|
|
|
Interview by Counter-Currents. As a result of the CMS article I received a request from Greg Johnson for an interview. In turn, I requested a QA format because that allows me to think about my replies at leisure, and avoid a few of those inevitable foot-in-mouth moments. Greg sent the first question this evening, to which I have replied as below. I am going to build up the interview on this post, as we progress with it. Question 1: Have you had any dealings with William Regnery? If so, what transpired? In the Anglosphere the thinking was, on one hand, essentially religious, meshing flawlessly with the 20th century fictions of a European spirit of race and mythic destiny, and, on the other, empirical, producing stone-cold certainties about human bio-diversity, sociobiology, gene interests, and so on. It was (and is) a barren coupling. I wanted to find some basis for reconciling the unreconcilable ... science and philosophy, truth and beauty, the New World and the Old, because then we might have a foundation on which others could build intellectually. And we might, if we were lucky, come into possession not just of a reactionary critique of liberalism à la de Benoist but something shattering, something epochal and renewing. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:44 | # Actually no, I haven’t considered inviting Greg to join MR. 3
Posted by Barbara on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:31 | # If we were still an Anglo Saxon Protestant nation all the efforts at intellectual purity would benefit and strengthen our nation and us as a people. However since there is this relentless cancer eating away at our most vital organs what is the point of being so noble? Buy a tv cable channel and counter the jew propaganda with lots of flash and whatever else is required to get the attention of the public. The Tea Party is evidence that the people are chomping at the bit for a leader. We don’t have to be as intellectual as you are, we already get it in our simple minded way. We need a leader and Ron Paul is the only one I see so join and help him. History was written with blood, not ink. Efforts to uplift our people with a firm foundation of intellectualism and thoughtfulness cannot work when the jew is tearing the foundations of Western civilization out from under us. Open aggression against the jew, declaring war upon international jewry is what I desire, all of this other stuff has been tried and none of it works. Making laws against them, tossing them out and trying to keep them out, committing a holocaust against them - it doesn’t work. They were even trying to do something about them back in 1315 as they are mentioned in the Magna Carta. Recently in the news there was a story about a woman in Great Britain who worked in immigration dept. She visited her parents over the weekend and returned home to find Romanian gypsies has moved into her home and trashed it. All her belongings were in the back yard under a carpet they had ripped out. The plumbing in the bathroom and kitchen was destroyed. The gypsies had a document saying the childless, unmarried woman’s son had rented the house to them because his Mother was dead. Most perps cover their heads as they do the perp walk in complete shame. These gypsies smiled for the cameras. They have no shame. Over centuries they have never seen the need to change their ways. So what do you do with people like these who are more like animals then civilized humans. You can’t take them out and shoot them but you can’t allow them into your country either. This is what we face in dealing with jews. They can’t change, its bred in their bones, wired into their brains, its in their DNA. I admire your intellectualism. But we have to act. Put your brainy heads together and figure out what we can do. Like helping Ron Paul get rid of the Fed which is the basis of their power and wealth and of our economic decline. Do something. Sue every jew organization in this nation for treason and for money because of their support of non White immigration. Sue jews for taking control of all media and using it to bring in more non White immigrants who are destroying us. The evidence is there. Western civilization has a right to exist and Mexicans are saying they wish to push us into the sea and take our country. Sue every jew organization in the country. Sue jew media moguls for lying to the people. Do something. You’re debating is like playing the violin while Rome burns. 4
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:45 | #
The situation will spiral out of control before any of this happens. As a historian and political analyst, I saw it coming a year ago. Instead of getting their act together, White Nationalists will sit around arguing about things like esoteric versions of National Socialism, who gets to be an aristocrat in the warring books clubs of cyberspace, who is controlled by the Jew, etc. GW has been miffed with TOQ ever since that essay contest two years ago. Meanwhile, blacks will burn down the United Kingdom, hundreds of blacks will savagely assault Whites in Milwaukee and Philadelphia, racial taboos will erode in parts of the Heartland, Obama will become a racial pinata, but none of the “WN intellectuals” will even notice because they are lost in their own galaxy of philosophy and ideology where the real world never changes. They don’t pay attention to what is going on around them anymore. When the opportunity finally arrives to take down the status quo, the train will pull into the station of history and will pull out before they even notice it has arrived. Instead, it will be the opportunists who hijack the massive White backlash which is leading us to only God knows where. Here in the South, I can say with absolute certainty that the fall of the liberal establishment and the economic chaos which will eventually befall us will empower hardcore religion and radical versions of conservatism, which will thrive in such conditions, not any secular fantasy ideology. No one is going to care about esoteric fascism when flash mobs that are thousands strong are rampaging through our cities and the economy has fallen off the cliff. 5
Posted by Lew on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:32 | # The CMS and by extension William Regnery appears to a hand in the entire American scene. Although it’s not standard practice for 501(c)3 non-profit corporation to keep its membership confidential, certainly there are good reasons in the case of the CMS to do so. The only issue that puzzles me how a person (Matt Parrot) whose Mormon faith seems to require reverence for Jews and extreme philo-Semitism ends up as an admin / mod at TOO of all places, and a prolific writer for CMS affliated publications where huge majorities of the audience regard the JQ as important. It’s a reasonable question, and I assume there is a straightforward answer. Maybe it’s common knowledge in nationalist circles that Mormons are extreme philo-Semites who do things like incorporate the Star of David into their architecture. It was certainly news to me. 6
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:44 | # Mormons are not merely philo-Semitic, Lew. They are carefully groomed proxy-Jews. It’s a longstanding practice with LDS to use their children as proxies for Jews who were alleged to have disappeared in the Hoax. The Elders then take these little pretend-Jews and baptize repeatedly under various Jew names, so that when the resurrection comes, all the tribes of Israel can be re-united in Jew-Heaven. After doing this enough times, the little kids qualify for magic underwear which protects them from losing their elite status as proxy-Jews and backsliding into the goyitude. 7
Posted by Lew on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:14 | # Jimmy, Thanks for the clarification. Your points about Mormonism have been very eye opening. The problem for me is that I lack direct experience with Mormons and feel the need to reserve judgment before going as far as you do in making an assessment like that—proxy Jews versus philo-Semites. I don’t know enough about Mormon theology or practices to reach definite conclusions at this time about the compatibility of Mormonism and opposition to Jewry. Certainly there seems to be a massive conflict there worthy of inquiry. That said, there might be nothing to it. Perhaps there is some aspect of Mormon theology that makes it compatible with opposing Jewry. Nationalists that follow other strains of Christianity often find ways to bend their theology into compatibility with racial nationalism. Many either explicitly or implicitly simply ignore the problematic parts of Christian doctrine. 8
Posted by anon12 on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:22 | # What Barbara and HW said. We need fewer intellectuals, at this point, and more warriors. Be patient. When the SHTF—and it will—rest assured natural leaders will make themselves known, by deed. Hard men who are willing to do execute the plans that others are not. As things fall apart, and as more of our men find themselves with nothing to lose (no wife, no family, no job, no home, no country, no God), someone will act. It’s inevitable. 9
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:07 | #
Yes, Lew, some explanations could easily clarify things, but for some reason, Matt remains silent. Its been suggested by a proxy that Matt was just conducting some kind of experiment with LDS, and isn’t a true believer. But why can’t Matt say this himself? Hell, I did the same the same thing with Islam, and I’ve talked about on MR radio and written about it here at MR. I have no trouble renouncing it, now. I have no trouble referring to Muslims as filthy camel-fucking idiots with neurotic fixations about other people’s sex lives. You see my point here, Lew. It’s an easy thing for me defame a stupid religion like Islam, for which my primary interest was polygyny and resistance to Jew infiltration. But it was so stupidly literalistic, and its adherents so small-minded that I immediately gave up on it and can now mock it without any reservations whatsoever. I can do this very easily and with relish myself. I need no proxy to issue explanations for me. I’m a man of few words, and yet I can easily dispel any suspicions about my loyalty to a religion that is harmful to White people. But where, is the loquacious Mr. Parrott when we have a question about a passing religious experiment he may or may not be, or have been, involved in? It would also be helpful if one or more of the elites who have enlisted Mr. Parrott’s assistance would take the trouble to respond to Lew’s query:
I agree with Lew, It’s a reasonable question. 10
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:10 | # Answer to the question is way over my head, which means either my cognitive limit has been exceeded, or the writing, like, ironically, so much from the Continent that gave us fascism, is needlessly opaque. That said, fascism, of one national specificity or another, is always a possibility. In general, fascism simply refers to any radical mobilization of the masses for secular, inegalitarian, and, usually, martial purposes. In common Western understanding, it would mean radicalizing the indigenous/white masses to resist, forcefully and potentially violently, their continuing national dispossession, immiseration, deculturalization, and loss of sovereignty. It would constitute a violent assertion of the claims and values of the particular against the encroachments of the universal. Why is this thought to be an impossibility for the European future? Given the accelerating rate of European racial, moral, cultural, and indigenous/dysgenic (“wiggers”, anyone?) decline, it may very well be that ONLY a racist/fascist resurgence can save Europe now. Had Eurofools listened to Enoch Powell, or John Tyndall, this outcome could have been averted. But I suspect that things have gone too far. Does anyone think that Third World immigrants will be tossed out of Europe as a result of democratic voting? If the indigenes were united as regards race, then this would be possible, though blood would still end up being shed. But the entirety of the problem is that white majorities everywhere would rather commit slow-motion national suicide than be “racist” (I use quotation marks because it is hardly racist in the traditional sense to want to preserve one’s culture and nation- ie, I don’t hate some stranger simply because I don’t want to live with him in my own home). This is due to an obvious genetic defect in the white race. That may be oversimplifying a bit, but in essence that’s it. I think fascism of some variant absolutely will be part of Europe’s future, if it is to have one. 11
Posted by Peter1 on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:33 | #
Jews aren’t white—at least not in the context of the “white race”. 12
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:19 | # Re Mormons: I know very little about them, except that their religion is emphatically not a recognized, legitimate version of Christianity. You can take some liberties of interpretation with the faith, but at some point a line gets crossed from Christian to cult. Mormonism certainly is a cult, though whether harmful to white interests I’m not sure. I’ve met a few Mormons over the years, and I have to say, they were all very “white”, not only Nordic racially, but very Middle American, politically conservative, and family oriented. Mormons place considerable emphasis on having children. In these times of white fertility decline, isn’t that something we want? Moreover, of the objection to Mormons, a branch mostly of white people (at one time they were exclusively white), that they are very Jew-centric (something I did not know; again, in the old days, the Mormons were anti-Semitic, as well as racist), I reply - who isn’t? White evangelicals - who are often virulently anti-Mormon - are mostly Christian Zionists who proudly conflate Israeli interests with American ones. The whole reason for America’s ridiculously expensive and one-sided “special relationship” with Israel is the influence of Jews, politically and intellectually, as well as financially, within the Democratic party, and the correlative (and corrosive) Zionism of the evangelicals within the GOP. And yet - if these aren’t our people, who are? If WN is about saving the white race, and advancing white interests as against other races, then we probably should not be contracting our own side by being overly hostile to those whites who may not agree with us even ideologically, let alone religiously. Some small percentage of white anti-racists are so innately treasonous that they are deserving of ostracism or worse. But most whites need to be brought into our fold - or at the very least, we need always to keep the doors open. Politics is about addition, not subtraction. 13
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:24 | # This is due to an obvious genetic defect in the white race. That may be oversimplifying a bit, but in essence that’s it. Jews aren’t white—at least not in the context of the “white race”. (Peter1) I wasn’t referring to Jews, but to the quality in a seeming majority of whites which causes them to be suicidally solicitous of the (illegitimate) sensitivities of nonwhites. Anti-racism is a white racial trait/defect. If it were not , then Jewish cosmopolitan propaganda would have no effect. 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:55 | # Mr. Renner, “I am stupid, and GW philosophically unintelligible” is indeed a logically valid third possibility. I stand corrected. 16
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:57 | # Barbara, Sorry to disappoint you, but Ron Paul isn’t the one you’re looking for. He’s controlled opposition. Last time he ran for President, before the primaries, he was the leading Republican candidate and John McCain was at the bottom. When the votes came in, McCain was on top and Paul at the bottom. Paul didn’t complain one bit about voting fraud. And what did he do with all the money he received? Did he use the millions to lavishly fund his “efforts” to have the Federal Reserve audited? Nope, he let his Jewish manager take care of it. And have you noticed that he’s promoting a gold standard for money? The money changers have used and discarded a gold standard to their benefit. They remain in control with a gold standard. I’d still recommend voting for Ron Paul, not because I have any illusions that he’d help, but because when he becomes President and the status quo remains pretty much the same, more people will awaken to what “choices” we have and better understand controlled opposition. It’s true that history’s been written in blood, not ink, but we’re in the 21st century where we have deadly weapons, including those that can easily lead to Armageddon, that humans didn’t have through most of their history. You’re looking at unacceptable levels of collateral damage in many contexts. Consequently, 90% of the battle will involve disinformation and hence the pen. Guessedworker is therefore fundamentally correct in focusing on the pen. Just look at the recent Norwegian massacre. The number dead stands at 77, which hardly registers numerically, but the impact overwhelmingly results from the spin on it that Jews have disseminated via the mainstream media and controlled opposition. Indeed, expulsions of Jews didn’t work in the past because they were local events; expelled Jews peddled their wares elsewhere and eventually returned with a vengeance. But now there’s awareness spread across the globe and we have DNA tests that distinguish Jews and part Jews from non-Jews with 100% accuracy. Accordingly, we live in exciting times because as the Jews inch closer toward their ultimate goal of global domination and servitude of humanity, we also inch closer toward the possibility of the permanent exclusion and containment of Jews. Buying a TV channel is a tall order, and even if you had the funds, Jews would make it a high priority to target it. Look at what they did to Ted Turner. They went after him even though he didn’t exhibit any “anti-Semitic” attitudes. For now the tool readily available is the internet. Take it away and I wouldn’t hesitate to resort to cruder tools such as guns. Do your part to spread awareness among family, friends and acquaintances, let Guessedworker do what he does best, I’ll do my part, others will do theirs; our efforts will converge, and it’ll be to the detriment of Jews. 17
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:18 | # Well, this is a relief. With the help of only two new proxies, I’ve learned that Matt Parrott is morally unable to respond to any of the questions I’ve posed to him here at MR. You see, Mr. Parrott has very high personal standards, and has foresworn interaction with anyone who wears a costume which, by association, would reflect poorly on his own refined image. This seems a bit harsh at first glance, but upon further reflection reveals the unquestionable depth of Mr. Parrott’s character. Alas, if I could find one of these to wear under my kilt I’d be guaranteed an immediate rise out him. 18
Posted by Matt Parrott on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 04:36 | # The history of my relationship with LDS is a complicated one, Jimmy. First, I’m not culturally or “ethnically” Mormon. My family got mixed up with them when I was 8 and they loaded us up with free food, free clothes, and genuine Christian kindness. I ended up getting baptized by them, but the family drifted out of the church a few months later. One parent bounced around from church to church, souring me on religion while the other parent was a skeptic. Having been baptized, I remained on the list of folks to be bothered by missionaries and always welcomed them in for company, hospitality, and polite debate. They’re a welcome alternative to the coarse, vapid, dishonest creatures masquerading as “White men” in contemporary America. A few years ago, I converted to Christianity. Having done so, it only seemed appropriate that I attend the only church that was there for me in my time of need, the only contemporary church with a positive birth rate and an authentic spirit of stewardship. I became relatively active in the church, but became increasingly uncomfortable with some of the theology and some of the politics. I’m still uncomfortable with the mistakes which are being made about ethnic and national identity and their cozy relationship with Jewry. As things stand right now, I haven’t attended in months and am just sort of lost and confused about the whole thing. One thing I’m not confused about is that I have nothing but respect for them, their beliefs, and their rites and rituals. Their temple garments are the butt of childish jokes, but I have more respect for a man like Brigham Young—sacred underpants and all—than I have for any other American alive or dead. I’ve never seen the inside of a temple. I don’t even have the Melchizedek Priesthood. I smoke. I drink. I drink coffee. I don’t have the temple garments. Your hysterical concerns about me being some sort of slick Mormon Mafia operative infiltrating WN are entirely baseless. The movement would be so lucky to have their leadership and discipline. I do believe they as a people are making serious mistakes, but I don’t have a legitimate voice as an insider to challenge those decisions. I’m also not in a position to challenge their mistakes as an outsider, as it would be dishonorable of me to turn on them after all they’ve done for me. When I was hungry and in dire poverty, they helped me. More recently, they were there for me when my wife was in the ICU, I was working overtime on a critical project at work, and I had two kids at home. They are the only “adults in the room” left in White America when it comes to civic and organizational leadership, integrity, and reliability. It’s not surprising that Jewry and global capitalism would turn to them as the ideal middlemen to make sure the trains run on time at ADP or anywhere else. Our fate may well hinge on whether or not they make the right decision, and I pray that they do. They’re no more subverted or confused than the rest of White America. They’re only more dangerous and more powerful because they’re the most competent and serious people left. You claim to have experience with them. Try to imagine them being knowledgeable about a fraternal organization then running off and blabbering about it in public like scorned schoolgirls. Try to imagine them engaging in the sort of wild-ass speculation and baseless public accusation that we see in full force around here. Try to imagine them cannibalizing their own for the idiotic reasons being offered around here. Try to imagine them being as convinced that something terrible is happening and then failing to mobilize against it. You think the magic underpants are foolish? I think what’s going on around here is foolish. 19
Posted by Lew on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 04:39 | # RE: This remark by Leon Haller:
No, this information is not entirely correct. While it can be clearly shown that the Mormons were racist until pretty recently (which speaks well of them), the Mormons have never been anti-Semitic as far as I can tell. The exact opposite appears to be true. A foundational Mormon religious text—the Book of Mormon first published in 1830 – denounces anti-Semitism. Nationalists totally unfamiliar with Mormonism (as I was until the other day) ought to read up a bit on this topic, starting with the Wikipedia article “Mormonism and Judaism,” and then drill into the citations for the documentation that supports the statements made in the article. For nationalists unfamiliar with Mormonism, it might be an eye-opening read, and it does seem to prove that the Mormons have a very different view of the Jews than the other contemporary Christian factions. Some elements within the Mormon community, for example, have historically “baptized” deceased individuals they regard as their ancestors, including Jewish people, and, in some cases, Jews who allegedly died in the holocaust. When organized Jewry discovered this particular practice in 1994 – apparently the Mormons baptizing the dead Jews were keeping it a secret from the living Jews—Jews were outraged and went on the attack against Mormons. (As with the Christian Zionists, the Mormon love for Jews does not seem to be reciprocated.) According to the account that I read, the Mormon authorities responded by telling the Jewish authorities that they would ban the posthumous baptism of dead Jews, but, interestingly enough, this seems to have been untrue. Despite being made aware of the organized Jewish community’s objections to Mormons’ baptizing deceased Jews, some Mormons resumed the practice of baptizing dead Jews anyway, apparently in secret, and didn’t stop the practice until the organized Jewish community learned of the practice again. One Jewish authority said this:
Now, I realize that the Jews are a hyper-paranoid and dishonest people, but even the most brazen Jew is not going to make a claim that “there are thousands of Jewish names in a Mormon index” when all it would take to disprove the lie would be to open the index??? For a change, it looks like the Mormon authorities were the ones being disingenuous not the Jewish ones. It also appears to be an example that demonstrates the willingness of high-level Mormon authorities to be misleading.
But, even putting aside this matter of dead Jew baptisms by a particular segment of the Mormon community, the differences between Mormonism and the other forms of Christianity seem pretty blatant in terms of 1) how Jews are viewed and 2) in the general secrecy surrounding Mormon practices and rituals. At an absolute minimum, the Mormons in general seem as slavishly pro-Israel, philo-Semitic and Jew-centric as the Christian Zionists. There are always exceptions to every rule of course, and it is not my intent ascribe any “guilt by association.” The vast majority of Christians of any variety are philo-semitic and anti-racist, but not all of them are. And many of the best and most committed nationalists are Christians. Again, nothing personal against Matt Parrot, and no offense intended toward him or anyone else. I am starting to get the feeling there is some personal enmity going on here between Matt Parrot and Jimmy Marr. However, whether there is personal enmity here or not, Jimmy Marr made a factual claim on another thread that was open to verification: Mormons are Jew sycophants. I was quite frankly skeptical about this blanket characterization, looked into quickly out of curiosity, and found to my surprise that there seems to be a lot of truth to it. 20
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 05:16 | #
Obviously untrue as the briefest glance at history shows. Jews may have started, dominated and profited most from Atlantic slavery but White people were okay with it as long as there was a commonly accepted reason why black slaves were exempt from that that aspect of universal morality (and partly because White people were getting more out-bred throughout this time so universal morality was becoming a stronger component of White cultures, especially England, because of the agricultural and industrial revolutions pushing people into the cities (and the city population becoming less of a genetic dead end with improvements in sanitation etc)). .
Jewish propaganda relies on manipulating White universal morality (which is a natural and automatic side-effect of out-breeding in my opinion*). Their success in using White morality - which they themselves *do not* feel at all (except among Jews) - is primarily the result of their Pearl Harbour attack on the media and education system before the main war began. Their strategy *requires* *absolute* control of the media and education. The smallest crack creates a risk their mountain of lies will crumble hence the targeting and downfall of Murdoch as a result of Beck.
21
Posted by Lew on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:28 | # Barbara:
My impression is that that is what the A3P is supposed to be on the American side of the Atlantic, an on the ground, practical, activist arm for explicit White advocacy. Although we won’t vote our way out, the A3P does a good job increasing public awareness that an organization focused on promoting White political interests actually exists. Supporting Ron Paul is a complete waste of time, and for a very good reason. Keep in mind that supporting Ron Paul means working for his goals, which include open borders for Mexicans, not WNist goals*** While ending the Fed would strike a blow against Jewish power, Ron Paul already has a strong following working toward that objective. I am on the A3P mailing list and can say for sure that someone there is doing an excellent job writing e-mail newsletters that cover non-intellectual issues. The emphasis is on raising issues that are important to ordinary Whites with no interest in higher philosophy or theory, and on figuring our ways for people who want to to hit the streets to do so productively. ***Greg Johnson’s phrasing. 22
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:16 | # Lew, I stated clearly that I know little about Mormonism (and frankly care less: life is short; any true intellectual has far more he wants to read than he has time to - ask anyone here; one must therefore prioritize; Mormonism just doesn’t make it into my circle of interests). What little I do know comes from general reading I have done in American history, or in learned periodicals, of which I read many regularly. Mostly, though, it comes from one of my uncles, a retired career military officer (unlike my dad, who served in WW2, but had had quite enough of military life by 1945; incidentally, my dad was on the old side for his time when he finally got married, and my mom is much younger), who was stationed for a number of years in Utah in the 60s, I think before I was born or also around that time. Anyway, a few things of note. This uncle, like my dad, is both staunchly racialist and staunchly Christian (listening, GW?); unlike my dad, who’s tougher on race, but more moderate on the JQ (like me, actually), he’s also fiercely anti-semitic. What’s interesting is how pathologically anti-Mormon both he and even his less rightist wife became after their Utah stationing - and still are to this very day, nearly a half-century later! Indeed, he got really angry at me last year when I expressed cautious optimism that a Romney presidency (Mitt Romney is Mormon, if you don’t know) might at least help get our economy moving again. Evangelicals, to reiterate what I noted previously, are often very anti-Mormon. In the early 90s I was dating a girl whose mother was fiercely evangelical (the daughter was not, I assure you (heehee); more of a biker chick wannabee, as I remember). I distinctly recall once getting somewhat berated by the mother when I happened to say something good about a Mormon secretary of mine (a nice blonde girl, real good traditional values). But we in my family are not evangelicals, pentecostals, or any other type of new Protestants. My father’s side is traditional Lutheran, my mother’s Catholic. My uncle in question is on my mother’s side, and is a serious, Church-attending Catholic. I’ve not known Catholics to be especially anti-Mormon (though of course we reject any claim of Mormonism to being a variant of Christianity). So my uncle developed his anti-Mormonism strictly as a function of his interpersonal experiences dealing with Mormons. My uncle did say one thing to me once directly bearing on your correction of my claim that Mormons used to be anti-Semitic. Some years back he did admit that the one good thing about the old LDS was that “they didn’t like n———and Jews”. This was in reference to his having been “accosted” in Chicago by a couple of young Mormon “missionaries”, one of whom was Oriental. Next time I see him I’ll ask him about the racial and ethnic views of his fellow Utahans in the 60s. I’m pretty sure he’s told me they (the Mormons) were good on race and Jewry. As human beings, however, they ranked pretty low for my very politically sound, morally solid and personally strong uncle. I always thought he was too harsh, but maybe not. I still tend to believe in maximum ‘inclusivity’ among whites (only), but again, I just don’t have a lot of experience in this matter. 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:29 | # Lew, BTW, what you said re Ron Paul and immigration is totally untrue. I asked Ron in person once what his views were on immigration (admittedly, this was 2002; maybe he’s changed). He was very sound, not “loony libertarian” at all. He wanted the borders defended, with troops brought home from around the world (the “US Empire”); he thought legal immigration was too high, and that its basis should be changed from “family reunification” (reunify by GOING BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY!) to a high-skills-based orientation (which would indeed be a huge improvement, even if not racial); he said illegals should be deported; and best of all (if you know the issue in the American context) he wanted to end so-called “birthright citizenship”, the insane and incorrect constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment whereby anyone born on US soil, including to a criminal alien, is granted automatic US citizenship. That latter position is the dividing line between those serious about ending the invasion, and mere pseudo-conservative poseurs. The only problem re Ron and immigration is that his heart just isn’t in it, which means he just doesn’t get it. His obsessions are sound money, the Constitution, free enterprise, and dissolving the US Empire (all good stuff, no doubt). 24
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:18 | # Matt Parrott, I have nothing against Mormons personally, though my contacts have been limited. Mormons are obviously (mostly) white, though now they seem to be scurrying about after minority converts, so my respect gets lower by the year. The white Mormons did a fantastic job developing the otherwise inhospitable wastes of Utah, and as such, are really a model of what determined whites can achieve when traditionally disciplined. And, of course, one has to honestly wonder how many Mormon faithful really believe their obvious theological nonsense (The New Republic‘s hit job on Romney back in 08 was perfectly fair in its depiction of the sheer nuttiness of Mormon theology - I hope you yourself don’t actually believe the ‘hard-core’), which contains none of the immense theological richness of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and some Reformed faiths (or so I was told by an intelligent ex-Mormon with whom I conversed on the subject at a paleoconservative conference some years back). When you mention that you converted to Christianity, I take it you mean to Mormonism. Of course, Mormonism is not recognized by serious Christians as Christian. So your conflation is telling. Your statement about a “positive birthrate” is suspicious. I think there are many serious Protestant churches with a positive (white) birthrate - including the evangelicals considered as a whole. I do admire the Mormon commitment to family, however. A point of genuine ignorance on my part: how could you have been fairly active in the church, and never seen the inside of a temple? As for the LDS being the only adults left in White America, I rather doubt such hyperbole. There are plenty of sound white men out there, indeed, just in my own family. The problem is that we are not grouped together in any way beyond just being white Americans. What is interesting is the adaptive advantage of possessing a rigorously adhered to minority faith (or even just consciousness) under conditions of general deracination and secular anomie. I’ve thought of the LDS before as a kind of white analogue to the Jews (though the former’s decision to forego ethnic exclusivity is obviously lessening the similarity). This would be a fruitful topic for further consideration. 25
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:30 | # Hi Matt, Thanks for responding to my concerns about having you, a Mormon, acting in the capacity of gatekeeper at sensitive White Racialist websites. Thanks also to Lew for research confirming an objective basis for the anecdotal evidence I presented. After reading your reply, I feel happy and satisfied that you have a sufficient understanding of the challenges ahead in attempting to integrate White Nationalism and Mormonism, and I agree that great potential inheres in the LDS constituency. By way of contrasting my early life with yours I would like to highlight what I see as the biggest risk in this endeavor. As a child, I suffered greatly from my mother’s infidelity and an illegitimate sibling that arose from cuckoldry. While I didn’t realize, until I was 50 years old, that my younger sister was not my dad’s, I knew from early childhood that something was wrong in my family. By puberty I suspected my mother was having an affair. I tried to tell people about my suspicions; relatives, family members, my mom and ultimately, after no one else would believe me, my dad. He didn’t believe me either. A psychiatrist was consulted and it was determined that I was suffering from an unresolved Odepal Complex. In looking back now, I realize that they all knew I was right, but they couldn’t endure the pain of acknowledgement. Unable to bear the situation at home, I took to the streets and tried to support myself through crime. I was arrested, declared incorrigible and incarcerated. I spent what would have been my freshman year of high school in a juvenile facility in Alexandria Virginia where 95% of the inmates were Black. After converting to Christianity in jail, a missionary persuaded my family and the court that I was no longer incorrigible. I went back home. I made it three years before I was arrested and incarcerated again at the age of 18. This time it was in El Paso County Jail where 95% of the inmates were Meztizos. At 19, I was free again and had the equivalent of a PhD in race relations. The point I want to make with this is that while I suffered at the hands of Negroes and Meztizos, Blacks and Browns would have had no capacity to hurt me if my family had been invulnerable to the original crypsis. To my mind, my childhood plight is analogous to our racial predicament vis a vis the Jews. As long as our White brothers and sisters are allowed to imagine that Jews are White people with Yarmulkes, we’re in severe danger. Blacks and Browns can’t fool us. We know what they are. Only Jews can cuckold us, and they are unGodly skilled at doing it. For me, this problem towers over our other racial issues by a full order of magnitude. What I’ve said may seem obvious, but I’m often amazed to find people on our boards who place top priority on the Obvious Other while abetting the Cuckold. Conservatives are particularly prone to this. Leon Haller, bless his heart, is a prime example, which is why I never miss an opportunity to poke him in the ribs. The two issues of lesser importance that I’d like to discuss with you are your long standing habits of insulting Holocaust deniers and NSM members. As you probably suspect, a higher than normal proportion of NSM members and supporters have served time behind bars. It’s not a pleasant experience, and since Whites are often in the minority in a setting with a high potential for violence, racial bonds and racial loyalty take on a new dimension. When you live for while in an environment where you can’t shit without racial help, you become very unconcerned about your brothers’ wardrobe choices, and might even tend to get a little testy if someone else started making a big deal out of it. I’d like it if you could try to see this issue as being similar to Mormon underwear. It’s silly, but dwelling on it is equally silly. If you don’t like the uniforms, don’t wear one. For someone like myself, who was forced to live in a family based on a false history, its impossible to overstate the importance of learning the truth about the past. I forfeited my share of my family’s estate for the privilege of learning my mother’s blood type. I’d do it again in a heartbeat. It was one of the most fulfilling moments of my life. Our race is suffering under the de-moralization of a blood libel by the Jews. This is a matter in which the truth can be determined through procurement and analysis of forensic evidence. It seems fairly obvious to me the Kosher narrative is not only false, but largely inverted. I think its a serious insult to refer to those of us who take an interest in this matter as buffoons. 26
Posted by Matt Parrott on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:30 | #
I’m not getting into a theological debate.
Temples are not the routine places of worship. Those are “stakes”...which are equivalent to church buildings.
I failed to clarify. I meant that as a group. Plenty of White American men have integrity, but they aren’t organized as such. A band of men, three of which can keep a secret, promise, or commitment, and one of which is either GuessedWorker or is chatty with GuessedWorker is just as useless as GuessedWorker. This is nothing personal against him, and most White Americans both in here and on the street are similarly misguided. In formal logic, it’s the Byzantine Generals Problem of attempting to communicate or coordinate activity when there are defective nodes in the chain. 27
Posted by Matt Parrott on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:49 | # Jimmy,
I’m not a gatekeeper. I virtually never moderate comments.
I’ve not been especially coarse in my condemnation of either category. My position on the Holocaust is that it’s not an especially effective advocacy angle—not that every bit of the establishment narrative is true or that those who question the establishment narrative are morally defective or something. Can somebody find one example of me insulting the NSM? I don’t emulate a lot of their strategies, but they indubitably keep active.
I more or less do wear a uniform. I don’t know where this is coming from.
We already extensively talked this out. I’m not calling you a buffoon. I’m not even calling Holocaust Denial buffoonish. What I called buffoonish is the notion that it’s an effective topic with which to reach people. I disagree with you on that, for reasons which we argued into the ground over a year ago. I don’t discuss the topic much, both because I’m not especially versed in WWII history and because I don’t see it as relevant. Perhaps you see how it’s relevant in a way that I don’t. So be it. 28
Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:07 | # Thanks for responding to my concerns about having you [Matt Parrott], a Mormon, acting in the capacity of gatekeeper at sensitive White Racialist websites. I second James Marr’s concerns. This arrangement would probably explain why several of my comments at TOO have been deleted in recent days. Isn’t there someone else at YWC or A3P who could take on this role? 29
Posted by Barbara on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:48 | # There seem to be several people who are shut out of the comment section at TOO. Perhaps Matt P or Greg J would like to explain why this is so. If they have nothing to do with the monitoring perhaps they can talk to the person who does this job and get some answers for us so we can drop this subject and come together to discuss more important things. 30
Posted by Barbara on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:03 | # Also I think you should look at Ron Paul on the issues - go to his page and click on “issues” If Greg Johnson has a point he wishes to make about GW judging William Regnery whom he has never met I would like to hear it. The discussion went off in the direction commenters wanted to go as it always does. Its amazing that intellectuals have not figured out a way to keep average IQ people, who can sit for hours watching reality tv and soap operas, interested for five minutes. Who is this Regnery guy? Is he cute as Gerard Butler? Is he charming as George Clooney? If not then you better figure out how you can make him interesting to us. With all those brains you should be able to find a hook. Lets see it. 31
Posted by MOB on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:26 | # GW: As a result of the CMS article I received a request from Greg Johnson for an interview. Rick: Maybe this is an interview to determine whether or not to invite you into the elite. GW: Actually no, I haven’t considered inviting Greg to join MR. MOB: A logical surmise by Rick, and an amusing but dishonest comeback from GW. Alas, GJ needs no invite to post to Majority Rights, whereas GW does require an invite to enter “the elite,” as its being used here to encompass the CMS inner circle that gets to go to secret meetings. There’s the rub. The CMS article in question is the thread posted by GW that asks, “Elitism, Secrecy, and Deception . . . the Way to save white America?” GW attributed his motivation in posing the question to his sympathy for MOB. In fact, MR regulars will recognize these thorns in GW’s side from multiple references and discussions over the past few years, sans MOB. Twas the thorn of secrecy—exclusion—that stung the worst. Relief arrived in darkness: a secret visit by a member of the elite. GW: I requested a QA format because that allows me to think about my replies at leisure, and avoid a few of those inevitable foot-in-mouth moments. Greg sent the first question this evening, to which I have replied as below. I am going to build up the interview on this post, as we progress with it. GJ: Question 1: Have you had any dealings with William Regnery? If so, what transpired? GW: . . . I was interested in identifying and bringing together in a virtual but real-time environment a small group of people distinguished by the capacity for originality. MOB: Oh dear! How completely similar this sounds to the oft-repeated goal of The Elites!!! Talk about taking candy from . . . no . . . talk about grabbing the orange team’s football and running with it. GW: . . . there was nothing that I could see that was newly culled from a modern understanding of Man and Nature, and that opened out into an expansive and creative enquiry into the truths of who we are and how to live. Leon: Answer to the question is way over my head, which means either my cognitive limit has been exceeded, or the writing, like, ironically, so much from the Continent that gave us fascism, is needlessly opaque. Soren: Why not both? Leon: Mr. Renner, “I am stupid, and GW philosophically unintelligible” is indeed a logically valid third possibility. I stand corrected. GW:What is not clear to you, Leon? MOB: I don’t know if Leon is stupid (aka cognitively limited) or if GW’s philosophizing is unintelligible in and of itself, but since Leon has not responded and if I might presume to offer an impression: having just worked my way through an IEP paper entitled German Idealism, I have to wonder if newly culling from a modern understanding of Man and Nature and opening out into an expansive and creative enquiry into the truths of who we are and how to live is the best use of GW’s formidable gifts of intellect, articulation, and persuasion for saving white America at this particular time, given present circumstances—in the halls of Congress, Parliament and Ivy, in the museums, galleries and concert halls, in the streets of the cities, at gates of the states, on the shores of the nations—especially when so many men of renowned erudition have pursued similar bedevilments before and before again - certainly to my humble satisfaction and most likely to Leon’s and many more good-hearted, strong-backed, high-minded, nobly driven, though, more’s the pity, non-elite, brothers under the skin - and sisters, but on a lower rung, of course, with Mormons perhaps . . . . Note: See above in thread for Leon on likelihood of fascism in Europe’s future, with which I agree. MOB 32
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:28 | # There is certainly an element of comedy to it. Is Greg Johnson the Duke of San Francisco or something? Who exactly recognizes his elite status? Just what are they fighting about? It looks to me (as it did last year when I pointed this out) like a bunch of intellectuals quarreling among themselves over competing interpretations of fantasy ideology and who gets invited to participate in a book club. GW has been on a jihad against TOQ for two years now ever since the O’Meara essay contest. As for Kevin MacDonald, everything he believes about the Jewish Question is plainly discussed on The Occidental Observer and in his books. Similarly, James Edwards gives his point of view on The Political Cesspool. Jared Taylor has always presented his point of view at American Renaissance. Anyone who wants to follow them can tune into their websites. Meanwhile, while all this WN stupidity was going on, the “flash mobs” burned down GW’s own country (which we had spent months warning about), the racial taboos in the U.S. started to crack, Barack Hussein Obama assumed dictatorial powers, Cornel West was warning of a racial war of revenge, the VP called the Tea Party a bunch of “terrorists,” etc, etc. Here at “Majority Rights” the discussion rages on about Greg’s wounded ego, the insanity of yours truly, Soren’s elite status, JR Richards’ theory that David Duke is a false flag, Matt Parrott’s Mormon conspiracy, GW’s wounded pride, etc. Such is WN. 33
Posted by Hunter Wallace on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:40 | # As far as I know, William Regnery is an old man who used his wealth to help finance The Occidental Quarterly. It remains something of a mystery why that would be a bad thing. Then again, in the MR universe David Duke and Kevin MacDonald are not “hardcore enough” on the Jewish Question. Duke is not as “hardcore” as J Richards after having gone to prison. KMac is not “hardcore enough” after having to put up with all that harassment at his workplace. Here at MR, Matt Parrott (who I have crossed swords with in the past) is engaged in a Mormon conspiracy. Last year, idiots on the internet were spreading the absurd idea that I work for the SPLC, when I have only attacked that organization over 20x times in the last month. Latest attack here: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/08/23/intelligence-report-fall-2011/ William Gheen of ALIPAC acknowledges the race war being waged by the SPLC on White America here: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/08/24/congratulations-william-gheen/ 34
Posted by John on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:26 | # “A logical surmise by Rick, and an amusing but dishonest comeback from GW. Alas, GJ needs no invite to post to Majority Rights, whereas GW does require an invite to enter “the elite,” as its being used here to encompass the CMS inner circle that gets to go to secret meetings. There’s the rub.” I read his witty answer different from how you read it (and self-evidently not dishonest). Anybody can post here but Greg Johnson or anyone else does indeed need an “invite” determine the topic by having his writing posted as a thread here. 35
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:08 | #
Matt, We can agree to disagree, but I want to communicate an idea that I have about this. The priorities you claim are “effectiveness” and “relevance”. Mine, at this point in my life, is Truth. Not effective truth. Not relative truth. Absolute Truth. This probably sounds strange coming from a someone with my background, but my highest idea of Truth is that “All truth is half-Truth”, and by this, one might assume that I sit around all day smoking dope, but that could only be half true. The Truth is, if I wanted to sit around all day smoking dope, I’d be perfectly entitled to do so, and perfectly entitled to kill anyone who tried to interfere with me, because the Truth is that my truth is just as True as anybody else’s. Anders Breivik understood this. That’s why the world’s half-truth worshippers are awestruck by his resolute action. The hand of the saint is empowered by the same force which squeezes the assassin’s trigger, regardless of whether its effective or relevant. History will determine that. Aryan truth is every bit as True as Jew truth (lies). The Aryan man has every right to pursue his truth with the same methods the Jew uses to enforce his truth (lies). Failure to do so is, by definition, non-Aryan and an abomination in the eyes of the Absolute. At 88, James von Brunn realized this truth on the steps of the Liar’s Memorial. You are entitled to choose efficacy and relevance as the cardinal points of your morality if you like, but in my opinion, as long as you persist in so doing, you will be destined to behave like a boy in short pants. Half-pants. 36
Posted by Anchorage Activist on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:10 | # Jimmy Marr - it’s obvious you are no genuine white nationalist, but a false-flag operative who peddles anti-Mormon bigotry under the protective cover of “white nationalism”. Why else would you come here and repeatedly stalk a genuine activist, Matt Parrott, about his Mormon connections? Conspiracy wankers like you are the cancer of our Cause. You hijack the Cause and steer people down ideological dead ends. Your purpose is to polarize, divide, and disable. The real problem is NOT the Mormons, the Masons, the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the Koch Brothers, or any of those other false fronts you put up. The real problem is the Jew; namely, Jewish supremacism. People like Dr. David Duke and Alex Linder have the courage to name the real problem. We will no longer humor people like you in our Cause; we will fearlessly expose and confront your ilk.The white nationalist tree has many sick branches in need of pruning, and yours is the sickest of all, because it appears healthiest on the surface. 37
Posted by Guest Lurker on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:47 | # Jimmy Marr wrote:
I’m confused, Jimmy. You state that your priority is one of Absolute Truth, not relative Truth. Yet you then state that your highest idea of Truth if that all truth is merely half-Truth. How are these two reconcilable in your mind? Are you saying that there is an Absolute truth, but that since man’s intellect is finite, we can merely grasp a portion of it? Or are you claiming, like certain Buddhist sects, that there is no Absolute underlying the phenomenal world? P.S.: Did you write that last post after taking a bong hit? 38
Posted by Objective reporter on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:58 | # Sounds to me like Jimmy’s thinking is a bit muddled by postmodernism. How jewish! Oh well, we’re all entitled to an occasional off day.
39
Posted by danielj on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:21 | # Jimmy just sounds like a human being. Maybe that’s why I find White National*ists* so boring. They all pretend to be Aryan Superman instead of just being the actual human beings they are. 40
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:32 | #
Yes. But the minute you understand that, you’ve grasped the Whole of it. 41
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:46 | # To clarify the forgoing, I’m attempting to use the word “Aryan” in something of the way I imagine Evola as thinking about it; “Noble”. I’m trying to hint at my conception of the Aryan Idea. If it appeared in the brain of an Australian Aborigine, it would still be the Supreme Idea. 42
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:29 | # To call Jimmy Marr a false-flag is ridiculous. He is as dedicated to opposing Jewry as anyone I have ever come across. I profoundly disagree with him on this, both ethically and especially strategically, but to suggest that he’s not as committed to naming the Jew as Duke or Linder is nonsense. Anchorage Activist must be Mormon (not that there’s anything wrong with that ... White inclusivity is very important). 43
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:45 | # I offered my own theory that one possible path to reconciliation was to move the philosophy into existentialism and the religion into esoterism ... at all times asking the question: what is true? Perhaps not surprisingly, what I found was that, by and large, the scientists saw the point quickly. The few philosophers I was able to talk to would not look beyond the famous “impossibility” of reconciling thought and experience. It was clear, though, that in reality they were hostile to any threat to the Weltenschauung they had carved out by their own hand from the bedrock of the Western canon. They were, I’m afraid, telling me that they did not possess the capacity of original thinking. I believe few original thinkers, even those given to Idealism, would be disinterested in a group endeavour to change the European Mind. (GW) I really don’t grasp your point(s) here. What was the “point” that scientists saw quickly? What is “the famous “impossibility” of reconciling thought and experience”? What is the world view “they had carved out by their own hand from the bedrock of the Western canon”? Nazism? Fascism? Old style American white supremacism? I don;t know what precisely is being referred to here. 44
Posted by Lew on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:04 | # Leon Haller:
I love Ron Paul and have for years. A true old right libertarian. Much to my disappointment, however, he has radically changed his position on immigration. He now takes the traditional libertarian stance; he supports immigration levels so high the net effect would de facto open borders. Leon Haller:
This is an example of the iron law of WNist in-fighting. At some point in the debate, invariably, somebody will accuse somebody of being a Homo, Jew or Fed. 45
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:24 | #
Oy vey! Just because I wear a skirt, have 6’s on my nose and no visible sources of income? 46
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:14 | # Leon, Before that passage which you quoted I wrote:
Is it not evident that a political actor responding with both empirical data and faith objects to the same question is saddled with a fatal inconsistency, and urgently needs to refine his thinking? I found that the people with scientific training to whom I spoke were a deal more interested in doing so than people with a background in the humanities. The problem of thought and experience is: what, if anything, does the result of our mental processes have to do with the world beyond the organism. Ultimately, thought and experience are two different commodities, and the first can never fully reflect the second. That is the rational gateway through which you yourself go when you argue that faith captures more of reality than reason. As for the customary worldview of the intellectual establishment of the radical right, it is Nietzschean and broadly fascist. Does that answer your questions? 47
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:19 | # “How jewish!” Then Objective Observer quotes from Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology. . . 48
Posted by danielj on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:25 | # Then Objective Observer quotes from Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology. . . Which I also found strange but he is obviously trying to make some point over my head. He did simple quote her as “-Alice” and not Ayn. Perhaps he will enlighten us. 49
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:25 | # Before that passage which you quoted I wrote: In the Anglosphere the thinking was, on one hand, essentially religious, meshing flawlessly with the 20th century fictions of a European spirit of race and mythic destiny, and, on the other, empirical, producing stone-cold certainties about human bio-diversity, sociobiology, gene interests, and so on. Is it not evident that a political actor responding with both empirical data and faith objects to the same question is saddled with a fatal inconsistency, and urgently needs to refine his thinking? I found that the people with scientific training to whom I spoke were a deal more interested in doing so than people with a background in the humanities. The problem of thought and experience is: what, if anything, does the result of our mental processes have to do with the world beyond the organism. Ultimately, thought and experience are two different commodities, and the first can never fully reflect the second. That is the rational gateway through which you yourself go when you argue that faith captures more of reality than reason. As for the customary worldview of the intellectual establishment of the radical right, it is Nietzschean and broadly fascist. Does that answer your questions? (GW)
1. How are you certain that there is in fact no European spirit of race? Different men have different personalities, psyches, ambitions, dreams, etc. Why not races? I should think there is a European spirit, at least relative to the African spirit, Asian spirit, etc. In academic terms, “race spirit” might be something along the lines of modal personality combined with the most prominent intellectual and cultural emanations of the race. I think I understand the idea behind race spirit, even if I have difficulty articulating it. But I think rhetorically the term was used to convey not anything subject to scientific investigation, but rather an aspiration. To speak of race spirit is really to announce an ambition that the race should become in fact as the speaker is describing it. Rather like talking about the “essence of America”, or “British identity”. Is there a British identity? Of course. Can it be fully described, or only ever approximately conveyed? And if the latter, does that make it only a fiction (especially if it compels men in some way, and thus becomes a reality)? 2. Even if you discern an inconsistency between discussing race in broad, metaphorical terms, as well as with reference to racial science, what is “fatal” about it? Why need this inconsistency be eliminated? I’m not trying to be difficult, but I fail to see why nationalists cannot employ both scientific/empirical and rhetorical/metaphorical modes of argument and persuasion. We speak both about what we know (scientifically), and what we feel (even if we cannot prove it yet through scientific methods). I think you have a tendency towards scientific reductionism, or to privileging certain modes of knowledge over possible others. At the most basic level, we all know things which we haven’t necessarily established through empirical investigation. When I was young, teachers used to insist on racial equality in intelligence. Although I had had only a fairly small degree of contact with blacks, that was enough to convince me that they were less intelligent (my parents were never pro-black, but my dad’s tirades were always directed towards their savage behavior, not to analyzing IQ, as far as I recall). Indeed, doesn’t science begin with at least a tentative theory, later to be refined in light of empirically gathered data? 3. The problem of thought and experience as you describe it is an old one. I still fail to see its relevance for WN. 4. BTW, I’m not really big on “faith”, which is mostly an intellectual cop-out. I suppose you could hang me on my belief in God, though as I’ve said before, I’m only a 60/40 theist. I’m willing to give God the benefit of the doubt, in part because many brilliant men have been theists, but also because of an intuitive belief that the cosmos is much less knowable and much (ontologically?) richer than we ordinarily imagine. I also do so because I accept the core truths about the divinity (or at least otherness) of Christ expressed in the New Testament. I do that because my ‘gut’ (the same gut that helped to see through the race-denial brainwashing of my schooling, and at a much deeper level than my parents’ commonsense warnings and rational prejudices) tells me that Christianity would not have spread as it did without the fervor of apostles ultimately reaching back to Christ Himself - and I do not think that fervor would have been present had the events of the Christian narrative, esp the Resurrection, not actually occurred in historical time and geographical space. The Christian story is simply unlike any other, in its message and narrative. It strikes me as true - not as something I have to suspend my critical faculties to ‘believe’ in. 50
Posted by Something Said on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:59 | # Lew asks
Probably because a while back, MacDonald put an entry on his website complaining about technical issues, and I complained on another site about the lack of cooperation within this “movement” and how someone like MacDonald was messing around with his blog settings, a waste of his time. Evidently, Parrott stood up to the plate and volunteered, and now the TOO website is much easier to use. I have a very hard time believing that Parrott is censoring comments. Just for the record, I don’t know Parrott except from reading his articles and comments, have never met him, don’t like him very much, and I’m not a Mormon. But I can’t imagine anything more unproductive than complaining about Parrott’s volunteer effort to make the TOO website better. 51
Posted by John on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:08 | # @Leon: Could one not make a similar ad populum argument using the current fervour and ubiqity (in the West, anyway) of Frankfurt School ideas and especially the anti-racial aspects? The narrative has many similar moral elements to those of Christianity. And, the source is largely (almost wholly, in fact) the same tribe as the one that brought us Christianity. In Christianity, I see ín the meekness/poverty elevation, universal altruism and concern for the souls of racial others the “malign encouragement” that Kevin MacDonald talks about. 52
Posted by Bill on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:00 | # Guardian 25th August 2011 UK net migration rises 21% http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/25/uk-net-migration-rises-21 White’s replacement proceeds apace. 53
Posted by Lew on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:25 | # @Something Said I was not aware of those details until yesterday, and just to clarify I have never accused Matt of censorship. There are some other people floating around here claiming censorship at TOO. Not me. Matt later cleared if up in subsequent posts, and I told him so in another comment buried in another thread. It’s case closed for me. If I could zap the comment you quoted I would, and if there is admin here who wants to do it, it would be fine with me. I also realized—too late—that it was a serious misjudgment on my part to raise the issue in public in the middle of this “secrecy and deception” discussion. My policy in the future will be to raise questions privately. 54
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:53 | #
I can neither affirm or deny allegations of pro- Jew censorship made against Mr. Parrott, but I can CERTAINLY imagine less productive activities and I have witnessed Matt Parrott using his position on racialist websites to engage in them. 1) Defending the Jew’s blood libel against the White race. 2) Ridiculing White activists for trying to refute the Jew’s blood libel against White people. 3) Ridiculing White activists for their clothing choices. 4) Ridiculing White activists who dare to associate themselves with Aryanism’s most potent symbol. Whether of not this White bashing and Jew exculpating is related to Mr. Parrott’s association with the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, is an open question. Personally, I doubt it. Judging from his own words, I tend to think Mr. Parrott is simply a confused young man. He has my best wishes in his future pursuits as long as they do not include the 4 activities enumerated above. 55
Posted by Objective reporter on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:39 | #
T’was only a bit of irony, danielj. Jimmy, apparently, was having a difficult time in his quest to grasp the truth, i.e., reality. I saw it fitting/ironic that a Jewess could help him out in that regard. That’s all. 56
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 21:51 | # With the assistance of Guest Lurker, I think my perspective was made quite clear in this exchange: Are you saying that there is an Absolute truth, but that since man’s intellect is finite, we can merely grasp a portion of it? Yes, but the minute you understand that, you’ve grasped the Whole of it. If, like Mr. Parrott, one is looking for efficacy or relevance, I concur with Objective Reporter in his recommendation of objectivism. 57
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 23:27 | # Leon,
The better question is: what has the common nature of, say, northern Europeans to do with the aesthetic of “spirit of race”? Very little, I think. The common nature of northern Europeans is real. It is not simply “Promethean” or “heroic” or “glorious”, or striving to be any of those things. It is quite remarkable in itself, and is all there is. It cannot be improved (as Jews know of their own common nature). A race or a man cannot be two things - this and something else or something better - and be authentic at the same time. Authenticity is perfect. Of course, human personality can be a hundred things, but then it is always what we are not.
It is the inconsistencies in that position which are fatal.
Because inconsistency is indicative of internal disagreement. This is why the desirability of synthesis arises in the greater context of WN/New Right philosophical thinking. It’s about having a stronger position.
Science reaches its conclusions by the process of falsifiability. You can’t just chuck in a few religious convictions along the way and emerge with a coherent finding.
I remember wintermute once lecturing me some years ago now on the matter. It is never far away from the surface for those who rely, ultimately, on faith.
I had the advantage, in retrospect, of considering that I knew better than my teachers. Every path to freedom is valid.
I have no argument with belief as such, except that there is too much of it. But that, really, is an argument with Christianity - and I have a few of those. 59
Posted by RS on Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:31 | # > That said, fascism, of one national specificity or another, is always a possibility. In general, fascism simply refers to any radical mobilization of the masses for secular, inegalitarian, and, usually, martial purposes. In common Western understanding, it would mean radicalizing the indigenous/white masses to resist, forcefully and potentially violently, their continuing national dispossession, immiseration, deculturalization, and loss of sovereignty. This is what people have always done. It’s what Jean d’Arc did, along with a million other leaders. Referring to it as fascism is really shooting yourself in the foot. It would be nice to get people to recognize that fascist horrors of the 40s were not categorically different from communist or Ottoman or Mongol ones, and that Hitler was a nasty amoral actor among others and not some supernatural Satan. However that is a fairly esoteric issue, and ‘casualizing’ the word fascism is not really the way to go about it. We should be staking out a distinctly anti-fascist approach to things like Gypsy overpopulation. Our task is to resolve this kind of thing coolly, using things like economic incentives for fertility reduction—without resorting to inhuman acts, or even brutal non-acts such as just letting people starve if they can’t support themselves. Several other aspects of fascism should also be soundly rejected, such as one-man absolute rule. It’s better to have a mixed constitution where much power goes to an aristocracy and a good deal is reserved for the upstanding citizenry. The ‘new fascism’ should not be very fascist at all. It is obviously going to have to be more radical, energetic, and somewhat more authoritarian than brezhnevian sclero-bureau-government, but that’s no reason to call it fascism. 60
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:43 | # RS, Fascism is something quite specific. It is not simply being “martial” or firmly resisting trespasses against us. Without getting bogged down in definitions, the issue here is that fascism, as a strain of nationalism, is anti-liberal in the widest sense, destroying liberal ideas, liberal values, and replacing them with a more or less coherent fascist whole. This replacement action is common to any nationalist form, not just fascism. Nationalism is wholly antipathetic to liberalism, and vice versa. 61
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:33 | # RS, Here’s Linder’s take on the issue: The divide here is temporal: strongman through the struggle and refoundation; libertarian devolution afterward. No point in mixing the two prematurely in political discussions, it just confuses people. Just reassure them that AFTER we win, and clean up the racial problems, we are NOT going to be totalitarian tyrants. I do agree it is better when discussing with Americans to emphasize, IF YOU AGREE, as you and I probably do, that we WN respect markets (as Hitler did), and we do NOT like centralized power (so we’re not truly nazis, altho always called that by enemies, which is not to distance ourselves from or to disrespect historical NS, just to explain our different position). I don’t think anyone believes we can go straight from jewish tyranny today to white Constitutional freedom tomorrow. Too much has been lost or permanently messed up. We will have to fix up the ol’ plantation before we get down to parceling things back out. 63
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 26 Aug 2011 03:02 | #
That Kirkvillan will be the end of Pleasantville yet! Kirk is Gaelic for church 64
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:08 | # Another thought. Say political positioning ranges from 0 to 10 with mainstream at 4. I think, with a lot of experimental evidence, that most people will reject opinions out of hand if they are too far away from their current position. People may or may not agree with this but i’m taking it as the premise for this thought. Let’s say if an individual is more than 2 positions away from the advocate talking to them they reject it out of hand. Communists at position 0 couldn’t reach mainstreamers at 4. They had to create false front organisations at position 2 to attract people from 4 to 2 who would then listen to the people at 0. The same applies to WN (or whatever you want to call it). The people at position 10 can’t reach anyone except those who have self-radicalized to position 8 and in the past that was a slow trickle of people (although the rate of radicalizing now will be much faster as the economy crumbles and faith in the ruling elite crumbles with it). If true then what is needed is people who take positions purely to act as stepping stones. It needs some to take position 6 and work to pull mainstreamers from 4 to 6 and some who take position 8 to pull people from 6 to 8 where they are in reach of those at 10. If that is the correct system then should the people taking the right-most positions constantly attack those to their left even if they’re effectively on the same side? I was thinking it was counter-productive but actually if you’re consciously being a stepping stone then maybe it is actually more effective to let attacks from the right go by. If an individual has genuinely taken a position at 6 or 8 then they will want to defend that position but if you’re consciously being a stepping stone then there’s no need - just keep attacking to the left and ignore attacks from the right. 66
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 28 Aug 2011 00:20 | # Lew, My apologies to you re Ron Paul. Here is what I wrote earlier today on another thread:
Thanks for that link. I have to leave in a bit, and so don’t have time to critique the methodology used in the rankings. What’s scary is that Roy Beck, with whom I once chatted at some length back in the 90s, is a liberal by my standards. And NumbersUsa is too liberal for my taste. I’m sceptical, however, of their rankings. Rick Perry is by light years the worst on immigration. They are flat out wrong. He has called for the erasure of the border between us and Mexico!! Romney in 08 was calling for illegal alien deportations. No way they are equivalent. And no way Paul is the worst but for Obama. NO way at all. Although he has softened his line on immigration since I spoke to him about it in the early 00s, Paul’s low number is reflective not of open borders libertarianism, but of a hostility to forcing businesses to act as law enforcement. Know what? I have been fighting immigration for 30 years (yes, since I was a teenager). I worked as a policy analyst for one of the anti-immigration orgs. I’ve written on the issue under a different name for several policy journals. And, I basically agree with Paul on that. It is government’s duty to stop immigration, not free market businessmen’s (of course, knowingly hiring illegals should bring serious punishment). A lot of what Paul is objecting to is enforcement mechanisms that intrude on property rights. I agree he’s not good, but he’s better than he’s ranked (ie, the methodology is somewhat flawed). Let me state publicly: I owe an apology to the commenter “Lew”. I spoke the other day without the recent facts. When I discussed immigration with Paul, he was really very good - against amnesty, birthright citizenship, for allowing states to enforce immigration policies, against welfare benefits for illegals, etc. Apparently, he has devolved considerably (although, again, the way Paul looks at the issue makes it difficult really to classify him by the methodology chosen; he’s not an open borders fanatic, at least within the present Big Government system). In the main, Lew, you were right, and I was wrong (which annoys me, as I have given decent money to Paul; I feel betrayed). Let me just add, this disclosure about Ron Paul has really been nagging at me this whole day. I’m getting in a fouler and fouler mood. I know several passionate Paul supporters, who are also staunch anti-immigrationists. We’ve all been under the impression that Paul was good on immigration, just not vocal about it. So whom to vote for? Paul or Bachmann? The latter is the best on immigration, but hardly great. She’s also heavily identified with both the Tea Party (good) and the Christian Right (very bad; I’m Catholic and Right, but their obsessions over gays and God are just irrelevant to our present crisis, and over abortion positively harmful - abortion is not something a serious Catholic can support, but we are under no obligations to be fanatics about doing away with it, either). Voting for Paul, on the other hand, sends a pretty radical and proper message on the economy, to the GOP leadership as much as to Democrats, that we want the Fed abolished or curtailed. Until the latter happens, our wealth will never be even remotely safe, and the economy will never recover as it could. 67
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 28 Aug 2011 00:22 | # GW, I want to respond to you at greater length when I have more time, perhaps late this evening. 69
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:05 | # OK, Leon, whenever you like. Greg, here’s a question for you: What is your personal objective within the struggle of our movement. 70
Posted by PF on Mon, 29 Aug 2011 03:14 | # The view from in front of my hacked and souped-up m*therfucing Wii: I see MR 2005-present as a really honest and amazing intellectual adventure - but perhaps thats just how I personally view it. Those for whom it means less might not think so. I understand people will want to constantly grade efforts in terms of producing reliable results for ‘our movement’ and for the playing out of events which they deem certain, and reiterate continually on here. Anyone with the insight to do so is invited to consider the possibility that the assumptive framework producing much of this thought is wrong on multiple levels. For example, something is definitely happening, but to interpret it as a racial crisis because we have mass non-European immigration into our homelands might be incorrect. That might be only looking at one angle of it, which one may be compelled to do because of obsessions whose nature is personal. Then you look up and realize these thoughts are not shared, and so the whole idea of ‘crisis’ is really a matter of perspective. We can throw around big words and try to force our perspectives on others, “proving” them to be the only valid ones.. by saying we take the long-term view, etc. etc., but that actually doesnt jive with the truth. All that is backwards rationalizing. I see no profound argument produced here beneath which I couldnt make out the smell of a profound personal attachment. But this “immigration is doomsday, lets strive for racial survival” framework is so comfy. At any rate, I see no one granting the validity of an alternative view - hence cherished hypotheses - hence slavery to a lie. Its entirely possible for example that the zero-sum tendencies projected on all groups on here dont play out - it *is* after all purely imagination in the minds of those who *know* for example that SHTF will happen. From the prognostications I’ve seen on here over the years, you would think anyone with ‘Nationalism’ issues was a frigging clairvoyant. The number of doomsday predictions on nationalist websites must tally in the millions at this point - there are 3 or 4 in the thread above alone. Disintegration may happen, but it may not vindicate nationalism or racialism. Often the events we presage are accurate in outline but completely ambiguous in meaning, whereas we like to assign them certain meanings ahead of time. A ‘soft islanding’ system may emerge for example, where islands of genetic information are kept intact next to merged ‘mix-breed’ islands. For example, 40% of the English may choose to remain purely english/british, and stay amongst themselves. 20% may merge with various other EUropean nationalities. The remaining 40% may merge with various African and Asian subgroups, forming islands of ‘anglicized Punjabis’, ‘anglicized Arabs’, anglicized ‘chinese’, etc. etc. I guess my question would be, given that all the players in this system are acting voluntarily (I refuse the casuistry which says that a race-mixing television campaign abjures human beings of choice, FYI) and given its happening on a scale that defies control (the possibility of central control of these things is really only alive in nationalist’s imaginations IMO) - what the heck could anyone do about it? At that point we have to acknowledge the functional equivalency of our ‘movement’ with a luddite anti-technology revolution: out of powerless obscurity, “we” are supposed to resist a universal sea change. At the end of the day, everything comes back to Danielj and uh, the latter of whom I admittedly have a belated man-crush on. These guys are anglo-whops, they’re Brit-Whops, they’re Whopping Dago-Anglo Whoppers. They represent a loss of ‘integrity’ theoretically, of the Anglo-saxon (welsh in uh’s case?) bloodline. So who among us is willing to stand up and say that these brilliant, spirited, pugnacious men represent a loss? Or that they are to be classed as lesser? Or that they have lost some fundamental attribute which we possess? Or that they are to be treated differently and excluded from things based on the origins of their ‘gear’? Its one thing to affirm it on the internet, but when we try to live these ideas out, everyone feels the impossibility of it, the senselessness of it. Because we are in fact close together even with those who are genetically distant, only our fractured imaginings and pent-up anger make us feel different. So a mixed race world is here, but that doesnt mean that the vengeful portrait of whites dying out or fading into cafe-au-lait nothingness need hold true. A series of intact volitional islandings - based on preference rather than decree - will keep the pure whites thriving and surviving alongside the new mixtures that spring up. And all this will arrange itself automatically - just as white women who prefer not to date non-whites naturally segregate themselves, and people choose their neighbors, etc. There really is nothing to worry about, unless you want something to worry about. People who are afraid of this change will grasp out for the handrail of state to support them, but thats a dream. We are living in a different era now, past paradigms will only confuse. Anyway thats just my opinion!!! MR is the brass balls of white nationalism!!!!!!!! 71
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:58 | # PF, Good comment, but too optimistic at the end. The white race, composed of all the European peoples, and only them (hence there is a cultural as well as biological aspect to race; otherwise, we would have to admit the various white - brunette, redhead, even blonde - Muslims I have seen, and even met, into our fold; something which for many reasons we must not do), is going extinct, at least if we maintain our collective present course. Every exogenous trend is running hard against us. These include, minimally: a. the non-white global population bomb (fertility rates are thankfully mostly falling, but absolute numbers will continue to rise for most of the remainder of our lifetimes); b. the white DE-population bomb, especially amongst the hedonistic pansies over in Europe (less beer and soccer, more sex, perhaps?), is worsening, as Buchanan in DEATH OF THE WEST, and Mark Steyn (Jew? who cares?) in AMERICA ALONE, have discussed in polemical but depressing detail; even if our women suddenly start wanting lots of children, as a simple but inexorable mathematical matter, it will take quite a while for our population figures even to stabilize, let alone begin to rise even absolutely (and it would take centuries to get the global Europoid percentile of Earth’s inhabitants back up to where we were in 1900 - around 30% of the total population of the planet); c. the age differential between whites and non-whites, with non-whites everywhere but Japan substantially younger than whites, with all that that will mean for shifting demographic, and ultimately military, power (as more countries gain nukes, their value will decline, and the West’s technological advantages along with it - if Iran gets the bomb, what will declining Russia do if faced with military incursions by the far younger and soon to be more numerous Iranians?); d. intra- as well as interracial global dysgenics, by which I mean, that the biological quality of whites has massively declined in the last hundred years - and I believe that the rate of decline has been accelerating (eg, hardly any of the intelligent whites I know have kids); moreover, we all know that intelligence correlates with IQ, which correlates with income, at least in the contemporary West; unfortunately, it is a sociological fact that American women (probably not too different elsewhere) in the top income decile have the fewest kids (nearly half in that decile at age 40 have NO children), while those in the lowest income decile have the most kids (I think this holds for whites, though also for minorities); e. massive racial/territorial fragmentation due to the importation of tens of millions of immigrant invaders (ie, the walls have been pretty massively breached), every one of these diverse immigrant groups everywhere in the white world having higher than native-white fertility levels; f. ever increasing Jewish/leftist control over the media and academic (and financial, and legal) establishments throughout the white world; g. a constant legislative tightening of free speech wrt race, including the increasing criminalization of nationalist speech in the West; h. massive anti-(white)-racist / racial integrationist / miscegenationist propaganda having now penetrated every white mind everywhere (except possibly in parts of Eastern Europe, though I’m not qualified to say), such that the only white preservationists still existent are those of us who are sufficiently informed and independent-minded - always a minority of any large population group; i. steadily increasing rates of miscegenation, as well as interracial adoptions, everywhere (ie, white females not innately opposed to interracial coupling now have no ‘unnatural’ defenses, such as traditional lack of contact with non-whites, or legal/social prohibitions). Only we can save ourselves, and we will only be able to do so through a conscious act of political will. If we take no action, our race will go extinct (or, as I believe more likely, and have argued in various places in the past, be exterminated). 72
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:45 | # So you’re Silver,
No it isn’t. I can understand how educated people might think that if their only experience is with other educated people of other ethnic groups. Anyone who’s grown up in a blue collar area that went from white majority to white minority has already experienced a diluted version of what will happen. South Africa bad as it is, is still only a diluted version of what will happen. The proof of the pudding is already visible in the US flash mobs. When the stupider minorities realise white people have lost collective power and cannot institutionally defend themselves anymore they will attack. The first ripples are already showing. There is zero chance of a slow dwindling or “islanding.” Jews will be using the MSM to incite direct genocide at that point - rather than indirectly through films like “Django” and “Machete” - but even if they weren’t it would still happen. And it won’t be “black people” or “hispanics” doing it, it will be 5-10% of them but any attempt at collective white defence will be prevented by the Jews. .
The argument that any of this is voluntary while at the same time claiming to be on the same side would only be made by Silver. Immigration pressure exists independently and doesn’t need to be centrally controlled. However people naturally resist immigration into their living space - even from very closely related groups - for simple reasons of resource competition. The active part of this genocide has simply been the cultural war waged primarily by Jews aimed at preventing white people following their natural instincts to defend their terriotory. It’s not remotely voluntary. 73
Posted by Greg Johnson on Tue, 30 Aug 2011 00:50 | # GW: Can you rephrase your question? I am not sure what you mean by personal objective. Do you mean my personal vision of what I would like to see happen for the movement? Or do you mean what do I want to get out of it for myself? GJ 74
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:55 | # I mean, Greg, what do you personally seek to achieve within the movement. 75
Posted by daniel on Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:18 | # Is this interview article going to continue, GW and Greg - was looking forward to it - or will it remain only in the form of this thread? 76
Posted by daniel on Sat, 03 Sep 2011 19:24 | # Why not do a radio interview? The ones on MR are good, but infrequent.- 77
Posted by Lew on Sun, 04 Sep 2011 01:15 | # Good idea. Many people would likely find listening time for such an interview sans comments from the peanut gallery. 78
Posted by Silver on Sun, 04 Sep 2011 12:19 | # Wandrin,
You don’t have to like me, Wandrin, but that doesn’t mean whatever you say about me is automatically true. Now, this particular statement is silly even by your abysmal standards. Personally, I don’t even claim to be on your side (not strictly, but read on) but there’s no obvious reason why someone who truly is on your side would definitely not characterize the bulk of the actions that have led and are leading to dispossession as generally voluntary in nature. Other factors apply to be sure, but you want to remove the voluntary factors from consideration completely. I’m guessing you have no idea how dumb that makes you sound—which mightn’t matter as much as it does if you didn’t bill yourself as a mind-changer extraordinaire. PF seems to have performed quite the 180. As a reaction against catastrophist nutters preaching imminent doom that’s perfectly understandable. I’m not necessarily as sanguine about the prospects as he is, and some of what he’s come to believe is flatly wrong, but in general I agree with his view that things aren’t going to be nearly as bad as even what the usually fairly level-headed (by WN standards, anyway) Leon Haller seems to think (“extermination,” yeah right). Going back to whose side I’m on, I’ll put it this way: “On the side of race.” There’s a scene in the excellent film Shogun (one of those rare films to do justice to the excellent novel it’s based on) in which the Portuguese Jesuit Father Alvito, up to his eyeballs in political intrigue, explains how Japan’s political factions line up and the dynamics which affect their allegiances to stranded English pilot John Blackthorne. When he’s done, Blackthorne asks him, “And whose side are you on, priest?” Alvito’s reply (although I considered it insincere as it related to the plot) stuck with me since I first watched the film as a child: “On the side of peace.” My young brain was excited by the prospect that, rather than being forced to choose between two alternatives, either for or against one party or another, it was possible to dedicate oneself to working towards a third option that, if successful, would obviate the need to choose between the two previous alternatives at all. And so it is here, with race. I’m not “for” you (not in the way that you are) nor am I “against” you (the way your “enemies,” some more real than others, are alleged to be); I’m for the principal that, if adhered to, would (a) obviate the need for conflict (certainly for the most bitter sort) or at least substantially diminish any that does flare up; (b) eventually result in the sort of “race-based society” in which I believe the best sort of living is done. PF,
How is this “landing” any different to what already obtains? There’s already a significant proportion (a slight but aging majority?) of, say, English who, as you put it, “choose to remain purely english/british, and stay amongst themselves.” There are already “islands” of blacks (particularly in America) that other groups don’t feel the slightest inclination to attempt to penetrate. The Islamites already have their own peculiar ways of warding off outsiders. So, if all this exists today, how will you ever tell that you’ve “landed”? More than that, though, you say everything is occurring on a scale that “defies control.” If it defies control today, when you’re still the great majority, it’s hard to see how it will be more controllable in the future, when your majority is severely diminished (or non-existent). The “islands” you’re seeing take shape are nothing than more than temporary stages along the road to complete amalgamation. Consider this:
That’s how it happens. It doesn’t seem to matter how promising or alluring “preservation” or nationalist striving is, sooner or later, always come the exceptions. Being a purist is easiest when you’re the vast majority, because there are so few others that displeasing them isn’t a concern. But because there are so few others few of one’s own feel the need for anything drastic. As the numbers of others grows the need for something drastic becomes more apparent, but it’s tempered by a growing concern over displeasing the (growing number of) others. The need for drastic action doesn’t go away, however, so eventually the PFs begin making exceptions—well, sure, the niggers and the pakis are bad news, but come on, these anglo-dagos, who could possibly have a problem with them? The twin benefit of this attitude is the feeling of being absolved of the charge of racial absolutism—one is “no purist,” you see, he’s more than open to a bit of racial variegation, provided it’s contained within reasonable limits. (This is all quite fair enough, btw.) Thing is, it’s no longer just your opinion that counts. You (quite understandably) are open (be it sincerely or strategically) to the anglo-dago. The anglo-dago, in turn, is open (in this case more sincerely than strategically, I would hazard) to the, er, straight/pure/original dago; the original dago (to whatever extent he has racial feelings) is open to a still further degree of admixture, perhaps coming to encompass the Levant or certain S. American admixed types; and so down the line. And of course there’s then the nagging issue of superiority/inferiority, which some go out of their way to emphasize, with the result that some of those sold on its tenets either truncate their allegiances in such way as to racially “upgrade” themselves or go scurrying into the arms anti-racism, all of which adds to the existing confusion and doubt. For all that, I still believe there’s a way out of the mess. One of the major French parties is named “Union for a Popular Movement.” A “union”—a coalition of alliances of varying strengths (rather than an isolated coterie of purists)—for a “popular movement”—ideas and policies that will appeal to a normal majority (rather than an alienated minority)—is precisely what racialists (and nationalists) require if the sorts of changes they wish to institute are ever to receive mass consideration. Who are the groups who’d benefit from separation, from the legally constituted right to create social and spatial distance, from the right to exclude others (in various ways—all of which fall far short of anything a GW or a Captainchaos could gin up enthusiasm for, granted)? Either such groups exist or they don’t. If they don’t, you’re left relying on an every dwindling majority to stop what they’re doing, turn on a dime, and embrace a racial disposition they’ve spent their lives periodically justifying their avoidance of; all of which is possible, but, I think, bloody unlikely. My contention, of course, is that such groups (amenable to separitism) do exist; or if not, could quickly come to. Who they are, how they could be reached, what could be offered, are all interesting questions, but here and now isn’t the time or place to discuss them; for now, it’s just food for thought. 79
Posted by Silver on Sun, 04 Sep 2011 13:27 | # Haller, A bit of self-control, please. You’re at your best when you write calmly and dispassionately (as difficult as that might be to do). Your alarmist posts always leave me wondering about you. (And that’s coming from someone who understands you. Just because I don’t like you—or, rather, am wary of you—doesn’t mean that I don’t understand you. If our causes were identical you’re exactly the kind I’d want on my team; you’re head and shoulders above your average detractor.) Every one of the points you list has a something of a silver lining to it (if not, it will after I’m done with it!).
It’s far and away worst among blacks, representing a dramatic rise in the total number of blacks who will seek to move abroad (even if present emigration rates are maintained). Fortunately, however, they’re the least welcome of immigrants, and in a world in which racial issues become heavily politicized (which they’d have to if there’s any hope for racialists) keeping blacks out is a policy that countries the world over would benefit from cooperation and coordination; the beggar-thy-neighbor alternative will ensure we all lose. Secondly, African economies have been growing at a torrid pace the last decade. Ultra-high “pre-transition” birthrates obscure this growth on a per capita level (children don’t contribute much), but even measured per capita output is rising relatively quickly. We saw this is in the 60s and 70s only for it to fizzle, but there’s a much greater appreciation of markets (or at least a distancing from marxist nonsense) this time around so the fundamentals are sounder. Of course, even by my most optimistic calculations, Africa will remain mired far behind the rest of the world even one hundred years from now, so it will be important to emphasize the change (the total change and the rate of change) in African standards of living compared to what they were only recently. On the bright side, hereditarian doomsayers have a way of communicating the issues that tend to suggest they believe no improvement is possible for Africa, so if appreciation of genetic issues continues to gain in popularity we’ll be able to point to Africa’s success (relative to itself) that genes aren’t all doom and gloom.
True. But now the only way is up. “Stabilizing” the population isn’t nearly as important as raising the TFR to at least 2. Financial incentives should be able to see to that—we’re talking about less than one more child per woman (on average). What is lacking is widespread understanding and political will. With will, this issue’s a cinch. (The sooner we start, the better, though. My crude but reasonably accurate Excel simulations have Euro populations begin to seriously fall off the cliff after 2040-2050. While demographic momentum means that raising the TFR won’t have much effect before then, but it will help enormously in preventing the population plummeting after 2050.)
Look, Iranians aren’t going to be more numerous than Russians any time “soon.” The Iranian TFR is already under 2. And Russia’s already aware of demographic issues at the political level and has already taken steps (necessarily tentative) to redress the decline. Regarding military issues in general, do you seriously see technology losing its edge over manpower? And whence the assumption that the first thing growing countries do is invade their neighbors? I think race has gone to your head, Haller. Whites aren’t the only peaceniks on earth. (Hardly peaceniks at all, from today’s muslim perspective.)
The worst in this regard has likely passed. Again it’s a case of the only way is up. With the internet, no lying, bedwetting, race and heredity-denying liberal shitbag has a chance in open debate with a “neo-eugenicist”, and we’re only going to see more such debates, not less. Ultimately, what I’d like to see emerge is a consensus that since demography almost literally is destiny, it’s a government’s duty to acquire or adopt and employ the most effective tools of “demographic management” available to it. That doesn’t mean becoming “crazed” with anticipation of eugenic glory (the way a certain segment of eugenicists is); at bottom, it’s simply represents recognition that we need (and deserve, dammit!) these sorts of systems in place.
This “bright side” isn’t directly related to WN issues, but looking at it from a global (though not “globalist”) perspective, it “had to be done.” It had to happen, Haller. With the dynamic technological and economic expansion that took place during the 20th century it was inevitable this world was going to “come together” to a greater degree than ever before. There was no avoiding it. But now that it’s happened, now that we’ve gotten a sense of who we are and what we’re like, there’s little point in pretending that we’re all better off intimately involved with each other. Seen this way, the prospects for a more cheerful (“inclusive,” even) racialism appear quite good—and that’s true whether or not the sort of conflict you insist will be necessary will, in fact, be necessary.
Ever-increasing? If it hasn’t peaked already surely it’s bound to soon. And at some point unless it becomes responsive to changing mass demands no amount of control will help. Whites swallowed NYT-style liberal bullshit in large part because it’s what they wanted to hear. It’d be a mistake to assume it’s what they’ll always want to hear.
Good thing if it instills message-discipline. Has American freestyle blather really helped more than it has hindered? Something to ponder.
Mixers have always been there. It’s the absence of controls (like the simplest and most effective, territorial exclusivity, but also others, like social strictures) more than it is the presence of “propaganda” (don’t you think it’d be just a TAD freaking weird to see ONLY whites in ads or movies) that has seen the increase in mixers’ activities.
This last point’s a little different, and I can’t really claim any “bright side” to it. Fundamentally, it’s the entire issue. A “bright side” is an aspect of a issue that contributes to confidence in the success of the ultimate objective. In this case the “bright side” would synonymous (or near enough to) with having secured racial existence (or the conditions for it, which amounts to the same thing), which is the ultimate objective. (To reiterate what I said to Wandrin. Strictly, these aren’t my issues. I’m just commenting on them in a way consistent with what someone siding with you on them would.) 80
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 05 Sep 2011 04:34 | # Silver, I’d like to respond to you, and will. Am going out now for a while, but I’ve asked GW if I may post what I wrote a few comments back as a new, main post (I don’t know how to post, as opposed to comment), after which I’d like to copy your comment, and then respond to it. I will note this: PF seems to have performed quite the 180. As a reaction against catastrophist nutters preaching imminent doom that’s perfectly understandable. I’m not necessarily as sanguine about the prospects as he is, and some of what he’s come to believe is flatly wrong, but in general I agree with his view that things aren’t going to be nearly as bad as even what the usually fairly level-headed (by WN standards, anyway) Leon Haller seems to think (“extermination,” yeah right). (SILVER) My point is not as outlandish as you may think. I’m now a middle aged man, and even if I live another 40 or even 50 years (completely possible, and without spectacular longevity increases, ‘singularities’, or other hypotheses as yet still science fiction), I do not expect to be exterminated (murdered by street savages, or assassinated by leftists if I achieve some of my ambitions, are certainly possibilities). But is white extermination really far-fetched? I’ve explained at several times in the past why I think this likely, and it has to do with the confluence of the ‘minoritization’ of whites everywhere coupled with ever greater levels of miscegenation occurring in tandem with it. I hate having to repeat myself at length (I need to start some posts, so that I can then just refer people to past places where I already dealt with topics at hand), but in essence, the sequence is that as the numbers of whites in white countries fall, and numbers of nonwhites rise, there will be constant pressure (at first simply of numbers and availability, perhaps later political and/or social pressure) for some percentage of whites in each generation to marry nonwhites. These gene-lines will then be lost to the white race. Simplifying matters, eventually the only pure-blooded whites left on the planet, assuming no White Zion was ever established, will a) be living in territories in which they are heavily outnumbered by nonwhites, and b) will be those who are racially tough-minded; that is, whose personal psyches are such as to resist miscegenation (and probably interracial fraternity, too). In other words, in a century or so, I expect the last remaining whites to be 1) hugely outnumbered by (and thus powerless against) nonwhites, and this not simply considered planet-wide (as is the case right now), but within each sovereign nation-state or entity; 2) ever more racist (and thus not exactly endearing to their nonwhite demographic/democratic rulers), as over time only those gene-lines most psychologically predisposed to racism will endure in racially pure character; and 3) probably more economically and professionally successful than the surrounding nonwhites. Does this sound like any group we know? I recall as a child many times hearing from a family friend, a German Jew who got out of Germany towards the very end of the allowed emigration period, how surprised his generation of Jews were by the actual Holocaust (he was already an adult when he finally left Germany). He told me over and over that his fellow Jews in the 30s thought of Hitler as a madman, but genuinely never thought that extermination would be the outcome. It seemed too farfetched. Please recall further that whites are by far the most ethical race on the planet (that’s our whole problem, as I never of repeating - an incorrect understanding of the requirements of racial justice), and that Germans in particular have been a people greatly characterized by moral rectitude, partial proof of which is the enormously disproportionate contribution Germans made to theology and ethical thought (and philosophy, more generally, of course). And yet, they descended into Nazism and Holocaust. You can’t envision tiny white “islands”, filled with relatively wealthy, civilized and better-looking people, and surrounded by seas of mongrel/negroidal/Islamified peoples seething with both natural race-jealousy and (liberal-indoctrinated) anti-white hate, being overwhelmed and butchered out of existence? Does that really require so much imagination? Current black flash-mobs are a foretaste, and they are happening now. What happens when whites shall have idiotically allowed themselves to be put at these hateful peoples’ mercy? 81
Posted by A. Linder on Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:13 | # Please recall further that whites are by far the most ethical race on the planet (that’s our whole problem, as I never of repeating - an incorrect understanding of the requirements of racial justice), and that Germans in particular have been a people greatly characterized by moral rectitude, partial proof of which is the enormously disproportionate contribution Germans made to theology and ethical thought (and philosophy, more generally, of course). And yet, they descended into Nazism and Holocaust. Yeah…they were ahead of the world in almost every other area. But they were backward on jews. How likely is that? Of course the truth is the opposite. The NS policy jews was of a piece with German superiority in other areas. My god, that ought to be obvious to see today. Do we not face pretty much the same enemies the NS did? And how far have we gotten in opposing them? As Dr. Phil would say, how’s that Anglo-Christian conservatism working out for ya, white man? 82
Posted by danielj on Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:03 | # So who among us is willing to stand up and say that these brilliant, spirited, pugnacious men represent a loss? Or that they are to be classed as lesser? Or that they have lost some fundamental attribute which we possess? Or that they are to be treated differently and excluded from things based on the origins of their ‘gear’? Almost everybody that frequents MR is willing to go on the record stating as such. I’m sure not too few would assent to it privately. What to do with me and Uh are the least of our worries though. 83
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:20 | # Off-topic but - censorship at Countercurrents?? I posted something yesterday on a Jack O’Meara article. Was told my “comment was awaiting moderation”. It never appeared. Today I wrote the following, which still has not appeared:
I wonder why this doesn’t get posted. Any opinions? 84
Posted by Silver on Mon, 24 Sep 2012 05:01 | #
I’d say your reputation precedes you. 86
Posted by Silver on Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:20 | # Haller, Domineering and obstinate, with a tendency towards privileging economics over race bordering on treason, and too lenient towards Jews. The Counter-Currents crowd fingers free markets and Christianity as two of the leading culprits behind racial decline, so your stubborn defense of both will not win you many friends there; and while you’re not required to match their intensity on Jews, challenging it is considered highly suspect. 87
Posted by uh on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:26 | # Leon, Johnson and Polignano moderate comments. They always have and it has never been a secret. One sort of comment for which they have lost patience is the off-topic. They truncate repetitions of the Mantra, for example, with bracketed ellipsis. Commentary is not as free-style as it is here, but as long as you remain on-topic they will probably let your comments through. Your comment above was eloquent, succinct, comprehensive — and totally irrelevant to whatever you had just read. It’s James O’Meara and Jack Donovan, by the way. Both are excellent and timely writers, and don’t deserve to be spoken of dismissively. You could learn something from either of them. 88
Posted by Silver on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:00 | #
Learn something from them, like what? (I don’t mean in the banal sense, such as we could all “learn something” from some random five-year-old.) Counter-currents grows more detached from reality by the day it seems. Little wonder they’ve been losing readership for the last six months or so (not that they ever had much). 89
Posted by plum on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:33 | #
How to eat ass? 90
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:53 | # Silver/uh, Thanks for the replies. I was not being dismissive of those writers referenced in my comment above; I simply misremembered the one name, and failed to remember the other one in full. No biggie. That said, I suspect they could learn something more from me, but oneupmanship was not the point of my comment. Incidentally, I don’t think my comment was off-topic (it is off-topic here on this MR post). Other commenters were talking in a biographical way about their racial activism, vision, goals, etc. I just sought to add my voice to the noise. I asked Johnson why he wouldn’t let my comments through, and he said only, “I prefer you remain at MR”. I asked him to elaborate, but haven’t heard back (yet?). I think it has to do with bigotry against Christians (and not free enterprisers: I don’t think Alex Linder would have his comments rejected, and he’s very economically libertarian). Johnson and at least some others there are very anti-Christian, and I guess wish to keep their site that way. But it seems rather petty and small-minded. A WN site should allow all pro-white commentary that meets certain minimum (intellectual, behavioral) standards - shouldn’t it? What’s with this vogue for censorship on the Hard Right? I find it at least as curious as annoying to contemplate the number of ideological sites from which I’ve been banned. It is a very long list, and spans the whole ideological spectrum: The Nation (understandable), Reason, First Things, National Review, The American Conservative, Chronicles, Countercurrents, Free Republic, Mises (for a while anyway; not sure of current status), The American Interest, and Standpoint - and these are just what I remember. Not sure if I’d be banned at Stormfront or VNN. JRichards et al. even tried to get me banned from MR! My only regular places still open to me are American Renaissance, Occidental Observer (though I haven’t posted much there) and, of all sites, The Economist - though the latter has removed some of my comments over the years. What gives? Is there no room in the vast internet for The REAL Right: Throne + Altar (hierarchy and Church), race realistic, law and order, militantly capitalist, pro-Western Civilization as a totality? I think the near-universal hostility to my views (among ideological elites - there are always ordinary posters everywhere agreeing with me) is itself a sign of Western decline. For my views are the eternal ideological essence of our civilization. 91
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:58 | # plum, You may be on to something. In my forever deleted comment on the O’Meara article, I noted that the author had a stench of homosexual about him. Maybe that’s the case? CC’s a bunch of WN gays or something, isn’t it? heehee - “WN gays” - there’s a base for a white man’s revolt! That’s got the liberals on the run! 92
Posted by uh on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:14 | #
Perspective. The art of relevance.
Woh there, broski. It’s more likely hostility to long form-comments about dead religion (Xtianity), unfeasible geopolitical planning (WZ), and dubious economic dogma (free market).
No. Jack is homosexual, but he’s a dom.
It’s about tempting them to our side by breaking down rhetorical absolutism. I promise you there’s more potential for a homosexual putting together phrases like “feminist technocracy” and giving book-readings in downtown Portland than whatever you are doing, Mr. Ethicist. 93
Posted by uh on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:19 | #
Past stages of society can’t be resurrected because you (think you) prefer them. Why is this surprising to you? 94
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:24 | # Slightly on-topic: Here is a comment I thought might make it to a post by The American Conservative‘s editor on the decline of the GOP as a national party (it did not)(unbelievable! I mean, WTF?):
I literally, personally, could not have penned a more mainstream comment. If the above isn’t “conservative” (and moderately so; I could have been much harsher), what is? 95
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:42 | # uh, Your comment #23 was uncharacteristically stupid, esp this:
Apart from the fact that some of my banned sites have been Christian, among WPs (broadly understood) there are far more Christians than atheists, most of the latter of whom for some strange psychological reason are lefties. Hostility to Christianity will get WN exactly nowhere (which means status quo, come to think of it). Free market = “dubious dogma”? PLEASE study Mises! (At least read The Wall Street Journal for a year.) Really, there is nothing to say. I have elaborated at length about WZ. No one has ever shown a more realistic or promising alternative for ultimate white racial survival. Without racial sovereignty, extinction via miscegenation is our future. I assure you, young uh, doing “first principles” ethical philosophy on behalf of the white man’s right to survive is as important as any other element in the WP agenda except anti-immigration activism. Maybe what I need is my own website ... 96
Posted by uh on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:54 | # I have been feeling stupid lately. I blame the internet. You know I am a primitivist who believes civilization must be dismantled, or ought to know, so why bother exhorting me to read Mises. I would nonetheless attempt it if I had the materials in tangible form. You have my e-mail, feel free to ask for my address and send me free copies of whatever you like. Please include sexy photos of your girlfriend.
Goes like this: The second set forms not an elite, though it produces an elite set (Dawkins et al.), but an entire breeding group, very probably genetically distinct from the first. See anonymousconservative’s work. Feminism / female hypergamy allows some cross-traffic of women from formerly conservative areas into cities to join the liberal breeding group, though these tend to never breed. The skeptical mindset is “open” to things — too open to shut itself down even when threatened. See Nyborg, Lynn, Harvey: “Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations”. Nations with atheist populations at 20%+ had highest IQ, GDP, and happen to be those with the strongest commitment to liberalism (Northwest Europe; post-Communist nations and Cuba exhibited high atheism but low GDP, and correspondingly lower commitment to liberalism; Japan has high IQ, GDP, but still relatively isolationist, though socially liberal among themselves). This by the way is why I do not worship high IQ — nor GDP and free markets.
I enjoy your lengthy elaborations of WZ. Just as I enjoyed Hunter Wallace’s. Doesn’t make it realistic in the least though.
You’ve been threatening us with that for two years!! 97
Posted by Silver on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:21 | #
I believe you, and therein lies your problem. Your approach stops people dead in their tracks and forces them to choose sides, to agree or disagree, rather than to think. If what is proposed seems “too much” they’ll disagree, cut you off and not give it any further thought. The beauty of the Brimelow/Sailer approach is that it generates ongoing thought and discussion. It’s a pity there are so few outlets for people who come to agree that there is something to think about it/be concerned about and want to discuss it further. Sailer on his blog does his best to accommodate stronger views, but he wisely trims their sales, because, as we’ve seen time and again, to allow them free rein ensures bad racialism will drive away good racialism.
I think it’s okay to feel that way (ie to love your kind and take joy in its history), but I don’t think you’re going to convince too many intellectuals on a rational basis to see it that way because they can too easily see through it and tell you that that’s not really how it all happened. This again is where the Sailer approach is superior because it forces these people to think about things they’d rather not think about, about issues and aspects of reality that they can’t respond to you rationally about because rationality doesn’t support their views. Your approach can at best shore up support from those already committed, which is not nothing, but there’s obviously a great deal more required than merely that, especially at this stage.
You haven’t elaborated at length about WZ at all. You’ve made a decent case for why it’s necessary, but you’ve scarcely touched on the how. That’s so typical of WN. You people have facts and figures coming out of your ears, you’re oozing racial identity…and nothing else. You’re all dressed up with nowhere to go. I think that’s reason alone to consider my neo-segregationist, “anti-anti-white” approach superior: more realistic, more practical, more likely to garner support; would buy time and provide a firm base to build from; would not be in vain rather would actually deliver racial salvation—and while I’m at it, heck, I also think it’s more moral (but it’s okay, no one reading here need agree). The true beauty of it, however, is that it doesn’t appeal only to whites, but could actually build a “Racial Majority” (like a “Moral Majority”) of racial realists and separatists. Importantly, it both neatly avoids getting bogged down in the interminable “who is white?” bickering as well making it okay (painless, perhaps even preferable) to identify away from whiteness. As Lister might put it, this reduces the psychological costs of participation, and it does it for both whites and non-whites and in a mutually reassuring way: non-whites are more likely to participate/cooperate if there are no/low penalties and, in turn, whites are more likely to participate if they feel participation doesn’t pit them in an endless conflict with non-whites. Now, if you’re who I think you are you might dismiss all that as totally impractical or absolutely impossible or completely undesirable and the product of a decadent, mammonite mindset. But if you’re not who I think you are, if you’re not sick to your soul with loathing of human existence as we know it in 2012, then you might consider it a worthwhile approach or at least an avenue worth exploring, particularly when you remind yourself of just how little else is on offer out there that contains within it even the faintest trace of practicability and long-term feasibility.
98
Posted by Greg Johnson on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:11 | # This is Haller’s first attempt at commentary at CC:
He walks into my home, insults one of my guests, tells me what I need to be doing, and then feigns incomprehension when I give him the bum’s rush rather than bring him a drink and offer him a seat at the table. Haller’s views are the sorts of things that have been weighed and found wanting some time ago by me and our other contributors. But he doesn’t know that, because he didn’t bother to spend some time reading the site. Haller is just looking for a new forum to sound off and express himself. But that’s not what we want from commentators. People who come to me with demands are rebuffed. People who come to me with something to offer our project, even if it is just an open mind, are welcome and will be allowed to participate. It is as simple as that. 99
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 26 Sep 2012 01:19 | #
Why are do you care, Leon? Are you on the down-low like Johnson? 100
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:23 | # Captainchaos, No, I’m not on the “downlow” (or any other low). I happen to think there are some interesting conversations going on at Countercurrents, and (contra Johnson) after reading a number of posts and comments, I thought I’d offer up my perspective on some of these matters. Apparently Johnson has some type of Napoleon complex, and doesn’t like even the mildest criticism (even when not directed at him personally). Greg Johnson, My, you are a touchy one, aren’t you? I’m making “demands”, am I? A less emotionally volatile personality might recognize a helpful suggestion. My rather harmless comment ought not to have elicited your censorship, or even the comments made here. For one thing, I have indeed read a number of CC essays (incl several by you, though none recently). Perhaps I find your views unpersuasive? I sense that you might find a fellow white preservationist viewing you and your epigones with something less than awe to be unsettling. From this little episode it seems to me that “open minds” and the possibility of fundamental disagreement are precisely what you do not want (in this you are tediously like so many others: National Review wanting only neocons; Chronicles only Christian traditionalists; Reason left-libertarians, etc.). I didn’t notice that all your other commenters are substantially more rigorous than I was in my two attempted comments (I dimly thought that I had left some other comments in the past, but perhaps not), or that they refrain from animadversions. Therefore, I don’t think you’re being sincere in your huffing and puffing. I think your real agenda is twofold: first, to direct the meta-conversation in your preferred ways; and second, to protect your ego from even the possibility of being subjected to serious intellectual challenges. Hardly intellectually commendable, eh? Oh, and I guess I was right about that queer stench. I hadn’t known anything about it. Just a ‘stab in the dark’. uh, That the percentage of atheists rises with IQ does not establish that theism is false. Pro(nonwhite)-immigration sentiment also rises with IQ. I went to one of the most elite schools in the US, and it was filled not only with Jews, but lots of white liberal jackasses (not mutually inclusive, either). There is at best a weakly positive correlation between intelligence (esp as demonstrated on standardized tests), and traditionally understood ‘wisdom’. BTW, I have never maintained that WZ is realistic or likely; only that it is more realistic than other WN alternatives (esp within the Anglosphere). In 40 years when I’m dead, you’ll see I was correct. Silver, I have at least broached the “how” wrt WZ. But how follows from why. There’s no point in jumping to the pragmatic until there is widespread agreement about the need. I do tend to think that race, unlike widely misunderstood economics, is visceral - either you get it or you don’t. I hear of conversion stories (“I used to be an n-word-lover, but then I got beat up, and ...”), but, having always myself been instinctually Hard Right, I am never able to process them. I think you expect me to be familiar with your “neo-segregationist, “anti-anti-white” approach”. Could you paste here something from the past which explicates your strategy? I believe I’ve responded to it in the past, noting that nonwhites have too good a deal parasiting off whites to agree peacefully to give up their sweet deal in the interests of mutual racial comity and segregation. But perhaps I am not recalling your whole argument. 102
Posted by Silver on Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:00 | #
But the perceived possibility of it feeds directly into the probability of it. If people can see how such a plan might work, what would be involved, what the costs might be, the opportunities afforded etc., then they’re much more likely to get behind it. As it stands you’re just telling people “You need to support WZ and here’s why.” Or “You need to relocate and here’s why.” Or “You need to stand and fight and here’s why.” Well, okay, but what is WZ, whither do you relocate, who decides, whom do you shoot and so on. It’s just all so vague. There’s no wave to hop on and ride.
Most people don’t really know what they actually believe. I’d say it’s rarely anything definite. People are mostly a mix of feelings and viewpoints, often contradictory, whose intensities vary in relation to each other perhaps randomly but probably mostly in response to events. So the potential for a person once leaning one way to abruptly lean another is usually there, and every so often you get these extreme “polarity reversals” from self-abnegating niggerlover to raging neo-nazi.
Sorry, you’re right, I haven’t really discussed this much on this site, nor in any great detail anywhere else. It’s more an “attitude” towards dealing with the whole race thing than any specific proposal, and I think it comes through fairly clearly in my comments at Sailer’s blog, and an attitude from which firm policies could much more readily emerge than from a WZ approach. As for non-whites having it “too good” from whites, well, that’s true, but blood still matters to them, and when you get down to it it’s really a choice of having them (continue to) unite around anti-whiteness (and hope that this will galvanize white racial resolve—which for the past 50 years has been dissipated in appeasement tactics) or attempt use the existing divisions between them to your benefit. Moreover, very few non-whites are actually aware that the benefits they enjoy derive ultimately from white productivity. The anti-white power structure also denies this reality so forcing non-white leaders (who tend to be more aware of it) to openly admit (as openly as they can) that they prefer the anti-white status quo because it enables them to leech off whites would probably go a long way towards opening whites’ own eyes to their predicament. Remember, you don’t need all of them to side with you; you just need enough to form a “pro-race” majority or pro-race “critical mass.” And I never said it had to be all carrot; I’m just saying it needn’t be all stick.
103
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:15 | # Of course, WZ is not a totally worked out agenda. I’m just planting an intellectual seed. It will be a long process, even in the admittedly unlikely event it occurs. I’m still basically with commenter uh: I think the white race is doomed to extinction (and perhaps ultimately all races, though I’m less sure of this: there are so many Chinese/Orientals and Indians that I see their races continuing for indefinite centuries; perhaps also for Africans). WZ is a ‘last-ditch’ attempt to prevent this. The fundamental insight behind WZ is not geopolitical, but social psychological. The contemporary world has revealed a (latent) flaw in the structure of white mentality. Whites are excessively individualistic. While I think this would be admirable in a world of overwhelming white numerical dominance, it is disastrous in a world which has evolved demographically as ours has (even though these population imbalances are themselves due to the altruistic proliferation of white technologies). Eventually, whites will enjoy racial sovereignty (ie, electoral majoritarianism) nowhere. This situation will have been produced not only by immigration-colonization, but also ever-increasing miscegenation, acceptance of multiculturalism, and state-mandated geographic and professional/workplace integration. Perhaps the white racial death sequence can be depicted thusly: immigration > mandatory integration + multiculturalism > miscegenation Most (though not all) WNs are in agreement that our race will only endure over the very longest run if we come to enjoy again racial sovereignty. We need the White Republic (or, for Old Worlders, we need the European nations to be explicitly white/ethnonationalist again - to remove the alien cancers, and declare that they shall never be allowed to take up residence on European soils). The problem is that most whites do not agree with us (if they did, there would be no problem). The question is whether they ever will. My reluctant belief is that they won’t - which is related to the aforementioned defect in white mentality. I have always been instinctively pro-white. [My concern has been with justifying WN within Christian parameters.] Most whites are not, or at least, are more easily brainwashed into race-denial than other races. This psychological fact (and I think it is a ‘fact’, even if not definitively empirically established) is of tremendous political significance. For a long time most WNs, myself included, just thought that the ‘white awakening’ process was one of finding ways to circumvent the Jewish-controlled media and get the truth about race out there to our people. And that is still the case - for some whites. But either for most whites, or else for a large minority of whites (which, in combination with bloc-voting nonwhites, translates into multiculti electoral majorities), race is meaningless even when presented with racial truth. What do you do if a large number of your tribe wish to commit (racial) suicide, and an equally large number are indifferent to racial death? WNs are an ideological minority, even of whites - and I believe always will be, even of whites. Therefore, what can WNs do to preserve the race? The only answer is segregation, secession, sovereignty. The last insight informing WZ is that this sequence would actually be easier to achieve via WN immigration to an underpopulated country (eg, like your homeland of Oz), than to attempt to either ‘take back’ traditional nations, like France or UK, or to secede from an existing polity (like the US). WNs are always going to be ideological minorities in normal nations (and I’m using “WN” loosely, simply to mean anyone interested in preserving the whiteness of white countries; if used with the alienating precision of the bizarre Countercurrents crowd - “Nietzschean/Heideggerian/postmodernist fascist with a bit of San Francisco leather-faggot thrown in” - then this ideological formation is vanishingly small to the point of absurdity). Our only hope is to unite and ‘conquer’ our own territory, exactly as the Mexicans are peacefully conquering California.
105
Posted by CS on Sat, 29 Sep 2012 03:08 | # Leon, Instead of knocking heads with the same ten or twenty people here, why don’t you propose your idea on Stormfront? There are thousands of users there. 106
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:32 | # uh, Is that the best you can do? Exactly what did I say above that you find untrue? CS, I’m not sure if I wasn’t banned from Stormfront for being insufficiently antisemitic. Can’t recall. Anyway, I guess I need to gather up a bunch of my lengthier MR comments re WZ, combine them into one ‘forwardable’ propaganda piece, and then submit around the WN web. In the meantime, if you are a Stormfront regular, feel free to post this comment of mine or any others from the past dealing with WZ. I know I’m in the minority, but I really think WZ has great potential traction, especially for those of us in the “New World Anglosphere”, that is, who do not hail from ancient lands, with all the attendant psychological costs natives of such lands have giving them up. 107
Posted by uh on Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:58 | #
Um, no. Just don’t care. You’re kind of an egomaniac.
And here’s why: you’ve already been roundly banned and ignored for doing precisely this, yet you haven’t learned. 108
Posted by CS on Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:13 | # Leon, Just get a new Stormfront ID and post it there. You don’t have to gather all your previous postings. Just write several paragraphs about the idea and why it is good. You can steal my ideas here.
Think of the advantages if we could pull this off. We would be the ones in power so we can control the education system. We get to decide what is taught in the schools and what books will be used. We will be able to control the media in that country. Moreover we will actually be the media producers and we will have no problem selling our product because a huge percent of the population will agree with us. No more hate speech or hate crime laws. No more worrying about losing your job, career and kids because you said the word “nigger”. No more affirmative action. No more mudsharks flaunting their negro thug boyfriends and mongrel kids in your face every time you leave the house. No more negro crime. No more of your taxes being used to support some welfare mammy with five idiot kids from five different fathers. No more non-white (or white) scumbags being let into the country to leech off the taxpayers. No more bullshit refugee claimants scamming your tax dollars. No more Jews and other non-whites swindling your money every way they can. No more having your white daughter being harassed by blacks in school. No more worrying about your daughter coming home with some spook out of some act of youthful rebellion. When we take control we can also do all sorts of fun things like hand out citizenship and the right to vote to our people who don’t even live in the country. We can start harassing antis in our country with impunity which will motivate them to leave. We can control government spending and have it spent on projects worthwhile to our cause. We can start practicing eugenics. We can deal harshly with career criminals and motivate them to leave. We can control the education system and teach our kids what we want instead of what liberals want. We can start producing white children for adoption to other countries. We could basically “gentrify” an entire country thereby making those who move there first rich by increasing the value of the land they own there. There are probably many other fun things we could do once we are in control of our own country but the problem is getting into control. Your choice white racialists. You can be the hated minority everywhere or be with people like yourselves and the majority somewhere. 109
Posted by uh on Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:41 | # CS, Leon could do much worse than to copy-paste your comment all over the place if he wants to promote WZ. And by worse I mean: go on in his own fashion. WNs like mantras. Proclamations of war. Litanies of the abuse we suffer punctuated by stark ultimatums. Not some christer with an Asian arm-piece talking about ethics. 110
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:14 | # Uh, I just think it would be good if there was one city in one small country that WN were gradually moving to. Over time it would become a bigger and bigger magnet for even more WN. And since some WN are leaving their countries every year, for whatever reasons, why not pick a few cities in a few small countries where they will be welcomed by an incresaing amount of the local population? 111
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 04:18 | # Uh, Shit, just remembered. Some libertarian types have the same idea with New Hampshire. http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?37657-Free-State-Project-It-s-all-for-LIBERTY! Here’s an idea. We could invite libertarians, Christians, pot smokers, whatever else to this small country as well. Then when we collectively have the numbers, we can split the country up between us. That will make our goal even easier. 112
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:27 | # CS, Thanks for your comment. I can use it, along with much stuff that I’ve been posting on the subject for years. Of course, come to think of it, your comment is fine as is - why not post it yourself at Stormfront, and I’ll post some of my stuff? The more different sources talking up the WZ concept the better (btw, it can be called whatever; I’m not wedded to “White Zion” as a name, only a concept).
My broader work is not intended primarily for the WN community, but rather, its purpose is to bring WN ideas to the larger white conservative community. Of course, my work that is of the most interest to me is precisely the working out of a white preservationist conservative paradigm which is compatible with Christian ethics. Ultimately, that is a far worthier and more momentous task than trying to persuade a bunch of mostly low-ethics (and frankly, not especially high-IQ, however they pathetically fancy themselves) atheists to be interested in my own ideology. The white race will not be saved by WNs, but by spreading WP ideas to a lot more ordinary whites. 113
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:11 | # One WZ problem - European/US nationalists attachment to their home lands. Many/most would rather fight and die than willingly give up an inch to the invasion. Talk of relocation attracts accusations of cowardice - “if you run from trouble here what will stop you from running again when trouble comes to WZ” - Had this argument recently in a thread. Honorable death is preferable to even tactical withdrawal. “My fathers fathers father fought and died for this land - everywhere else sucks but here, because, well, it is just not like here” etc etc. Personally, I am sold on the idea, at least to an extent. Unless as an extreme last resort, it is a tough sell to most I fear. 114
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:31 | # Unk Leo, The Whitopia plan is not perfect and probably not for everyone. But some of our people are already moving, (especially from the UK) where the insanity is highest. I suppose I for one am more willing to fight for Whitopia which hopefully will have tons of WN people as opposed to the lemmings and traitors that fill the country I currently occupy. The Whitopia can also serve as a place of refuge for our people who are being specifically persecuted including being made unemployable by their own government. 115
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:57 | # I concur fully CS, I would move there in an instant myself if I could (life amongst the ‘goy’ is starting to really, really piss me off). Leon oft complains that his WZ posts attract no attention or support here so I mainly wanted to let him (and yourself) know of the objections that came up when I mentioned the idea on another site recently. Opposition was fierce. The reasons for that opposition were noble, possibly, but wise? possibly not. (I can link to the relevant thread if you’d like to see it - it came about after a discussion in Occidental Dissent on the possibility of commandeering a Caribbean island to set up as WZ). 116
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:23 | # Unk Leo, Well I’m glad to see we finally made a “convert”. Now there’s three of us. Yay! BTW, I just added another paragraph to my “mantra” Here it is.
117
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:31 | # Unk Leo, The Whitopia idea is based on the Pioneer Little Euope model where like minded WN people move to the same place. Currently there is one in Kalispel Montana which is having some success. The Problem is that the American government will never willingly let Montana secede even if we could get ten million WN there which we couldn’t anyway. With Whitopia, there is no need to “secede”. We just take over the same ways gays have taken over parts of certain cities. 118
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:57 | # Absolutely CS, self-sufficiency and tribal actions - Easier to do in the US than Europe maybe - I am in the UK where this would be an exceptionally difficult strategy to pull off. White genocide is just not an option though, whatever it takes. This is the thread I mentioned CS - from an English site that MR links to. These guys ain’t kidding. They will not budge. The fightback hasn’t really started here yet, and these folk expect to be in the thick of it, if and when it does. My concern is that of casualties. We cannot afford to lose too many. Better to join up and fight concentrated. http://www.englisc-gateway.com/bbs/topic/34835-to-be-short-and-blunt/ 119
Posted by uh on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:02 | # uKn_Leo,
I see you’ve not heard of Operation Red Dog, starring David Duke and Don Black. ‘Commandeering’ is fantasy. What isn’t fantasy: land prices in Dominica and Belize are the lowest in all the Caribbean. Leave out the guns and mock-heroics, learn to love the land, gradually appropriate small businesses — and we might have the beginnings of a long-term strategy. CS understands this. Haller doesn’t attract attention because he repels it with his sententious attitude. We are having a discussion; Haller is wondering how he can be a successful internet demagogue. Big difference, chum. CS wrote a nifty comment and Haller goes, “I can use it.” Give us a break.
Then they will die, and without their longed-for fight. You understand this is inappropriate rhetoric in face of the faits accomplis of multiracial empire. As CS says, it isn’t for everyone, so fuck those who don’t like the idea. 120
Posted by uh on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:23 | # CS,
I wouldn’t call it success. I’d call two or three households of WNs in a single town, all possibly within ten miles of each other. Success is ownership of land and businesses, and the ability to promote immigration of the like-minded. Above all, success is breeding — whether women will be attracted to the venture will depend on our success at building a community and small urban presence. I’ll tell you what won’t work: waving flags like calling it “Whitopia” or “Pioneer Little Europe”. WNs love to identify themselves as this and that. That’s how already successful groups branch out. That isn’t how unsuccessful dissidents go about the task of reconstituting themselves. It is absolutely uselessly romantic to append grandiose or programmatic names to it; indeed, that people do so is a sign that they don’t have the right strategy in mind. PLE isn’t a bad idea of course. It is the right strategy, but it suffers above all from association with April Gaede and other “known” WNs. You, uKn_Leo, and I are mostly unknown. All we’d really need is financial backing, and recently I met someone who probably would not be opposed to considering that if I could get my own act together. By the way, I used to pose as “anon” from Belize. So I went down there for the explicit purpose of looking at some plots of land and taking in the urban scene. It is wide open for this. Wide open. Probably too close to Kwa for comfort, I mean financially, but a black government has the benefit of xenophobia — they don’t want to be ruled by whitey. Bigger threat is from a Mexican presidential candidate from the northern Corozal District, who obviously would open the gates wide for more latrino immigrants. One problem you have is that you don’t seem ready to make the transition from thought to action. Scratch that: you don’t seem willing to advance even beyond the manifesto stage of this thing. Every time I have proposed a location, you have shot it down and fled into rather tentative rhetoric. It’s time you tell me where you most fondly imagine this thing metastasizing. Please, for heaven’s sake, do not say Australia or New Zealand. You’re savvy enough to know Canada is out, so you ought to understand that those two are extensions of the Anglo beast-mother and no place for freedom-loving white men. Russia is also out because they don’t permit foreigners to own land. And we could not afford the costs of a start-up, nor cross the language barrier. I would also like to seriously, if half jestingly, propose Rome as a possible location, only because of CasaPound. But my heart, and the logistics, point above all to the Caribbean and South America. There’s also Maine and Vermont; I’m not opposed to remaining in Kwa. Problem with the NORTHWEST IMPERATIVE (lozlzlz) is, as I discussed before, it emblazons itself beyond its importance or the natural fitness of the location. The northeastern states are actually “whiter” than Washington and Oregon. Northern Maine is absolutely majority white and the land prices are absurdly low. The nearest city is Fredericton in New Brunswick, also majority white. The population is low because it’s quite cold. Anabaptists are settling in the region because of tourists and kaffirs back in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Good sign. I’ll probably end up there if I don’t top myself early. You guys can busy yourselves with manifestos and exhortations, but I began ironing out the logistics, on foot, years ago. Haller has nothing to contribute at all but his bullshit intellectual obsessions and egomania. 122
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:50 | # Uh, Thank you for your kinds words. I say that Kalispel is a “success” in that some WN people have actually moved there. I don’t know how many but obviously the more the better. If I lived in America and was retired, I would seriously consider moving there although moving to WZ would be better. They should practice my “market dominant minority” strategy in Kalispel. There should be a WN real estate agent, dentist, plumber etc etc for the WN to give their business to. Of course this should be done discreetly until Kalispel in “conquered”. About the “stand and fight” crowd. Unless the economy collapses which is possible or some other major disaster hits the UK will become more and more non-white and the average white fuckhead there won’t even vote BNP in secret to stop it. BNP support should have noticably rose after all those niggers rioted in 2011 but apparently it hasn’t. 123
Posted by uh on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:00 | # CS, The sad thing is that there are WN real estate agents. I know of one who, if it weren’t for a major anatomical flaw (which I can’t divulge), could EASILY hook us up with property and contacts in perhaps the most congenial nation of eastern Europe. In retrospect I ought to have approached that one more carefully and cultivated their friendship, but at the time I hadn’t connected these dots, of course. There’s also “Farnham O’Reilly” of Occidental Observer. We have a mutual friend who could introduce us. I believe he is open to ideas. For what it’s worth, I’ve been to Kalispell and didn’t hate it. But I believe it’s better to be surrounded by Caribbean darkies or South American wogs than by our own kind who despise and actively desire the very worst for us. We will never overcome the altruistic punishment hurdle because it is tied to reproduction: as long as some goodgoyim are having children, or live around children of any race, they will cop a paternalistic attitude toward them against the White Nationalists who are, ironically, saying the same thing. Cheers broskis. Have to start my day. 124
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:06 | # uKn_Leo, Unfortunately that link didn’t work for me. Yes, it would be hard to organize like I’d want to in the UK which is all the more reason it is probably pointless to stay and fight there. 125
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:33 | # Uh, Okay, long post here… 1. Ok, agree that we shouldn’t be waving flags and having marches on the street. Be keep a low profile and try not to attract attention to ourselves. 2. Yes, agree we should stay unknown, and not draw attention to ourselves. 3. Yeah, I thought you might have been anon from Belize. Belize has a nice very small population and speaks English so I like that. I think you mentioned before that the government there would leave us alone unlike ZOG controlled governments like Australia or Canada. 4. I actually haven’t shot down any location ideas. Well, I do try to find the pros and cons of each place and try to find the best one. Australia has some advantages and disadvantages. Belize has some advantages and disadvatnages. Which is better? We should have that discussion but that discussion is pointless unless some people are actually willing to move. Ha, yeah Canada is out, although I have toyed with the idea of “conquering” Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland and separating. 5. I don’t know much about Russia. I toyed with the idea of going to the Russian government and offering them a deal. You give us some land and let us to whatever we want on it (to be left alone) and we’ll pay some set fee in taxes to you to do so. Maybe this could work in some Third World shithole. Give us some land and leave us alone and we’ll give you money or better you perhaps we could collectively “buy” our own country that way. Let us buy some land and separate from you. We might get a good deal if we can bribe some corrupt SOB to do so. 6. The problem with the KWA is that they are not going to let us separate peacefully which is the whole point of what we’re doing. Furthermore, America apparently makes it a major pain in the ass for white people to immigrate there so we don’t get the benefit of worldwide whites converging on the same place. With the NW front, all the government has to do is follow the internet paper trail to find out who to round up if hostilities break out. 126
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:37 | # Uh, Yes I agree we need to separate ourselves from white lemmings just as much as we do from non-whites. 127
Posted by daniel on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:48 | # Greg Johnson sent me an email that I have been banned from commenting on Counter Currents. In service of feedback, I think I ought to impart what the issue was about.
Dyal was receiving some complements. Whereas I have reservations - first of all, I am not sure how White he is or if his concerns are really for Whites, therefore if he should be looked upon as one to be heeded in a very serous way by those concerned for White interests. He has expressed his valuation of intellectualism above all - above the White race by implication; also has expressed a valuation of some sort of ideal version of masculinity above Whites…. there are other dubious things, none of which had me calling for him to be fired…just wondering… I was clear to say that I was sure that he would not be fired from Counter Currents nor did I think he should be. Of course, it is possible for non-Whites or people who are not purely White to contribute to White interests and to be sincere in doing so. (Note that I did not question the validity of Alexander Jacob’s contributions). However, in Dyal’s case, I have some questions. It seems to me that for him, White interests are a spurious and academic after thought more than an organic concern. I expected the comment to be met with consternation but I did not think that it would lead to my being immediately banned. Johnson said that he does not accept Whiter than though arguments. Well, it is not just that. I am not a purist and accept some gray areas, but in more ways than one, I think Dyal takes matters in questionable directions for those truly concerned for Whites and that it bore an account. So, this is a warning to those who might comment on counter currents, don’t look at Dyal, listen to him and wonder… 128
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:02 | # Daniel, At this point I’m not sure how picky we can choose to be. As long as someone supports my litmus test of keeping out non-whites I’m pretty flexible about everything else. 129
Posted by daniel on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:55 | # Daniel, At this point I’m not sure how picky we can choose to be. As long as someone supports my litmus test of keeping out non-whites I’m pretty flexible about everything else.
130
Posted by daniel on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:17 | # More, I don’t know if Dyal supports this: “As long as someone supports my litmus test of keeping out non-whites I’m pretty flexible about everything else.” By the way, your comment number 110 was a good one. And I think it might be facilitated through the DNA Nation to begin.. 131
Posted by CS on Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:24 | # Daniel, Thanks. Here is my new revised CS Mantra with new material. Let’s cut to the chase. The problem is that WE are vastly outnumbered by white liberals, white lemmings, and non-whites in our own countries and I don’t see how that is going to change short of an economic collapse or civil war that may or may not come and if does come will probably be used as a pretext by THEM to install dictatorship and make things even worse. However, if all functional white people from all over the world started to move to one small country we might eventually have the numbers to take over and run things or at least influence things enough so that in the long run we will. Think of it as international white flight. Think of the advantages if we could pull this off. We would control the immigratoin system. WN get in no problem, in fact given incentives to come and non WN are not, nevermind non-whites who simply won’t be allowed in. We would be the ones in power so we can control the education system. We get to decide what is taught in the schools and what books will be used. We will be able to control the media in that country. Moreover we will actually be the media producers and we will have no problem selling our product because a huge percent of the population will agree with us. No more hate speech or hate crime laws. No more worrying about losing your job, career and kids because you said the word “nigger”. No more affirmative action. No more mudsharks flaunting their negro thug boyfriends and mongrel kids in your face every time you leave the house. No more negro crime. No more of your taxes being used to support some welfare mammy with five idiot kids from five different fathers. No more non-white (or white) scumbags being let into the country to leech off the taxpayers. No more bullshit refugee claimants scamming your tax dollars. No more Jews and other non-whites swindling your money every way they can. No more having your white daughter being harassed by blacks in school. No more worrying about your daughter coming home or getting knocked up by some spook out of some act of youthful rebellion. Another major advantage to Whitopia is that this will give us the opportunity to become a “market dominant minority”. This is where “we” have an advantage economically because we are happy to give our “business” to other fellow WN. For example, let’s take a real estate agent. Probably the hardest thing is getting leads and clients. In Whitopia, we always hire the WN real estate agent just as the WN real estate agent always hires us if we are say a plumber, electrician or dentist. We only go to stores owned by WN and give our business to other WN when feasible. How do Jews get rich? They do exactly this. When we take control we can also do all sorts of fun things like hand out citizenship and the right to vote to our people who don’t even live in the country. We can start harassing antis in our country with impunity which will motivate them to leave. We can control government spending and have it spent on projects worthwhile to our cause. We can start practicing eugenics. We can deal harshly with career criminals and motivate them to leave. We can control the education system and teach our kids what we want instead of what liberals want. We can start producing white children for adoption to other countries. We could basically “gentrify” an entire country thereby making those who move there first rich by increasing the value of the land they own there. There are probably many other fun things we could do once we are in control of our own country but the problem is getting into control. To make the job easier, we could invite other groups to come to our small country. For example, we could invite Christians, libertarians, hardcore economic conservatives, communists, pot smokers, queers etc. When we collectivley have the numbers we vote to split up the country between our groups based on how many “votes” we bring to the table. Your choice white racialists. You can be the hated despised minority everywhere or be with people like yourselves and the majority somewhere. 132
Posted by daniel on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 08:04 | # ...and it might be facilitated/coordinated with the DNA Nation not only to begin but also in its manifestation. 133
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:01 | #
Your anti-Hallerism, though hardly unusual, is also hardly warranted. Not sure where it’s coming from, though I would note that NO ONE was talking about WZ here at MR before I started bringing it up. And much of the discussion that you have now begun to grace with your allegedly brilliant insights is merely covering ground I covered long ago. I don’t think you understand WZ at all, at least not as I have envisioned it. The genius of the ZOG system, I think you’d agree, is that whites are being comfortably euthanized - not exterminated. If we were being outright killed en masse in streets throughout the West, even pusillanimous whitey would start doing something about it. But as you yourself have noted, most people just want to have football and beer (‘bread and circuses’). This is neither surprising nor even especially disappointing. Didn’t Dr. Johnson say something like this? Of all the things our hearts endure, Most people are not ideological fanatics, nor will they be. The circles of both interest and affection are limited. People mostly want to be left alone (the insight of classical liberals), but especially if they can also have a certain baseline of material satisfactions guaranteed by government (the central and brilliant insight of modern liberals). [Of course there is a lot more to the modern catastrophe - utopian denial of racial realities, Jewish ethnocentric manipulation of non-Jewish societies, the incorrect belief that white assertion of defensive, collective EGI is unethical, female liberation as a weapon of Occidental subversion, etc.] Although the white world is declining, it is still eminently possible to earn a living, find a female, raise children, live in a tolerably safe area, have fun on the weekend, etc, in most places throughout the white world. As long as this is the case, even most WNs are not going to head off to some Turd World rathole where jobs (and white females) are scarce, where the climate may not be appropriate (at least for us Nordics), where the lifestyle infrastructure sucks, where nonwhite crime and corruption are rampant, and where there are few whites but our WN fellows. Dude, there is no way I’d move to f——- Belize! What the hell would I do there? Be a big fair Aryan getting drunk and sunburned on a beach, dancing with creoles or whatever in the evenings? As I’ve said ad nauseam, all white racialist and secessionist movements should be supported. Maybe someday enough conservative white Americans will have segregated themselves from the liberals and nonwhites into geographically coherent areas, and perhaps, tired of taxes, pushy gays and welfare parasites, will demand secession. Whether they will achieve secession, and if so, whether the state that emerges is a teleological Racial State explicitly dedicated to white perpetuity, are clearly open questions. The purpose of WZ is to take over an existing sovereign polity, but one that is already disproportionately white. I’ve gone over in the past why Australia is the best place. uknLeo is probably right about Europe. These are ancient lands being demographically conquered due to internal treason allied with easily repulsed immigration. If I were European, I probably wouldn’t want to leave my homeland to the wog, either, especially when many Eurolands are still overwhelmingly white, and resistance does not seem futile (I happen to think resistance to the multicult is in fact everywhere futile - due to white mental defects, not nonwhite + Jewish power - but Euronats can be forgiven for wanting a Last Stand/Battle). WZ is really a New World Anglospheric concept. It is appropriate for Americans, Canadians, Aussies, some Brits who just want out, and of course for our white African brothers who desperately need a place of refuge. Australia is: 1. English speaking I don’t think it would be too difficult for lots of WNs actually to gain legal entry to Australia (of course, people should be silent in the beginning about their true intentions - no bloody d’uh!). Once there, people should be able to get economically established without excessive difficulty. Better still, it will be obviously easy for us to ‘blend in’ with the natives. Lastly, it won’t take more than a decade or so for some of us to start being politically successful. Australian conservatives and national populists will be only too happy to have us join their causes (and as we get more involved and entrenched we will change the political conversation, beginning with opposition to affirmative action and Abo-favoritist redistribution programs, later moving on to restrictions on Asian immigration, elimination of (false) multicultural textbooks in schools, support for Australia First foreign policy, etc - all positions already enjoying some support, at least among the Aussie Right). Over time, we will peacefully transform Australia into WZ, just as Mexicans are peacefully recovering their lost territory of California, not via violent invasion, but peacefully, through immigration and democratic political empowerment. WNs are more intelligent and ideologically motivated than Mexican migrants. There is no reason we cannot employ a “Mexicanist” strategy for our own purposes. But if we expect to do this via some Third World ‘outpost of progress’, well, good luck with that.
134
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:20 | # Daniel, I’ve been banned at CC as well, much to my surprise. You would think that Johnson would want lots of vigorous debate, but apparently he wants to be the ‘shotcaller’ re the shape of his North American New Right, and thus wants to keep at a distance intelligent and capable WNs who are not aligned with his views. Pretty petty, if you ask me. The guy also seems abnormally sensitive to even a whiff of criticism. What’s he afraid of? If he’s more intelligent than we are, as he seems to think (ludicrously, imo), then he should see us not as the antagonists he does, but as ‘teachable moments’, instances in which he can gratify his seemingly immense ego by instructing his inferiors in the errors of our ways. Just think of the opportunities we have afforded him to expose our delusions and confusions to the light of his greater wisdom and insights! Alas, “Dr. Johnson” seems to lack the rhetorical confidence of his famous namesake! [I think at some point MR should sponsor its own symposium on the NANR, to see if there’s anything of substance beneath their postmodernist bullshiite. I have my doubts. Even a cursory perusal of their site suggests that whatever of value they are peddling is largely derivative of the European New Right, with which I have my own problems, incidentally, despite my respect for many of its leading lights, and especially the early 20th century European “conservative revolutionary” tradition which it frequently celebrates.] 135
Posted by uh on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:47 | #
I guess Hunter Wallace, who as far as I can tell coined the term, was busy writing his SERIES OF FUCKING ESSAYS ABOUT IT at his own blog. I don’t have time to psychoanalyze another WN solipsist though. Believe whatever crazy self-serving shit you want.
You haven’t covered a tenth of the actual ground I have, bro. Nothing I say have you said. We might as well be on different planets. Go back to your Aquinas and martinis.
Yes, in the evenings. Mornings and afternoons, you’d actually have to work. I suspect that frightens you most.
Never happen: end of fantasy.
7. As rabidly pro-wog as the rest of the Anglosphere. Already full of wogs. You’re making shit up if you think otherwise. And clearly have not been reading Silver’s commentary, or seen Romper Stomper. By the way, Belize answers most of those criteria. 1. English speaking - check
It’s hilarious. You have no idea of adaptive trade-offs.
Thanks asshole. 136
Posted by uh on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:04 | #
1. There is debate: but you do not debate, you spam everyone with your christian-moneygrubber ideology.
You mean like spamming every WN blog and website with your tiresome form comments, then coming here to whine about it when moderators lose their patience with your bot-like behavior and justly ban you? petty like that, or are there two kinds of pettiness?
1. He isn’t afraid of you. He has an aversion to your breed — as have most of us. No one likes a narcissist. Your commentary acts as a mirror which you hang everywhere to see your idiosyncratic self-serving blend of the christer and free market cults.
1. Your first error is sarcastically pretending that christers and free market-worshipers can be taught. Evolutionists have been trying for over 160 years and have made no real progress. Why? Because it is a psychiatric problem, not a logical one.
137
Posted by daniel on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:37 | # Leon, I can agree: I would have accepted and you probably would have too, the comment being deleted, with some explanation for his reason if he were so kindly disposed, a warning, if he felt that offended. But an immediate ban without warning was overboard. I am not going to make the argument that there should be limitless free speech. I know good and well that there are certain things that I would not want to see, as a rule, if I had my own website or state in a White homeland - i.e. some expressions dissenters can take somewhere else. However, when it comes to free speech on the matter of racial hygiene, a site like Counter Currents should not be so closed to critical debate. That should be one of its vigilant concerns. Frankly, I was not comfortable being the one to put forth such a question - it is rather right-wingish. Nevertheless, Dyal and by association Johnson, are pushing the borders of what it means to be, and to represent Whites. I am not enamored of Dyal’s erudition and pedigree by itself. It seemed some push back was called-for. I rather approached the issue as one that ought to be treated as you suggested, as a teachable moment and occasion for a more nuanced understanding of the matters at hand.
138
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:56 | # Lots of hostility from the uh! Please, kid. What is your pedigree (lie if you feel like it)? You have an amazingly poor level of reading comprehension. Most of your criticisms above do not actually even contradict anything I said:
I guess Hunter Wallace, who as far as I can tell coined the term, was busy writing his SERIES OF FUCKING ESSAYS ABOUT IT at his own blog. I don’t have time to psychoanalyze another WN solipsist though. Believe whatever crazy self-serving shit you want.
You haven’t covered a tenth of the actual ground I have, bro. Nothing I say have you said. We might as well be on different planets. Go back to your Aquinas and martinis.</blockquote> 1. I started talking about WZ before I’d ever heard anyone else use the name, or had even heard of Hunter. I’ve never read anything on his site about WZ. But note: I wasn’t talking about the name in general, but about the concept here at MR. Reading comprehension? 2. In your second excerpt of mine, you assume I was speaking about your general topics of discussion here at MR, when I was plainly referring to your comments on this post re WZ, all of which, to repeat, I’ve covered in the past. Reading comprehension? [I get the sense you’re a bright guy who either never attended, or lacked the self-discipline to graduate from, college. Correct?] 3. I never said Oz was not pro-wog, only that it was more conquerable than other places (I did, and do, imply that there is stronger anti-immigration sentiment there than in Canada or UK, however). 4. If you actually think a large number of eugenic whites (the kinds who build wealth, and get things done - in the real world, uh, the professional world, my world, not your tattooed and pierced fantasy campland) are going to move to a place like Belize just to start a WN colony, then you are an idiot. By all means, I encourage you to go and start one up. Just don’t expect it to be viable, beyond a few ner-do-wells, like yourself. Quality whites, including WN-oriented ones, can do well for themselves right here in the USA, even in LA (my house ain’t Bel Air, but it ain’t the ‘hood, either). We want to escape the Turd World, not move to it. 5. What is a “form comment”? Something well-written, as opposed to stream-of-consciousness ejaculations, such as you emit? 6. You have no idea how pathetic and immature this comment is, do you?
The problem is that my current professors could debunk your high-school level philosophy, and you would simply not be aware of what had happened. Your level of humane knowledge is too low (itself a product of intellectual ill-discipline, and an inability to distinguish significant work from sophomoric crap). As to your criticisms of free market economics, they are worthless (in fairness, so has been most of what’s been written here on economics). You don’t understand anything about how markets work. Moreover, I have repeatedly drawn distinctions between value-free economics, and (my disavowal of) libertarian ideology - to no avail among the stupid. 7.
His character is made evident by his deeds. He bans not only those who disagree with him on fundamental racial issues (ie, multicultists), but even persons who may be in general agreement, but display insufficient awe towards one or another of his precious essayists (most of whom seem to be playing with Big Concepts, as opposed to engaging in disciplined ratiocination) by having the temerity to disagree or criticize them. Imagine that! “Egotistical” doesn’t begin to describe this guy Johnson, or you , either, who would often do better to listen and study, than endlessly ‘opinionate’. 8.
Silver and I actually have pronounced disagreements on economic theory. Not sure why you refer to either one of us as “money-worshippers” (though it is characteristic: you make a lot of simply false accusations as though they were fact). If I were such, I would not have quit a reasonably lucrative six-figure career to return to a religious studies doctoral program, would I? As to the fistfight, the answer is yes, several (none provoked by me, however). You? I suspect you are a mildly pugnacious type who gets his ass kicked or threatened easily and regularly. Large, self-confident men usually don’t have those types of problems. If I can find the time, I may start viewing your comments here at MR more critically. I gave you a pass because you were an ally against the tiresome eccentricities of JRichards. But your welcome is worn. We shall see who is the more intelligent. 139
Posted by uh on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:50 | # Faggot Haller,
Keep up the flagrant vanity. You’re really proving yourself. We’re all deeply impressed by your inane form comments and record of being banned. Not even I have been banned — ever. That ought to tell you something about your personality and your routine.
Unfortunately there is a world beyond Leon Haller. That you preface the lie that you were not referring to the term itself but to the concept of it with this vain disclaimer betrays that you believe you came up with it: and by the way, you didn’t come up with the concept, either. I’ve actually been at MR longer than you, a “WN” for equally long, and have been discussing it on and off with people for exactly as long. Go search for my writing at VNN if you want. You’re not fucking original. You’re not wise and you’re not especially knowledgeable about anything but your economics. Get the fuck over yourself.
Never went. Don’t care.
You’re still making shit up. Pure fantasyland. There is no real-world sense of “conquerable”. To take just one minor but fundamental angle: AUSTRALIA WAS NOT CONQUERED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Straw man: never said “large number”. Never specified any number, in fact. I’d like you to put your own reading comprehension to work by reviewing my recent comments to find where I made any statement of belief, instead of suggestions. You are projecting again. YOU are the believer. YOU are in school — and calling me “kid”, not even a decade younger! — studying a big nothing based on silly archaic beliefs.
You and I have different definitions of wealth. Mine is nearer the definition of the Chinese who are already down there taking over the towns with their grocery and dollar stores. Yours is overweening greed. The Chinese there don’t care about your “professional world”. But there they are, in a real country in Central America, slowly taking over the economy. Of course you have nothing to say about this because you’re a solipsist who can’t actually debate people with their own ideas: all you can do is repeat your own fulsome form comments and stand on illusory credentials no one cares about anyway. Guess what, hot shot? Chinamen don’t care about credentials. They don’t need ‘em. Most of ‘em down there DON’T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH. Understand yet, christer faggot punk?
This from a “man” in school studying “ethics”, and who has presumably never: - chopped wood for heat etc. YOU ARE AN IDOL-WORSHIPER. YOU ARE NOT A MAN. YOU DO NOT COUNT. NO ONE LIKES YOU. WE THINK YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. THAT’S WHY EVERYONE BANS YOU. YOU ARE NOT SUPERIOR: YOU ARE FULL OF YOURSELF. YOU ARE NARCISSIST. DO YOU GET IT YET? Ultimate proof of the above: JRichards and I are in agreement about you.
Spoken like a true homebody. Never been anywhere else in the world. All its other inhabitants are nothing but “turds”. Good for you! Dehumanization based on nothing more than ignorance really shows what a superior, moral kind of guy you are. It won’t be long before quality professional whites who can “get things done” are lining up behind a “man” studying “Christian ethics” in his early 40s who’s AFRAID TO GO TO THE CARIBBEAN.
Dodging reality: pathological narcissism. You know damn well what you do. Not my fault you can’t see past it to the aversive effect you have on people. We just don’t think you’re as wonderful as you do. As a narcissist, you’ll never wake up to that hard truth.
Your professors are queers who believe in fairies. I don’t care what verbal gymnastics they can do to pretend to themselves that their abstractions have substance. I live in the real world. You choose to inhabit an alternate one. Not my problem.
The “man”, the schoolboy christer money-worshiper, who just now reduced all of non-white humanity to the “Turd World”, calls himself “humane”. This level of hypocritical presumption approaches illness.
Sure I do. I just have different preferences. I prefer restricted markets. I prefer a low ceiling on personal assets. I prefer socialism. You prefer to confound understanding and preferring.
Value-free economics is a myth. Read an issue of fucking Adbusters. You’re always exhorting everyone to read Mises, read Mises, read Mises, why don’t you go read some of the cogent opposition you fucking solipsistic fag-man?
So is yours: endless spamming of the same old free market, christer tripe. Knife cuts both ways, but as a narcissist, you can’t be troubled to understand that. It would mean you might have to respect others’ opinions and preferences, and not spam their websites with your self-serving fatuous garbage.
Over-generalization. He has banned you and daniel: you because you’re a cunt who natters away about himself without regard for the topic at hand, and the self-obsessed daniel because he indulged in asinine, and actually embarrassing, speculation about the race of a contributor with a unique perspective and some real-world experience that would make either of you narcissist shut-ins wilt, by the way. YOU go hang out with Italian neo-fascist hooligans and write a dissertation about it, then PERHAPS we’ll take YOU as seriously. So far all we have from you are promises (threats really) of starting your own website, working on your dissertation, working on your big christer-mammonite treatise, how you’re going to revolutionize white nationalism rah rah rah rah rah!! Stop your obtuse eye-rolling and condescension at people who are living their own lives and go do what you think you can do, ‘cause all you’ve done so far, son, is fucking TALK ABOUT IT.
Your projection is priceless, seriously. Everyone can see it except you. Again: pathological narcissism.
You both worship free markets and “progress”. That’s all I need to know. Don’t care how two pathetic, vain, anonymous liberals affect to disagree with each other on how best to get more fake wealth.
You didn’t quit: you’ve admitted in the past that you took a serious hit in the recession. You suffered a loss, you didn’t STEP DOWN as you pretend.
Yea? Well, you have my e-mail, bro. Next time I’m in Cali I expect a time and a place, set by you. But you wouldn’t even meet danielj for lunch, so I won’t hold my breath. I will sweeten the deal though: I’ll fight you with one hand. No joke. There it is, faggot: you have my e-mail. I’ll let you know next time I’m in Cali. Time and place. Let’s see if you have the stones. Remember though: I’ve been to prison, wouldn’t mind going back, and have absolutely nothing to lose. If I’m the sort of man you want to challenge, I hope you’ve lost those “few extra pounds” from last Christmas.
You overvalue intelligence. /ignore 140
Posted by daniel on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:05 | # and the self-obsessed daniel because he indulged in asinine, and actually embarrassing, speculation about the race of a contributor with a unique perspective and some real-world experience that would make either of you narcissist shut-ins wilt, by the way.
You throw around the fag word pretty liberally.. ...but if what’s his name, Donovan, is a “dom” its not really being gay.. “and actually embarrassing, speculation about the race of a contributor” Look at him and listen to what he says. It is a valid question. “with a unique perspective” “unique perspective”.. same old fucking Jewish contrived ethnic studies combined with a homo erotic Nietzsche cult. YOU go hang out with Italian neo-fascist hooligans and write a dissertation about it, then PERHAPS we’ll take YOU as seriously. Gee, that’s awsome! How stupid. His real world experience of Italy and Italians? I’m going to wilt away from my brothers, you piece of shit? You must be desperate Uh. You are really kissing ass. I think you were in jail too long. You throw truck loads of mud. It’s bore. Go to Belize, so sensitive you are to the humanity of other races…remember how you liked scumming “on those carmel colored titties” Uh? Go for it Uh, go! 141
Posted by HW on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:24 | # As for “White Zionism,” I was using the term back in 2010 in a series of articles that I wrote about Wyoming. I’m sure those articles are still in the OD archives. In fact, I gave an interview to a reporter from Wyoming about “White Zionism” after he contacted me about it. I explained to the reporter that “White Zionism” in Wyoming was a purely speculative idea. I was arguing with HAC at the time. I thought it was silly for WNs to move to metropolitan Washington or Oregon and to delude themselves into believing they are living in a “White Homeland.” If you are into moving somewhere in the U.S., as HAC was arguing, it seemed to me that Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho offered the most bang for the buck given the whiteness of those state and the potential demographic impact of each White Zionist settler. Utah, a successful model, was colonized by the Mormons. Personally, I don’t think White Zionism has much of a shot in the United States given the antipathy toward Whites. What’s the difference between living in Alabama, Florida, Wyoming, or Washington? It doesn’t matter where you live in America. The same laws are applicable everywhere. You are going to live under the same tyranny everywhere. You are going to live among people who identify with Washington anywhere you go in America. Insofar as I have given this any thought, if I were to ever pick up and move somewhere, I have already ruled out Europe, Australia/New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada because there is no point in moving to countries which are even more tyrannical and anti-White than the United States. That leaves Central America, South America, or the Caribbean. I don’t know much about Uruguay, Chile, or Argentina. Uruguay and Argentina are very White, but I believe they are also very leftist. There aren’t many good options. I can only see White Zionists “taking over” somewhere like a small island. Even there, I would rule out the possibility because any WN regime in a Caribbean island would be labeled “Nazi” and would be overthrown as easily as Grenada. Truth be told, I don’t see any realistic option other than “stand your ground” and fight, except for maybe retiring to private life somewhere in South America. 142
Posted by HW on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:27 | # Pour 56 % des Français le “racisme anti-Blancs” se développe 143
Posted by gopher on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:52 | #
He does look like he could be a quadroon or octoroon, and kind of seems like a poser. 144
Posted by gopher on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:12 | # Dyal also has a degree in Black Studies from a university. This would fit in with him having partial black ancestry. 145
Posted by gopher on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:16 | # Blacks and Jews have wormed their way into the hard right before. See Lawrence Dennis and Dan Burros. 146
Posted by uh on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:12 | #
You and your stupid mustache. And they aren’t your brothers. /ignore 147
Posted by uh on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:14 | #
The great Hunter Wallace descends from the heights of Alabama to inform everyone of .... precisely what I’ve been saying for years. Brilliant stuff, chap. Thanks for the enlightenment! 148
Posted by Counter-Queers on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:14 | # http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20063233 According to orthodox psychoanalytical theory, narcissism and homosexuality are strongly associated. This association played a major role in pathologizing homosexuality. The present study compared self-esteem and two measures of narcissism among 90 homosexual and 109 heterosexual male students, who filled in a demographic questionnaire, Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, and the Pathological Narcissism Inventory, which addresses both grandiose and vulnerable subtypes of narcissism. The hypothesis, which is based on the Freudian connection between narcissism and homosexuality, is supported by the results, indicating that the homosexual students score higher in both measures of narcissism and lower on the self-esteem measure, compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Intra-psychic, as well as environmental, interpretations of the results are suggested in the discussion. 149
Posted by HW on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:00 | # In my more negative moments, I have considered Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay, but I have never seriously considered moving there or looked that deeply into it. I find that interesting in light of what you said above about Belize. What exactly are relevant laws in these countries? How about Costa Rica or Panama where a lot of retirees are moving these days? How easy would it be to move there? Didn’t you live in Brazil or something? You should write an essay about the potential of moving to Central or South America. 150
Posted by daniel on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:47 | # Posted by uh on October 01, 2012, 03:12 PM | # I’m going to wilt away from my brothers, you piece of shit? You and your stupid mustache. And they aren’t your brothers.
151
Posted by uh on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:48 | # As I’ve said here before, one could do much worse than Chile or Uruguay. The latter is extremely peaceful, probably too much so for Americans. One goes to these countries to mind one’s business and be at peace, not to stir up shit or expect big things. Argentina is white but it’s own world. There would be no hope of one fitting in without many years of steady lifestyle and serious efforts to make friends. Buenos Aires is a big, ugly city like the rest of them. Moving to any of these countries is a breeze if one has the money. Costa Rica and Panama have been gentrified and spoiled by too much American / global investment. Acquiring residency in Uruguay means two or three trips to city hall in Montevideo and a few small fees. Chile’s a little trickier but still doable. Land more expensive in Chile than Uruguay. Cheap properties in western Argentina, rest expensive. Uruguayan property still comparatively inexpensive. Brazil doesn’t allow Americans to stay in country over 180 days due to American law prohibiting Brazilians from the same in most cases. Property ownership is still possible and quite cheap, but one would have to refresh the stamp in one’s visa twice per year, and who knows what could happen with that. Belize is a different entity. It is part of the Commonwealth and its economy is tied to the dollar. What self-important stay-at-homes like Haller don’t understand is that Americans have already invested heavily in Belize. A plot of land I looked at, forty acres @ $25000, pure jungle with some good mahogany and redwood, abutted the much larger estate of an American rancher; I could see Brahman cattle from the back fence of the property I was viewing. There are almost no restrictions on whatever one might want to do down there short of not conforming to local mores. Mennonites own most of the industries; dairy, construction, and food production is mostly their show. American construction has encroached in the south where Mennonites haven’t settled. Kaffirs not a problem. They’re mostly the pacific Caribbean breed. They’ll try to sell one drugs all the time but one either says nah thanks and scurries away as they expect whitey to do, or maybe take a chance and make a friend. But oh, I’m sorry, non-whites are evil “turds” who don’t merit the interaction of the die hohen Herrn of MajorityRights. Mayans are fun to look at. Many in the interior still live in thatch-roof huts. Some speak English and Mayan only, no Spanish. Guatemalans are moving in at an alarming rate and have taken over whole districts, unfortunately, though they’re not bad people at all — just so many. Belizeans resent this too. Tourists must be considered a rotating permanent population as this is part of the backbone of the country. White people are everywhere except Cayo (interior) and Corozal (north). Usual types to avoid: missionaries, assorted American do-gooders, snooty Europeans, developers who want to make the place an American suburb. I’ll stop there. 152
Posted by CS on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:08 | # Okay. This is good. We are now aruging about WHERE to set up WZ instead of if or why. This is good. This is progress. 153
Posted by uh on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 23:00 | # I wasn’t arguing if, why, where, when, how, whom, nor any aspect of the idea — I merely made a suggestion. HW agrees that every sector is ruled out except the lower Americas. Oops, I guess uh might be right after all. HW also had the goodwill to ask a few questions, so I answered. CS, if you’re serious about this, and as of now I don’t believe that you are, the last character with whom to discuss it is Hallertosis. This is a man who lives in LA, studies theology, and whines self-righteously when he is banned by white nationalists. Sound like the sort to make himself welcomed by real-life foreign community? With that, I take my leave of the subject. 154
Posted by CS on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 23:37 | # Uh, I am interested in the idea, however I have no intention barring a serious lifestyle change of moving in the immediate future. I do however think it a good idea for those who are moving anyway to go to the same place(s). Basically do what the Chinese are doing in Belize. Uh and Haller are both right about the merits of Australia and Belize. Haller is not going to leave a 100K a year job in the States to live on a farm and it will be WAY more harder to take Australia than Belize. I like Belize because the population is tiny. The smaller the population the less people we need to get there to take over. If we ally with other groups it becomes even easier. One country I’m interested in also is Uruguay. It is relatively small population wise and hopefully isn’t run by ZOG like Australia and New Zealand. Haller, what about New Zealand? Basically the same as Australia but way less people. Perhaps take over the island which is less populated and separate from the other one. 155
Posted by HW on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 03:37 | # If I ever get fed up with BRA-ZOG and sick of wasting my entire life waiting for White people to assert themselves, I will probably head to Uruguay. It has been at the top of my list for a long time now. It is a complete waste of time to move around within BRA’s territory. You’re still trapped within the cage no matter where you go on American soil. You are still going to be living under this awful government with people who are heaping up their own funeral pyre and it will be Chinese water torture watching its slow demise over the next forty or fifty years. Lots of people go into exile. It is a common thing for political dissidents. Personally, I would be genuinely surprised if the present regime endures that long, but what should we do in the interim? Is there anything we can as individuals? If not, why squander our own lives? I’m not convinced our situation is hopeless. There are definitely moments though when I yearn for a long time out from it all. 156
Posted by HW on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 03:40 | # Perhaps Uncle Silverman can weigh in on the merits of Australia. 157
Posted by CS on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:45 | # HW, I’m glad to see you on commenting on this thread and agree with your sentiments. 158
Posted by CS on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:48 | # It will be fun to see what happens right after the election. If Romeny wins there will be big chimping from people I despise and if Obama wins (hopefully losing the white vote big) there will be a lot of pissed off white conservatives on Kosher Repubilc and the like who may become more responsive to our message. 159
Posted by FB on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 05:11 | # Why don’t you start your own blog, uh? I’d read it. Your instincts are sound. 160
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:36 | # Lots of commentary on “uh” above. Uh, who, like a female, worries a lot about popularity, hasn’t been very popular himself in any number of web venues (do some google searches). Who is this guy? Are you on some type of psychiatric meds, uh (as numerous persons in that thread above implied)?
Really? I don’t recall hearing you’d been to prison. Where? When? For what? Was it the time you tried to - kidnap? statutorily rape? - some blindered teenage girl you met via online chat rooms? YOU sure you want to stick with this prison story? I have the sources that could verify such a claim (especially as I - and others, it seems - know your real name) ... Anyway, it’s interesting to follow the exchanges between me and uh in this very thread. Uh is someone who is clearly not mentally stable. Note where he “went off” - it was after I noted my getting banned from Countercurrents. Why should that have been the trigger? Before that point uh and I have always had cordial exchanges, including via email (you have my email, uh - contact me as you wish or not). What’s the connection between uh and CC, that he should get so overwrought about defending Greg Johnson (whose behavior towards not only DanielS and myself, but at least a few others in the past whom I have also read him banning, is indefensible, except in the childish “this is my website, I can do what I want” sense)? Uh’s last comment about me @141 is so full of shit it’s not worth my time continuing this exchange. Little that he says actually addresses my points, except in form, not substance. Again, either typically poor reading comp, or perhaps uh gets flustered easily, and then loses it. I noticed some of this in his incredibly intemperate remarks addressed to DanielS at various places at MR. Whatever the nature of their intellectual disputes, Uh is quick to personalize the quarrel (as now with me), start hurling insults, and lose his cool - very emotionally immature behavior, characteristic of both females and blacks, but not of MATURE, WHITE MEN (which you clearly are not, Uh; “mature” I mean, though your strangely inapposite taking of offense at my use of the term “Turd World” causes me now to question whether you are, in fact, even a pure-blooded white man ...). Actually, there is something pathetically feminine about this Uh. Note how he attacks me: “no one likes you”, etc. That is exactly the manner in which teenage girls respond to what they perceive to be emotional threats.
Note how emotionalism starts to cloud uh’s never especially clear judgment. How do you know where I’ve traveled (in fact, I’ve been all over Europe, and North and South America)? Who said I was “afraid” to go to the Caribbean? I went there nearly every year growing up (family member had a wonderful beach house in the Bahamas Anyway, my rejection of Belize as a WZ possibility has nothing to do with fear (reading comp, my boy, reading comp ...), but ... my own preferences! I don’t want to live around a bunch of your now beloved muds. I can stay put in CA for that! I want to live among my own people - even if not all of them are WNs. In fact, my intention behind WZ is precisely that it not be a WN-majority place, per se, at least not right away, but rather, that WNs should have reached a critical mass such that they can bolster the power and influence of those less ideological native whites who themselves don’t want their nation to be flooded by muds. There is a huge difference between wanting to live in a place that commits itself to remaining permanently white (as the “White Australia” policy long did for Oz), and wanting to create a WN-fanatic back-to-the-land commune of militant atheists, socialists, faggots and excon statutory rapists, surrounded by muds in some Turd World shithole country. Get thee to Belize, Uh, by all means! I’m sure you could start your little commune. You might even gather up a few hundred WN beach bums and stoners. I guarantee that within my own lifetime more than half will have miscegenated. This is not realistic in terms of the larger WZ purpose (of which you understand so very little ...). WZs want the next white generation, fool! WZ must be a place where there are already existing whites, whose children and grandchildren can gradually be molded to think in WN terms. It’s a reverse ZOG process. I would prefer to do WZ within the US, but I don’t think the ZOG will ever let a section of its territory secede - they need productive whites for taxes to placate your precious seething muds. The whole point is RACIAL SOVEREIGNTY - and in the US we won’t ever get the sovereignty part. WZ is not about PLEs; it’s not about racial secession, NWF stuff. It’s about WPs migrating to a small country, already majority white, that we can gradually electorally conquer. There is nothing impossible, utopian or even unrealistic about this. People immigrate all over the world. They can stay connected to family and friends more easily than ever. And this will happen. The US is already naturally sorting itself out ‘ideogeographically’. This process may well one day be extended across frontiers naturally. WZ simply makes it happen for one group as a matter of collective organization, instead of individual happenstance. The idea is not complicated, but it is brilliant. Anyway, grow up, Uh. Perhaps I will meet up with you. I think you’re a talker more than a doer. If I don’t rush to meet up with WNs my reason is simple. I don’t want my photo taken, and thereby risk getting dragged out of the closet until I’m ready to step out. I’m at a typically liberal institution (which I CHOSE to attend; I lost asset values in 08, not my job, though maybe the firm suffered, too, as did so many others), and I don’t want to put my doctorate at ideological risk. But your macho posturing has no effect on me, I assure you. It just makes you sound like a little whiny bitch. 161
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:12 | #
Consider my off the cuff list above: Australia is: 1. English speaking A friend and I have discussed the WZ aspects of Uruguay for decades (for decades, Uh! - long before the internet even existed in commercial form). We did a scouting expedition there some years back in the 90s, staying for an extended period in Punta del Este (I’ve never traveled anywhere, Uh!). How’s your Spanish, CS? Mine ain’t great. Yes, lots of people speak English, but still ... The economy there isn’t dynamic. Are you independently wealthy, CS? Most WZ pioneers will need to work. What will they do in Uruguay? What about Tasmania? I really like the place (my mom took a lot of photos when there). Nice climate and geography (unlike most of Oz); an island, so sort of insular / self-contained; has a high initial quality of life. I’m open to any of these places - Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand. But, contra Silver, deciding on the specifics is less important now than persuading hundreds of thousands of WNs (WPs as I prefer) that WZ is our best hope. When there is a WZ website with tens of thousands of hits per day, then we can start moving on to specific decisions.
162
Posted by CS on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:16 | # A question for all. If some central, south American countries are easy to immigrate to, why don’t we get white South Africans to go there? Surely they would be better off there rather than South Africa. 163
Posted by CS on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:24 | # Yeah, I know Uruguay is Spanish speaking which is a bit of a drawback. Then again, we can form a white English speaking enclave and do business among ourselves in the enclave. I’ve thought about the economics of the WZ project. We need people there you have money so they can spend their money buying the goods and services of other white people who don’t have as much. I recall reading on Amren.com that in forming a PLE like Kalispel it would be helpful to have retired people living there you have income coming in without working. That way when they spend money locally they employ our people. The problem with your specialized skills is that this enclave would probably have to have hundreds of thousands of people before you would have enough customers for your services. 164
Posted by HW on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:23 | # Uruguay is 88 percent White. Most importantly, the country doesn’t sound like it has a death wish. It doesn’t sound like liberal totalitarian dystopia like the UK or Canada. It strikes me as the great place to go if you are sick of the West and want to live out a normal life. Much more research is needed. I have never seriously looked into this, but I am keeping my options open. According to uh, it is fairly easy to get residency there. 165
Posted by uh on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:12 | # FB, Thanks. But I find it impossible to write for myself, just sitting there facing a blank page. I simply don’t care enough about any one thing.
Yes, I know you’re a pussy. We established that a while ago. Will be in touch next I’m in Cali. You tell me where and specify my handicap, just to be fair. Daniel will guarantee no foul play (i.e. me knifing you). Time to man up, yourself. /ignore
Australia is probably a decent place to live, but have no doubt that living there only brings one closer to the black heart of Anglo ethnomasochism. Silver, as far as I know, has not once touted his country even as a destination for a single white nationalist, let alone this mostly silly notion of group migration. I mean I have never seen him say: Gosh, you guys, America sounds awful, why don’t you come down under? Why? Because it’s full of the same morons who won’t assert themselves, an anti-white political establishment, and filling up with wogs like Silver. Again: Romper Stomper was made in the 80’s. White Australia is a thing of the past. White homelands are a thing of the past.
New Zealand: you really need to do your homework. NZ is arch-liberal. No exaggeration. A white nationalist could move there and be around white people ... but the kind of white people who inhabit Portland and Seattle. Progressives. Liberals. Leftists. Sheep. You think they’re better than Caribbean wogs? Christ, I’d rather be stuck in some English town where at least I know I could track down some skinheads. AUSTRALIA = LIBERAL UTOPIA. You and Haller have a similar problem: you’re number-struck. You see “90% European” or whatever and it blinds you to the social reality. These aren’t good Europeans. These are the dumbest and most treacherous. You’d find more welcome among Parisians and Romans fed up with immigrants than among those insular Scottish numbskulls. I’ve heard NZ is a major tourist destination for lesbians, by the way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_New_Zealand Ditto Newfoundland. Lesbians. Progressives. Canada, bro! What the fuck are you smoking? 166
Posted by uh on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:41 | #
I’m pleased you seem to have a genuine interest in it. Theatrics aside, no country ever put me more at ease than Uruguay. I felt what can only be described as a low-intensity euphoria being there. Probably from being surrounded by modest Europeans who all resemble each other combined with the colonial architecture, antique cars, excellent weather, and so on. About this 88 percent figure. It is likely somewhat lower now owing to Peruvian and Bolivian immigration. They’re only in Montevideo however, and are not violent or anything. They mostly hang out in places like Parque Batlle waiting for work, like Mexicans up here. Most of them move on to Buenos Aires and work in kitchens, etc. If you have any color prejudice with respect to Europeans, you might be uncomfortable outside of Montevideo, where the population is tanner — I’ve read because many came from the Canaries; any case, most of the rural inhabitants and those of other cities are pure Spaniard, whereas in Montevideo there are tons of Italians, French, even old British, and of course some Jews. It certainly is not a liberal totalitarian dysoptia; it’s just too small and unimportant to be that way, and the presence of Mediterraneans guarantees a salutary level of corruption. The social climate is very normal. Could even be oppressive to overstimulated Americans. People are extremely laid back. The one word you will hear over and over to describe the place is tranquilo. There are troublesome parts of Montevideo of course, and theft is a big problem as everywhere else in Latin America, but you’ll never experience “gang violence”, be randomly assaulted by a wog, or shaken down by Montevideo police. The latter does occur on roads outside the city, but all they want is a wee propina to supplement their dismal income. The current president, José Mujica, is an interesting man. He’s former Tupamaros, a communist outfit that pulled off some kidnappings of foreign personalities in the 60s and 70s. Very humble man who hasn’t rocked the boat by an inch. Although the ruling party Frente Amplio is leftist, it’s a native kind of leftism that exhibits nothing of the globalist pro-immigration rot imported by American Jews. They’re simply not extremists. Their biggest social questions are whether to fully legalize marijuana and abortion. Check out the career of the previous president as well: Tabaré Vázquez Trust me when I say the research has been done and what I say is right. I deleted all of my Uruguay material, unfortunately, having given it up as a destination for myself. Speaking their dialect of Spanish — soft, fast and full of idioms — for the rest of my life simply does not appeal to me. Kinda silly because it is a natural place for someone of my heritage. If you want, have a look around at the Uruguay page of MercadoLibre for a feel of property values, bearing in mind that, as anywhere, deals are to be found in local papers. I don’t mean to make it sound like a paradise: it isn’t. There are tenements and drug addicts and stray wogs, like anywhere. And it is Latin America, so expect loud music, swarthy people, and so on. Within two weeks you will be absolutely sick of hearing Spanish and want to leave. Fight the impulse, make friends, drink lots of beer, and learn better Spanish. 167
Posted by uh on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:52 | # Btw, if you don’t read Spanish, you’re going for the second link (‘Inmuebles’, real estate) under ‘Clasificados’ on the left sidebar. Make sure you select ‘U$S’. Default is ‘Venta’ (for sale). For property types, where the default is obv. ‘Casa’, also look at ‘Campos’ and ‘Terrenos’ — I don’t know what the precise difference is, but they both seem to encompass rural land / farms. Under ‘Quinta’ (weekend home) you’ll find country houses (also known as a chacra) and the like. Many of those will be in Canelones, where many Montevideans go on weekends. It’s very common for people to have a small country house and to rent in Montevideo. Other good sites: 169
Posted by uh on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:00 | # Final note:
... this ought to tell you guys what a cunt Haller is: Punta del Este is the Miami of South America. Would you stay in Miami to acquire an understanding of the “real America”? As a matter of fact, Punta is a stop on the international circuit of the wealthy South Americans, Europeans and Israelis down here. Tel Aviv — Lake Worth / Miami — Rio / Punta / Buenos Aires. 170
Posted by uh on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:03 | #
No, you can’t. Isn’t how it works. But you’re comfortable where you are, so I’ve wasted my time.
LOL. I certainly wouldn’t inhabit any space shared by the likes of Haller. He’d be dead in a week. 171
Posted by Hesper on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:06 | # “Whereas I have reservations - first of all, I am not sure how White he [Dyal] is or if his concerns are really for Whites” The doctorate-holding, multiple-university graduate in question, inseminator of a woman and sire of a son, whatever your idle speculations or cranium measuring or pan-tone complexion ranking of him, is someone who is born and bred in America, with forefathers assisting in the establishment of a small born-on-the-fourth-of-July quintessential Florida town, for generations immemorial. You are what exactly? An immigrant Pole? I’m reminded by your impudence of sex-hungry Iranians (like ungelded dogs) claiming to be acceptable because they’re “text-book Mediterranean” (whatever the hell that means) like Italians - the same Italians who have lived in America for 100-120 years, half the republic’s lifespan, toiling, sweating, loving, taxpaying, sacrifice-making and dying while Mr Aryan from Iran is a fresh off the plane, wealthy secular dissident (sounds really traditionalist!) five-minuter (because they’ve been “American” for five minutes). 500,000 Italian-Americans fought against Italy in WWII: what the hell have Jews, Poles, or super-Aryan Iranians done comparable? Or are you all just shameless pricks? However, when it comes to free speech on the matter of racial hygiene, Race-hygiene. Christ Almighty. This is like reading a pimply, high-voiced teen boy virgin trying to wow his friends by explaining to them his super-nifty trick for bringing women to orgasm. Race feeling has collapsed. That’s why white societies are as they are (open you god damn eyes). If we had a chance (we don’t) the remedy would be, quite spontaneously arising, building a ‘new’ race founded on feudal allegiance to leaders and a leader cult: in-group male Honour and harem-oppression for the scatterbrained females. The World doesn’t care about your personal preferences in ‘race’ and flatulent professions about ‘love’ for a ‘White race’ which is so unhistorical and abstract that no mind could ever comprehend it and thereby give it ‘love’, comes off to the intelligent uncommitted lurker as bigotry-peddling to make up for personal shortcomings. Your complacent bourgeois-bigot “Oh, is he pure enough for us” is risible. No race has ever needed to wave around stamped blood-purity certificates to do, conquer, and f*ck whatever and whoever it wants. Nietzscheanism not ‘racism’. 172
Posted by daniel on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:10 | # Posted by uKn_Leo on October 02, 2012, 09:53 AM | # I think we’re gonna need two White Zions.
173
Posted by daniel on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:20 | # ...... “Whereas I have reservations - first of all, I am not sure how White he [Dyal] is or if his concerns are really for Whites” Yeah? The doctorate-holding, multiple-university graduate in question, I’ve known many PhD’s, who’ve covered the material that he has. It’s not a big deal to me. Is it so unusual for quadroons to impregnate women?
We don’t do the cranium measure anymore. Though we might bring it back for you. However, when patterns bring forth questions, I might ask them. I never suggested that he was not partly White. Whatever American patriotism in which his White forefathers may have participated is not the most relevant matter - I am concerned for White Nationalists, not constitutionalists and American patriots. My grandparents immigrated to The US from Poland and Italy. My Italian grandfather served for the American army in World War I (setting up medical tents in the US). I immigrated back to Europe because I did not like the rule structure and the demographic make up of America. I’m reminded by your impudence of sex-hungry Iranians (like ungelded dogs) claiming to be acceptable I’m not really sure what you are talking about. They are acceptable in Iran. I find some of their women attractive but have not dated one nor would I marry one. That has always been my policy. You may be mistaking my being supportive of them as they are under threat from Israel as being the same as including them under the native European rubric - I do not. because they’re “text-book Mediterranean” (whatever the hell that means) like Italians - I never, ever said this. You are putting quotes around something that I have not said and would not say. It is either a mistake or a lie. But I have NEVER said that Iranians are “text-book Mediderraneans” like Italians. In fact, being half Italian myself, it is the kind of thing that I’d be very averse to saying. Yes, Italians were used for cannon fodder. I’ve heard statistics that they were over-represented in American fighting forces and casualties during WWII. I have spoken elsewhere of the complexity of Italian’s position among White nationalism. They can sometimes be classified along with White privilege, Nazism and slavery when convenient to take blame; and be somewhat marginalized where an insider White position might be supportive. I prefer not to focus on this complexity now, however, but to proceed with an ameliorative management of WN and its categories.
Poles are Europeans. They are not Jews and Iranians. Poles have a lot to be proud of - much of their history and accomplishment has not been heralded in the west; much of it obscured by the wars, their destruction and the perspective of the west.
Race-hygiene. Christ Almighty. This is like reading a pimply, high-voiced teen boy virgin trying to wow his friends by explaining to them his super-nifty trick for bringing women to orgasm. Is it like that? I saw a dubious pattern that called for an account, not a silencing.
If we had a chance (we don’t) the remedy would be, quite spontaneously arising, building a ‘new’ race founded on feudal allegiance to leaders and a leader cult: in-group male Honour and harem-oppression for the scatterbrained females. I disagree. And that is the kind of view which had me taking the chance (to be banned) by being critical of counter currents favorites.
Again, you are putting quotes around things that I have not said. I did not say that I “love” the White race and in fact, the 14 Words provide a valuable service in providing transcendence over the many negative aspects of Whites over all and in us individually. It is true, I may love the pattern in its transcendent ideal - but I am saying that here, for the first time so far as I know.
I am not a purist; though I recognize the importance of maintaining the categories and relatively pure categories of Whites; it is one way of organizing our people. Not the only way, but a good one. I am not in agreement with those who want to conquer others - to flush out non-Whites from prospective new White Nations and ancient White lands of Europe, yes. To f*ck whomever one wants well…I am against miscegenation. People who want to do that should have to go and live with the non-White people and the consequences These sentiments of yours combine the kind of foolish liberalism and right wing foibles that render my being banned from Counter Currents quite tolerable. The White Class, not homo erotic Nietzsche cult. 174
Posted by CS on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:31 | # Uh, So I’m guessing your choice is Belize then. If not, what would be your choce? 175
Posted by uh on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:44 | #
Personally? I’m moving to Maine. I was there this Summer and liked it enough. You see, broski, I’m not a man of festering failed ambitions like Haller, whose conception of white migration is gutting a small economy for personal increase and clinking cocktail glasses about it on Friday. Haller is one of a parasitic breed whose highest purpose in life is to exploit markets. Rather, he wishes he were one of them, and that’s just pathetic on top of loathsome. That anyone imagines they can lead or even be part of a group effort without fellow-feeling or simple human intimacy, which no one exhibits here, is a psychological problem which I don’t have the patience to explore, but in Haller’s case the motive is simple: money, money, money. He and Silver don’t see people when they think about other nations: they see dollar signs. That is illness. As far as white migration, have already tendered my list: -Belize You know what’s missing from all other talk of this? All attention to the costs. No one’s mentioned the costs of going to Australia vs. going to Uruguay, for example, which ought to let you know someone’s thinking is unrealistic. Not a word of property values beyond what I have said. But enough — enough of this subject. It’s bogus. We’re each in our separate spaces just as we were meant to be, and ever shall be. 176
Posted by uh on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:52 | # Hesper, Lovely commentary as always, but it’s best to ignore rank egotists like Haller and daniel. Such men exist to pursue solipsistic fantasies of power, not enjoy real human relationships; hence the odious vanity and clumsy white knight abstractions. Such men aren’t capable of affection, thus intimacy, and thus: trust in fellow beings. They’ll be alone forever. 177
Posted by daniel on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:07 | # I am actually quite affectionate (to women) and I am not alone. 178
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:12 | #
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really! This is just hilarious. So incredibly untrue it defies belief that the guy would write this, but hilarious. There is no positive wealth effect to being part of WN. Even someone like you should understand that. I have made a lot of personal sacrifices to advance white EGI at many times in my life. Money has never been a major motivation of mine. Rather, I am a principled defender of free markets - and will continue to be. Just as I insist that both Christians and libertarians be honest about race, so I also insist that WNs be honest, if not about Christianity, at least about how markets work. Economics is indeed a treasure of modern civilization, as Mises wrote, and it must be understood if white societies are to flourish. BTW, uh, you have no idea of what my ambitions are (mainly intellectual at this point), but I think the better characterization of yourself is that you are a man of no ambitions, and are therefore likely to be more a hindrance than help to any serious WP movement. Please do keep to yourself in some backwater, chopping wood and writing internet porn, lecturing us about women like some teenager who just lost his virginity, and let serious men of honorable character get on with the business of actually doing something to save our benighted race (which you have already admitted you think is doomed - so why not go away altogether? find a nice mud, settle down to your preferred rural idiocy? WN needs real men, willing to work as the real world works - not macho excons fantasizing that time in the Big House somehow has made them wiser about life than those successfully functioning in the real economy). As you put it: //ignore PS - I might meet up with you, but only because I can sometimes be goaded by jerks who think they’re tough. But my main concern is not having the PC brigades interfere with my doctorate, so maybe not. We’ll see. Tell us where and when you were in prison, pussy. I can verify that info. It’s a matter of public record, if one cares to search for it. Why are you silent? 179
Posted by White Zion on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:33 | # re: Hunter Wallace’s “coining” of the WZ term: Dr. Pierce was using the term White Zion in 1984: http://williamlutherpierce.blogspot.com/2012/06/white-zion-part-1.html 180
Posted by uh on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:24 | # Good. Now we know. I was born in ‘81, and haven’t read every single word written by Pierce, so fucking sue me. 181
Posted by referee! on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:18 | # “PS - I might meet up with you, but only because I can sometimes be goaded by jerks who think they’re tough. But my main concern is not having the PC brigades interfere with my doctorate, so maybe not. We’ll see. “ Leon, as someone who knows “uh” personally, I strongly urge you to not take the bait. He would actually kill you without a moment’s hesitance. Every inch the psychotic loser he comes off as. Stow the attitude and leave it alone, guy. Been warned. uh, you need to chill the f—- out. He is not worth the trouble. He thinks “PC brigades” would go after him for a doctoral thesis. Worth going down for, brah? Now stop visiting this place or I’ll tell on you. 182
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:56 | # referee, Thanks for the warning. You know uh personally? Tell us about him. What did he go down for? I can find this out myself if I really want to. One of my best friends from college (though he’s a bit older) is a former prosecutor from the US Attorney’s office (spent the 90s going after organized crime networks). Another good friend does high level labor law for the CA prison guards’ union. I have another friend who is a retired assistant chief of police for one of the major Western cities. Between these guys I could easily get what I need re background info on this uh, especially as we all know his real name. But I’d rather not bother them, and then owe favors (as I already do big time for one of them).(I will if I have to, however.) I also have another friend (a friendly and generous guy, to tell the truth) who has done multiple terms in San Quentin (the last time completely unfairly, I thought), can do 6 close-grip bench press reps with 350lbs (yes, I was one of his spotters once when he did that), and from whom I admit I would decline a fight offer in a heartbeat (as would most sane men). Once I have uh’s prison history, I can run it by this guy, who seems to have learned a lot about the overall prison system from his time inside, and he can tell me the actual value of uh’s experience. Being a psycho in itself does not impress me. I was once assaulted by a bearded psycho or faggot when I was a teen. I didn’t understand what was happening (the guy had just started talking to me) until the guy physically started trying to push me inside an empty public park bathroom, at a late point in the day, though not yet night (my friends were kind of far away shooting hoops, and I had been in there taking a dump, and was just exiting when he approached me and asked me something, and then got aggressive). At that point I went into survival mode, smacked him, and then kept on hitting him until he was down, and I had blood on my clothes. Though athletic, at the time I was only about 5’10”-11”, only in the 160-165lb range, and I was still a growing boy. Today, I’m a man in his 40s, and much bigger (and it ain’t that much fat, uh, so forget your fantasies ..). Anyway, do you also know his friend DanielJ? Can Daniel (are you reading this by chance, Daniel? I’d like your opinion, if possible) actually guarantee what uh claims?
I could also bring a friend who works in law enforcement currently, and has a CA concealed carry permit. [I’m well-armed myself at home, but I don’t break outside carry laws.] He would be armed, though, and would shoot uh dead if he pulled a knife or some such stuff. But then I’m in grad school (which is not even in CA, as I’ve mentioned previously to uh in private correspondence), and am busy enough without additional legal complications (which would not look good, either, to my professors, who are training me for an ostensible career in Christian scholarship). Referee, are you saying that basically uh is an awesome fighter (and what is his specific training background? weight? bench press? etc?), or that he is completely dishonorable? My intention in fights has always been to dominate, not literally kill (except for the bathroom assault, and even there I’m pretty sure I didn’t kill the guy, though when I returned to my pals, we didn’t go back to check, but just got away from there fast). If uh would be trying to kill me, then that fact might well make a difference, as you suggest. Still, the real issue is not whether uh would kill me, but whether he could (absent foul play, which could get him killed first or as well). The irony here is that I used to like uh as a commenter, even if at times I gently admonished him to ‘tighten up’ his verbal ejaculations (he calls me “verbose”? perhaps I am, but that’s rich from him). And strangely, he once sent me an unsolicited email claiming he liked a lot of my commentary (I have it still). That was earlier this very year. Is uh mentally deranged? Off some meds now or something? [BTW, when I said
I meant I don’t want to be exposed publicly as pro-white until I have finished my studies and earned my degree. You know or ought to know how leftwing and anti-white academia is these days. I’m not implying that I think I will be physically assaulted for my doctoral thesis (which will have nothing to do with racial issues anyway). “Brigades” is meant ironically.] Thanks for your input and concern, referee. 183
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:41 | # One thing I do wonder about MR, and WN in general. Why are so many contributors persons of such obvious mental instability and low ethics? Really, look at many of the persons here (not just uh, either). It’s strange how many (I think it may be a majority) are unable to debate civilly. GW and I disagree about many things, beginning with God, and moving on through philosophy, political economy, political strategy, and much else, I’m sure. But we don’t threaten each other, insult each other, etc. This is how gentlemen behave. I suspect the problem here is one of low class hooligans having access to the internet. Technological modernity certainly hasn’t led to a better class of human; just the opposite, I think. 184
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:56 | # Hmm uh versus Haller. Perhaps Mr. Bowery could referee such a contest? An edifying prospect to be sure. Let’s hope if it does go ahead the altercation stops short of being lethal for either or both combatants. 186
Posted by daniel on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:48 | # @!&*%
When dealing with European (White) interlocutors, I try to be decent and think that I am unless they are not - as is usually the case with Uh. When discussing non-Whites or occasional intransigence against our defense from them, I am deliberately less respectful. Were it not for what I trust are Majority Rights necessary constraints, I would, for example, refer to Negroes as N words or however I judge best in the context since I believe it is important to underscore the pejorative difference of their pattern over an against the long standing promulgation of universal sameness of peoples to the detriment of our people, our difference. This policy of mine goes farther back to a growing sense as I was coming of age that European folks were susceptible to and because of self transcendence - an example of which would be genteel and honorable conduct (with N words, for F’s sake?) - and that we needed to be more self assertive with regard of our intellectualism. Being self assertive as White advocates would have us both intellectually equipped, able to speak in a manner without epithets or profanity and comfortable to drop the F and N bombs where effective and necessary. By compromise to circumstantial constraint, one time I referred to Bill Clinton as pandering to “negro-loving women.” It was just not the same - not as effective, no bite. Then there is the argument that language constrains and affords our thoughts and perceptions to some extent. When we are prohibited from referring to Negroes as N words that is a severe censuring of our thought and speech. We are being turned into angelically transcendent mental poodles against hyper-assertive monkeys. Of course we are going to look weak to young girls. If one argues that it is the J words who are largely responsible for constructing these rules and sicking them on us - often through brain washed, liberal/conservative, White enforcers - then it is also a rebut of the J and other powers that be, to defy how it is that N Words are referred to; along with exposing the crime and other behaviors of theirs that are covered up by the J media. Undoubtedly, many a mudshark has been born for the fact that she did not have access to pejorative ways of speaking about N words and their deeds - e.g. N on White rape. Nor did she see White men referring to them with the disrespect that they deserve; and ready to cooperate in collective action against N words and traitors. If, on the other hand, they are that respected by us, if they wield that much power to determine how we refer to them, that we cannot even warn about their brutal rapes of White women, then why should she not respect N’s as well? 187
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:16 | # If GW says no N word then it’s no N word. In the UK that word can put you in prison now. The nerd rage here is always entertaining but once it moves on to death threats maybe things have gone a bit too far. Take a deep breath, and move on please. Thanks gentlemen. uKn_Leo 188
Posted by daniel on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:21 | # I did not dispute the prohibition of the N word, precisely for the said reasons. 189
Posted by daniel on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:31 | # I did not dispute the prohibition of the N word at this forum, precisely for the said reasons. 190
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:16 | # Most Awkward Wheel Of Fortune Moment Ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMghvnqDhT8 HEH! 191
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:25 | # Another form of infiltration and subversion to be wary of. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/infiltration-subversion-and-sabotage.html 193
Posted by Martin on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:01 | # Why are the articles on masculinity at Counter-Currents written by open homosexuals like Jack Donovan and James O’Meara? 194
Posted by daniel on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:34 | # I don’t know. But I do know that James O’Meara is developing some lines of thought about Blacks becoming archetypes of masculinity and rendering White men effeminate by comparison. That is similar to some things I’ve been saying for a long time: I’ve been characterizing Blacks, who, having evolved tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years prior to European differentiation, as having rather quantified and maxed out masculinity: its most serious ramifications being an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive kind of people; corresponding with more sex partners, exponential population growth, single parent families, poverty, disease, violence, over-grazing and destruction of resources. I imagine that the disorder of the prehistoric situation favored the female perspective toward the selection of hyper masculine men. I hypothesize that in the present disorder of modernity - resulting from the prohibition and taboo on (characterizing and accountable) classifications of peoples (called “racism”) that the one up position of young women emerges with increased significance; in that position they are more pandered to from different angles, more difficult to criticize and hold to account than ever; their tendency to incite genetic competition is exacerbated; the young female’s blackmail of turning to Black men is among her best weapons in maintaining her strong, gate-keeper position; these turbulent circumstances with very one-up, ignorant females, afford the hyper-masculine African male significant opportunity to take advantage; more, since people need to classify (in order to make sense) despite the prohibition on classification - the two classifications hardest to ignore emerge salient - blacks and gender. Add the high contrast tropism of black and white and you have several factors contributing to a nasty reconstructing loop of Black male White female miscegenation. It is a more than fair criticism in response that Blacks are too masculine. Corresponding with that, I’ve read here at MR that they have a larger amount of testosterone and it makes perfect sense. Hence, there are avenues for critique. That it is not so much that White men are not masculine enough but rather they are optimal. Jewish distortions and the breaking down of classificatory management has misrepresented and distracted from that systemic fact. White men are optimal, masculine enough but not too masculine like black men. White women are feminine enough; unlike Black women who are too masculine and too symmetrical as a vulgar expression of their environmentally impervious, atavistic form. One argument that seems to work better than others with young women who are unfamiliar with Blacks is to tell them about Black on White rape statistics. With that, remind them that White men generally do not like Black women. That Black women hate interracial couples as much as White men; and in a dangerous circumstance, they will tend to be left on their own by both White men and Black women for whom they’ve shown no concern. 40,000 years of sublime evolution, the wars the trials and tribulation, the crown of creation…given to apes. While their likelihood of being raped goes up exponentially with Blacks, and by contrast, we seek their protection, I believe it is crucial to broach the negotiation and make the correlation: Miscegenation is to men what rape is to women. We don’t want either. But to achieve some sort of equity and optimal balance in gender relations it is necessary to somehow reconstruct classificatory bounds. A few places where I’ve talked about this. http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111126/women-without-class
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120109/sex-as-sacrament-sex-as-celebration-part-1 http://www.resist.com/WolfEurope-20100103/Being-Socialization.html 196
Posted by daniels on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:20 | # At the end of this essay, I do talk critically about queers: http://www.resist.com/WolfEurope-20100103/SexSacramentSexCelebration.html
Another thing that can happen as a result of the discomfort instigated by flamboyant homosexuals, is that they might increase the sense of obligation of young men to do stupid, unproductive, or even destructive things in order to prove that they are not gay.. More, queers might in some sense, deprive the population of a more balanced, gender neutral kind of people…as I have suggested…very masculine men and very feminine women can be an obstinate drag.
Also, I don’t know about the matter of pedophilia… how true it is or not that they may be disposed. That certainly would count heavily against their being treated as relatively normal if they are disposed. Aside from that, I do not think queers rank very high as a problem; but they certainly do bear criticism and I do think their judgement over there at counter currents is flawed as a result…..too much homo erotic Nietzsche cult of a masculine ideal..all these statues of naked men..gives a normal fella the willies.. Also they are tossing in some liberal stuff into the mix.. is it outreach or just obfuscation and excuse making? ... I don’t know…but Preston* keeps calling liberalism “The Left.”... They may well be performing a disservice to creating and organizing a balanced and optimally fighting White Class; a fighting force as a team of men and women….with reward for both normal men and women. * not gay but doing the exotic liberal. 197
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:10 | # I have suffered in ways small and big all my life for my “racism”. I put it in quotation marks because I rarely ever actually have said, even at MR, anything that is really, truly racist - I speak plain truth, and that’s always enough to enrage the leftists. [And yes, DanielS, race denial/anti-racism is today virtually the rhetorical/ideological core of leftism, its only plausible competitor being feminism, but I think “racial correctness” even trumps gender correctness, at least in speech - even liberals sometimes make references to male/female differences, though not in actual policy, where feminism still, for the rapidly receding moment, trumps multiculturalism - ‘sharia’-based claims or assertions in Western Europe will not supersede feminist concerns - yet, anyway.] I think dropping n-word bombs is mostly counterproductive, though Daniel’s thoughts here are very perceptive, and give me pause:
The n-words’ liberal use of the n-word, and the white man’s corresponding self-inflicted terror of using it, really are suggestive of an inverted master/slave relationship. I mean, who the f-word does this country belong to anyway? Who f-wording built it?! Perhaps utilization of the n-word does help reestablish the morally/ontologically proper relationship between whites and n-words - that this is OUR country, that it was built for us by our literal and/or racial ancestors, and that we therefore call the shots, we decide what is proper to say or not, what is correct behavior, what is socially censured vs acceptable, etc. And in reasserting ourselves, we begin in fact to reestablish our ethically correct dominance (a dominance which, incidentally, is actually in n-words’ own long term best interests, as witness the devastation of the newly ‘ensavaged’ South Africa, which is horrific for most n-words, as well as nearly all whites). The objection, however, is that whites’ use of the n-word all too often shuts down the thinking process of ‘middlingly’ brainwashed whites, those to/with whom we need to reach out, and make inroads. Use of the n-word allows the antiwhite enemy to feel smug and morally superior, and puts morally serious WNs on the immediate defensive. For 20 years I have been saying that Western Man is Ethical Man, and however much the neo-nazi crew may dislike this fact, it is a fact, and one that we must work with, as opposed to futilely butting heads against. If majorities of ideologically/racially ignorant whites think our cause is unethical, we will never prevail. And the use of dehumanizing rhetoric only obviously reinforces the leftist propaganda that concern for white hegemony or even mere survival is somehow morally suspect. I think WNs need to be ‘out there’ fighting to get our view across in the mainstream, and so, reluctantly, I think our proper strategy is to be on our best behavior, which would necessitate eschewing n-word bombs. And note: in my life I have found that antiracists hate/fear well-written statements of racial truth, however harsh, far more than strings of racist invective, which they can smugly ignore. 198
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:37 | #
Are you sure this is the state of the science? Proto-WN anthropologists of earlier generations (eg, Sir Robert Gayre of Gayre) held that in fact blacks were the youngest, the least evolved, of the races (ie, the last to become human - to cross the cognitive threshold into self-awareness). Whites (or other races) did not evolve from blacks, but rather, from some earlier hominid ancestral to all modern races. That the races can interbreed was thought to be the result of constant genetic cross- or inflows between the gradually evolving races. Perhaps Dr. Lister can speak on this with greater authority. But I’m fairly certain that just as humans did not actually evolve from modern apes (a common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory), so also the modern races did not ultimately evolve out of one or the other (I say “ultimately” because some modern hybridized races - eg, Latinos - obviously did not evolve authochthonously after an early initial separation). 199
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 05:23 | # Before I read further, Leon, you say: And yes, DanielS, race denial/anti-racism is today virtually the rhetorical/ideological core of leftism
race denial of Whites would be prescribed liberalism and the “lefitsm” of which you speak would be the imposition of other groups on Whites. 200
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 05:29 | # Use of the n-word allows the antiwhite enemy to feel smug and morally superior, and puts morally serious WNs on the immediate defensive.
201
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 05:51 | # ....
These sorts of things would however, be a warning that while lower, they may be tough to kick aside, like a stump; and they may have a certain gravity that the uninitiated ought to be prepared for.
...we don’t really need a not out of Africa theory, though well made theories of the kind would be fine. I understand that we have some 4% Neanderthall, which Africans do not have at all. That’d be one not out of Africa difference. Irrespective, arguments as to why we do not want to go back, that our ways of life are better and more precious, are not hard to make. 202
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 07:33 | # They may well be performing a disservice to creating and organizing a balanced and optimally fighting White Class
An optimally fighting White Class 203
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:28 | # Danny You could always put on a pair of these… http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2012/09/28/Dolce-Gabbana-Racist-Earrings-092812.aspx It could be a nice conversation starter! Not sure about these… http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2012/06/18/Adidas-Originals-Jeremy-Scott-Slavery-061812.aspx 204
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:05 | # Graham, the chick is ok. She can sit on my lap. However, as far as native adornments go, I don’t really like the sneakers or those ear-rings; both rather cheap looking. I prefer a more authentic look - bone through the nose (she could do it and I’d do it), perhaps some cicatrix as well. 205
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:30 | # .. While I might use the N word and other strategic expressions of contempt for Blacks, it has to do with distancing from them for the danger of their patterns. I would not mock them as if they are funny and lord myself over them as if they are to be taken lightly. Somehow there is a big difference. Regarding slavery, I do not know why anybody would either mock it or try to make others feel guilty about it at this point. While my ancestors had nothing to do with it, I’d not try to lay trips on others about it either. It is the kind of old right wing foible that the White left has nifty answers for. Incidentally, I understand that it is a typical right-wing, upper class thing in the UK to pretend that one is above “racism” and thereby goes about selling-out “working class” folk 206
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:41 | # Lets use another example. Say that I am communicating among racially minded colleagues and use the N word among them. Then, as has happened many times, I have to communicate with a Black in some everyday ordinary going on. Am I going to use the N word and be confrontational if by doing so in that situation matters will not be improved? Of course not. It would be impractical. The art of rhetoric. There are times and places for different language. 207
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:47 | # Not bad http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/13/1194766654118.html 209
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:46 | # Jewish liberalism - there is no such thing as race. Jewish leftism - there are non-White or anti-White groups to be advocated and where Whites exist as a group at all, it is only by their privilege and oppression. White Leftism - Whites advocate themselves as group. 210
Posted by daniel on Thu, 04 Oct 2012 19:38 | # ..another thing about queers. Because they may be insufficient in their understanding of heterosexual relationships, and be overly inclined to determinism in sexual behavior, they might not bring to bear their voice in criticism of those who can be real bullies in the realm of heterosexual sex - as is frequently the case with Blacks and pretty White women. 211
Posted by daniel on Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:43 | # Slightly better formulation: For queer’s unwillingness or inability to take up the challenge of heterosexual relationships they may lack empathy with how difficult heterosexual relationships can be, and therefore be overly inclined to take a politically liberal and deterministic attitude toward sexual behavior; that, in turn, would have them not bring bear their critical voice against those who can be real bullies in the realm of heterosexual sex - such as Blacks. 212
Posted by daniel on Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:45 | # I understand that we have some 4% Neanderthal, which Africans do not have at all. That’d be one not out of Africa difference.
Post a comment:
Next entry: A history of intellectual tyranny
|
|
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— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
). I’ve been all over: US Virgin Islands, St. Bart’s, Martinique, Barbados, Jamaica, Curacao, French Guiana, Bahia (and other parts of Brazil), Trinidad, and other islands I’m forgetting. No, I’ve never been to Belize, though I have been to Mexico (all over - but not recently). Also El Salvador.
Posted by Rick on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 05:22 | #
Maybe this is an interview to determine whether or not to invite you into the elite.