Posted by CS on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 03:07 | #

The GOP is either stupid or not serious about winning. Either way they aren’t interested in what is good for white people so it doesn’t really matter.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:25 | #

Thanks for this. Yeah, it’s pretty sickening, esp the multikult post-November gloating, and esp because this race was Romney’s to win (not “to lose”, however: an incumbent Prez has many advantages, and Obama started out with all his bloc votes; OTOH Mitt could/should have crucified him on the shitty economy). A tough,“Middle Americanist” (but not WN) candidate, with more working class appeal [which poor Mitt utterly lacks - probably why my solidly upper-class, “Old Guard” mother liked him so much ... “one of our kind”, she said; my dad, a self-made PhD and business exec, was more like, “well, anything to get rid of the n——-”] absolutely would have sent the uppity First Negro packing.

What a terrible loss. We will remember this election with bitter regret for the rest of our lives. 2012 was a watershed. 08 could be dismissed as a fluke, or preview. But 12 confirms that the long heralded New America has arrived.

My only question is why are you so sure that a tougher line on immigration would have increased Romney’s share of the white vote by 8%? I suppose you mean whites on the sidelines would have voted GOP (because I doubt a Romney immigration push would have stolen away many (any?) of the final Obama white voters). But enough new entrants to cause him to go up 8%? I’m a bit sceptical about that. I think Romney lost for many reasons beyond an unnecessarily depressed share of the white vote due to a failure to make restriction a centerpiece. I think he needed to advance a much more comprehensively Middle Americanist agenda, combining Main St v Wall St, anti-globalization, and anti-foreign interventionist themes with restrictionism.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:10 | #

LH,

Immigration is a high leverage issue, having a huge impact on base mobilization, since it gets to the root of what civilization and its associated war powers are all about:

Men giving up their right to individual initiation of force in defense of territory to the governing sovereignty in exchange for a guarantee that they will enjoy collective protection from invasion.

There is nothing more fundamental than that in the constitution of a civilization.

If immigration were limited to females you’re dismissal of the centrality of immigration might approach something worthy of discussion.

Posted by Civil War in the UK on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:22 | #

“Islamist Police” suppresses citizens on London’s streets”

According to al Arabiya TV, groups of Islamist militants have formed what they call “Islamist Police” patrolling a number of streets in London and forcing citizens to comply with their interpretation of Sharia law. In a move that can be projected to possibly also happen in other European countries, and later across the Atlantic, groups of militants, organized in patrols have been stopping British citizens asking them to throw away alcoholic drinks or asking women not to wear short skirts, because (according to al Arabiya) “they are passing through Muslim areas.” These quasi-militias have established a Youtube channel called “
“الشريعة.. مستقبل بريطانيا” or “Sharia, the future of Britain”. According to observers, experts on urban Jihadism, “these are the early signs of manifestations of Sharia-only zones, similar to the Taliban practices in pre 9/11 Afghanistan. But these are taking place in a major Western capital. This is a prelude to serious breakdown in secular order. It all began as local claims, but manipulated by Jihadists, now it is close from creating enclaves.”

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2013/01/20/261497.html

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:42 | #

JB@3

Well, no one is more anti-nonwhite immigration than I am, and I certainly don’t dispute its centrality to civilizational survival as such (who would?). But I think the issue here is how (ideologically) uneducated whites actually feel about it; that is, to what extent would harping on immigration restriction have motivated non-GOP voting whites (Obama voters and nonvoters) to support Romney? This is an empirical question to which I just don’t have even an intuition of an answer. As I’m sure you’re aware, immigration persists because it is the paradigmatic and most important example of the kind of issue where the benefits are highly concentrated, but the harms widely diffuse. 

Among my extended social and professional (now academic) circles, the conservatives are all very hardline anti-immigration (in part due to my influence, I think), but the nonconservatives really don’t seem to care about the issue at all. I doubt many Obama voters would have switched to Romney just because he adopted a harder line on immigration. So really we’re talking about the likely effect on white nonvoters.

I don’t think Romney’s taking a hardline on the issue would have hurt him, but it only would have helped him to the extent that he had really made the case for restriction, at least on economic grounds (eg, “get the economy growing through a return to capitalism; then restrict immigration in order to ensure that the cornucopia of new jobs be reserved for our own unemployed” - something along those basic lines). And in order to have really made that case, he would have had to have elevated restriction into a main plank of the campaign.

I agree that restriction should henceforth be a key plank of the GOP (sadly, they seem to be moving in exactly the opposite direction at present), and I agree it would help electorally more than hurt. But how much net vote increase would it provide, esp at the presidential level? I don’t think that much. The places where grassroots Republicans are really against immigration tend to be places they’ve either already lost due to immigration (eg CA); still decisively hold but will soon lose (eg, AZ, Texas); or at best, are swing states where the party has to deal with an unusually large bloc of pro-immigration Republicans (eg, Florida, New Mexico). What Blue states would have shifted Red based on restrictionism?

If you really break down the Electoral College vote there just aren’t very many swing states which could be expected to tip GOP based on a new restrictionist emphasis alone. I see North Carolina (which Romney won anyway),and possibly Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Virginia, and Nevada (all traditionally GOP, but now going for Obama almost certainly solely due to demographic shifting). Ohio, PA, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire are the other recognized possible swing states (very maybe Oregon and Minnesota, at least in the future) - and in NONE of these is immigration a first tier issue (that maybe it should be isn’t the point).

So, basically, the only states Romney lost but just might have won by taking a harder line against the invasion were Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada. I don’t think those together would have given him the presidency. And taking a harder stance on immigration might have backfired among Republicans in Florida and New Mexico (and among the general population of Nevada: my WN buddy born, raised and residing in Vegas, says that state is permanently lost, like CA).

Three takeaway points. First, the idiotic GOP, out of basic political survival instincts, should have ended the invasion absolutely no later than the 90s (as I was vociferously recommending at the time). White Majority America is almost certainly doomed now, absent wars or plagues. Second, immigration is going to have to be made an issue in the Midwest. It’s not just a matter of ‘telling it like it is’. The whites there need to be educated on the dangers of continued immigration. Maybe at some future time, a GOP Presidential contender will be able to reap electoral benefits from others’ having done the groundwork. Third, while we must never stop fighting immigration, the primary task for WPs now is to raise white awareness, and organize whites so as to protect our interests in the mud-majority New America (while holding out a distant promise of white secession).

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:59 | #

BTW, what I wrote above nicely ties in with WZ. America is finished, exactly as I predicted three decades ago, before I’d even graduated from high school. We conservatives had decades to stop immigration and preserve a Majority White America, but the assholes always had some other stupid issue to worry about. Now, our window of opportunity is shut.

Soon, every white nation will have passed the point beyond which a nationalist electoral majority can be assembled. Thus, even if at some future point immigration is finally terminated, the principle of diversity will have been enshrined everywhere. There will be no repatriations, except of illegal aliens. And from there, it’s only a matter of time before pureblood whites like me will be reduced to political minorities in every sovereign nation. How will Western Civ survive in those conditions? It won’t - any more than traditional American culture and mentality have survived coercive racial integration.

There simply is no other option but White Zion. Separate or die, as many have said.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:30 | #

LH, you are falling victim to “The Narrative”.  The name of the game is turnout.  Everything is being done in the media to draw attention away from the drop in white turnout due to Romney’s capitulationist posture.  When “white turnout” is mentioned it is mentioned only in the sense that the percent of the citizenry that is white is dropping.  You swallowed hook line and sinker—which is why you couldn’t read the first sentence of my response to you that was all about “a huge impact on base mobilization”.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:37 | #

JB,

I understand that white turnout was depressed - vdare.com talked about this a lot right after Nov 6. I just question how much immigration restrictionism would have boosted base mobilization in a way that actually would have resulted in a different electoral result. You haven’t addressed, let alone disproven, my EC contentions. What Blue states would Romney have actually won by stressing immigration?

To repeat:

If you really break down the Electoral College vote there just aren’t very many swing states which could be expected to tip GOP based on a new restrictionist emphasis alone. I see North Carolina (which Romney won anyway),and possibly Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Virginia, and Nevada (all traditionally GOP, but now going for Obama almost certainly solely due to demographic shifting). Ohio, PA, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire are the other recognized possible swing states (very maybe Oregon and Minnesota, at least in the future) - and in NONE of these is immigration a first tier issue (that maybe it should be isn’t the point).

So, basically, the only states Romney lost but just might have won by taking a harder line against the invasion were Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada. I don’t think those together would have given him the presidency. And taking a harder stance on immigration might have backfired among Republicans in Florida and New Mexico (LH)

Basically, I think the paleonationalist consensus is that Mitt might have won Nevada, Virginia, Colorado and Florida by emphasizing restriction, but those together were not sufficient to win hi the Presidency. If you’re making a different point about restrictionism, it is eluding me. Are you arguing that a robust anti-immigration platform could have won him some of the following: OH, PA, IA, WI, MI or NH? The problem is that immigration just isn’t a huge issue in those states.

I think Mitt lost because he was a crappy candidate, not in his resume or qualifications (which are obviously vastly superior to Obama), but in both his demeanor, and especially his failure to make the case against Obama (and from what I hear, the Obama “ground game” was much better, too).

PS - BTW, “The Narrative” is actually not far wrong. It was the GOP pollsters and predicters who were way off this time, not me. I consistently for 2 years called the election for Obama, including in various threads here at MR. We must never allow wishfulness preclude hardheaded realism. I used to think whites were with us on race, but just didn’t have proper leadership. I still think that once was true, but it stopped being so at some point during the 90s. 2012 has symbolically eliminated any vestigial belief in the possibility of ever Taking Back America for whites or even conservatives, and functionally made the decline of the USA irreversible. Our race must be our nation now.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:43 | #

LH, going from “Mitt lost because he was a crappy candidate” to, in the very next sentence, “‘The Narrative’ is actually not far wrong.” betrays incoherence on your part unless, of course, you are saying the reason Romney was a crappy candidate is that he didn’t Hispander enough.

As to the breakdown of states that would have gone GOP if they had paid 8 percent of each of the minority categories to buy 8 percent of the white vote:

Understand that there are two issues here:

1) Whether the immigration issue is central enough to race politics in the US to shift racial bloc voting by 8 percentage points.

2) Whether a shift of 8 percentage points in racial bloc voting would result in the above distribution of States going for GOP vs Dems.

Please keep these issues straight when responding.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:55 | #

I don’t see you taking particular issue with CNN’s racial bloc vote calculator, but rather with the notion that immigration is central enough to racial bloc voting—including whites considered as a moribund bloc—to actually exchange 8 percent of the minority racial blocs for 8 percent of the moribund white racial bloc.

You claim a “consensus” among “paleonationalists” that only Nevada, Virginia, Colorado and Florida would have swung GOP on the immigration restriction issue.  Please provide the cite that backs this up.

My argument is from first principles about what motivates men—not women—to go to war:  territory.  If political campaigns are a surrogate for war, there is no issue that is more powerful than immigration OF MEN into a territory.  The problem is the war that is going on has been “declared” by the other side—so there is no mobilization of white men.

There are three primary variables:  1) The total number of non-white male immigrants per year, 2) The male to female ratio of the non-white immigrants and 3) The affordability of family formation for white males—which is equivalent to triggering male territoriality, ie: “jobs”.  I’ve seen no analysis of this due to the failure of “paleonationalists” to understand the centrality of male sexuality to the foundation of civilization.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:57 | #

JB,

I’m busy at the moment, will try to get back on this tonight. Consider the following, from the New York Review of Books online (I assume this is what you mean by “The Narrative”):

Bear in mind that many conservatives (and not a few liberals) believed that 2008 had to be unique, and that Obama’s aberrational triumph was made possible only by a storm of events that conspired to do in the Republicans—the financial meltdown, John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin, the media’s supposed lionization of Obama, and so on. Surely, conservatives thought, that 2008 coalition was a fluke; America will never reelect a man such as this.

The 2008 coalition, it turned out, was no fluke. If anything, it grew, enabling Obama to become the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to carry more than 50 percent of the vote twice (Bill Clinton didn’t hit 50 either time). Even Karl Rove and Dick Morris will now have to accept that the white vote is aging and shrinking, the white working-class vote is disappearing, and the Latino and African-American voting blocs will both grow steadily. They and their ideological allies will also have to accept what a different country this is from the one they’d wish it to be. When voters in three states pass same-sex marriage referenda, and voters in two other states approve the legal use of recreational marijuana, a cultural switch of some sort has been flipped.

Never underestimate the sheer spinelessness and political stupidity of whites and conservatives, and the sheer nastiness but also toughness of the Left. Frankly, on this ‘meta’ point, I do blame Christianity, albeit indirectly. The simple fact is that conservatives as a group are morally better people than leftists, and this is due to either a) Christian commitments, or b) having a mentality formed over generations by Christianity, such that even those who no longer ‘believe’ still have had their sense of right and wrong, and broader behavioral approach to the world, deeply influenced by the historic faith (it is also possible, and I think likely, that whites in general have evolved as a race to be ethically superior, for reasons variously hypothesized by Philippe Rushton and Kevin MacDonald).

Whites just aren’t like other races. I suspected this as far back as the 80s, when I first started thinking seriously about these political problems. But now I’m certain of it. Whites can never quite bring themselves to vote their racial interests, seemingly anywhere, no matter how great the prior provocations (eg, look at France: after a decade of Muslim domestic terrorism and criminal outbursts, the douchebag population of France still can’t vote for a moderate, sensible cultural nationalist like Marine Le Pen?!). It’s not just elite treason (as I used to believe, perhaps with unwarranted optimism). We could have voted for Pat Buchanan, France had the Le Pens, Australia Pauline Hansen and One Nation, Canada the old Reform Party from the 90s, UK the BNP, Italy the fascists and Lega Nord, etc. These parties failed because the white majorities failed - not because of Jewish media control, social democratic greed, sexual llberationism, etc (though all these factors have played important roles in the West’s decline).

This is why it’s White Zion or bust. Most whites are racial leftists, and always will be. All my life my friends have been saying to me, “You were right about the decline, but wrong about the Awakening”. They’re saying it now more than ever. The country keeps declining, per my prediction, but the “we’re not gonna take it anymore” vote never materializes. And there are no more excuses, like lack of basic racialist info, or access to education. Anyone who wants to learn racial truth can access it via the internet. Thus, there was a huge upsurge in WN following the advent of the internet. But, as I expected, that upsurge had inherent limits, set by the nature of our race itself.

As objective conditions worsen, the voice of WN may grow louder and more influential over time. But it’s never going to be a majority, maybe not even a majority of whites, until it’s really far too late to have any real world influence. The only solution is to ingather WN whites, and then push for secession and sovereignty, so that we might at least be the political majority somewhere.

 

 

 

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 23 Jan 2013 03:34 | #

American political labels are rather amusing.

‘Liberal’ means a socio-cultural ‘life-style’ liberal that might think Government, per se, isn’t the root of all evil - yes practically Maoism, I know, but what can you do?

‘Conservative’ usually means being conservative with respect to the banalities of classical liberalism, but incorporates some rhetoric ‘conservative’ window-dressing on issues such as “Jesus is very upset about killing all these the unborn babies” etc. ‘Unfortunately’ such sentiments cannot be acted upon as this isn’t a matter of politics - it’s a matter of law (or rather for appointed Judges), which apparently exists ‘above’ the merely democratic or political within the US system.

‘Libertarian’ means a classical liberal with the complexity or subtly button turned off – the ‘fundamentalist of the fundamentalists’ in his or her ever so exciting version of ‘individual freedom’.

While being Republican or Democrat means you get to accuse your opponents of “not getting” the American Revolution, and both will be correct in their own way.

Anarcho-capitalist is simply is a synonym for ‘fucking insane’.

Of course exotic ideas of this last type are the unacknowledged territory upon which Mr. Haller’s most cherished ideological dreams are formed. But in his case “no blacks please” is a secondary aspect of the bricolage – radical free-marketry (the value above all others), followed with some counter-reformation style Catholic intransigence, plus a good dose of militarism, all topped of with a total lack of empathy for anyone not of the same socio-economic status as himself or ‘his type’ of person – generally preppie, overindulged Ivy League ‘winners’. This contempt is on offer regardless of ethnic or racial background – but honestly in some quasi-Platonic sense he does care for the well-being of ‘little’ white folks – just not in any real-world or practically demonstrable way, in the here and now. Well all that adds up to a wonderfully coherent world-view. I really don’t why Mr. Haller isn’t himself in high – or even the highest – political office. Or at the very least a key advisor to such folk. Life is full of mysteries, yes? But I digress.

Meanwhile, ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ mean less and less – as all American political discourse is expressed within the incredibly narrow and deflationary idioms of liberal theory - thus at a fairly profound level the society is axiomatically and consensually liberal. Even then it’s a remarkably attenuated version of liberality (and political ‘arguments’ are louder and louder precisely because they are, in reality, about less and less with each cycle of the pantomime). Thus the further we get away from the much more conceptually variegated and imaginatively widely conceived axiality of the political terminology originating in the French Revolution (which were always problematic terms themselves – right and left are relational terms but what they precisely relate to is the key question) we eventually reach the point at which can we can barely even discern any real difference in the conventionally understood ‘left’ and ‘right’ of contemporary American electoral politics?

Sure there’s lots of hysterical noise over secondary ‘expressive’ issues – the narcissism of very small differences as examined through any historical optic – and deep instrumental and/or functional agreement within the two-factions of the US political elite on the underlying shape of the social-order. Of course this broad and deep intra-elite consensus doesn’t dissolve all differences within this strata but does radically attenuate them. Republicrat or Demopublican sums it up. To think the wonders of such ‘choice’ are on offer in the most ‘democratic’ society within human history – inertia always wins in that the TINA (there is NO alternative) party always win. Inertia here does not mean a lack of movement or an undynamic process – rather the direction of travel and final destination is fixed – that is not up for serious debate. Only the mood music might moderately change and the tone and stylistic ticks marginally vary as the audience gets bored or restless.

Indeed does history not inform us that, for example, the ‘conservative’ Edmund Burke was in fact a liberal and enthusiastic supporter of the exciting socio-political experiment in individual liberty in America? Burke in his personality might have a very prudential or cautious fellow, but he was a liberal nonetheless; he was a Whig, not a Tory. And it’s been suggested, by some, that Burke and Adam Smith basically agreed on matters economic: so if Smith was a liberal, so was Burke – or is that the other way around? Of course another of history’s little ironies is that very many people within the population of colonial America were Loyalists that stayed true to their monarch and their country (as they understood it to be). Eventually they became liberty’s exiles in a form of ‘political cleansing’ and population transfers back to different parts the British Empire of the time. Who then were the conservatives? Confusing business isn’t it?

But as I have rather heavily implied much of the discussion of the OP (and the OP) has a very delusional quality.

Let’s say the psephological analysis has validity (dubious through that seems). It presupposes that anyone in the Republican elite pro-activity and genuinely dislikes mass-immigration, such that a substantive and radical public-policy change would be enacted. Rather I think it’s more parsimonious, in this context, to assume most elite Republicans, in private, are either utterly indifferent on this topic or actually think the process of mass-migration actually has some very useful functional consequences for the key ‘vested interests’ they represent. Of course they have to strike a pose in public, offer some rhetorical red-meat in the safe knowledge that it’s only a show for the gullible. After all since the 1960s (and the changes in immigration policy of that era) has anything being done, of any real note, by this party to stop or reverses the direction of travel?

No the GOP is the party of Reagan amnesty – the largest amnesty for illegal aliens in US history – hence probably the largest such exercise in modern history. But wait Ronnie was ‘duped’ into it, yes? I have to confess I find the idea of highly sophisticated political actors being ‘duped’ a concept with, to be very kind, nugatory analytical power (OK moderately sophisticated in Ronnie’s case – having said that Mitt Romney suggests philosophical zombies are not a mere thought experiment).

What can be said about the nature of such political delusions – i.e. a vote for Mitt and his ilk will ‘solve’ the issue at hand?

Perhaps we should turn to Baudelaire?

Under a vast grey sky, on a vast and dusty plain without paths, without grass, without a nettle or a thistle, I met several men bent double as they walked.

Each one of them carried on his back an enormous Chimera as heavy as a sack of flour or coal or the paraphernalia of a Roman infantryman.

But the monstrous beast was no inanimate weight; on the contrary, it enveloped and oppressed the man with its elastic and powerful muscles; it clutched at the breast of its mount with two vast claws; and its fabulous head overhung the man’s forehead like one of those horrible helmets with which ancient warriors hoped to add to the terror of their enemy.

I questioned one of these men and asked him where they were going like that. He replied that he did not know and that none of them knew, but that they were evidently going somewhere since they were driven by an invincible need to go on.

A curious thing to note: none of these travellers seemed irritated by the ferocious beast hanging around his neck and glued to his back; one might have said that they considered it part of themselves. All these tired and serious faces showed not the least sign of despair; under the spleenful dome of the sky, their feet deep in the dust of the earth as desolate as the sky, they continued along with the resigned physiognomy of those who are condemned to hope forever.

And the cortège passed by me and disappeared in the atmosphere of the horizon, where the rounded surface of the planet is concealed from the curiosity of the human gaze.

And for a few moments I persisted in trying to comprehend this mystery; but soon irresistible Indifference descended upon me and I was more heavily overwhelmed than they were by their crushing Chimeras.

Posted by DanielS. on Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:02 | #

Interesting post, Graham.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:15 | #

LH, you’re adopting a different aspect the enemy’s narrative now:  Whites who want to restrict immigration must be doing so out of a sense of racial solidarity.  The authors of The Narrative genuinely believe their own material because their racial characteristic(s) is(are) to have a racial outlook.

But, on the contrary, whites have a racial characteristic of individualism, rather than the instinctive racism of other races: individualism which expresses itself as honoring agreements—contracts if you will—with other individuals.  Moreover these instincts have as their social environment of evolutionary adaptation a population of people who are similarly individualistic and who instinctively find forming groups to enforce their will to be morally reprehensible.

Obviously this is all that is needed to explain the disaster that results from mixing races.

Now, having just said that, how can I stand behind my “white vote” argument?

Simple:  Whites will not be predisposed to vote for immigration restriction out of racial solidarity but what if they see their support of immigration is causing the contract to be violated?  What would the honorable individual do in this case?

In this situation it is clear what role Jewish indoctrination plays:  Appeal to the instinctive revulsion against forming gangs, except in declared war, by confusing war and peace, and then portraying anyone who happens to have white skin who is trying to protect the contract from violation as doing so out of a base desire to gang up on hapless individuals “seeking a better life”.

On the other hand, if there is a declaration that, in effect, war is being waged on the contract (Constitution) by pointing out the fact that is obvious to the most casual observer, that immigration is endangering the contract, you’re talking the language of white genes and are left dealing with the real divisions among whites:  those who retain some of their racial characteristics and those who are sheep.

By the way, it is clear which of these characteristics JudeoChristianity breeds for.

Posted by Joe Boy on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:15 | #

More proof that the Respectable Conservative movement must die, before Whites will get representation.

Call them anti-White!

Posted by DanielS. on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:45 | #

Jim, you keep emphasizing the individualistic nature of White people and how it has to be accommodated. It does and should be to an extent.

But how do you explain the 70 million Christian Zionists in America? A docile herd comprising a voting block that provides the only massive group support for America’s militaristic adventures on behalf of Israel?

I maintain that the “individualism” of Whites is sustained by social rule structures - for example, by The Constitution’s rules…. inculcated fear of communist collectivization, or taboos against “the authoritarian personality.”

Moreover, those social rule structures which make them phobic toward collective efforts can be retooled to their/our favor.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:08 | #

I wonder how Mr. Bowery knows Americans (of a European origin) are ‘genetically’ programmed or ‘hard-wired’ to be radically individualistic? (Note I do believe the phrase ‘genetically individualistic’ or something similar was use by Mr. Bowery in the gun control thread.)

Anyway back to main point.

Has Mr. Bowery conducted rigorous empirical studies to establish where these individualism alleles are to be found in the genome or indeed how they are expressed phenotypically? Any G x E interaction – any forms of phenotypic plasticity to be observed? As in these matters ‘gene talk’ (and variations of) is very easy to assert and an order of magnitude (at least) to actually demonstrate. Given that it’s best avoided as a serious form of detailed political ‘explanation’ of particular and highly specific historical forms of various ideologies and/or socio-political beliefs.

But the ‘genetic individualism’ or let’s say in more neutral language the ‘invariant individualism hypothesis’ leaves Mr. Bowery in an odd position.

If indeed he is correct in his hypothesis then it seems impossible for Euro-Americans to achieve the necessary level of co-ordination to act for and on behalf of their own collective interests (either intra-generationally or intra-generationally), thus the ‘inevitable’ will happen – the post-Western reformation of America with more or less no substantive resistance from anyone. Lone nutters (be they of an anarchist persuasion or of a ‘nationalist’ orientation) throwing bombs etc., (the propaganda of the deed and all that) towards the powers that be is not politics – politics properly understood always consists of an antagonism over power between differing groups.

OK so perhaps America was a massive ‘natural experiment’ in artificial selection for ‘genetic individualism’ – after all European societies effectively dumped large sections their more rebellious and/or adventitious elements in the New World. However, even given this assumption, at least 20% of the American colonists were correctly and honourably loyal to their King and country. After the ‘revolutionary’ war some 60000 Loyalists were effectively physically excluded from the new nation in an act of ‘ideological cleansing’ (see the excellent little study “Liberty’s Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World”).

So perhaps these events could have acted as a second (and more intense) form of artificial selection for ‘genetic individualism’. If one thinks this trait is at the harder end of the genetic determinism spectrum – something like eye-colour or these various conditions (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Mendelian-Genetics-Patterns-of-Inheritance-and-Single-966) then is not all political chatter actually ‘pissing in the wind’? Even Mr. Bowery’s quixotic ideas on ‘sovereigns’. Americans will be all too individualistic to ever sign up to the notion!

Of course if we are in the territory of the political then ‘political animals’ do think that ideas and ideology matters to how people live and think about themselves and in relation to others. We live in an age of ever more outré individualism – an ersatz form – much individualism without much genuine individuality. Today’s conformist non-conformist form of antinomianism has a very tinny ring indeed. So contra the delusion of our lovely libertarian masses, that naively assume they are all personally re-inventing their banal and dull 10th rate views ‘individually’ and from some radically private Punctum Archimedis, in truth we are all ‘under the influence’ of something or someone (how could it be otherwise, we are the social species like no other – note not eusocial). We can think of this as the Heideggerian notion of being ‘thrown to the they of the world’ or in terms of Althusserian ideological interpellation. (Interpellation is the constitutive process where individuals acknowledge and respond to ideologies, thereby recognising and in part constructing themselves as subjects within that framework.)

For example, the average feudal subject of say 11th century France is somewhat different to the liberal-democratic subject of Bakersfield USA in 2012. Maybe Mr. Bowery disagrees? Is it creditable in this example that the ‘Mr. Average’ of each differing social-order would understand their own place within that socio-order and the foundational basis of their respective social-orders in precisely the same ways? Really we have to take the historicity of Dasein (in every sense of that concept) seriously. There hasn’t been one fixed and forevermore invariant ‘form of life’ among or for Europeans - there are subtle and some not so subtle difference in our various forms of life. A German isn’t merely an American speaking a funny language. And some Bavarians don’t think of themselves as being really all that German at all!

Now of course anything that smack of the ‘social construction’ of reality takes us in dangerous ‘leftist’ territory, yes? No not really. In the jargon of political theory nations are ‘imagined communities’. Western political philosophy sort of starts in say Plato’s Republic by imagining a new city and the ways it should and would be just (that is as exercise in a new ‘imagined community’). So how are nations ‘imagined communities’ and does that make them ‘made up’ and as changeable as the cast of characters in the typical soap-opera?

Obviously not. Take for example the nation of Scotland. Such a phenomenon is not a ‘natural kind’ category such as plants or animals are. Yes it has a long and organic history – yes nationhood is a ensemble phenomenon around which history, landscape, language, culture etc., coalesce that defines a people in a given territory. Thus a nation is a formulation that combines both objective and subjective realities together - thus is in part socially or imaginatively and collectively constructed.

However, if the people of Scotland did not think of themselves as a distinct people then they would not be a nation. Indeed this was a brief historical possibility. Back in the day when Scotland was thought to be one tiny step above utter barbarism the then intellectual elite of Scottish society – Adam Smith, David Hume et al., strongly suggested we all become ‘North Britons’ (England being the home of rationality and progress and so on in their view). Had that suggestion been seriously taken up ‘being Scottish’ would now be on the same level as being Lancasterian – i.e. much less than a national identity but a mere regional one of no great political or cultural significance.

Indeed even further back in the history of the the Isles had the Battle of Bannockburn (Blàr Allt a’ Bhonnaich in Gaelic - 24th June 1314) not gone the right way I might now have been a devoted cricket fan and that’s a fate worst than death for any Celt.

In case anyone wonders that last bit is a joke – well kinda of. I can’t explain why in rational terms but 99% of Scots just don’t get cricket – we think it’s weird and deeply English in a way that one feels in one’s bones. It’s just ‘wrong’ and the list of great Scottish cricketers is pretty damn short.

Posted by Dude on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:28 | #

It was previously suggested by the writer Nietzsche, that he wrote in one sentence what others wrote in a book. Mr Lister appears to take the opposite extreme to this. I am curious whether anyone actually reads any of it.

It is further deformed by the cod-supercilious tone which is adopted and the seeming requirement to carpet-bomb each post with significant name dropping to ensure the contribution is considered to be anchored in a highbrow landscape. If the desired purpose is to communicate, persuade and create an ever larger intellectual community, it is a very odd way to proceed.

Posted by DanielS. on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:10 | #

Though I don’t care to venture into conflict unnecessarily, I must say that I rather like Graham’s comments, and on this thread in particular. Jim can stand the heat and the criticism will benefit his arguments. Graham’s comments are not gratuitous in here, they bear on significant issues.

Posted by Euro on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:28 | #

Graham Lister’s comments are the only reason I ever visit this site. First rate material.

Graham, do you by any chance read Italian? If so I’ll post a link to a pdf you may enjoy.

P.S Who was the writer who stated that the Anglophone world does not possess a true Right as understood in Continental nations, but rather, varying forms (or degrees) of Liberalism?

Posted by Dude on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:59 | #

Good for those who elicit some value. I find that every comment I view is formulated in the shape of a sniffy rejoinder to Americans, Haller, Bowery, the religious, the Darwinists or whomever.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:44 | #

So two issues create a rhetorical double-bind blocking further discourse:

1) Europeans are not exceptionally individualistic by nature.

2) And anyway, if Europeans are exceptionally individualistic by nature, we’re doomed so there’s no point in arguing whether we are exceptionally individualistic by nature.

It would appear that I must argue against 2 in order to justify investment of community resources in arguing against 1.

Agreed?

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:23 | #

No objection being heard, I’ll proceed to argue against the proposition “If Europeans are exceptionally individualistic by nature, we’re doomed, so there is no point in arguing whether we are exceptionally individualistic by nature.”

Humans as social animals are not identical to humans as political animals in the following sense:

When individuals enter into contracts with one another, contracts with explicit terms, contracts that are concise and incisive enough to have their meaning be not only comprehensible but dominated by denotation rather than connotation, they are not—in that act qua that act—engaging in politics but in society.  It is certainly possible to behave as a political animal in the contract negotiation but it is not necessary.

A society of individualists is far more dependent on contractual agreements for collective action—whether written or merely remembered from words spoken in earnest—than is a society of political animals.  This is both a strength and a weakness:

1) It is a strength in that contracts toward collective action are not as likely to be subverted by conflicts of ethnic genetic interests.

2) It is a weakness in that if their society is invaded by collectivist societies—societies of political animals—the only protection enjoyed by the host society is remedial, after the ounce of prevention has been swamped by the cost of the cure in dispute processing modes such as tort law; and that is presuming that the need for remedial action is even detected and that the cause of the need for remedial action is appropriately diagnosed.

Now, let’s look at a “multicultural society” which has a mix of a large number of cultures, the majority of which consist of political animals and a minority of which consists of a culture of individual integrity, and how things can play out to the advantage of the culture of individual integrity:

If those of the culture of individual integrity are allowed to act as human beings in that they are allowed to extend their 5 senses with the power of inductive reasoning and inference, they will come to perceive via that “sixth sense” their hapless state, and agree to take remedial action that starts by applying a touchstone to those they treat as individuals prior to treating them as individuals.  One such touchstone is whether a suspected “individual” acts so as to render it impractical for consenting adults to form their own government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.  Such a touchstone immediately excludes anyone sympathetic with TItle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—especially in combination with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

When the culture of individual integrity so-excludes parties to their agreements, their collective actions are much less likely to be subverted by conflicts of ethnic genetic interests within their ranks than are the “rainbow coalitions” of invading cultures of political animals.

This is, in fact, a major—if not the major—contributor to European military dominance.

Posted by DanielS. on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:58 | #

I guess those Whites who are so individualistic as to be beyond reach are beyond the to whom it may concern message that we are sending.

However, there is evidence that great masses of Whites are inclined to act collectively - one salient example would be the Christian Zionists - from what Carleson says, 70 million strong, filling up their churches, mega-churches and vast TV audiences.

Another, perhaps even better, example of collectivism would be sports fans. Millions of White Americans route for football teams in America. The choice of a team to route for is fairly random to begin with - perhaps the team closest to the area where one grew up or a team which was winning quite a bit at an impressionable age. The teams are not, in any event, comprised of players from a particular area to provide some local representation and identification. Rather, the players are mercenaries from just any part of the country and from any ethnic make-up (though disproportionately Black).

There are many other examples of people wanting to join groups: the boyscouts, the elks club, the KKK, etc.

What this indicates are examples of strong wish for collective identification among Whites - even in America, with its liberal and individualistic constitution, its inculcated taboo against communist collectivism and the “authoritarian personality.”

I would suggest that there is both some inborn tendency to band together on the part of Whites - though the examples of Christian Zionism and American football fans are pejorative; examples of misdirection from authentic White interests - and that there are social rules which they may subscribe to which might, in fact, be more conducive to their interests (Graham was latching onto this).

You probably make an interesting distinction (I think) between denotation and connotation.

That would come to bear to how you go about reshaping the rules to which Whites might subscribe in their own interests.

You want to say that those rules would exclude anyone who would be sympathetic with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—especially in combination with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

I think we can all agree with that.

But we cannot, like Glen Beck and his guest in the previous clip, say that Whites only collective ground is the constitution and its individualism.

Would you not manage the borders by rotating groups? Or would it be by.. I won’t say it.

What I really want to do is not get into an argument, but take this discussion further into the direction of social rules and our capacity to shape them in the interest of White authenticity - ways that are not harmful to the genetics of individuality.

Whatever rules we might hammer-out, I’m satisfied that the constitution is not sufficient - to begin, it is insufficiently biological and with that, insufficiently designatory of White group, lifespan and evolutionary interests.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:36 | #

DS writes:

You probably make an interesting distinction (I think) between denotation and connotation.

That would come to bear to how you go about reshaping the rules to which Whites might subscribe in their own interests.

You want to say that those rules would exclude anyone who would be sympathetic with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—especially in combination with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

I think we can all agree with that.

No, I myself don’t agree with what you just said in the way you said it.

The touchstone I set forth—the “reshaped rule” in the way you said it—“whether a suspected “individual” acts so as to render it impractical for consenting adults to form their own government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.” is not just any old rule.  It is a rule of a very specific kind that entails “ethnic” genetic interests only in its “disparate impact”.

It not only presumes individualism, it upholds it via a declaration of war.

Your problem is your failure to understand that civilization entails a state of war, and therefore the civilized individualists will continually be looking for a declaration of war to uphold their individual sovereignty.  That this is perverted into religions, sports, failed attempts at racial identity politics like the KKK or “white nationalism”, is no grounds for claiming “collectivism” is a characteristic of Euroman upon which can be built an effective resistance, military or political.

PS:  Further clarification is required due to your phrase “want to say” in that I am indeed saying it:  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 are profoundly collectivist impositions on the culture of individual integrity since there is clear evidence that people, even Euromen, generally prefer to associate with—live among—their own kindreds.  Now you may want to say that this preference eviscerates my thesis and if so you just aren’t thinking:  Euromen feel tormented by the multicult and understand at a visceral level that it is violating their individual preference but they don’t know who to follow into battle.  When Jews, as I years before hand predicted they would, pulled off the false flag operation around the turn of the millenium; the “narrative” was that “Islam” was the threat to “our freedoms” as “JudeoChristians”—that “Islamists” “hate our freedom” and that “Israel” was the hero standing at the frontier of this war beckoning us to follow.  Where were you and Graham Lister when I was being called a kook for making that prediction—a prediction I was able to make in part because I was raised to be an American Christian Zionist and therefore had first-hand knowledge of their subjective experience?

Posted by DanielS. on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:01 | #

The touchstone I set forth—the “reshaped rule” in the way you said it—“whether a suspected “individual” acts so as to render it impractical for consenting adults to form their own government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.” is not just any old rule.  It is a rule of a very specific kind that entails “ethnic” genetic interests only in its “disparate impact”.

It not only presumes individualism, it upholds it via a declaration of war.

But I do understand that, and it’s fine.

Your problem is your failure to understand that civilization entails a state of war, and therefore the civilized individualists will continually be looking for a declaration of war to uphold their individual sovereignty. 

I believe that you understand civilization as modernity and its universalizing linking and forced blending of cultures. You are assuming that this is what I advocate and it certainly is not.

That this is perverted into religions, sports, failed attempts at racial identity politics like the KKK or “white nationalism”, is no grounds for claiming “collectivism” is a characteristic of Euroman upon which can be built an effective resistance, military or political.

Social identity is characteristic of all men.

I believe you have a strategy to precipitate the collapse of social systems so that only the most individualistically self sufficient individuals can survive. You like your own chances and the chances of people most like you under such circumstances.

I believe that it is your problem is that you don’t understand that some civilized people are not at war with you (viz. they are willing to agree to that preliminary statement and do not wish to interrupt your individualistic character). You’ve got me more seriously considering that people with high I.Q.‘s may be more prone to false either/or thinking.

PS:  Further clarification is required due to your phrase “want to say” in that I am indeed saying it:  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 are profoundly collectivist impositions

They are collectivist for non-Whites only as organized by Jewish interests.

They are not some mere abstract communist collectivism.

There is no proviso for White biological interests.

It merely exploits the absurdity inherent in the Cartesianism of “rights” absent the setting of biological bounds.

on the culture of individual integrity since there is clear evidence that people, even Euromen, generally prefer to associate with—live among—their own kindreds.

It is clear, or should be, but we are dealing with the obfuscations of the YKW.

Now you may want to say that this preference eviscerates my thesis and if so you just aren’t thinking:

No, perhaps you don’t want me to think about options other than passivity and just letting collapse happen. You are concerned that I might collectivize against you.

But mere attendance to natural law is not sufficient because the YKW have obfuscated the natural tendencies of social identity and are thus happy to allow you to say that people are doing what is natural.

In the meantime they continually orchestrate them according to their rules.

If you want to be true to your preliminary rule atop, of allowing people to organize as they will, you’ve got to accept that there are people who are European who have somewhat different priorities, who actively value the ecological variety of skills and abilities among their people.

Euromen feel tormented by the multicult and understand at a visceral level that it is violating their individual preference but they don’t know who to follow into battle. 

Right, because the rules are screwed up.

When Jews,

Yes.

as I years before hand predicted they would, pulled off the false flag operation around the turn of the millenium; the “narrative” was that “Islam” was the threat to “our freedoms” as “JudeoChristians”—that “Islamists” “hate our freedom” and that “Israel” was the hero standing at the frontier of this war beckoning us to follow.

Ok. No contradiction there to the idea that we might think about re-tooling social rules for Whites.

Where were you and Graham Lister when I was being called a kook for making that prediction—

Speaking for myself, I am not besmirching your value. However, you might be undervaluing the contribution of the qualitatively different skills of others.

A prediction I was able to make in part because I was raised to be an American Christian Zionist and therefore had first-hand knowledge of their subjective experience?

Good point, concrete experience cannot be replaced.d

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:37 | #

good stuff

The GOP is either stupid or not serious about winning.

The “why” matters for strategy. If they’re not stupid, and obviously the people behind the scenes *aren’t* stupid even if their puppets are, then they must be intentionally malign.

In the latter case calling them stupid actually helps them achieve their goal. Pointing out they are only acting stupid but are in fact actively malign doesn’t help them.