose to do the following demographic changes, by charm alone? 1. Removal of 110 million nonwhites from the United States. What would you have done with these 175.5 million human beings, Fred? I’m certain you haven’t thought that far ahead, and that’s why I propose relocation to Latin America as a humanitarian, non-violent solution. 100
Posted by Sacharite on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:56 | # @Gudmund, Perhaps it’s escaped your observation that the hybrid population of temperate South America gravitate downward in calling. That’s distinctly un-European. When one says ‘Third World’, one usually includes all of Latin America. However, many individuals in the area are white or ‘white enough’, as I’ve said. 101
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:47 | # Sacharite, Of course a return to the pre-1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act status qou ante is just from the perspective of the self-determination of White Americans for the reason that they were not asked, nor were they properly informed to make a decision about, the consequences of nullifying the 1924 Immigration Act that was clearly erected to protect their interests. Consistent with that the obvious question of what to do with legal and illegal post-1965 immigrants and their progeny arises. Your solution of indiscriminately “dumping” them in South America is needlessly crude and you know it. Are you on good terms with a guy named “silver”? If so, tell him he is a douche-bag, LOL! Anyways, a far more neat and humane path to me seems to be the repatriation of the above mentioned to their places of ancestral origin: say Mexico for Mestizoes, Vietnam for Vietnamese, etc. No? If you are not a troll, get a clue; and if you are, go fuck yourself. P.S. Concerning Southern Africa: an ethno-state for Afrikaners there is the minimum acceptable resolution. The 70 IQ inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa simply are not cognitively equipped to deal with ‘nationhood’ is a realistic sense. Either the Chinese and the Indians will get Africa or the White man will; which do you prefer? 102
Posted by Sacharite on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:17 | # Your solution of indiscriminately “dumping” them in South America is needlessly crude and you know it. ...Anyways, a far more neat and humane path to me seems to be the repatriation of the above mentioned to their places of ancestral origin: say Mexico for Mestizoes, Vietnam for Vietnamese, etc. No? If you are not a troll, get a clue; and if you are, go fuck yourself. That’s not true. What do you do with the mongrels you retard? What if Vietnam doesn’t want to take back the Hmong? (Guess what, the viets don’t like hmong either, that’s why the U.S. Army used them against the Vietcong.) WTF is wrong with everyone today? Diamed in the main post simply proposes wiping everyone else out and everyone’s on my back for a modest and humane repatriation??? 103
Posted by Dave Johns on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:57 | # “Diamed in the main post simply proposes wiping everyone else out and everyone’s on my back for a modest and humane repatriation???” You both are living in a make-believe world where you fantasize that your ideas actually carry weight or transfer influence into the real world. HAH! Wake up to reality and smell the coffee, geniuses! 104
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:37 | # Dave Johns: “Wake up to reality and smell the coffee, geniuses!” Dave, I like you, you’re are nice guy, and you are for our people. I think Glyn Roach is a nice guy too. Sacharite: “...retard…” LOL! Who, me? Looked in a mirror lately? “That’s not true.” Ehh, wrong! Tell him what he lost, Johnny. “What if Vietnam doesn’t want to take back the Hmong?” I know that Germany paid the Vietnamese government to take back some Vietnamese guest workers who had over stayed their visit; there is a precedent. Here is the thing: If the White man has the means and the will to do what you suggest, why would he not also have the means (carrot and/or stick) to do what I suggest? When the White man has his ethnocentric dander up he is the last cat on this green earth you want to fuck with. “What do you do with the mongrels…” You keep them from fucking any more White people - outlaw miscegenation. They will gravitate back towards whatever non-White racial group that comprises the other portion of their ancestry. White people have non-White relatives: that may suck but that’s the way it is. I may be a hard-ass (right, silver?), but I’m not a goddamn monster. “Diamed in the main post simply proposes wiping everyone else out and everyone’s on my back for a modest and humane repatriation???” Diamed has the brains and the moral fiber to be ‘baller’ and a ‘shot-caller’, as the brothas say, but in the White sense. Is that a double standard? Yup. “WTF is wrong with everyone today?” Too many of J. Richards’ conspiracy theories (really just a way he tries to sow anarchy and discontent in the collective consciousness concerning the anti-White status qou; and a private joke/game of irony he plays with the lemmings - but then their is the possibility he really believes it all). I’m not necessarily sure it would be a bad thing if we could replace Glyn Roach’s ‘Johnny Cash as uniter/world savior’ rap with Richards’ colorful narrative in the mind of dear old chap Glyn. 105
Posted by silver on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:23 | #
I’m not sure just how much of a “we” you’ve got going there, big boy. The rest of your proposal is just as inane. It’s almost as though it were engineered to be repulsive to the greatest possible number—though whether because of its earnestness or hilarity I can’t quite say . Then again, you’ve proven time and again what a bag of wind you are, so I guess one can expect both your sincerity and facetiousness come off as equally nauseating.
Johnnyboy, the problem isn’t discussing ideas that don’t yet carry weight; it’s discussing them in a way that seems to do its best to ensure they never will.
What I’ve suggested with respect to that is to help make that process of “gravitation” a positive event. For simple suggestions like this, laughably, you call me names—apparently oblivious to the irony of someone calling himself “captainchaos” laughing at others. And no, not “hardass,” if that means your uncompromising stance, whose essence I don’t disagree with. More like, let’s say, “blowhard.” “Ignoramous” fits the bill too. Oh, and you idiot: “That may suck but that’s the way it is”! Are you for real? “Ignoramous” it surely is. 106
Posted by Sacharite on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:24 | # Listen, I don’t need to prove to someone I never met [“captainchaos”- who btw is an idiot], that I’m not someone else I never met [silver - and incidentally whose comments I do not even read 99% of the time.] Thanks. 107
Posted by Dave Johns on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:26 | # “Dave, I like you, you’re are nice guy, and you are for our people.” Why thanks, Cap! And tell us again what you, specifically, could acually do for our people? 108
Posted by Dave Johns on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:43 | # “Johnnyboy, the problem isn’t discussing ideas that don’t yet carry weight; it’s discussing them in a way that seems to do its best to ensure they never will. ” Holey Toledo! Another idiot that wants to be perceived as a genius! 109
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:10 | # Dave, Is excessive negativity the perfect prescription now? Everyone, Why are we bickering like PMS-ridden housewives? (Insert “with friends like these…” joke here) 110
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:27 | # silver: “Are you for real? “Ignoramous” it surely is.” Keep swinging away silver, I enjoy the spectacle. “...apparently oblivious to the irony of someone calling himself “captainchaos” laughing at others.” The wog says “irony” but can’t recognize a slice when he fails to see it; ignoramus? Sacharite: “Listen,” Okay…damn, I’m not hearing anything. Moving on… Dave Johns: “Why thanks, Cap!” No problem, Dave. “And tell us again what you, specifically, could acually do for our people?” I’ve been kicking the fence-sitters at Takimag onto one side of the fence or the other with some gusto for awhile now. Got some new quality commenters to come here at least. 111
Posted by Dave Johns on Wed, 24 Dec 2008 02:06 | #
Hey guy, I think even you can stand back and objectivly evaluate what you’ve acually accomplished and come to the realization that the totality of what you’re doing amounts to zero. If you really want to do anything meaningful for the white race, get married to a white woman and have as many white kids as you can afford. All the best, 112
Posted by Ryder on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:54 | # Rebecca:
Um…ridiculous. If I can see it with my own two eyes, it’s not a social construct. If it can be seen under a microscope, it’s not a social construct. If there are real medical implications, it’s not a social construct. If it’s in the DNA, it’s not a social construct. It is real. Clearly, people of European origin EXIST. They are real. This isn’t a television sitcom, Rebecca. Are your precious “First Nations” real, Rebecca? Or are they a social construct too? If they are merely a social construct, then surely they have no interests that need to be respected or recognized. Right? We already know the answer, don’t we? The whole cultish social construct business applies only to whites, and whites alone. Black Africans exist, Arabs exist, various Asian peoples exist. Of course the “First Nations” exist (never mind significant research showing that whites preceded the Indians in North America, so the “First” part may be a bit off). Even those social construct cultists who would claim that all race is merely a social construct, always seem to find room to protect and promote the interests of non-whites. Social construct or not, apparently non-whites are real enough to have legitimate interests. Only whites are not “real” enough, apparently. Does this make you feel better about the genocide being conducted against whites? The easy out of “Well, they don’t really exist anyway, they are just a social construct, after all. Genocide, what genocide?” If our situation was not so dire, this insanity would be laughable. Crazed madmen running around claiming that a real flesh and blood people is merely a “social construct.” Total insanity. You people should be dancing around airports. The real irony of it, an irony that is totally lost upon the cultish types who parrot such nonsense, is that the assertion that race is a social construct is, in itself, a social construct. Your assertion is just made up out of thin air. I can’t see it, taste it or touch it. I can’t see your assertion in the DNA, I can’t see it under a microscope. It has no existence outside of your mind (unlike whites, who actually exist whether you believe it or not). You just made it up. Well, to be clearer, YOU didn’t make it up. You simply parrot it mindlessly. There is a real world out there, Rebecca. Spouting mindless platitudes doesn’t change that. On another note: captainchaos, I didn’t see it myself, but I’ve heard of your exploits at Takimag. Good work. Also, it’s good to see Fred Scooby and some of the other names I remember from the old Odessa. 113
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:02 | #
The Jews made it up. Dimwitted bovine goys are the ones who run around parroting it mindlessly while the Jews sit back unable to believe how easy it was to put one over on the goyische Kopfs. They simply cannot believe the success they’ve had with that. Needless to say they’re going to milk it for all it’s worth, now that they’ve stumbled onto the winning formula for genociding the Euros. Nothing, no argumentation in the universe, is going to persuade the Jews to come clean and drop that, and admit it’s nonsense, now that they have their goal of two thousand years nearly within their grasp, the goal of finally, at long last, getting rid of every single one of their foremost enemy on the planet, the members of the Euro race. 114
Posted by Armor on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:24 | # ” the idea that race is a social construct is a social construct “ The idea that the idea that race is a social construct is a social construct is a social construct too. (Or maybe not. But it’s a great way to get 3 social constructs in a row in one short sentence). 115
Posted by Ryder on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:39 | #
Ha! Well, that makes at least as much sense as the race deniers do. On a more serious note, and just as a matter of rhetorical style, I think it is important to go on the offensive when dealing with anti-white race deniers (which is to say, basically all race deniers). Wrong foot them from the beginning. Call bullshit on them immediately. Make them defend their ludicrous positions, positions which should be mocked mercilessly. “Race is a social construct!” (said smugly by the anti-white) “Nah. Your opinion is a social construct, not to mention ridiculous. Whites exist, pal.” *watch confused look on their face as their magical talisman, the sacred lines of the anti-white cant, failed to have the desired effect* Instead, what we typically end up doing is treating their ridiculous assertions as if they have merit. We then provide reams of evidence and reasoned argument to prove our position. Nothing wrong with doing this, and in fact it should be done, IF there is a real payoff for doing so. For example, laying out the facts calmly and clearly may have the payoff of educating reasonable and fair minded lurkers. That’s a good deal. But, in general terms, it is probably the best practice to stay on the attack, to relentlessy reject and mock the opposition. By wrong footing them, you throw their whole game plan into disarray. I’m not going to allow them to play prosecutor all the time to my defendant. I’ve got some prosecuting to do too. Our prosecution can be hardcore indeed. At the end of the day, the anti-whites are advocating policies leading directly to the genocide of our people. not to mention mass rape. By continuing to advocate their positions, they become morally culpable for these things. They become accessories to genocide and rape. They can avoid this moral culpability by ceasing to promote anti-white views. Go and sin no more. In short: the general strategy of the anti-white haters is to 1) Immediately assume the moral high ground and 2) Play prosecutor. My response to this is to IMMEDIATELY knock them off of the moral high ground, and claim it for myself. Then it’s time to play prosecutor. 116
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:19 | # Ryder: “If it’s in the DNA, it’s not a social construct.” I posted the abstract of a genetic study that shows the 99.86% accuracy of self-identified race with genetic reality. What else could Mizz Wenchstine say? “This isn’t a television sitcom, Rebecca.” Mizz Wenchstine spends too much time smoke ‘em peace pipe, I think. “On another note: captainchaos, I didn’t see it myself, but I’ve heard of your exploits at Takimag. Good work.” Thank you. It’s more fun to hunt the ducks that fly in the sky than the ones that lie at the bottom of the barrel. Right, Mizz Wenchstine? “My response to this is to IMMEDIATELY knock them off of the moral high ground, and claim it for myself. Then it’s time to play prosecutor.” Mizz Wenchstine goes for darkies because she in an insecure, passive-aggressive little wench who needs to control. She figures she is engaging in some noble act of self-abnegation; really it is just condescension. She wants the ingins to be lifted up to the level of the White man, she thinks the reason they can’t “do it themselves” is because of evil ole Whitey. So does that mean Whitey’s way is superior? If so, doesn’t that mean Mizz Wenchstine likes to slum it? If it is Whitey’s oppression of the ingin that keeps Mr. Ingin from achieving “Whiteness” what is it that keeps Whitey from achieving godhood? The limitations of genetics? These are all questions that Mizz Wenchstine can’t be bothered with while she’s smoking ‘em peace pipe and accusing me of anti-intellectualism. LOL! Go fuck yourself, Mizz Wenchstine! 117
Posted by Armor on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:21 | # “ the idea that race is a social construct is a social construct ” and the policy of replacing whites with non-whites, and calling any dissenter a racist, is a racist aggression. 118
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:30 | # Igor Panarin firms up on his prediction of an American collapse (though some of his ideas definitely sound a bit flakey). From Reuters:-
119
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:31 | #
Next month would suit me. Hell, can next week be arranged? Let’s get this show on the road! The sooner this dead carcass is sloughed off the sooner North American Euros can start over fresh, making damn sure to get it right this time. Hey we’ve only been through two republics so far, the Articles of Confederation and the Contitution. Two’s not so bad considering France is on her fifth republic now (is it the fifth? I can’t remember — something like that). BRING ON THE COLLAPSE! Oh, and .... don’t forget the arrests and trials all who were responsible for it. No, we don’t intend to forgive or forget, in case the other side is starting to get nervous. Culpability’s a bitch isn’t it .......... 120
Posted by skeptical on Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:42 | # Panarin is clearly being coy with this statement:
The U.S. has experienced its share of economic turmoil without experiencing collapse. How is the current situation any different? How does Panarin’s reference to “social and cultural phenomena” play into his analysis? Of course, certain American racialists have their view on how the “various social phenomena” will bring about America’s collapse, but the details of their analysis would never make it into Reuters. 121
Posted by Frank on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:34 | # I’ve heard about these Klan sites, but I’ve never actually visited one. I came to this one by accident. So sad. You folks have a sickness, and I hope you get healed. Your hatred will eat you alive along before you are harmed by minorities or immigrants. Yep, you are some sick, ignorant people. 122
Posted by Fred on Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:30 | # Good think those media Jews Drudge and Bloomberg made this info available to you. Post a comment:
Next entry: USrael’s Nuclear Bailout of AIG and Tata’s Taj Terror
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:24. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:16. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:19. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) |
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:47 | #
It would certainly be nice, but this thinker is so silly he doesn’t even realize race is the sole and only cause of secession. Secession will not occur due to a bad economy, when has it ever done that? No, it occurs due to ethnic and racial tensions. These tensions are not yet high enough due to America’s large land-mass and the ability for white flight to continue relocating to 90% white areas.
People stay in a country not for the economy, but for security. It’s ‘how it’s always been.’ People will only risk war if their security is already non-existent. For far-sighted members that’s already true, we realize our very existence is being threatened. For the rest, however, crime is under control and they can always move away from ‘the disadvantaged.’ What reason for them to do anything? Better to just sit and watch tv than worry about pure abstractions.
Raising racial solidarity is a must, I mean look at that guy’s prediction: Texas its own country? Half hispanic, 1/4 black, 1/4 white? What possible reason would it decide to band together? He’s living in a dream world. Now multiply that by ten and you have the dream world of the rest of the sheep.