Liberals and obedience - Updated 08.01.11

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 07 January 2011 01:40.

The two dominant racial stories currently on the Daily Mail website are the pursuit and stabbing of Nicholas Pearton in South London by six negro gang-members and the lift from The Times about the “tidal wave” of Muslim grooming of white girls in the North. They are both very emotive stories. They are both completely ignored by the left-wing press and the BBC. Google has removed all links to the original Times story and the Daily Mail version. It is completely clear that white lives do not mean anything to the people involved in those decisions. What does matter is the progress of the MultiCult. At all human costs, if those humans are white.

Now, I think it unlikely that all or even very many of the journalists and editors involved are Chosen. They are white liberals. The political malice and detachment from reality, the evident unwillingness to comprehend that but for honesty and responsibility among journalists like themselves these terrible events and thousands of others like them might never have happened ... all that belongs to the liberal mind. My question is: how did that mind come to this vile and complicitous estate? How did it arrive not just at the point where it is content that the lives of hundreds of young girls and their families be ruined and young boys be murdered, but where it actually chooses it as a preferred outcome? Consistently, over a period of years?

I don’t have a real answer. But here are what seem to me to be a few clues.

1. Psychologically, the willingness to submit strangers to harm is associated with an exaggerated respect for authority. The Milgram experiments of the early 1960s demonstrated exactly this. Liberalism in its philosophical conception was a retort to the power of the Catholic Church, and it retains the teleological essentials of religion. Indeed, its ultimate meaning is the replacement of God with Man the Creator. The liberal is a religious. Would he not, then, invest his politics with religious authority, and find therein the need for a religious obedience?

2. The very essence of obedience is the objectification of one’s own role as an instrument of authority, rather than as a fully human being responsible for his own choices. The liberal no doubt believes he is only “following orders” to do good, and if one day he is brought before due process that is exactly what he will plead.

3. We observe liberals projecting loathing onto others on a daily basis. Projection is obviously a significant factor in the psychology of the liberal. It is also very apparent to us that liberals, in their desire to demonstrate their doctrinal purity, can be extravagant in their denial of humanity to their own people, as well as their approbation of it in others. How difficult can it be, then, for these people to view white children as objects of no account?

4. Not every person has the right psychological profile to inflict harm in this mechanical way upon other people. It seems likely to me that part of that profile must involve a strong capacity for self-delusion. We, of course, are well aware that the radical, self-authorial individualism which energises liberal politics is a fiction. Yet I have encountered scores of ordinary, little liberalistic people who insist on their own peerless sovereign individualism. They are fooling themselves, every one.

By contrast, nationalists have to hack their own truths out of the political rocks, and withstand the gale of ideological hatred while they do it. They are genuinely independent of mind (as well as often quite eccentric). They tend to argue a great deal with one another too - something liberals are not noted for.

That’s about it. It aggravates my soul that there are people in this world who would conspire to remove news about negro youths and Pakistani males for the sake of white dispossession. That they have the power to do it, too, is almost too much. Sometime someone is going to have to pay.

UPDATE - THE ESTABLISHMENT HAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE MOSLEM CHILD GROOMING, BUT BEGINS TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE TERMS OF DEBATE

Plus they fight amongst themselves for the the best way to “present the issue”:

Mr Vaz said he did not believe there was a “cultural problem” and called for a high-level investigation of such grooming across the UK.

Mr Straw had told the BBC’s Newsnight programme that there was a “specific problem” of Pakistani men targeting vulnerable young white girls.

During the interview, he urged the Pakistani community to “think more clearly” about why this was going on and to be more open about what lead to “a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way”.

Straw, mindful of the BNP, is trying to assuage white feelings. Vaz, mindful of his own constituency, thinks it’s best to assuage Pakistani feelings.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 04:10 | #

I would like to have ‘the Aryans’ at Majorityrights to comment on this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343954/100-000-Islam-converts-living-UK-White-women-keen-embrace-Muslim-faith.html

White British men maybe cowards and stupid but the White British women obviously are not. How much more beautiful and attractive become White women who behave like women!

White people don’t have to mix with non-White Muslims, but it behooves Whites to learn something from the Muslims. And, god willing, they will.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 06:06 | #

Why? It’s because the number is infinitesimally small. Apparently 85,000 women are raped annually in the UK. If the number is 20, 30, 50 or even a hundred, annually, it is statistically insignificant and thus remote to those not personally touched by the heinous nature of the crime. Why are are these young girls out on the street at these tender ages? Where are their parents? If a society allows this level of debasement it is little wonder their youth are targeted.

Posted by Keith_SA on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:01 | #

“Why? It’s because the number is infinitesimally small.”

And yet, if ONLY ONE little non-white is only slightly hurt - or even not actually hurt but perceived to be hurt - by a white, then the liberal media gives saturation coverage to the evils of white “racism” etc., etc. This question of how liberals can do this - how they can be such liars and traitors to their own - is THE question of the modern age. As Guessed Worker says, “...someone -THEY THE LIBERALS- is going to have to pay” for their wicked evilness. And liberals are wicked evil. As always people given over to depravity project their evil onto others and in that way absolve themselves.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:55 | #

Now, I think it unlikely that all or even very many of the journalists and editors involved are Chosen. They are white liberals.

What a bizarre assertion to make about “the left-wing press”, the BBC, and Google.

How about:

0. Anyone who makes a fuss about or stands in opposition to anti-White animus is demoted or sacked (under the pretext that they are morally or mentally defective) and thus diminished in influence. This is not a recent development, nor has it been constrained to media or Britain. It is the result of a long-term, international struggle, the cumulative effect being that to very many of those who remain in power today White lives do not mean anything, and those to whom White lives mean something are motivated to remain silent by an understandable concern for their immediate self-interest.

Lacking any specific knowledge otherwise it is perfectly reasonable to presume that the main source of anti-X animus is not X. There are two good reasons to believe that the main source of anti-White animus is jews: Sheppard and Whittle, who are in prison for arguing exactly that. Another good reason is that the increase in overt anti-White animus correlates with an increase in overt jewish power. Nobody loses their job, much less gets sent to prison, for blaming Whites for anything.

In light of this point I’m afraid your points seem superfluous.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:29 | #

Muslims harvest the ugly, stupid White women who are unsuccessful in finding a mate within their first choice group. The reject White female must convert to the Arab nonsense religion in order to be accepted as a bride. Anything else to offer, Ivan?

Of course, in a National Socialist society, the female loses her citizenship and right of abode when she marries a Muslim, itself an unlikely event as the nation will host precisely none of that backward moon - god worshipping band of brigands.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:37 | #

Most non-Whites are indeed not fully human in the way liberals conceive of them: that is as at least potentially good bourgeois, bien-pensant liberals such as themselves. It is the liberal will to view said as such that they are forced to dehumanize Whites by contrast. Both non-Whites and Whites are as a result mere props on the stage of the liberal’s psychodrama. And all this, plausibly as GW suggests, so that liberals can view themselves as more than human. Super-humans that by sheer dint of their convictions can construct themselves into transcendent moral agents and niggers into Englishmen. The truth that they are boring little doughy dupes fresh from the cookie-cutter just wouldn’t give them as much romance and malevolently wielded hackery in life. Viva la faith gene!

as well as often quite eccentric

Is single deadly combat “eccentric”? Wouldn’t describing it as “badass” be more charitable?

But then again the desire to breed out the faith gene is also thoroughly eccentric; and not very badass. No palingenesis without the faith gene.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:15 | #

Tan,

and those to whom White lives mean something are motivated to remain silent by an understandable concern for their immediate self-interest.

I’ve gone at it quite a bit with secular humanists over at Science Blogs. Soundly whipped their asses every time with only a shrill bleating of “Nazi pig” or some such as a final rejoinder. These were not stupid people; I’m sure they had quite impressive smart scores. They were White, not Jews. They don’t give a damn about their own people. No Jew there beside them with a pistol pressed to their temple was making them say their piece. Their will to dehumanize “rednecks” was total. They really believed what they were saying. Their delusions and “moral” fervor remained absolutely resilient and impenetrable. Such people do indeed exist. That they are arguably extended-phenotypes of the Jew does little to obviate the fact that they clearly act out of sincere conviction. (Some of the more thoughtful individuals I managed to crack a bit, but not much, and not for long.)

This does not absolve Jews of their responsibility for their part in our genocide. It does necessarily widen the picture, however.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:23 | #

Tan,

This is England. Many American WNs cannot grasp the singular point that Jews do not saturate the liberal media, and do not own it as they do in the US. Here is an article in the Guardian today. It is, as far as I can see, not written by a Jew. The Guardian is not edited by a Jew. The Guardian is not owned by a Jew. Together with the BBC and the Indy (also not edited or owned by Jews) it is the mouthpiece of the white liberal intelligentsia. The illustration above the text, btw, showing the eponymous racist skinhead with the Cross of St George on his t-shirt pointing at a sad little brown-skinned man, is not drawn by an artist with a notably Jewish name.

Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising crime
Dubious claims about Muslim men grooming white girls hide legitimate worries about a system that fails victims of abuse

The British National party’s website, its logo still sporting a seasonal sprig of holly, is understandably triumphalist as it proclaims that the “controlled media” has admitted this week that “Nick Griffin has been right all along about Muslim paedophile gangs”.

The particular branch of the controlled media the BNP refers to is the Times, which has been running the results of a lengthy investigation into the sexual exploitation and internal trafficking of girls in the north of England. Specifically, the Times has marshalled evidence suggesting that these organised crimes are carried out almost exclusively by gangs of Pakistani Muslim origin who target white youngsters; and it quotes both police and agency sources who refer to a “conspiracy of silence” around the open investigation of such cases, amid fears of being branded racist or inflaming ethnic tensions in already precarious local environments.

This is not the first time that anxieties about the ethnic dimension of child sexual exploitation have been aired by the media. In 2004 the Channel 4 documentary Edge of the City, which explored claims that Asian men in Bradford were grooming white girls as young as 11, sexually abusing them and passing them on to their friends, was initially withdrawn from the schedules after the BNP described it as “a party political broadcast”, and the chief constable of West Yorkshire police warned that it could spark disorder.

Anecdotally, as far back as the mid-90s, local agencies have been aware of the participation of ethnic minority men in some cases of serial abuse. But what has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry, as is now being suggested.

The Times investigation is based around 56 men convicted in the Midlands and north of England since 1997, 50 from Muslim backgrounds. Granted, such prosecutions are notoriously difficult to sustain, but, nonetheless, this is a small sample used to evidence the “tidal wave” of offending referred to by unnamed police sources. Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardo’s, which has run projects in the areas concerned for many years, tells me that, while he is pleased to see open discussion of child sexual exploitation, he worries that “decent Pakistani men will now be looked at as potential child abusers”. He insists: “This is not just about Pakistani men, and not just about Asian men. And it is happening all over the country.”

While Narey acknowledges that “in the Midlands and north of England there does seem to be an over-representation of minority ethnic men in [offending] groups”, he argues strongly that no useful conclusions can be drawn until the government undertakes a serious piece of research into what is a nationwide problem. (Keith Vaz, who chairs the Commons home affairs select committee called for such an inquiry today.) Narey also refutes the allegation that Muslim men are grooming white girls because of cultural assumptions about their sexual availability, as girls from minority backgrounds have been similarly abused.

Thus no official data exists on the ethnic or religious background of perpetrators of this form of child abuse, and local charities have stated publicly that they do not consider it a race issue. But it is worth noting that, when asked by the Times to collate its recent work according to ethnicity, Engage – based in Blackburn and one of the largest multi-agency organisations working on this issue – found that in the past year that 80% of offenders were white.

There is an ignoble tradition of racialising criminality in this country, in particular sexual offences, from the moral panic about West Indian pimps in the 1960s to the statistically dubious coverage of African-Caribbean gang rape in the 90s. But even those who do want further investigation into the apparent preponderance of Asian perpetrators tell me that this is not about cultural expectations regarding the sexual susceptibility of white females but rather about opportunity and vulnerability, especially of young people within the care system. It is certainly admissible to query just how beholden to “the tyranny of custom”, as Wednesday’s Times leader put it, are these twentysomething males who drive flash cars and ply their victims with alcohol.

Nevertheless, Muslim voices are now being lined up to attest that serial child molestation is not actually sanctioned by the Qur’an. By building an apparent consensus of voices “bravely” speaking out in the face of accusations of racism, it becomes that much harder for a figure from within the Muslim community to offer a more nuanced perspective or indeed state that these allegations are simply not true. The inevitable and distorting consequence of framing the debate around a “conspiracy of silence” is that it effectively shuts down or taints as mealy-mouthed any criticism.

The efforts of the Times to stand up this investigation are certainly considerable: selectively quoting or misquoting some groups, and inventing a category of “on-street grooming” that does not exist in law and was not recognised by any of the agencies I spoke to. It is also worth asking how responsible it is to provide ammunition to the violent racist extremists already active in these areas on such flawed evidence.

Meanwhile, the sunlight of investigative inquiry has yet to shine on our legal system which, all agencies agree, fails to cater to the needs of children who – groomed into acquiescence by practised abusers of all creeds and colours – don’t present as the perfect victims our limited version of justice demands.

It’s deliberate. They won’t tolerate criticism of the MultiCult because it would mean the dreaded “racism”, and the great fact-avoidance mechanism is constructed around that. It is a white liberal reflex. The question is: why does it exist? And sorry, the answer isn’t always: Jews.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:05 | #

GW, if your son is mugged in London by an Afro - Caribbean or a Paki or any other piece of unwanted Third World anthropoid refuse, you will be told by a whining, leftist - liberal apologist, “But there are plenty of White criminals around”.

This truism offers as much cold comfort as does your response to Tan.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:15 | #

Wise words from GW, and even Al Ross. Ivan, Islam is the eternal enemy of the West, and must be bulldozed wherever it appears within the West. These white women who have converted to heathenism must face an instaurated Inquisition, and then be purified through pain of their theological errors.

The problem, besides illustrating the unbelievable stupidity of whites today (we whites have been declining genetically for quite a while, let no one forget), is that 1) many whites are irredeemably racially diseased, and need to be exterminated (or at least castrated, to kill off their warped genomes; on many of these issues, despite my unwillingness to relinquish Christianity, I am more bloodthirsty than CaptainChaos; the old Christians knew how to shed blood, too ... it’s white liberals who are the freaks of history); 2) many whites are not racially sick, but are genuinely confused (and stupid) respecting the ethics of racialism; and 3) most whites have been systematically stripped of their cultures since the 1960s (if not earlier), and exist today only in an ‘eternal now’, with no sense of inherited tradition and thus national/racial loyalty.

Our task, besides developing a popular movement to end immigration purely for functional reasons (crime, cost, affirmative action preferences, etc), is to relearn our ancient traditions, and to develop an ethics of racialism (which I believe must be done through Christianity, Europe’s traditional faith, but let secularists reach their fellows, as necessary).

A modern nationalism will be built out of the marriage of national tradition, historic faith, and scientific race realism.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:23 | #

Guessedwoker,
I’d guess that many of these non-Kosher liberal elites would justify their actions with the excuse that, in a hundred years or so, when all the colors have been bled into one and peace and prosperity reigns across the “new society”, it will have all been worth it.

What is the murder of a few hundred or the dispossession of a few millions in the present in the face of the progress of man?

It’s not an uncommon theme. “The pain and misery now will be worth it in the long run.” Everybody from the Iraqi war planners to God operates on that premise.

The real question is, why do we allow them to get away with this stuff? Where is the opposition? Where are the organized protests?

Of course the opposition can be negated by the simple art of ignoring them. After all, if ain’t on TV it didn’t happen.

But Media is both indoctrination and reflective.

I just wrote on my blog about the new Robin Hood movie and how the character, in film, reflects Western Man fairly well since the 1930’s.

In the 38’ version, Robin Hood is a twenty-something fellow full of the vitality and playfulness of youth, having a lot of fun while saving the world. His easy laugh reflecting his assured-ness in himself and the world around him

By 1991 he is a somewhat more weary looking thirty-something, paired with a black sidekick and returning from the crusades a bit jaded and well, bland. He has doubts about things.

By 2010 he is now a overweight, gruff, forty-something version of Maximus from ‘Gladiator’ worrying over political theories and impersonating, well, Robin Hood. By now, doubt is even projected into the falseness of his identity.

It’s a telling transformation.
We seem to be collectivity worn our and worn down.

It’s also disturbing to think that all of this was written about a century ago by writers like Grant and Stoddard.
And lets not forget ‘1984’ and ‘Brave New World’. They form a disturbing narrative.

It’s been seen in in the works since before any of us were born.

I expect the outcome will not be what we want, but neither will it be what the elites had imagined.

...

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:31 | #

The end result will not be some happy mixed-race utopia. It will be the genetic disappearance of the white race, and a concomitant lowering of the level of civilization and humanity across the planet. But life will go on, with an occasional future Asiatic reflecting wistfully at the marvelous achievements of the Great Race, rather as we admire Attic Greece, gone but never forgotten.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:53 | #

I have a disturbing question for this community.

If whites, as the HTlinks suggest, are so stupid, weak, and lacking in any sense of the moral rightness of recognizing racial reality, or even sheer masculine pride, why do we here concern ourselves with our own race’s preservation? I have no doubt that we have the right to survive as a race, as well as distinct national communities.

But why do or should we care? Our people seem unworthy of our efforts, and even worse, profoundly ungrateful. Has being racially active ever benefitted anyone here personally? Why bother?

I have long been haunted by this sense of futility, as well as unrequited loyalty.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:15 | #

The plaintive, “unrequited loyalty” moan must mean that Leon Haller’s follower has deserted him?

Did he manage to emancipate himself from the Jewish superstitions so beloved of Christian nitwits in America?

Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:20 | #

Leon,

you’ll be rewarded in the next life - perhaps not 40 virgins though.

“lacking in any sense of the moral rightness of recognizing racial reality”

This is only temporary. We live in an unusually degenerate time and in an especially degenerate country. America’s made up of immigrants rather than natives. It focuses on progress and greed rather than its own people. We come from one of the basest states on Earth. But from humble origins, pious things rise.

Regardless of how the US rules the world; power, especially temporary power, is not the only standard we should just a state by. We are of low origins.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:22 | #

And similarly I think the US influence is harming Europe. However wonderful Europeans are, they remain mere humans.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:29 | #

The plaintive, “unrequited loyalty” moan must mean that Leon Haller’s follower has deserted him?

Did he manage to emancipate himself from the Jewish superstitions so beloved of Christian nitwits in America? (Al Ross)

I was just starting to have a bit of hope for you, Al. But your immaturity won out, again.

Who exactly is my follower, btw? My comment was directed to the mass of whites, ungrateful for the efforts of those of us who are trying to head off catastrophe.

Frank,

But “we, too, are mortal”, as Paul Valery observed of the West. Our civilization might perish; there is no guarantee of survival. We must work to make it so. And that is difficult, when the regnant ideology is nationally, but not personally, suicidal.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:32 | #

Frank makes a point which has been made before and it is true that many of the later immigrants to the US - Aryan, but not necessarily Nordic, were not from from the higher cerebral echelons of society.

The founding Nordic stock were, of course, pioneers (and when faced with indigenous opposition, conquerors), not immigrants and they were the same sort of folks whose best and brightest gave us the Scottish Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Enlightenment) and the Industrial Revolution.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:40 | #

Al,

while I am [not so] quietly a Nordicist, I meant there with reference to immigrants v. natives. I might think Nordics are best, but it has to do more with personal attachment, heritage, and myth.

Leon,

“And that is difficult, when the regnant ideology is nationally, but not personally, suicidal.”

if not the whole, then at least a part must survive.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:43 | #

Narrator,

What is this “we” that is worn down? What is the worn component? How does “wear” attach itself to new generations of European Man?

“Wear” is an illusion, like everything in human personality. And it is no more permanent. It is acquired, and it can be replaced with other components of a more vivifying nature. Since we are bound as individuals to acquire personality, through which we engage with life in ordinary waking consciousness, the question really comes down to: what kind of componentry - what kind of external stimulii and influences - do we want to hand in the culture? Indeed, what kind of culture do we want?

Our life depends upon a vivifying culture, and when you say that we are becoming worn down, you mean our culture is turning to one increasingly offering us death.

The next question is: where does a culture of life come from? And the answer is, it comes out of the self-relation of the people. This self-relation is mediated through factors such as kinship, tradition, faith and philosophy. These are the norms through which peoples seek themselves as the gold standard of human contentment.

Our great historical struggle is precisely to re-connect a self-estranged people. If that were done, there would be no more talk of wearing out. We are an eternal nation. We are simply labouring under the burden of losing our foundational truths.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 15:59 | #

What is this “we” that is worn down? What is the worn component? How does “wear” attach itself to new generations of European Man?

...

We are an eternal nation.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 07, 2011, 01:43 PM

The simplest answer is that people adapt. And that implies a lot. One generation adapts to what the previous one adapted to, and so on.

Nothing wears down, and ultimately defeats, the human spirit like compromise.

We survive by our inclination to adapt…..by compromising.

And it works.

We forsake everything we held dear, but we survive.

It’s a tiring experience.

....

Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:25 | #

This is England. Many American WNs cannot grasp the singular point that Jews do not saturate the liberal media, and do not own it as they do in the US.

Are you certain of this?

Perhaps two months ago my English friend told me about a disgusting show on Channel 4 that, on that particular day, interviewed elderly people about their sexual habits. I looked into the matter and discovered that the founding Chairman of Channel 4 was Edmund Dell - a left-wing Jew!

Who are the Mindbenders?
http://www.heretical.com/British/mindbend/broad.html

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:38 | #

Narrator,

That is a very apt exposition of the process, which is indeed a sinking process of accommodating loss. But what does loss actually imply in historical terms? What is there to lose beside self? Nothing, until life itself is lost.

So an end to loss must imply a regaining of self in some sense, and that the regaining is of everything that was lost along the way, and which belongs to that self, including genetic interests like land and resources.

In the process of German re-unification - the “onto-nationalist” aspect of the National Socialist project, nearly - in the period before the invasions of 1938 - 1940 we can see the intimate connection of self and the genetic interest of soil. So I’m not talking about some airy-fairy thing for navel-gazers. This idea has every bit as much power to produce political movement as Bowden’s appeals to glory and Neo-Nietzsche’s to “barbarian ruthlessness”.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:48 | #

Sam,

Edmund Dell has been dead for over a decade!

Of course there are Jews in the British media, and they are not there to advance British nationalism. But the ownership and editorship of the liberal quality dailies is a matter of public record, and it simply ain’t Jewish.

Besides, it’s a long step from an extant but unquantifiable Jewish journalistic influence to claiming that white journalists just can’t function as liberals without Jewish intervention. At least it is in Britain, and even sometime in America, as CC makes clear in his balanced comment at 11.15AM.

Posted by svensson on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:26 | #

Interesting article GW but I think you’re making it too complicated. I’d say the answer is CASH, THE PAYCHECK, THE GREEN.

Being a journalist working in mainstream media doesn’t automatically mean having to stop thinking (though it would help). There might be writers in the papers that feel disgust at rapes of white women by foreign perpetrators. However, if the doctrine says “no mention whatsoever of Pak/black rapists, Goddamnit”, then the journalist has to oblige. If not he’ll be out of job in no time.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:20 | #

Ivan, you are correct that Islam is currently the odds-on favorite for replacing the Holocaustian theocracy during its collapse. I’ve repeatedly pointed this out to those who think they can revive Western civilization and they have no answers. Some of the best women are converting to Islam for the simple reason that it isn’t hopelessly self-contradictory regarding civilization and its relation to sex.

But here is a question for you:

How would Islam treat those who believe that men who refuse a challenge to single combat to the death, including Imams, are to be killed in any manner, by any individual acting alone or group of individuals acting in concert?

PS: Ivan most likely is just doing a hit-and-run here, which demonstrates my point. Although there is surface similarity between the European evolutionary psychology as it relates to cowards and the Sharia law’s treatment of the likes of Pim Fortuyn (the targeted individual must live in constant terror of being killed at any time by any of an enormous number of executive authorities acting alone or in concert), the clear difference is the Natural Law foundation of the killing of cowards bears no relationship to the killings done under Sharia law.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:40 | #

Besides, it’s a long step from an extant but unquantifiable Jewish journalistic influence to claiming that white journalists just can’t function as liberals without Jewish intervention.

In your original post you made the quite interesting connection that white liberal censors are behaving like someone who is following the orders of an authority figure. The authority figure tells the useful-idiot to press a button, and they press it, regardless of the amount of screaming in the other room. In our case these useful-idiots are journalists tossing stories down the memory-hole. They are following the religious law that has been passed down to them from the mountain. Who is on the mountain?

Of course there are Jews in the British media, and they are not there to advance British nationalism. But the ownership and editorship of the liberal quality dailies is a matter of public record, and it simply ain’t Jewish.

The key idea is not whether Jews are directly controlling every newspaper or journal but whether they set the tone for journalism or newspapers as a whole. In 2009 a newspaper in Virginia printed a description of a criminal without giving his race. Upon being contacted by a reader they informed him that, as per the Associated Press Stylebook, they never mention race unless it is absolutely essential to the story. This defence - an appeal to authority - proves your first point to be quite insightful.

The editor of the AP Stylebook is Norm Goldstein.

Although I haven’t read the Mindbenders document fully I believe it likely describes the same situation as above.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:08 | #

Al,

I wasn’t clear before though you probably got my meaning. I meant that not only has the founding stock been overwhelmed by immigrants (someone posted the stats recently), but the new immigrants of course aren’t even from the same countries. The founding stock percentage within America is on the same path as the Amerindian stock that came before it.

What’s significant isn’t the material quality of Americans but their transient and degenerate nature. You couldn’t apply Japanese economics to the US because our population is inferior in a nonmaterial way.

Had we blacks and whites only, then a similar system to Japans could likely be developed around a 2 class system. But America couldn’t do that now.

Similarly you couldn’t send in waves of Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese into Japan and expect that to work as well.

Ah, you probably understand this… It’s so obvious it’s probably uninteresting.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:12 | #

James,

how about a World of Warcraft duel with the victor taking the prize, be it leadership or a woman or whatever?

I’ve never played WoW, but it surely has some means of dueling in addition to the group dungeon raiding. If I’m misunderstanding the game, then how about a duel of chess? I understand that one at least.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:18 | #

Frank, how would you feel were your true identity to be known and there existed a history of cowards mysteriously dying after refusing a challenge to single combat to the death?

PS: I find it entirely predictable that you are detracting from my confronting a Muslim. You will make a fine Imam someday. Bone up on the Koran now. The hour is getting late.

Posted by Guest Lurker on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:30 | #

Disturbing stuff. I recall reading a while back a story about mandingo clubs here in the States where white men take their wives to get stuffed by blacks. Many of these white couples were from “upper class” society, judges and such. I never underestimate the evil of people out there, including our leadership that might actually get off on seeing us so degraded. I also recall reading an article online about how Arabs in Europe are totally shocked by European men and their unmanly lack of jealousy for their own women. Could this be why white women are increasingly drawn to muslims? They probably feel abandoned by their own society and menfolk to a certain extent, on some psychological level. Muslims have contempt for whites, and have learned that anything is fair game against whites, with little repercussion. Could you imagine how muslims would react it it were white men grooming muslim girls?!?!? Whites have become submissive and cower, and white politicians act accordingly and know whose toes not to step on.
On another tangent, it seems when white society degenerates, it takes the form of sexual degeneration. Ancient Greece, Rome, the modern west. Sure, other groups have their defects, but white degeneration seems to frequently be along sexual lines. Why does this happen, or am I totally off base? Might there be an evolutionary maladaptation at work?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:16 | #

I’ve been interested in the exchanges between GW and Sam Davidson regarding the JQ.

Both writers make good points. The situation is ambiguous. It’s unclear to what extent Jews are responsible for our demise. It’s likely that Jews are simply the most identifiable contingent of a wider group.

From a practical standpoint, it doesn’t matter. Our resistance will proceed most expediently, if we act as if Jews are the primary enemy, because if, and only if, they are removed, will we be able to correctly identify the more obscure aspects of the problem.

Our survival is best ensured not by asking whether or not Jews are our enemies, but by asking:

Is it good for the survival of the Indo-European genome to behave as if Jews were their collective mortal enemies?

Posted by nadasurf on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:00 | #

Ivan, you are correct that Islam is currently the odds-on favorite for replacing the Holocaustian theocracy during its collapse.

I’ve wondered if Islam’s initial conquest of the Mideast and expansion were under circumstances similar to what you believe might happen. That it swept into a Christian Near East civilization that was decaying or collapsing and took over. Anyone know if there’s any truth to this?

Some of the best women are converting to Islam for the simple reason that it isn’t hopelessly self-contradictory regarding civilization and its relation to sex.

There seem to be contradictory views here. Some are saying that only the most unattractive and low-quality White women are converting to Islam, while you suggest that some of the best are. So which is it?

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:05 | #

James Bowery: Ivan, you are correct that Islam is currently the odds-on favorite for replacing the Holocaustian theocracy during its collapse.

James, no offence, but you are not thinking clearly, and that is the reason why you are unable to jot down your thoughts in short, precise, and clear sentences.

Whose favorite? Who is trying to replace the Holocaustian theocracy with Islam? If anybody is in the position to replace Holocaustian theocracy with anything, that would be the jews. Why would the jews wish to replace the Holocaustian theocracy with Islam? What are you talking about, James?

In the meanwhile, it is very simple: White women in Britain and elsewhere are converting to Islam because they are sick and tired of cowardly White men who betrayed them, who allowed the jews to turn their society into a sewage dump that makes out of White women whores, prostitutes, and drug addicts. They see no hope coming from white men, so they desperately trying to preserve the most precious thing they have - their womanhood and their motherhood.

They don’t see any better way of doing it but adopt a religion that does not actually suit them very well, and which is foreign to them. Offer something better, something more natural to them, and they will kiss your feet and follow you. They adopt Islam not because they like it - they are not offered a better choice by their men.

James Bowery: How would Islam treat those who believe that men who refuse a challenge to single combat to the death, including Imams, are to be killed in any manner, by any individual acting alone or group of individuals acting in concert?

I am sorry, I cannot make sense of this one either. Do you know how Imams come to be? Have you ever heard of Imam Shamil who for 40 years fought the Russian Empire in the 19th century? One does not become Imam by voting or by decree. A man makes himself Imam by the virtue of his courage, his knowledge, and his wisdom. Imam is the head of the body, James, Imams don’t do duals - what a stupid idea.

In the time of war, yes, there is no place for cowardice, and that is not restricted to Islam. Have you heard of Order No. 270, issued by Stalin in 1941 shortly after Hitler invaded Soviet Union in violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact?

The order demanding any commanders or commissars “tearing away their insignia and deserting or surrendering” to be considered malicious deserters. The order required superiors to shoot these deserters on the spot. Their family members were subjected to arrest. The second provision of the order directed all units fighting in encirclement to use every possibility to fight. The order also required division commanders to demote and, if necessary, even to shoot on the spot those commanders who failed to command the battle directly in the battlefield. Thereafter, Stalin also conducted a purge of several military commanders that were shot for “cowardice” without a trial.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:13 | #

Some of the best women are converting to Islam for the simple reason that it isn’t hopelessly self-contradictory regarding civilization and its relation to sex.

J.B.

There seem to be contradictory views here. Some are saying that only the most unattractive and low-quality White women are converting to Islam, while you suggest that some of the best are. So which is it?

nadasurf

Regardless of the looks of female converts to Islam, all have tacitly approved of polygyny, and by embracing a creed that acknowledges the vast differential in the reproductive capacities of males vs. females, offers a potentially HUGE eugenic advantage over practitioners of Christian monogynists.

Neither does Islam castrate its males by accommodating the monopolization of violence by the state.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:16 | #

CC,

Both non-Whites and Whites are as a result mere props on the stage of the liberal’s psychodrama.

If by “mere prop” you mean that anti-Whiteness is the most tangible and consistent precept of the contemporary mish-mash of otherwise conflicting principles orwellianly misnamed and misconstrued as “liberalism”, then I agree.

They were White, not Jews.

What confounds me is the certainty with which you and GW make such assertions. It does not comport with my experience. I find the voices most eager to denounce Whites while professing their “whiteness” (in echo chambers left and right) are exactly those most prone to sniff out and react with visceral disgust to even the slightest anti-jewish sentiment. The most straightforward explanation, that they are indeed jews, often seems to be the case.

That they are arguably extended-phenotypes of the Jew does little to obviate the fact that they clearly act out of sincere conviction.

That they act out of conviction, however varied in sincerity or cause, does little to obviate the fact that they act primarily in the interests of non-Whites, or “people of color” as they put it. That is the cause they serve. Not “liberalism”. This is clear to the extent that “liberalism” itself is the object of visceral disgust for that half of the “liberals” who can and do connect “liberalism” with “racism” and “nazism” - the contemporary perjorative meaning of all these terms (as well as “nativism” or “nationalism”) springs from their very association with Whiteness.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:21 | #

Sorry. I misquoted in my previous comment.

My observation remains unchanged.

Lest someone misunderstand my reference to the state monopolization of violence, I’m not referring exclusively to jihad. I’m also referring to corporal punishment within the family.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:37 | #

GW, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle are not American WNs, nor have they argued that the answer is always jews.

The last column Whittle published before he was imprisoned is Luke O’Farrell: Brave Jew World: The Enver is Nigh. I find his arguments, in that essay and the ones before, more compelling than yours.

Whittle and Sheppard have been persecuted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for “inciting race hatred”, the reality-inverting term European media and courts use when someone traces the sources and connections of anti-White activity, quoting and naming those responsible. As I understand it they are not in jail for inciting hatred toward the Camerons and Blairs who are involved. As far as I know, neither is anyone else. It also isn’t likely you or this blog will be troubled for inciting race hatred towards White liberals, is it? Why? And why do the Whites willingly involved, the ones you purport are mostly in power and mostly responsible, tolerate such a legal/political handicap if they are indeed in power?

One of two explanations for this seems likely, at least for the Whites who are willingly involved. Either they imagine themselves secure in their supreme power, or they are not in fact the ones who wield supreme power. I think it is a combination of both, and that as time goes by the former is increasingly revealed as delusion, the latter more real.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:48 | #

I am impressed with James Bowery’s advocacy for single combat, because he approaches the possibility of dramatic change from the bottom up. He diagnoses social problems on the level of relations between individual men, and between women and men.

Typically we consider only the option of how “we”, collectively, can influence the System, as a whole, from the top down.

I don’t think it’s going to happen that way. I think the strength of democracy lies in its ability to prevent change. I think we have a much better chance of revolutionary change if we can fundamentally change the way we relate to each other as individuals and sexes. Islam is an example of that. Single combat is an example of that.

If we can change the structure of the molecule, the morphology of the crystal, (or lack thereof), will be transfigured.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:56 | #

Tan,

If by “mere prop” you mean that anti-Whiteness is the most tangible and consistent precept of the contemporary mish-mash of otherwise conflicting principles orwellianly misnamed and misconstrued as “liberalism”, then I agree.

This statement shows that you are out of your depth.

That they act out of conviction, however varied in sincerity or cause, does little to obviate the fact that they act primarily in the interests of non-Whites, or “people of color” as they put it. That is the cause they serve. Not “liberalism”.

Likewise.

To set you straight, a “white liberal” in the context of the main entry is anyone, be he left-wing or right-wing, democrat or republican, socialist or conservative, egalitarian or radical individualist, who actually believes and, in so far as is possible, organises his life around the tenets of liberalism. These tenets all come together, eventually, in the myth of self-authoriality. It is important in the American political context, and was there at the beginning.

Many Americans, including WNs as apparently national socialist as Alex Linder, are to one degree or another held in place by the myth of self-authoriality, and in consequence never really “get” what European nationalists are talking about when we dissect liberalism. We are dissecting the moving spirit of American life, as well, of course, of modernity in the old continent.

Engagement with nationalism, including national socialism or any other authentic form of nationalism, is really only possible to the degree that the huge hold liberalism has over us, as the spirit of the age from which we abstract so much, is escaped. If one does not escape it, one is condemned to half-gestures such as Judeophobia and Christian conservatism, and the endless analysis that one encounters within intellectual WN.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:38 | #

Sam Davidson,

The key idea is not whether Jews are directly controlling every newspaper or journal but whether they set the tone for journalism or newspapers as a whole.

Exactly. And of course that idea extends beyond media into advertising, finance, law and politics.

The mind-bending power of the masters of the media is archived at Simon Sheppard’s site, where else? It was written in 1997, so certainly the names and faces of the non-White “liberals” have changed somewhat.

Just as valuable is Henry Ford’s THE INTERNATIONAL JEW - THE WORLD’S FOREMOST PROBLEM, published as it was before the non-White “liberals” had so thoroughly bent so many minds into thinking that “white liberals” are the foremost problem.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:42 | #

Ivan, since you are stupid, I’ll put a very simple question to you:

In a Sharia polity, a man gives public notice that he is challenging his Imam to individual formal combat to the death and states his reasons for doing so. Many Muslims laugh, including the Imam. The Imam soon thereafter dies. This happens again and again. What does the Islamic hierarchy do?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:05 | #

In a Shaira polity, a man gives public notice that he is challenging his Imam to individual formal combat to the death and states his reasons for doing so. Many Muslims laugh, including the Imam. The Imam soon thereafter dies. This happens again and again. What does the Islamic hierarchy do?

I find this question fascinating. I don’t have the answer, but I enjoy posing the question. One of my initial thoughts was “I don’t know. Why don’t we Europeans convert to Islam and try it?”

The reason I formulated the question in that way is because it’s obvious that third world Islam is not a place where such I situation could arise, and more than formalized single combat is likely to arise in a western liberal democracy.

For me, the interesting question is not what would happen to the West if it converted to Islam, but what would happen to Islam if it was embraced by the West? One thing is certain: It would remain “Islam” in name only.

My strategy on this issue, as can be seen by my various responses to Ivan, is not to fight Islam, but to steal Allah and leave Muhammed with his pants around his ankles.

I think this is similar to the early days of Christianity when those following the Messiah considered themselves to be God’s Chosen.

The Christian Identity movement has attempted a similar strategy, and its adherents are empowered by it, but the doctrine is so contorted that it has difficulty inducing credulity in prospective converts.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:33 | #

Jimmy, I think the general strategy represented by “embrace and extend” is available to races that are more, shall we say, “morally nimble” than are the more honorable races. This is one of the reasons Christian Identity has failed. I have my own speculations about Jesus for example (which inform my relations with self-proclaimed “Christians”), but it has very little to do with any current Christian doctrine and I most certainly would not set up a religion worshiping some historic figures let alone a historic figure as hidden by layers of theocratic agendae as Jesus.

Moreover, the idea that the origin of our creative consciousnesses would choose specific individuals through which to speak to the rest of us is silly on the face of it and the only way you can get people to believe such vapid crap is through techniques like those used by Moses when he had those he had conned (or who wanted to be in on the con) sneak attack slaughter the rest of the Israelites. The Holocaustian theocracy is more sophisticated than that but then these folks have been practicing for a long time. I suppose one might thank Muhammad for providing an alternative mode of mental slavery but it is still mental slavery.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 00:07 | #

Tan,

If by “mere prop” you mean that anti-Whiteness is the most tangible and consistent precept of the contemporary mish-mash of otherwise conflicting principles orwellianly misnamed and misconstrued as “liberalism”, then I agree.

Contemporary “liberalism”, at least for White liberals, is defined by its delusional belief in the universal Man. As such, it cannot abide the particularity of humanity. At some level White liberals must know it is a lie. Hence their fanatical desire to will into being the universal Man via panmixia. Obviously, for that to happen Whiteness must be overcome and dissolved. Their shrill cries of “Racism” at any hint of White assertion is that of the Puritan crying “Heretic”. It is a secular transmutation of the Christian belief that one day a messianic age will be ushered in and all tears wiped away. The suffering and injustices that they believe flow from “racism” will be no more according to them.

Blacks and “rednecks” as you actually find them in the real world are not even real to them. They could not be more perfectly estranged from reality if they tried the harder. The organic food mart, a day at the social services office, a dinner party with their snooty pony-tailed friends: that is their world. That is all that is real to them. I know people like them, I’ve hung out with people like them.

What confounds me is the certainty with which you and GW make such assertions.

The intelligent commenters I argued with at Science Blogs were all White with only one exception I am aware of. That one exception was Jewish. How do I know that? Because he posted under a Jewish name which was from what I gathered his real name (“Gould”); and when I asked him if he was Jewish he said he was. Needless to say, I piled on him especially hard, if only to provoke a reaction - even referring to him as “Jewboy”. It was the other White commenters who were the most visibly enraged by my consistently hammering him and more broadly “the Jews”. I know these others were White and not Jewish because they would announce it with typical prideful deprecation. It was these White commenters who positively craved the mongrelization of their people.

These White liberals are certainly not deep thinkers. For them it is a matter of status as against “rednecks” and “white trash”, suggestibility in taking on Jewish sensibilities with reference to same, and feeling morally superior by urging on the uplift of non-Whites. That and silly, dreary conspicuous consumerism of the “Fair Trade” variety.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 00:07 | #

I suppose one might thank Muhammad for providing an alternative mode of mental slavery but it is still mental slavery.

Yes, because the more models of this slavery we have to compare, the more apt we are to unveil the mechanism of its oppression and thereby obtain immunity.

One of my worst fears is that Leon Haller will receive a revelation about the majesty of your single combat idea, fail to worship the State of Nature, and instead found a religion of Bowerianism.

Stranger things have happened. And I needn’t suggest who would likely be among his apostles.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 00:30 | #

does little to obviate the fact that they act primarily in the interests of non-Whites,

I took care to make the point that as the faithful and suggestible carriers of Jewish sensibilities those White secular humanists only saw fit to attack rural and evangelical versions of Christianity - and not the garish Catholicism of mestizos and raucous Christianity of blacks - because they had been unwittingly indoctrinated to attack said as a proxy for Whiteness. Their response? More sputtering outrage.

In addition it was their perspective that one could make a good living as a government employee of some variety helping out the poor little muds. So it is also their economic self-interest they are looking after. I pointed that out too. Their response? Same as before.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 00:49 | #

White secular humanists only saw fit to attack rural and evangelical versions of Christianity - and not the garish Catholicism of mestizos

Aye. The same criticism can be made of self-described traditionalists. You’ll never hear them complain about the ongoing invasion of the United States by filthy, third-world Catholics.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 00:51 | #

Hence their fanatical desire to will into being the universal Man via panmixia.

Is this similar to Lycurgus’s effort to will into being the civilized man through child abuse? Spartan parents allowed their seven year sons to be abused in same fashion as these Derby parents are allowing their teenage daughters to be abused by Muslim men, and then blame these men for the horrible acts committed against their children, thus absolving themselves of all responsibility.

Keith,

How do you think your belief plays out with homosexuality.

And yet, if ONLY ONE little homsexual is only slightly hurt - or even not actually hurt but perceived to be hurt - by a heterosexual, then the liberal media gives saturation coverage to the evils of"homophobia” etc., etc. This question of how liberals can do this - how they can be such liars and traitors to their own - is THE question of the modern age. As Guessed Worker says, “...someone -THEY THE LIBERALS- is going to have to pay” for their wicked evilness. And liberals are wicked evil. As always people given over to depravity project their evil onto others and in that way absolve themselves.

And yet aren’t the liberals holding up the great traditions of classical western culture in that: “a certain kind of sexual relationship which was considered by many Greeks to be very important for the cohesion of the city: sexual relations between men and youths.”

Is it really the media that is responsible for the child abuse no matter how distorted the view, or are the parents and the community that can no longer bare the burden of civilization responsible? Possibly “this is the kind of human being that Lothrop Stoddard has called the ‘under man.’”—the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives.”

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 01:06 | #

Spartan parents allowed their seven year sons to be abused in same fashion as these Derby parents are allowing their teenage daughters to be abused by Muslim men

The underlying assumption in this assertion is that Whites are equal to Muslims, and men(boys) are equal to women(girls).

To each his own!

Posted by Revolution Harry on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 01:11 | #

Guessed worker, I’m intrigued as to why you equate the idea of us (as in everyone) being sovereign individuals with being ‘liberals’. It seems to me that liberals, rather than expressing their ‘sovereign individualism’, seem always to deny this and to seek to impose their collective will on others regardless of whether they wish it or not.

If we are not sovereign individuals then what are we? To what collective authority are we born into? It is in these authoritarian times that I actively seek my sovereign, God given, rights to live in the community of my choice as opposed to the state enforced nightmare that is multiculturalism.

I sought a dictionary definition of authoriality ( as in self-authoriality) to see if it had any bearing on this issue and I couldn’t find one. What do you mean by this?

It also intrigues me to witness this debate as to ‘why the liberals so easily follow the dictates of the Chosen’ (or words to that effect). Mass immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness etc are merely (though no less important) elements of a much larger agenda which is global governance. This is often euphemistically referred to by the elites as a New World Order. There’s no doubt that a significant number of those involved (at least on the lower more covert levels) are Jewish, or at least claim to be Jewish. That said it is not or ever has been solely Jewish. Neither is it Jewish at its apex. Scoff as much as you like but there is far more evidence for Vatican control of this agenda than Jewish. Even that is something of a smokescreen as the real beneficiaries and protagonists of this occult conspiracy are the elite, bloodline, families of Royalty and aristocracy whose origins (they claim) go back thousands of years.

Perhaps one small example of this can be seen in a recent post of mine on the loathsome Piers Morgan. The perfect example of a media liberal only too happy to comply with those who seek to destroy this country. In it you’ll see the Freemason, Bilderberger and Fabian Gordon Brown giving the Skull and Bones member George W. Bush a masonic handshake. That one pictures tells you all you need to know.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 01:21 | #

Status Quo Harry,

Let’s imagine that I take all your rationalizations pretty much at face value.

If people of European descent were to purge their lands of Jews, who already have an ethnostate, granted to them for the specific purpose of facilitating this asylum, would they not be immeasurably closer to rooting out the evil from within their midst?

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 01:59 | #

Individualism is as obvious as the body. The next step away from individualism is the union of bodies in the act of procreation and in that step is the self-limiting phenomenon of death. Kinship is tertiary and there we find on-going creation. There is no escaping any of this.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 02:11 | #

Harry,

Sovereign individualism is the estate of the unfettered will, and the unfettered will, allegedly, ranges over all positive and negative freedoms (including the freedoms from Nature, nation, even sexual orientation). But positive freedom can itself give rise to a negative. For example, the sovereign’s freedom to do anything creates an obvious need to buttress the negative freedoms of those who are not sovereign by virtue of their weakness.

So we have the two apparently contradictory and irreconcilable aspects of progressive politics. Radical individualism creates a class of sovereigns, while social democracy seeks to restrain the sovereigns and help the weak towards strength and sovereignty.

If we are not sovereign individuals then what are we? To what collective authority are we born into?

“We” are personality - the “play” of the acquired in the mind. It actualises mechanistically in ordinary waking consciousness and, to all intents and purposes, is “us”. But it is not the self which can, under certain conditions, stand still and say “I am”.

Personality is formed and temporalised out of the myriad accidentally arising influences and events that attend our lives, their impact being correspondingly greater, obviously, with the organism’s youth. The left uses the terms “tabula rasa” and “social construct” for its own ideological purposes, but they are quite applicable to personality, and might be totally applicable to the organism were it not for the fact that there is a substrate of natural characteristics and traits which pre-exist personality and work through it.

It is in these authoritarian times that I actively seek my sovereign, God given, rights to live in the community of my choice as opposed to the state enforced nightmare that is multiculturalism.

Personality is formed under the law of no authority but hazard. The question of rights does not bear on it. But it may be possible to make the right to collective life contingent on shared interests, and that’s something that I’ve been giving some thought to lately, and may write about at some point.

I sought a dictionary definition of authoriality

The unfettered will can do and be what it chooses. But to exist, it cannot be constrained by Nature or by any previously learned or internalised behaviours, beliefs, attitudes, values, thoughts even. Perfect liberty requires the breaking of all bounds. This process is self-authoriality, and the authored self is what it alone wants to be, has become sovereign and has unfettered will.

Good find, that photo of Bush and Brown.

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 02:13 | #

Ivan, since you are stupid, I’ll put a very simple question to you:

In a Sharia polity, a man gives public notice that he is challenging his Imam to individual formal combat to the death and states his reasons for doing so. Many Muslims laugh, including the Imam. The Imam soon thereafter dies. This happens again and again. What does the Islamic hierarchy do?

You seem a little upset, James. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, but I think it’s not really fair to blame me for your inability to think clearly. I would suggest you to keep practicing: With hard work and little bit of luck, I believe, you have a good chance of improving your performance.

Could you give me, please, few examples of This happens again and again . Please be specific, James. The names of the Imams, when and where did it happen, who were the challengers. What were the reasons for challenging the Imams to individual formal combat to the death.

I am a rocket scientist, James, literally. I don’t appreciate vague hints, “what if” scenarios, that make absolutely no sense, and, quite honestly, I have little stomach for pretentious philosophical musings. I prefer facts to speculations, especially to those coming from confused minds.

Facts, James, facts, me wants facts.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 02:17 | #

Ivan, I take comfort in the fact that Islam is no threat given your example.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 03:32 | #

Islam is no threat

I strongly disagree. Islam is a mortal threat to anyone stupid enough to believe it on any literal level.

Posted by FB on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 07:12 | #

Those links are gone because leaving them gives comfort to White racism and undermines the multiculturalist project. In fact, such stories might encourage racist feelings. They can further empower xenophobes and nationalists to perpetrate a new Holocaust. The slippery slope argument instructs us that racism leads to Auschwitz. Therefore, liberals have a moral obligation to do what is necessary in order to keep Whites in check. If suppressing news items and scientific facts or just lying helps to achieve liberal objectives, higher morality dictates that such methods be adopted.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 09:21 | #

Jimmy, I of course was speaking in very limited terms. In particular if the response of Islam, to the kind of “recrystalization” (to use your apt metaphor) I propose, is as obtuse as Victor’s, then it will offer little resistance. Of course, what Victor should have done as a good Muslim is realize that he got over his head here and turn the question over to his authorities so he didn’t further Islam’s bad image. We should thank him for small favors I suppose but it really would be interesting to me to see how the phase change front behaves during the transition.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 09:36 | #

Jimmy Marr writes: “One of my worst fears is that Leon Haller will receive a revelation about the majesty of your single combat idea, fail to worship the State of Nature, and instead found a religion of Bowerianism. ”

The goddamn Road To Damascus con. Fool me once….

Posted by Andrew Neather on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:03 | #

Perhaps the best answer is that analogy from the natural world in which certain types of invertebrtae parasite have actually evolved the ability to control the neurological impulses of their hosts and force their hosts to perform behavior that is suicidal for the host, but ensures the parasite’s own survival.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 13:21 | #

Could you elaborate on this? especially this concept of “self-authoriality”. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

Posted by Mr Murray on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 15:50 | #

Are you bozo’s still entertaining I V A N the terribly stupid?

Posted by pug on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 16:50 | #

Leon Haller,

At the crux of the issue of “self-authoriality” is the mistaken belief that one’s personal interests—not wants, but interests—can by authored by oneself rather than by Nature, and that one exists as an actor primarily alone rather than within one’s Volksgemeinschaft. This leads to a gross misallocation of wants in lieu of, and even opposed to, one’s real interests.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:37 | #

It was the other White commenters who were the most visibly enraged by my consistently hammering him and more broadly “the Jews”.

I call this “attack-dog syndrome”.

The Jew sits aloof while offering a bit of intellectual prodding while the gentiles whip themselves into a frenzy on his behalf.

There’s some broader psychological principle at work in this case… I think it’s a gut-level reaction that occurs whenever someone begins breaking accepted taboos or stirring up controversy. The “attack-dogs” recognize someone willingly stepping across the line and become offended themselves.

This could also be the mechanism at work:
“Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys”
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/08/05/wet-monkey-theory/

In this case, the reason why the Jew is more relaxed than the “attack-dogs” is likely because they themselves have learned to associate such behaviors with group-punishment while the Jew has never experienced it since he considers outside the bounds of “white-guilt”.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:41 | #

The last sentence should be:

...since the Jew considers himself outside the bounds of “white guilt”.

Result: Jews can handle overt challengers in a more relaxed manner while their white-liberal counterparts become a sputtering mess.

Posted by Revolution Harry on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:52 | #

Firstly Jimmy, as I’ve said, the problem is not merely with ‘the Jews’. Indeed it’s not even all Jews that are part of the problem. The evil in our midst is represented by an occult elite of both Jews and Gentiles that seeks to enslave mankind in a world government. It seems clear to me, from the research I’ve done, that this elite worship Lucifer. As bizarre as that may sound it certainly seems to be true. This is the evil we need to root out.

In addition, Israel may not be quite what it seems.

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 20:20 | #

Jimmy, I of course was speaking in very limited terms. In particular if the response of Islam, to the kind of ‘recrystalization’ (to use your apt metaphor) I propose, is as obtuse as Victor’s, then it will offer little resistance. Of course, what Victor should have done as a good Muslim is realize that he got over his head here and turn the question over to his authorities so he didn’t further Islam’s bad image. We should thank him for small favors I suppose but it really would be interesting to me to see how the phase change front behaves during the transition.

I am sorry to repeat this again, James: you are not thinking clearly that’s why you have trouble expressing your thoughts in clear and concise way. You leave the reader with the necessity of doing a lot of guessing as of what you are trying to say.

For example, in this particular case, instead of doing any guessing, I would rather hear from the horse’s mouth - who is Victor you are referring to?

Posted by Revolution Harry on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 20:43 | #

Guessed Worker, my interest in this area stems from my investigations into the constitutional issues surrounding the usurpation of our present constitution as we are being slowly subsumed into the EU (which is itself a component of the broader world government plan). It’s both an investigation into the flaws of our existing constitution (which seems that it may have been written for the benefit of the elites) and exploring what a reformed constitution may consist of.

For many years this country lived under the Common Law. We are now being gradually manipulated into the Roman Canon Law system of the EU. The Common Law derived from the idea that we are all sovereign individuals born with God given inalienable rights. Roman law places the state as the arbiter of the law. In the Common Law system we are all equal under the law and as such no Pope, king or politician has any more rights than you or I. Under Canon Law the state, or perhaps more accurately the hierarchy with the Pope at the apex, dictates what we can and cannot do.

What goes hand in hand with the idea that we have God given inalienable rights is that we also have responsibilities. The ‘Common Law’ itself ‘( in short, thou shalt not cause harm or loss and shall be honourable in all agreements) forms part of the buttress that protects the weak. Claiming my sovereign inalienable rights does not give me the freedom to do anything, neither does it necessarily lead to rampant individualism. There are clearly areas where the individual should indeed attempt to stand on his own two feet and there are others where collective action is required.

I’m still trying to get a grasp of this subject, which seems to me to be an important one. Surely part of the reason we are where we are is because the state, or rather the true rulers of this country acting through the state, have made decisions on our behalf which not only did we not desire but which are also not in our interests. I seek to not only destroy this elite cabal but to also work towards an alternative that will both benefit all and prevent anything like this happening again. Before anything is done about issues such as mass immigration and multiculturalism this elite has to be removed from power. My desire is to try and work out what system would replace it.

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 20:43 | #

Are you bozo’s still entertaining I V A N the terribly stupid?

Hey, Mr Murray, it’s good to hear from you, man.

For those of you who is not familiar with rich personality of Dr Murray the Astronaut, aka Dave, and what he is talking about, here is a link that’ll quickly bring you up to speed:

Germans been killed by Soviets

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 20:58 | #

Sam Davidson,

You screwed up the whole page. You started your sentence:

...since the Jew considers himself outside the bounds of

with the correct italic open tag but ended it with the wrong italic close tag. That’s why every comment appears now italicized.

Admins, could you correct Sam’s error, please.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 21:36 | #

MR needs to fix it’s software.</i>

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 21:38 | #

Hmm… testing…

Posted by Bill on Sat, 08 Jan 2011 22:49 | #

Breaking news.

American congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8248267/American-congresswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-in-head.html

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:36 | #

Black Muslim street preachers interpret Holocaust for a Jew:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmvuJcb-G6M

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:02 | #

American congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

The clarity and quality, or lack thereof, of the shooter Jared Loughner’s thinking reminds me that of James Bowery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHoaZaLbqB4

Is Jared Loughner a white mojahedeen or a patsy to discredit the Tea Party movement?

My uneducated guess is: Jared gave public notice via YouTube that he is challenging his Imam, congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, to individual formal combat to the death and stated his reasons for doing so. Imam Gabrielle laughed it off and refused Jared’s call to satisfaction in a duel. The pissed off Jared then decided that Imam Gabrielle is a coward and as such she deserves to be killed in any manner, by any individual acting alone or group of individuals acting in concert.

What do you think of my draft hypothesis, James?

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:18 | #

Black Muslim street preachers interpret Holocaust for a Jew:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmvuJcb-G6M

Atta boy, Jimmy Marr. Isn’t that amazing: White British girls can appreciate Islam, hell, even Niggers can become brave and start talking sense under the salutary influence of Islam, but not White British boys!

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:18 | #

Ivan, I know you can’t help but project your stupidity onto others, but really, when I repeatedly talk about the challenger not being the one to take action to enforce the law, it gets more than a little “trolly” of you to retain your stupid view of my position, let alone attribute it to me.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:51 | #

Here is another Black Muslim thrashing jewish ass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKFugpr4EH0

This reasonable Black man believes if Niggers and Whites cannot get along, they should seek separation from each other.

Amen, I couldn’t agree more.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 02:09 | #

Leon Haller,

Very interesting. A new philosophical anthropology could be aborning out of development of this idea. It certainly constitutes a direct challenge to the liberal idea dominant in the West for the past quarter-millenium. I need to think about this more before responding at length. One issue, though: reducing the atomization or self-createdness of the individual in favor of expanding the role of community in the development of individual personality (‘self’) could, practically, lead to the kind of tyranny that so many leading Western thinkers and political figures opposed. Liberalism arose for a reason, in reaction to something found undesirable.

I have not worked out where I stand on the individualism/volksgemeinschaft divide. I am also unsure as to whether a theory cannot be developed that gives us the best of both. I do see the problem, however. It is this: the collective mass of infinite individual decisions is leading to racial suicide (though this is not all “invisible handish” - there are elements actively working to subvert and dispossess whites of their civilization). If we left all whites perfectly autonomous in their decision-making, the white race might cease to exist in a couple of generations (either through passive extinction, or active extermination after we have been thoroughly weakened in numbers and territorial power).

Actually, these grim thoughts have occurred to me in the past. I have wondered if the tremendous blessings of individualist civilization - freedom, rule of law, free market - could be preserved in light of racial discrepancies, and declining white numbers (relatively as well as absolutely). My main intellectual task at present is to develop a thorough grasp of Christian theology and the history of secular political theory (these are large, lifetime, tasks, to say the least). My main theoretical task at present and for the foreseeable future is to justify white racial conservation within the Catholic tradition; to show, in a word, that Catholicism does not ethically obviate measures like racial restrictions on immigration, or racial patriotism more broadly.

But in developing a complete racialist political and social philosophy, I will clearly one day have to confront this “self-authoriality” issue.

Posted by Hallerious on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 02:40 | #

My main theoretical task at present and for the foreseeable future is to justify white racial conservation within the Catholic tradition; to show, in a word, that Catholicism does not ethically obviate measures like racial restrictions on immigration, or racial patriotism more broadly.

Obviate:
Definitions of obviate on the Web:
do away with
debar: prevent the occurrence of; prevent from happening.

I’m not infallible, but I think a famous guy once said: “He who does not gather me, scatters me”

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 02:49 | #

Ivan, I know you can’t help but project your stupidity onto others

James, please pay close attention now. I wasn’t rude to you so far. I was making fun of you because you deserve to be poked fun at. That much is true, but I wasn’t rude to you. I am not a rude person, but if you insist on being rude, I can do that too with ease - ask Dr Murray the Astronaut aka Dave.

By the way, have I told you lately that you can’t think clearly?

That’s the lesser part of your problem, James. That’s no big deal - many intellectuals can’t. The bigger part of your problem is that you have absolutely no sense of humor and irony. That cannot be eradicated by any amount of education, training, or reading anecdotes.

One more thing, James. This can be very beneficial for you to know: you are very easy prey for baiting. Jews are very smart people, James, with great sense of humor by the way. They cannot be defeated by intellectuals like you. Jews love endless and leading to nowhere ‘smart’ debates with self absorbed intellectuals like you, who are stupid enough to believe that they have the solution to the jewish problem.

I’m sorry I had to digest it for you in such rude terms. You see, James, sometimes one has to hit arrogant assholes, like yourself, with kitchen-table legs just to bring them to their senses for their own good, and for the good of the people around them.

P.S. Jimmy Marr is one of very few people @MR who has great sense of benevolent humor and subtle irony by the way. Arguing with such opponents is a pure delight.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:50 | #

Ivan, when I call you “stupid” I admit I am being impolite, but it is not an insult. It is simply descriptive. Seriously, you should stop trying to respond to questions for which you are so ill equipped and kick them upstairs to those who have enslaved your intellect. I’ll freely admit that I have no idea what your innate intelligence might be given your mental slavery. A big part of slavery is handicapping the slave.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 07:28 | #

Ivan, when I call you ‘stupid’ I admit I am being impolite, but it is not an insult. It is simply descriptive. Seriously, you should stop trying to respond to questions for which you are so ill equipped and kick them upstairs to those who have enslaved your intellect. I’ll freely admit that I have no idea what your innate intelligence might be given your mental slavery. A big part of slavery is handicapping the slave.

Bravo, James! Any more questions?

James, you can relax, the question about questions is not for fish.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 07:35 | #

Here’s the question to ask your Imam or other expert in Sharia to which you have turned over your individual sovereignty, Ivan:

In a Sharia polity, a man gives public notice that he is challenging his Imam to individual formal combat to the death and states his reasons for doing so. Many Muslims laugh, including the Imam. The Imam soon thereafter dies. This happens again and again. What does the Islamic hierarchy do?

I am interested in the answer.

PS: Now don’t take it as an insult when I repeat that nowhere do I state or imply that the challenger acted to cause the Imam’s death. Repetition is necessary here since you previously read that into the above, (and other similar) statement(s). While it is true that such repetition implies an insult it is no more of an insult than your original reading comprehension failure combined with your hubris at attempting to deflect the simple and direct question with babbling about how you don’t deal in the “hypothetical” just in “facts”—rather than simply recognizing you were in over your head and needed to appeal to your master.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:40 | #

James,

I mean no disrespect, but before I decide whether to continue this conversation or not, please answer truthfully my question: Are you on some drugs - tranquillizers or something?

On one hand, you say: In a Sharia polity, a man gives public notice that he is challenging his Imam to individual formal combat to the death and states his reasons for doing so. How would Islam treat those who believe that men who refuse a challenge to single combat to the death, including Imams, are to be killed in any manner, by any individual acting alone or group of individuals acting in concert?

On the other: Now don’t take it as an insult when I repeat that nowhere do I state or imply that the challenger acted to cause the Imam’s death.

The challenger is challenging his Imam to individual formal combat to the DEATH, dammit. Is he playing games, is he bluffing? Not only that, Imam, who refuses a challenge to single combat to the DEATH, is to be KILLED in any manner, by ANY INDIVIDUAL (that includes the challenger, dammit) acting alone or group of individuals acting in concert.

James, you’ve got me really worried about your mental condition now. Please pay a visit to a psychiatrist - they do wonders sometimes. By the way, do you have health insurance? Perhaps more appropriate question would be - do you have a job, James?

Posted by Cratylus on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:28 | #

How does any of this preservation of our people matter, honestly?

In a hundred years, we’ll be dead. On top of that, barring some catastrophe, humans will be engineering their (not “our”—remember, we’re dead) genome. Humans will be vastly more different than we are from our primate ancestors. All races will be obsolete.

You think that they’ll preserve our white genotype? Why? Our beauty? What human fantasizes about fucking our beetle-browed, hirsute ancestors?! Our “brains”? Laughably primitive. The basest intellect will reach the heights of our historical geniuses by the first iteration. Our culture and religion will be wiped away just as surely as so many of the smart, educated people here reject Christianity.

Even if whites were the only race left on this planet, “we” are likely an extinct transitional species in at most a hundred, but probably more like fifty, years.

Posted by Akda on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:57 | #

“How does any of this preservation of our people matter, honestly?

Even if whites were the only race left on this planet, “we” are likely an extinct transitional species in at most a hundred, but probably more like fifty, years. “

You’re making the assumption that everybody wants transhumanism or that the road to it is a straight path that could be attained in a century or less. the illusion of progress.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:59 | #

Cratylus,

You pose some interesting questions, that I myself think about on occasion. But, I suspect that you, like a lot of technophilic utopians, are way overselling the rate of change. I may very well be alive myself in fifty years. We will be an extinct species by then? I’m old enough to remember 30 years ago fairly well. I live in the same neighborhood I did then. Really, very little has changed, except there is a lot more ‘diversity’. A few new shops in the nearby mall, a supermarket makeover. That’s it. And I’m a Californian!

The rate of change a hundred years ago was greater than today. In 50 years, there will be some technological improvements, though not too many. What’s so different about today from 30 years ago? The ubiquity of computers, and electronic devices. But is that fundamentally different? Even 20 years ago I used pay phones instead of my cell. BIG DEAL. The internet is about the biggest (technical) change, and are things really so different because of it? We waste more time, that’s all.

I assure you, in one hundred years people will still drive cars (probably non-carbon fuel), watch movies, chase pretty girls, use toilets, read books (though maybe more electronically), and go to jobs. The problem is that few of those people will be white. The disappearance or at least irrelevance of the white race will be the biggest change of the next century as opposed to recent centuries past.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 11:05 | #

My main theoretical task at present and for the foreseeable future is to justify white racial conservation within the Catholic tradition; to show, in a word, that Catholicism does not ethically obviate measures like racial restrictions on immigration, or racial patriotism more broadly. (me)

Obviate:
Definitions of obviate on the Web:
do away with
debar: prevent the occurrence of; prevent from happening.

I’m not infallible, but I think a famous guy once said: “He who does not gather me, scatters me”

Point? You think I used ‘obviate’ incorrectly? (I did not, of course.) Please. Whoever you are, you will never posses my language skills, so go away if you have nothing constructive to contribute.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:12 | #

Cratylus,

Does it matter if you die now instead of in fifty years? After all, you are not an important person. Your mind is slow. Your body is weak. You are rather ugly. You are not particlarly good or kind, or evil come to that. You are nobody, to be honest. And nobody is going to care about the loss of someone like you. Even you won’t care when you’re dead. So, what’s the point of delaying the inevitable?

Oh wait, you want to live those fifty years. You think life is worth having. You want the chance to be a father and a grandfather, to love and be loved, to become wise and understanding. But mostly, you want to live out your natural span. And so do we all. And the normal and healthy among us - those not subsumed in the cold, small individualist zeitgeist that liberalism and modernity have woven - want our kin, our people, to live out its natural span, measured in tens of millenia as it is. And we do so because we are human and because we love, and because our people are us.

If you don’t feel that, you are a victim of the modern age, and you really need to examine your heart rather than critique the norm.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:53 | #

Harry,

It is important to separate the high degree of individualism which has evolved in the psyche of European Man from the great obsession of liberal philosophy. So you, for example, are individualistic by nature, relatively speaking. You are not an individual. Human personality does not contain the possibility to become sovereign.

As for rights, these are always contingent and even propositional - even the right to life - in a way that responsibilities, as they arise in respect to genetic interests, are not. I have noticed in human rights legislation how very poor are the justifications usually provided in the preamble. Lawyers operating in these fields invariably presume upon philosophical principle with their own moral principle, much of which, obviously, is political in nature. If you are looking for eternal values in law you won’t find many.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 13:01 | #

Leon,

He who does not gather me, scatters me.

But what did he mean? Was it the same as:

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

... and what are the two or three, and how are they gathered?

Posted by Hamish on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 13:34 | #

It figures out who killed the Iman, and then charges him with murder.

Just look what happened to that guy who killed the regional governor in Pakistan recently. Even though it’s quite possible that most people in Pakistan think the killing was justified, the Government still arrested the shooter and will no doubt charge him with murder.

I don’t think Muslims are going to let Imans get killed just because the Imans refused a challenge of single deadly combat.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:33 | #

Hamish,

First off, it’s Imam not Iman. Second, let me explain something to you, so you can understand what this argument is all about.

What James Bowery is doing with his “In a Sharia polity, ...” nonsense and his follow up question is similar to the following.

A man is framed, arrested, and wrongly charged with wife battering. The attorney asks the defendant in the court of law: Have you stopped battering your wife? The man, quite naturally, starts explaining that he loves and respects his wife, and he would never hit his wife. But the attorney interrupts him: That’s not what I am asking you, stupid. I repeat: Have you stopped battering your wife? Yes or no? .

I pointed out to James that his artificial construct “In a Sharia polity, ...” is absolute nonsense and exists in his brainwashed head only. Therefore his follow up question is an dishonest attempt to confuse matters, just like the attorney’s insistence on ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer is. The attorney’s question is constructed in such a way that, no matter what the defendant’s answer was, ‘yes’ or ‘no’, he would convey to the jury that he, at least, was battering his wife in the past.

I am not quite sure whether James is an idiot or just playing an idiot. In either case he becomes a legitimate target for ridicule. Understand?

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:30 | #

In a hundred years, we’ll be dead. On top of that, barring some catastrophe, humans will be engineering their (not “our”—remember, we’re dead) genome. Humans will be vastly more different than we are from our primate ancestors. All races will be obsolete.

How do you know this for certain?

If the decline of Western Man continues then scientific progress will most likely reverse itself. We will enter a dark age where the past century of research is simply forgotten. I mean really, many of these darker races can barely feed themselves without tremendous Western aid.

Imagine if non-whites accomplish a total political revolution in the West and gain control of our nuclear arsenals. How long do we think this new regime would last before firing off nuclear weapons to deal with a petty border skirmish? It could easily develop into a global nuclear war and be the end of life on Earth.

Their crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, tumble through the ether devoid of men.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:05 | #

Hamish, when people are seeking to “institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” the ordinary calculus of crime and punishment is fundamentally flawed. Suicide bombers are a prime example.

Posted by Jawake on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:41 | #

Unfortunately, the chance to further dissect and discuss the nature of the liberal mind offered to us by GW got somewhat lost in the comments.

But the projection he writes about is very evident in the way the liberal blogosphere and the mainstream media has exploded with recriminations against the Right after the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords.

Left-wingers have exhibited a pretty consistent pattern when they have attempted to explain the ever-increasing “lone gunmen” shootings in America. Essentially, if the attacks are political at all, they blame the entire conservative establishment, merely because it has resisted liberal social policies. Somehow, they assert that this has trickled down to the person of the “lone gunman” who commits the act.

However, if the “lone gunman” is clearly leftist or racial (in the wrong way), they simply ignore the incident. (Remember Omar Thomas in August who said he wanted to kill more people and the Discovery Channel hostage crisis in September, and Professor Amy Bishop in February.)

Now, there have been so many in the liberal blogosphere who are claiming that Jared Loughlan was a Republican and a conservative and have tried to lay the blame for Giffords’ shooting at the feet of conservatism. This despite the fact that Loughlan’s friends knew him as a “left-wing radical” and he calls the United States a terrorist country in one of his videos.

This extreme form of self-delusion becomes a way to inflict harm on others and mechanically dehumanize all conservatives, even the most moderate, as GW points out. I will add that the religious mind of the liberal, as GW describes it, needs self-generated hyper-moral drama to keep the faulty cognitive structure of their worldview alive is evident in these “lone gunmen” recriminations and vilifications.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 20:10 | #

Cratylus,

Does it matter if you die now instead of in fifty years? After all, you are not an important person. Your mind is slow. Your body is weak. You are rather ugly. You are not particlarly good or kind, or evil come to that. You are nobody, to be honest. And nobody is going to care about the loss of someone like you. Even you won’t care when you’re dead. So, what’s the point of delaying the inevitable?

I can’t believe gentle, and usually good-spirited, GW wrote this.

I am mighty curious, GW: Do you know Cratylus personally, or you just inferred all that, like Sherlock Holmes does, from what this poor lad had to say? I would agree that he/she doesn’t sound like an intelligent person, but don’t you think you were a bit extreme in your mean outburst?

100

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 21:16 | #

GW: Do you know Cratylus personally, or you just inferred all that…?

Ivan,

By my reading, GW is using Cratylus as a rhetorical device to illustrate the existential plight of Anyman.

I think it’s a very valuable comment, when interpreted from this perspective.

101

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 21:54 | #

By my reading, GW is using Cratylus as a rhetorical device to illustrate the existential plight of Anyman. I think it’s a very valuable comment, when interpreted from this perspective.

Very interesting interpretation of GW’s modus operandi indeed, Jimmy. But my concern was with my fellow human being Cratylus. Following your lead, I would go out on a limb to suggest: GW was simply sacrificing little guy to make big point.

I might not agree with you all the time, Jimmy, but I always enjoy reading your comments. Here and now you are promoted from foot-soldier of Allah to Field Mojahedeen. Don’t ask me what’s difference, otherwise I’ll demote you back to foot-soldier. That’s how we operate “In a Sharia polity”. Don’t take my word for it - ask James Bowery.

102

Posted by torgrim on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:32 | #

@Robert Reis,

“An entire generation, the bulk of Generation X and beginnings of the Millennials, absolutely decimated.”

And here, lies the deed that cannot be undone.

There are women that are bright, educated, but will vote and have voted for 30 years on this one issue only, abortion. Like it is a Right, and God damn anyone that says differently!

Good comment, Mr. Reis!

103

Posted by Mike on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:13 | #

“Most non-Whites are indeed not fully human in the way liberals conceive of them: that is as at least potentially good bourgeois, bien-pensant liberals such as themselves. It is the liberal will to view said as such that they are forced to dehumanize Whites by contrast.”

Spot on captain. This is why they worship non-white outliers with liberal characteristics. These people must be truely autonomous individuals to have overcame their tribalists backgrounds.

104

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:53 | #

Thanks, Jimmy. Do you want to be Imam? (I won’t tell James.)

105

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:29 | #

Do you want to be Imam?

This is funny. After nominally converting to Islam last year, I adopted the Muslim name, Ibn Aryan al JMarr.

This irked the Imam, who insisted that I change it, and when I tried to advertise one of my routine lectures under it, the newspaper failed to print it.

I still feel that it has potential.

106

Posted by Ivan on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:09 | #

At closer inspection, I have to admit that Bowery’s theory about individual formal combat to the death is not as stupid as it sounds in Bowery’s Turkish English. As a Circassian I can fully understand the rationale behind this idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAXuBllFiRI

Btw, the two greatest Russian poets ever - Aleksandr Pushkin and Mikhail Lermontov - were killed in duels.

Pushkin died defending in a duel his wife’s honor with her brother-in-law D’Anthès in 1837.

Lermontov, the most important Russian poet after Alexander Pushkin known as “the poet of the Caucasus”, was killed in a duel with a fellow army officer Nikolay Martynov in 1941 at the foot of Mashuk mountain - just 50 miles away from my home town.

107

Posted by Ivan on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:13 | #

Correction: Lermontov was killed in 1841 of course, not in 1941.

108

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:15 | #

GW wrote: “Thanks, Jimmy. Do you want to be Imam? (I won’t tell James.) ”

Imam Jimmy would have nothing to worry about from me so long as he didn’t attack something that needs protecting, by, for example misportraying my positions when accurate understanding is so hard to come by.

109

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:56 | #

Jimmy,

By tremendous ill luck you happened to pick the one name, Ibn Aryan al JMarr, which translates in the ancient Arab dialect of Nabatea as “crusading king of mortal combat”, and even now four thousand crack Bedouin swordsmen are checking exactly where Grizzly is and booking the flight from Jeddah.

110

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:41 | #

GW:

I’m not sure about the Nabatean dialect, but in normal Arabic the problem with the name is that the suffix, “al JMarr”, translates to “slave of JMarr”, and to properly reflect the Islamic sensibility should be changed to Abdullah, which means “slave of Allah”.

I think “slave of JMarr” will be perfectly appropriate in a society of sovereigns, and regardless of how many Nabateans are offended, I will only need to engage one per year.

The troublesome question for me, as always, will be wardrobe selection. Undoubtedly it should be based around a kilt, and should incorporate the prescribed 15 meters of cord, which could conceivably be wound around the head in a distinctly new form of turban.

As much as I like the stylish practicality of this idea, I fear that it could easily offend the Quaker sensibilities of my Ayatollah, and spiral into the untimely demise of our nascent religion.

111

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:29 | #

A moment of silence. Public weeping and wailing aloud in mourning and outrage interspersed with “Why? Why? WHY?” is encouraged if not mandatory.

Did James Bowery slash the tires of this ambulance because a dying 9 year old girl at the scene of the “enforcement” had refused a challenge to single combat to the death?

“If only I had been able to convince James Bowery to commit himself to potty retraining when I had him in my kindergarten class…”

James Bowery would challenge these flowers to single combat to the death if they would just stand up and fight in stead of just lying there like a bunch of Jewish Quakers! At least they’re in a State of Nature!

Is this one of James Bowery’s minions preparing to enforce his so-called “Law” against Congress for refusing to fight James Bowery in single combat to the death?

Boy, this is so difficult I just can’t think of any more captions. Maybe I should do something easy like trying to figure out what to offer up instead of the looney “Laws” proposed by James Bowery.

Have at it, you creative geniuses!

PS: Although the by-line is “James Bowery”, rest assured that I am the dog that lives inside James Bowery’s inner ear that he thinks is an electronic device implanted by the Mossad.

112

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:45 | #

WTF?

113

Posted by Ivan on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:02 | #

You naughty boy, if you continue your blasphemy at the time when the entire Caliphate goes into mourning for Imam Gabrielle, you’ll leave me with no other option but to make you an offer you can’t refuse: a challenge to single combat with Field Mujahedeen Ostap Suleyman ibn Bender Jay to your death.

114

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:35 | #

115

Posted by Hamish on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:38 | #

Let’s just start posting random stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/user/meekakitty

116

Posted by Trebuchet on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:12 | #

Maybe I should do something easy like trying to figure out what to offer up instead of the looney “Laws” proposed by James Bowery.

Have at it, you creative geniuses!

Let me try to take a crack at what Bowery may be getting at with his comment and the images he posted.

I think it may be tied to the recent back and forth with Haller. Regardless of whether or not “the government” (or elements within or tied to it) orchestrated or was involved in this latest incident, the enemy is able to steer it through the use of images among other means in a way that furthers its agenda. “Vague wish list posturing” is woefully inadequate to counter this.

117

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:03 | #

I think the probability of a leaderless collapse is more likely than its opposite.

Inasmuch as Bowery’s challenge system is essentially leaderless, it deserves more careful consideration.

Its tempting to evaluate the challenge system’s viability with respect to the probability of sufficient numbers of people stepping forward to say that they are willing and prepared to participate as combatants.

This is incorrect. The critical pre-condition is the availability of sufficient numbers of people who are willing to anonymously enforce the conditions of forfeiture on any party who refuses a legitimate challenge from a willing participant.

This is much more conceivable. I think this was the point of James’ example with the Imam, which was obscured because we are not managed by Imams.

The point to be understood is that the challenge system, (initially), would not be enforced by challengers, but by anonymous masses.

118

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:52 | #

Careful with that idea, Jimmy.

119

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:10 | #

I think the probability of a leaderless collapse is more likely than its opposite.

Think again, foot-soldier.

Making predictions, especially timed ones, is always a tricky business for there is a good chance the predictor will make fool of himself. For those of you who play stock market, just recall how miserable was your success rate at timing the markets. Predicting what and when is going to happen with a society is undoubtedly much more complex endeavor than any attempts at timing the financial markets.

Igor Panarin has been predicting since 1998 that America will fall apart in 2010:

Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.

It didn’t happen, and it is not likely to happen in the near future.

Who is successful at ‘predicting’ the financial markets? The answer is clear: Those who decide what and when should happen in the markets. The same with the society: What and when is going to happen can be ‘predicted’ only by those who decide what and when should happen to that society.

There is a widespread misconception that the Soviet Union has collapsed. Nothing of the kind. The ‘collapse’ was orchestrated by the Communist Party of Soviet Union from the top with active participation of the international jewry. The result? Decomposition, looting, and rape of jew-free Empire created at such enormous cost and sacrifice by the Russian and other Soviet peoples.

My advice to single combatant James Bowery and the foot-soldier: Don’t hold your breath in anticipation of sudden global collapse of any kind any time soon; get a job if you don’t have one.

120

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:39 | #

Digression on predictions in general by astrophysicist M.F.M. Osborne made in his fascinating book “The Stock Market and Finance From a Physicist’s Viewpoint”:

Predict means literally to speak in the future tense, and in that sense anyone can predict. “There will be an earthquake in San Francisco tomorrow.” This fulfills completely the definition of a prediction. Then the question arises, what is an accurate prediction, and what is a useful and profitable prediction. They are not the same things.

Take wild predictions like the one I just made about earthquakes. Are they profitable or useful? The answer rather surprisingly is, yes, they are. The evidence is that people pay money to astrologers, tea leaf readers and palmists for predictions of this sort. The newspapers print the Old Farmer’s Almanac, and an astrologers column. So making such predictions is certainly profitable to the people who make them. It is also profitable in a sense to the people who pay for them, because it eases their minds. They have a problem they don’t know how to decide. They get a decision. Regardless whether it is accurate or wise, they go away happy.

It is exactly the same phenomenon in which a doctor prescribes or a pharmacist sells you a pill which kills pain. This is profitable to the manufacturer and the doctor, even if it is only a placebo to make the patient think he is having his pain relieved. The patient is relieved of the pains and ulcers of indecision. A great deal of stock market prediction falls in this category. People are paid to do it and the people who listen go away happy.

121

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:39 | #

I could have sworn I just heard someone say “I’m not banking on a collapse.” but there was so much noise—it might just have been someone passing wind.

122

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:58 | #

I could have sworn I just heard someone say “I’m not banking on a collapse.” but there was so much noise - it might just have been someone passing wind.

You are not listening, bubba. You should pay close attention when older people speak. I’m gonna rephrase my advice once again and repeat it very, very slowly for the slow-witted: You’ll be better off confining yourself to teaching the brilliant single combat to the death doctrine to birds, in as vague terms as possible, and leaving the combat to those who are physically, mentally, and spiritually equipped for it.

123

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:17 | #

bubba,

It just occurred to me: Since you are so slow with words, perhaps, I should give you a couple of audio/video examples of what I mean by leave the combat to those who are physically, mentally, and spiritually equipped for it :

From the Gone to Yet to Come

Chechnya, the Land of the Brave

124

Posted by Frank on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:43 | #

What is with the slur “bubba”? Is that some sort of Jewish anti-Anglo-American slur targeted at native American whites who have yet to mix out into the proletariat mass?

125

Posted by Rick on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:57 | #

My advice to single combatant James Bowery and the foot-soldier: Don’t hold your breath in anticipation of sudden global collapse of any kind any time soon; get a job if you don’t have one.

With due respect, I submit that anyone ought to consider his/her ultimate objectives before taking a job.

I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared…. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt…. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude….
—Thomas Jefferson

A job might cause you to put down roots in an undesirable climate.

E.g. suppose you have the alternative of working in Brooklyn for S.L. Gruber & Sons, or the alternative of seeking residence in Peru, with no guarantee of employment.

Peru is awfully alluring, especially when compared to Brooklyn. Perhaps the Peruvian locals might be able to coexist with a white - the Brooklyn locals might be less hospitable.

As for “Bubba,” I think it might be a corruption of “Brother,” denoting the “good old boys” and their tendency to join community institutions.

126

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:59 | #

Frank, it is clear now that someone was just passing wind and like the wind, the smell too shall pass.

127

Posted by Rick on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:03 | #

Perhaps Ivan or some other Chechnyans could enlighten me - is the present government of Chechnya allied with Israel?

I ask this because I see rumors such as:
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/chechnya-the-israeli-connection/

One person whose name keeps popping up for sabotaging the Chechen resistance for his personal gains, is – Russian multi-billionaire Jewish media tycon and politician Boris Abramovich Berezovsky (born 1946), a critic of Russia’s ironman Vladmir Putin. Boris is wanted for arrest in both Russia and Brazil. Boris was a close friend of former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned with a lethal dose of radioactive Polonium-210 in a London sushi bar. Russian author, Paul Klebnikov has called Boris Berezovsky “Godfather of the Kremlin” in his 2000 book by the same name. Currently, Boris is reportedly backing the exiled Chechen politician Ahmed Zakayev, currently living in Britain.

and
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/138028

IHH Terrorists Are Common Enemy of Chechnya and Israel

128

Posted by torgrim on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:08 | #

Ivan,

What is wrong with “being slow with words”, as you say. Better slow with words, than slow with what you mean when you speak! When you speak to a Norseman, be clear, speak with your heart, and have courage, no matter, the outcome.

129

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:00 | #

Frank, it is clear now that someone was just passing wind don’t read too much into it.

The theoretician of the single combat to the death teaching is refusing single combat to his death, and rooting instead for ganging up against a single combatant. Familiar pattern - I’ve been through this at VNN Forum. That’s a shame! Norseman, honor, dignity, single combat to the death? You have no fucking idea what honor or dignity or even shame is.

Mr Bowel may entertain himself with stupid doctrines, but he is smart enough to know when to cover his ass by all means necessary. Self preservation is not a bad instinct after all. Wouldn’t you agree, bubba?

Good night, Norseman.

130

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:07 | #

Bowery’s single deadly combat (he should use my formulation of the term denoting his concept in all future instances as it is more succinct and evocative, whilst also being felicitously descriptive) is more interesting as a counterpoint to an optimal socio-political arrangement for our race than the latter per se.

131

Posted by Thunder on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:32 | #

This Ivan is either very thick or deliberately obfuscating. I can understand GW wanting to keep discusion open but as far as constructive comment goes it is better just to ignore his foolishess.

132

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:52 | #

either very thick or deliberately obfuscating.

These are mutually exclusive?

133

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:57 | #

“Single deadly combat”, per se, is NOT the motive force of Bowery’s proposal. It merely serves as the trigger.

The revolutionary power inheres in the possibility of mob reaction to the emotional spectacle of public challenge.

Our ascendency IS their collapse. Rise against the enemies of God!

134

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:00 | #

Soren, “Death Panel” evokes RICO.

As humor though, the irony does have its Laconic appeal.

BTW: This news seems ineffably relevant:

Proposals to increase Tricare fees will pit Mr. Gates against those in Congress — and veterans’ groups — who say retired military personnel already have paid up front with service in uniform. Ten years ago, health care cost the Pentagon $19 billion; today, it tops $50 billion; five years from now it is projected to cost $65 billion.

Help me out here…

135

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:43 | #

The first relevance I see in the Tricare article relates to the Pentagons use of language. Apparently war is now called risk management.

Death Panel is very descriptive, but, as James mentioned, has serious liabilities, (i.e. death connotes murder). We should consider euphemistic alternatives like Honor Guard and Human Rights Commission.

The entire concept of “Single Combat…” could probably benefit from alternative names that less strongly connote “duel”.

“Combat unto death” is also relevant to the article because the increase in Tricare cost is probably related to the changes in the nature of casualties accompanying the transformation of war into risk management.

136

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:20 | #

The Thinker of Lower Extremities,

I’m sorry to tell you, but the effect of you trying to be serious evokes the sorry spectacle of bubba trying to be funny.

You need some serious help, foot-soldier. The Imam is getting very upset.

I have to get back to work now, I’ll talk to you a bit later. Be well, Berta Maria ibn Bender Jay.

137

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00 | #

Ivan,

I don’t mind you posting substantively here at all, but it doesn’t help your cause to use all this insult. Will you cease with that now, please?

138

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:13 | #

CC: I agree that a standard idiom is necessary and I’ve tentatively adopted yours but its not poetic enough—and by that I mean evocative of the essential purpose. I’ve considered something more along the lines of Natural Combat as it evokes the essential aspect of Nature as the appeal of last resort.

I know people quibble about the definition of “Nature” but the purpose of such quibbling is almost always little more than a display. The very word “Nature” has been rendered virtually verboten by certain types who would likely be the first to be selected from the gene pool by Nature, so perhaps it is more than just a display.

139

Posted by Thunder on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:20 | #

Oh Captain My Captain,

You got me there mate Ivan is most likely both.

140

Posted by Thunder on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:33 | #

Anyhow I think I will take my own advice and just ignore Ivan’s foolishness. The only problem this leaves me with is missing some of Ibn Aryan al JMarr’s references. I don’t want to deprive myself of Jimmy’s jokes.

141

Posted by Ivan on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:54 | #

I don’t mind you posting substantively here at all, but it doesn’t help your cause to use all this insult. Will you cease with that now, please?

I shall not test the limits of you patience, chief. However I’ll say this: I am not a rude person, and I do not insult people - I communicate with people. I communicate with my native people using my native tongue and culture. If my opponent is Russian, I don’t shrink from drinking vodka with him and fist fight him after that if that’s what he prefers for entertainment. If my opponent is an old fashioned British gentleman like GW, I can share with him a cup of tea with milk and communicate in bloody English. If my opponent is an asshole American who prefers the language of insults I accommodate him as well.

James is like a smart alec teenager who does not understand fully how ridiculous he is in his pompous theorizing. I am not for corporal punishment of kids, but kids should be disciplined somehow, wouldn’t you agree? The most efficient way to discipline a teenager is to ridicule and shame him when he doesn’t behave like a young man should.

And an asshole ought to be reminded always, in no uncertain terms, that he is an asshole until he stops being one, otherwise he can become dangerous not only to the society but to himself as well.

“In a Sharia polity” we call it from asshole to wholesome doctrine, and it works.

142

Posted by Frank on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:10 | #

Ivan,

call him white trash maybe, or a “white monkey” haha. “Bubba” indirectly encourages miscegenation.

I’d love to hear input regarding which slur is best for white Americans. Wigger perhaps?

143

Posted by Ivan on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:34 | #

Perhaps Ivan or some other Chechnyans could enlighten me - is the present government of Chechnya allied with Israel?

No, Rick, the present government of Chechnya is not allied with Israel and never was. In fact, President of Chechnya and a former Chechen rebel, Ramzan Kadyrov is on good footing with Vladimir Putin.

Under Boris Yeltsin, after the disintegration of Soviet Union, when Chechen leader Dzhokhar Dudayev was stupid enough to attempt secession from Russia, Russian Jews, in particular Boris Berezovsky, have tried and succeeded to a certain degree in using Dudayev’s drive for independence to weaken Russian statehood.

144

Posted by Frank on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:32 | #

The official neocon org of Chechnya.

Wikipedia used to carry a list of its membership. It was (and likely still is) heavily Jewish.

145

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:06 | #

I’ve considered something more along the lines of Natural Combat

Only a teenage smart aleck would suggest a name like Natural Combat, which omits any reference to the fact that one of the two participants must die!

I think we should call it Seeking Unity in Nature. It’s poetic, evocative and felicitously descriptive enough to satisfy even the most punctilious of Nazis, (no offense, CC).

146

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:00 | #

Mao Tse Tung said change must come;

Change must come through the barrel of a gun.

James Bowery says change must come;

Change must come from the power of S.U.N.

147

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:48 | #

How is “Seeking Unity in Nature” “reference to the fact that one of the two participants must die” more than “Natural Combat”?

148

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:27 | #

CC: I agree that a standard idiom is necessary and I’ve tentatively adopted yours but its not poetic enough

James,

Nazi’s are hopelessly prosaic. Check out this opus:

Mao Tse Tung
said change must come
change must come
through the barrel of gun

But I want you to listen, son
Listen, son.
Bowery says that change must come
Change must come
From the power of the S.U.N.

So don’t be quakin’
sovereignty forsaken
just sittin around,
and contemplatin’

Get off your ass
and learn how to fight
all through the day
and all through the night

Sharpen your blade
ball up some twine
head downtown
and call out a swine

Hog tie his ass
this ain’t a city caper
you need to transport him
to a state of nature

When you get there
you better take care
only one’s comin’ out
cause that’s what’s fair

Give him a blade
and some cord of his own
but for godsake be sure
he ain’t got a phone

Leave him at the north end
Go to the southern
It’s what ya gotta do
If you want to stay sovereign

Its not an easy
thing to face
but it’s the what ya gotta do
to strengthen your race

When ya come out
They’ll put you in the slammer
Where your only consolation
will be your Thor’s hammer

But don’t let that stop you
From comin’ into your own
If you do a good job
ya might get mentioned in a poem

149

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:30 | #

How is “Seeking Unity in Nature” “reference to the fact that one of the two participants must die”

It’s the process by which two are transformed into one. Poetically.

150

Posted by Ivan on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:42 | #

The official neocon org of Chechnya.
Wikipedia used to carry a list of its membership. It was (and likely still is) heavily Jewish.

Good observation, Frank.

The American Committee for Piece in the Caucasus is an Orwellian newspeak for The American Committee for War in the Caucasus.

The Caucasus is the Achilles’ heel of the Russian Federation. The bastards at ACPC know that very well and they are trying very hard to spark a war in the region to destabilize and weaken Russia. That’s what the two Chechen wars were all about.

The XXII Olympic Winter Games will be held from February 7 to February 23, 2014 in Sochi, Krasnodar Krai, Russia.

As we get closer to that date, you’ll hear a lot more about Circassian ‘genocide’ for the following reasons:

(1) Sochi used to be the heartland of the Circassian territory in the 19th century.

(2) 2014 - 1864 = 150 since the tragic events of the Great Circassian Exodus of 1864: Short History of Circassian Exodus

(3) Jews will try to play the Circassian card against the Russians and use us, Circassians, as pawns, just like they used the Chechens.

In fact, they’ve already started doing that: The government of the American puppet Mikheil ‘Tie-Chewing’ Saakashvili is pushing the recognition of Circassian genocide through the parliament of Georgia: Saakashvili Eats His Tie

Every time you see a push for genocide recognition - look for a jewish muzzle somewhere in the background.

151

Posted by Ivan on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:20 | #

Jimmy,

Your poem is written not exactly in the style known as Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. As you know, in a Rubaiyat only the first, the second, and the fourth lines rime. Nevertheless you are promoted here and now to Omar Khayyam hall of fame.

You are the second person to be awarded so far with a membership of this prestigious club. The fist one is my 8 years old daughter who came up two years ago with the following genuine Rubaiyat:

Happy birthday to you
You live in de zoo
You look like an elephant
You smell like its poo

Congratulations, foot-soldier!

152

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:49 | #

Thank you, Ivan.

It’s joyful for me to imagine you with children. I do, however, sincerely hope that a comment you wrote elsewhere about the efficacy of ridicule as a means of child rearing was simply a rhetorical device.

153

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:18 | #

We need an objective description of this Entity’s structure, sources of power and modes of operation.

Yes. And last, but not least should an acronym for this Entity.

Something which will give us reciprocity for the devastation wrought by W.A.S.P.

It would be amazingly fortuitous, God willing, if the objective description of the Entity provided us with the letters “J”, “E” and “W”.

154

Posted by Revolution Harry on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:19 | #

Guessed Worker, it seems to me that ‘liberals’ are as likely to resort to collectivism as they are of individualism if it suits their agenda. I hold with a conspiratorial view of history and see the liberals, as well as most others in the false left/right political theatrical production, as being manipulated by the real controllers of both this country and much of the wider world. Therefore when I speak of their agenda, as in the liberals, what it actually is, is ‘their’ agenda, as in the elite controllers. There is a place for both individuality and the collective in a sane world but we don’t live in one. We live in a socially engineered, dystopian, multicultural mess that was ultimately created by ‘them’ and not the liberals. They are merely the brainwashed puppets of the elite who think they are ‘progressing’ towards some sort of Utopia when in fact that they are dancing to their master’s tune into a 21st century, feudalistic, hell.

“You are not an individual. Human personality does not contain the possibility to become sovereign.”

Sorry, but you’re quite wrong. I’m a flesh and blood human being with a living soul and as such I was born with certain God given rights and responsibilities. Don’t confuse this with such things as ‘human rights legislation’. This is ‘their’ law, this is ‘them’ setting themselves up as arbiters of the law. What ‘they’ can give ‘they’ can also take away. It’s also important to distinguish between such things as Common Law and the legal world which largely deals with statutes. Lawful and legal are two different things.

As concerned as I am about such things as mass immigration and state enforced multiculturalism, I don’t see these things in isolation. They are just two parts of a much bigger picture. What I’d love to see is a broad based resistance to this agenda and because I’m so concerned about the former issues I’m keen to explore ways in which disparate groups (including ‘nationalists’ such as yourselves) who all have the same enemy but may be concerned about different things, can find common ground. Resistance to the agenda has to deal with both its perpetrators and the weapons it uses. I can’t help but seeing constitutional reform as the basis for a successful resistance. Remove their power (including the power to create credit and charge interest) and the whole edifice crumbles. At that point the issues you hold dear can be discussed in a new light without the manipulations of ‘them’.

155

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 01:27 | #

Harry,

The elites, too, are products, not producers. That is to say, they are formed as Man is formed, and they are constrained in their power to know the real as Man is constrained by his own ordinary waking consciousness. That they can collectively institute and manage a programme of great material effect does not release them from the bonds of being merely human.

Can you see why I am not discussing politics and power, but psychology and being? It’s because, for me, the negative freedom that we Europeans require with regard to the elites, as with everything that is harmful and dysfunctional about our life, resides in a certain change of self-relation. We are living the wrong life - a life of estrangement - and, because the formation of human personality is a blind process, we have to change all the social/sociopolitical influences that have formed that life.

The legs of the elites, btw, get cut off in that process. Large revolutions are like that.

Sorry, but you’re quite wrong. I’m a flesh and blood human being with a living soul and as such I was born with certain God given rights and responsibilities.

Well, whether you know more about this than I do is a judgement you must make for yourself, and in any case if the defining factor in your decision is a personal god, then I cannot take this conversation further.

156

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:12 | #

Harry, by your apparent ‘reasoning’ it is just fine by you that niggers are allowed to fuck White women so long as this is the free choice of both parties. The problem with that is taken to its logical conclusion our race will be mongrelized down to the level of the subhuman. If that comes to pass - and if nothing is done to stop it, it will eventually come to pass - all your high-flown ‘principles’ won’t be worth shit.

P.S. David Icke is probably privately laughing at you in that you actually believe his bullshit.

157

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 06:48 | #

Jimmy, thank you for that verse but its rhyme and meter does not poetry make. As I mentioned to Soren the other day:

Poetry is hard work.

To put it another way, Occam’s Razor is downright uncomputable.

However, there’s a slight problem. I think I would prefer Occam’s Chainsaw Massacre to your verse since if the concept it to be butchered, please at least try to make short work of it.

Here’s the Occam’s Chainsaw Massacre version of the proposed idea:

“Challenge Obama and if he refuses go assassinate him and get yourself raped by an HIV-infected ethnic prison gang.”

See, if you’re going to lop off the idea of the challenger taking no enforcement action, indeed forswearing it, why bother with having the challenger hog tie the challenged when the challenged fails to respond? Just portray the challenger as assassinating Obama! Much simpler and to the point you’re trying to make….

158

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 06:54 | #

If that comes to pass - and if nothing is done to stop it, it will eventually come to pass -

What, lost your faith in GST already? You know full well Capt. that the greatest threat to your people are not Negros but WNs.

159

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:08 | #

I hope Søren stuck up for me.

There once was a man named renneR;
Who was mankind’s last defender.
He blew up a planet,
Leaving nothing but granite,
But was only a first-time offender.

160

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:51 | #

His skin was as white as the frost.
His freedoms were gradually lost.
‘Til he opened his eyes,
and to his surprise,
saw straight through the Holocaust.

161

Posted by Ivan on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:05 | #

Father William of Ockham with his razor: Stop Bubba, I’m Afraid

A note for the dim-witted: No computation is necessary, just listen.

A side note: “In a Sharia polity” we tend to agree with Father Willy.

162

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:14 | #

Check out Ivan’s eleven second interview with a clairvoyant.

163

Posted by Ivan on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:43 | #

Al J. Marr has been awarded by Sharia here and now with a medal of honor which in shape looks very much like Ockham’s razor.

164

Posted by Revolution Harry on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:44 | #

Guessedworker, the elites (the ones who make the decisions, way above the political level) are not like us. They can quite happily decide to instigate a war, crash an economy, poison the food or water supply, starve whole populations, lie, cheat, deceive, manipulate, the list is endless. You have to understand these people have no morals or empathy.

If you weren’t born with certain God given rights and responsibilities then which Pope, King or politician gives them to you?

Captain, if you take a look at my blog you’ll find that David Icke is unlikely to be laughing at me. I’ve seen through his ‘bullshit’, though I doubt you have.

It’s not as if the evidence is not both overwhelming and quite clear but people are either too lazy, too in denial or too ‘brainwashed’ to pursue it.

If you think you are ever going to achieve any sort of power by advocating legislation that would dictate who someone can or can’t have sex with you are utterly deluded. If totalitarianism is your thing (as opposed to my ‘high-flown’ principles) then it seems a bit hypocritical to complain if the particular brand of totalitarianism in vogue isn’t to your taste.

As I’ve said, step one is to recognise ‘their’ control; step two is to regain that control for ourselves. Once that has been achieved then the ‘perception management’, media manipulation and social engineering that leads to the sort of miscegenation you highlight can be exposed and stopped.

Desmond, it seems to me that at least one of the greatest threats is the sort of white nationalist who sees fit to write the word ‘nigger’ and then highlight it in bold type. Pathetic stuff.

165

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:20 | #

Am I doing any better, James?

There once was a baseless rumor,
by folk with no sense of humor,
whose kinsmen lied,
in order to hide,
the growth of a Zionist Tumor.

166

Posted by Ivan on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:08 | #

If you think you are ever going to achieve any sort of power by advocating legislation that would dictate who someone can or can’t have sex with you are utterly deluded…

As I’ve said, step one is to recognise ‘their’ control; step two is to regain that control for ourselves. Once that has been achieved then the ‘perception management’, media manipulation and social engineering that leads to the sort of miscegenation you highlight can be exposed and stopped.

Bingo! The only problem, dear Revolution Harry, is that while in bubbasville, in order to be understood and appreciated, one ought to speak in bubbauin tongue. Likewise, while trying to educate children in the art of reasoning that lies beyond the boundaries of “The Organon” of Aristotle, one ought to resort to the language of parable.

So let’s turn to the book of books for some help. The Koran: Parable XVII; Verse 1961.

Chief Bird in the turkey farm “Happy Thanksgiving” mounted on the top of a turned upside down bullock cart and cried:

Listen, birds, we are getting fat and cowardly. We need a legislation to reverse cold turkey this dysgenic trend we embarked ourselves in. Lucky for you, I have such a legislation, which I am not sure how to name yet but it has something to do with a combat. Stupid humans don’t understand birds’ language, so they were naturally confused about my legislation until this Al J. Marr came along and translated it to English. The said Marr was so excited about the fact that he ultimately succeeded in decoding my bird scripture, he appeared ready for conversion to what I call my “Birdy Num-Num” philosophy.

But this pesky Al J. Zeera fooled me once - shame on him, fooled me twice - shame on him, and, most likely, he’ll fool me again - for I am a fool.

My legislation is very solid, birds. All we need is to fix this solid bar into the slush of our way of life to get a robust structure. More importantly, I have solid experience in pushing solid legislation through the congress of farm owners.

What say you, birds?

167

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:25 | #

This bird, Ivan, says that your faith is a phenotype, and your god is a construction at the focal point of the need to worship. The real need is to behave adaptively.

168

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:31 | #

I think Søren, Jimmy and “Ivan” need to spend their time recording MR radio shows. We could call it “MR’s Cavalcade of Comedy!”

What about it guys? You’d be a sure hit drawing listeners from as far away as NPR!

169

Posted by Ivan on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:54 | #

This bird, Ivan, says that your faith is a phenotype, and your god is a construction at the focal point of the need to worship. The real need is to behave adaptively.

GW, do we really need to translate plain English text into the birds’ language to make it understood by the “Birdy Num-Num” philosopher? Boy, he seems to be in much bigger trouble than I have originally anticipated!

P.S. I need Al J. Zeera’s help to verify the original text from The Koran has not been butchered by GW while translating it to the Birdy language.

170

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:02 | #

What about it guys? You’d be a sure hit drawing listeners from as far away as NPR!

Given renneR’s propensity for dire predictions, and Ivan’s visceral response to clairvoyants, I think I’ll stick to my doggerel:

There once was an Iowa farmer,
whose heart was clad in armor,
he whined and pissed,
to cease and desist,
the verse of an Oregon charmer.

171

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:22 | #

This bird, Ivan, says that your faith is a phenotype, and your god is a construction at the focal point of the need to worship. The real need is to behave adaptively.

Or just to behave please, Ivan, to put it more bluntly.

I don’t provide this facility for miscreants. I try to err on the side of liberality in comment policy, but you are straying well beyond what is acceptable to me. Clean it up, please. Final request.

172

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 14 Jan 2011 03:30 | #

GW,

I know, i’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but i can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission, and i want to help you…

Seriously though, what would i do in GW shoes? I would ask James Bowery to apologize to “Ivan”, and make friends with him because, i am sure, “Ivan” would not insist on groveling multiple apologies, like bad jews do, instead, he, who is basically a very decent guy, in turn, would probably apologize himself.

Having said that, as Jimmy has pointed out with the eloquence and clarity of expression peculiar exclusively to him, “Ivan” does not believe in clairvoyants, and he has not reached yet the level of maturity where one starts appreciating seers of vision, and, in that sense, he can be called, deplorably so, a miscreant.

P.S. I hope it wasn’t too birdy. If it was ... well, i suppose, i could take comfort in the fact that i have mastered yet another language.

173

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:21 | #

What, lost your faith in GST already?

Genetic similarity theory illuminates better than any other explanation what we see in the world. The vast majority of Whites do not racially mix despite every pressure to the contrary. This is ipso facto powerful evidence that there is an intrinsic preference for those of their own blood in Whites. How robust this instinct ultimately is I do not know, nor am I inclined to risk mongrelization in order to test the proposition by forgoing racial separation.

You know full well Capt. that the greatest threat to your people are not Negros but WNs.

White Nationalism is at least as marginal an influence on the thinking of Whites as moon landing revisionism. Negroes attempting to bed White women is a daily and common occurrence. So, to the contrary, I certainly know no such thing.

To my mind, Nordicism is a subset of White Nationalism; the latter focusing on the broader concern of preserving the entire race and the former focusing on the more particular concern of preserving Northwestern Europeans. I am of fully Northwestern European descent, so of course I am concerned with preserving what are more particularly my people. This, however, in no way mitigates my desire to see my race preserved.

If “self-interest” is all that is of concern to you, then why do you give a damn about preserving Northwestern Europeans?

174

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:28 | #

Harry, you adopt a lecturing, and hence condescending tone to which you are certainly not entitled.

If you weren’t born with certain God given rights and responsibilities then which Pope, King or politician gives them to you?

You don’t have “rights” in any inalienable sense so much as you have interests. Your interests are every bit as real as and coeval to your intrinsic biological drives; such as the sex drive which leads to the propagation of your genes; the desire for self-preservation which disposes you to prefer life to death; sociability which disposes you to fellowship and concern for other people. These things obviously precede “rights” and are what “rights” are constructed to protect the fulfillment of.

These intrinsic biological drives you have are evolved traits. You were imbued with them because you were born to a species that carries the genes which code for said. Unless you reject genetics in any sense and instead assert humans come into the world de novo unconnected to any physical processes you will be forced to agree with me. Further, you should consider giving the evolutionary explanation preference over a creationist one for the genesis of Man, and hence your own physical/genetic participation in Manhood, as you cannot prove God exists - that then leaves evolution as the default explanation. You can’t prove God exists, can you? If so, do it now.

I’ve seen through his ‘bullshit’, though I doubt you have.

But you did believe his nonsense for a time. This alone is substantial evidence of a suggestible, credulous mind. Reptiles. Really, Harry.

step two is to regain that control for ourselves.

You apparently feel the need to rely upon God as a source of authority for that which you believe to be right. You apparently don’t believe miscegenation to be right. So by what I take to be your reasoning I must ask you why God would forbid the legal prohibition of miscegenation?

Thinking, not your strong suit is it, Harry?

175

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:44 | #

I don’t mind you posting substantively here at all, but it doesn’t help your cause to use all this insult.

Speaking of posting substantively. GW, I would like to post an open letter to Mark Weber, The Director of IHR, but I don’t know how to do it, or even if commenters are allowed to do that.

So I am posting the letter here, if possible, please move it to a new thread:

Subject: Why did Hitler attack Soviet Union?

Dear Mr Weber,

Every once in a while I visit IHR website: http://www.ihr.org/ . Even to somebody who has as little knowledge of what IHR is all about as myself, it is pretty obvious that IHR is pushing the envelope on the idea Hitler attacked Soviet Union because Stalin had a secret plan to attack Germany.

Would you care to take few minutes to answer the following questions that popped up in my head while I was contemplating this obvious and unfortunate obsession of IHR with the subject at hand.

1. Wouldn’t you agree that Stalin wasn’t a stupid man?

2. If so, why would Stalin entertain himself with a plan to attack Germany in 1941 when the Red Army, in the aftermath of the Great Purge, was in such great disarray that it couldn’t even win the military campaign against tiny Finland in 1939? Don’t you think the enormous loses incurred by the Red Army in 1941 is a proof that it was far, far away from the task of taking on Hitler’s military machine? Don’t you think Stalin would know whether USSR was ready or not for a war with Germany in 1941?

3. If I have observed John cleaning his gun and, in addition to that, I had reason to believe that John wanted to kill me, how could that justify me killing John who has done nothing no harm me? If it couldn’t, what’s the importance, legal or otherwise, of obsessing about the reasons I killed John?

4. Even if Hitler knew for certain that Stalin had such plans, how does that justify Hitler invading Soviet Union in violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact? If it doesn’t, what’s the importance, legal or otherwise, of obsessing about the reasons Hitler invaded Soviet Union?

5. Why did Hitler invade France and attack many other European sovereign countries before he attacked USSR? Did all those countries have secret plans to attack Germany as well?

6. Why would you give so much credit to this Jewish bastard Vladimir Rezun, a former Soviet spy who defected to the UK? I am sure, the director of the Institute for Historical Review can appreciate the irony of taking the last name of the great Russian patriot Suvorov by the traitor of Russia as his pen name.

7. What’s your agenda, Mr Weber, with this “Hitler attacked Stalin because Stalin wanted to attack Hitler” nonsense?

Best wishes.

176

Posted by Revolution Harry on Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:12 | #

Captain, you quoted a perfectly legitimate question not a lecture. If by lecturing tone you’re referring to my despairing statement regarding the overwhelming level of evidence for an agenda to create a world government then I plead guilty as charged. The evidence is overwhelming and you can safely ignore David Icke in reviewing it.

Icke is a creature of the forces behind the agenda whether he’s aware of it or not (I suspect he is). As such much of what he says is true. Some of the agenda is being deliberately revealed. It’s the parts that aren’t true and the elements of the agenda he doesn’t discuss that make Icke so dangerous. I never believed his nonsense about reptiles. I suspended judgement on the reptile issue merely because I was aware of a large amount of evidence in early cultures of fish, dragon or reptile ‘gods’. As for the rest of Icke’s work I decided to research all his claims myself. In the process I came to my conclusions about Icke being controlled and discovered which bits of the bigger picture he’d missed out. Perhaps my thinking is stronger than you give me credit for.

It may interest you to know what is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of David Icke. Certainly from a nationalist point of view. Icke strongly promotes two ‘solutions’ to what we face. They are that ‘we’ need to learn we are all one consciousness and that everything is an illusion. This illusion includes race, religion, culture and even gender. You can find this meme throughout the New Age movement and I’m sure you can see how it plays into the hands of those who wish to destroy nation states and the people who created them.

As for strength of thinking I’m not completely sure that the regular use of the word ‘niggers’ in bold type is evidence of it.

As far as I’m concerned I have both rights and interests. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t understand why you think they are.

I don’t feel the need to rely on God. The point that is being made is that we are all born with God given rights as opposed to other humans granting us whatever rights they see fit to. This is a different thing to seeing God as a source of authority for what I think is right. Personally I don’t see miscegenation as a necessarily moral issue. I might not agree with it but I certainly wouldn’t legislate against it. The removal of the relentless 24/7 brainwashing on the subject and an open discussion of it, free from the manipulations of ‘them’, would be a good start. This would result in the understanding that some or even many wish to maintain their ethnic and cultural heritage and should be allowed to do so. As such if the idea of miscegenation did still appeal then it would be understood that this would result in a life outside the community they were brought up in.

As for God’s position on the issue, that’s a good question that I don’t have an answer for.

177

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 00:40 | #

Which is it old boy?

it will eventually come to pass

The vast majority of Whites do not racially mix despite every pressure to the contrary.

It can’t be both.

This is ipso facto powerful evidence that there is an intrinsic preference for those of their own blood in Whites.

No. It’s evidence that the intrinsic preference is for the genetically similar because even the exception supports the rule.

Negroes attempting to bed White women is a daily and common occurrence.

Possibly, but of little consequence because as you said “Whites do not racially mix despite every pressure to the contrary.”

To my mind, Nordicism is a subset of White Nationalism;

An interesting perspective considering the 1924 restriction and Boaz’s claims of phenotypical plasticity aimed at undermining the founding Americans desire for preservation. WN is a Jewish construct.

If Nordic preservation concerns you why embrace erocide?

“Particularly during the post-war baby-boom generation’s fertile years the secular Jewish doctrines of feminism and sexual liberation opened up the genetic flood-gates and eliminated even the few moral protections Christianity held out to our folk. The results have been devastating. I estimate that for the baby boom generation alone, between 50 million to 150 million children of north and western European ancestry have not been born who otherwise would have been—Look carefully at the images that come out of Hollywood and see if you don’t agree that blond or red-haired men (the stereotypical hair color of north and west of the Alps)... are portrayed in humiliating and demoralizing roles… Now compare this frequency to that of the Mediterranean men who are continually portrayed as great lovers and moral leaders who all women should aspire to reward with their sexual favors.”

“Self-interest?” Even your hero proclaimed that the masses are nothing and that everything that is worthwhile arises from the individual. It is nature’s law. The iron law of the reproductive differential.

178

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 01:17 | #

Why did Hitler attack Soviet Union?

Interestingly, imo, Focault argues that it is the ultimate destiny of the bio-state.

…[R]acism makes it possible to establish a relationship between my life and the death of the other that is not a military or warlike relationship of confrontation, but a biological-type relationship: ‘The more inferior species die out, the more abnormal individuals are eliminated, the fewer degenerates there will be in the species as a whole, and the more I—as species rather than individual—can live, the stronger I will be, the more vigorous I will be. I will be able to proliferate’

Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, says Focault, to eliminate threats to the German bloodline not only externally but internally as well. Telegram 71 being the culmination of the bio-state imperative “Hitler gave the order to destroy the German people’s own living conditions” as a method of further purifying a losing Germany of its weak peoples that led to such a defeat.

179

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 01:25 | #

Ivan,

Thank you for the turn to constructive use of this medium. Let us not return to old habits, regardless of the provocations and disagreements which may come your way.

I am not ill-disposed to the argument you are making about Barbarossa. I think CC, who has often retailed the imminent Soviet invasion line, will disagree with you. Alex Zeka, whose ethnic Russian family I believe had members persecuted by the system over which Stalin presided, will certainly not agree that he was a nationalist hero, as you have previously stated here. Neither do I. He was a psychopath, and the degree of utility his psychopathy held for certain ethnic interests within the Soviet empire does not outweigh the vast pain and suffering he caused during his lifetime.

But, that said, the history of the decision to launch Barbarossa is worth a look. Now, a web post dealing with this really needs a sound intro with references to the actual history and quoted elements from the IHR camp before you come to the questions you want to raise. If you can develop the piece as an essay in that form, I will publish it and send a link to Mark. Just send it to me through the contact button under the header.

180

Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 02:14 | #

Desmond Jones,

The Soviets were preparing to attack as well. Hitler just hit them first.

WWII appears dysgenic since many strong fighters died. No genetic advantage will stop a bullet.

The Germans suffered rape and their soldiers married Slavs. The German identity was diluted as a result.

181

Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 02:26 | #

Attacking a domestic enemy by declaring war against a foreign one is extremely common, and it might be argued that Hitler wanted war for such a purpose. The war likely gave him immense power, similar to the Reichstag fire.

Similarly in the US, the Cold War and War on Terror have been waged against the old right. The right unites behind “its government” to fight the foreign enemy, and the right’s domestic enemies import immigrants, deport capital, reduce civil rights, and fill the right with nonsensical ideology. Of all of that, the ideology is probably the most damaging.

CC,

Kinism offers a Christian defence for racial separation.

It shouldn’t surprise that Southerners have a long tradition of defending this. Similarly, the Afrikaners have their own tradition of it.

If the Christian West is to be saved, it shouldn’t surprise that it’ll be the Olde South saving it.

182

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 03:21 | #

Negroes attempting to bed White women is a daily and common occurrence.

Slate:

Women become more racist when they’re ovulating. At least white American ovulating women do when it comes to thinking about black American men. Those are the jaw-dropping, politically incorrect findings of Michigan State University’s Carlos Navarrete and colleagues. White, undergraduate females were evaluated for race bias using several variants of an implicit association test, which asks participants to perform a word-matching task that indicates the relative accessibility of certain stereotypes. The women who happened to be ovulating scored especially high when it came to fear of black (as opposed to white) men, a fact that the authors interpret as reflecting an evolved disposition to avoid so-called “out-group males,” who “may not have been subject to the same social controls as in-group members and would have constituted a threat in antagonistic situations.” In this case, skin color serves as a convenient marker of group identity. (The authors concede that people of different skin colors came into contact with one another only in recent times, evolutionarily speaking, but propose that any physical trait that serves to demarcate an out-group member would be processed by ovulating females as a sort of “hazard heuristic.”)

183

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 04:15 | #

I question the presumption that white female fear of black males makes white females less likely to fuck them. Rape should be defined as any act of procreation that a female calls rape so long as she has not given prior public notice of her sexual acceptance of the man in question. Moreover, rape should carry a mandatory death sentence. Yes, punishment for rape is, and should be, racially biased because rape is racially biased.

PS: If this means some philandering white guys, or desperate white guys, get executed “unfairly”, then lets think about it eugenic terms.

184

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 06:30 | #

The Soviets were preparing to attack as well. Hitler just hit them first.

Thank you for keeping it simple and short, Frank. I’m a big fan of keeping things simple and short. As Father Willy said: entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary.

Here is Ockham’s razor for the genesis of the WWII.

Adolf Hitler was a true national leader of the highest order. But he committed two major blunders:

1. He looked up to the Brits,
2. He looked down to the Russians.

Brits betrayed him, and the Russians kicked his ass.

Stalin knew better - he never trusted the Brits. But he overestimated the smarts of Hitler. Stalin repeatedly rejected numerous warnings, including those coming from Churchill himself, that Hitler was about to attack. And Hitler did. To this day, 65 years after the end of the WWII, the great nation of Germany, and the whole Western World, still paying the price for his blunders.

There is a growing crowd of intellectuals out there, and Pat Buchanan is one of them, trying to justify Hitler’s violation of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 as preemptive strike.

You can speculate as much as you want about the alleged intentions of Stalin to attack Germany, but the fact remains - Russia did not attack Germany, Germany did.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Stalin was stupid enough, which he wasn’t, to attack Germany in 1941. Wouldn’t Germany be better off fighting patriotic war against the evil Soviet invaders instead of becoming the evil aggressor itself against the Russians and dozens of other peoples of the USSR?

Hitler, as evidenced in his sequel to Mein Kampf, The Zweites Buch, felt that German people should look East for lebensraum. But he picked the wrong people to take the land from, and he lost.

185

Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 06:59 | #

Hitler only ever talked of Lebensraum. The attack east wasn’t about that I think, though I’m sure it stokes the patriotism of proud Slavs who struggle to admire a Stalin who killed tens of millions outside of war. Heil Stalin the Terrible!

Anyway there was a substantial benefit to attacking early.

Adolf Hitler was a true national leader of the highest order. But he committed two major blunders:

1. He looked up to the Brits,
2. He looked down to the Russians.

Brits betrayed him, and the Russians kicked his ass.

I like that. Brits need to be criticised and so improve. Their true nature is much better than what they’ve fallen to.

Solzhenitsyn wrote something similar regarding Jews and Russians. I wish I had the quote handy. I also wish Solzhenitsyn were a Brit - an admirable writer and speech maker.

186

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 07:05 | #

If you can develop the piece as an essay in that form, I will publish it and send a link to Mark.

I appreciate your good will, GW, but I’m not up to that kind of task, not to mention, I am not good at writing essays at all.

187

Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 07:10 | #

At least when escalating a conflict to, say, nuclear attack people seem ready to concede preemption has its merits.

When America attacked Iraq, we were all told (even Dubya the Yankee Idiot - and yes he is a Yankee) Iraq possessed ties to al Qaeda and WMD which it was preparing to use. Egad! We preemptively struck, along with the Brits who are apparently no brighter than Americans (which is an enormous insult).

Anyway assuming Iraq was preparing to attack, that real intell (gathered by Ivan-clan Caucasians) existed; would preemption then be justified? Or for the sake of political capital should a leader sit back and allow an attack, doing nothing more than striving to minimise casualties?

FDR of course didn’t even act to reduce casualties. Pearl Harbour was left wide open, though of course America was given its casus belli.

188

Posted by Hamish on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 08:40 | #

Anyway assuming Iraq was preparing to attack, that real intell (gathered by Ivan-clan Caucasians) existed; would preemption then be justified?

No.

Or for the sake of political capital should a leader sit back and allow an attack, doing nothing more than striving to minimise casualties?

Yes.

FDR of course didn’t even act to reduce casualties. Pearl Harbour was left wide open, though of course America was given its casus belli.

He won.

189

Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 08:46 | #

Hamish,

maybe you’re right.

190

Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 14:58 | #

Which is it old boy?
>Desmond Jones

I won’t answer for the Captain, but I will answer. The fact is that race mixing is still a behavior practiced by a significant minority of whites. IIRC, n/a pointed out that perhaps 93% of white men and 89% of white women marry whites. And this is in the context of a society which propagandizes the virtues of race mixing nonstop. Therefore, it is safe to assume that it will not have the mongrelizing effect some fear. You could actually argue that, in Darwinian fashion, the white race is becoming more racist by evolution because the least ethnocentric are marrying out. It’s kind of de facto eugenics when you think about it.

191

Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:43 | #

Gudmund,

the US is becoming more like India with shades of race rather than anything pure. This process is being sped up by the mass immigration of Hispanics who vary considerably in their percentages. Plus you have southern and Eastern Europeans who are somewhat mixed.

a 15/16th black marries a pure this generation. Next generation a 7/8th Amerindian marries into one of the progeny, and so on.

Each family that picks up such a mix will inclined not to exclude it and its progeny, and thus the extended family becomes mixed in identity.

There’s no positive spin on this. High quality people are made into anti-whites by environment. It took an unusual set of circumstances to make me racially oriented.

192

Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:54 | #

Within my extended family at least, which is rather high quality with healthy families, none but I read all that much. Most of them watch TV though are very sociable when not working (as with most highly paid, all work more than 9-5). People with families, especially in rural areas, tend to be like this.

Of my and our grandparents’ generations, we’re all racially oriented somewhat. But I assure you no one does / has done an ancestry test on spouses / new mates.

The “genetics answers everything” is perhaps all there is for some, but it’s extremely weak. Man requires some sort of culture to make him act as he ought (including how to act as he’s genetically inclined). We need a stronger culture that encourages us not to race mix.

Similarly, C.S. Lewis:

It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so.

And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more ‘drive’, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or ‘creativity’. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

It’s not a simple as declaring “we need these things” and thus having them willed into existence magically.

193

Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:56 | #

We’re directed by a mix of forces. There’s no rational formula most of us go by. If there’s some hot, 7/8 East Asian girl who’s culturally compatible, most of us will justify marrying her, especially with the many forces out there encouraging us to do so, including religious forces which have always held a strong power over man.

194

Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:05 | #

Reg. those percentages, I meant 7/8th white w/ 1/8th Asian, 15/16th white w/ 1/16th Amerindian.

I’m in a hurry this morning. The other errors I’d correct, but they’re more obvious.

195

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:06 | #

...93% of white men and 89% of white women marry whites. And this is in the context of a society which propagandizes the virtues of race mixing nonstop. Therefore, it is safe to assume that it will not have the mongrelizing effect some fear.

I you look at the statistics of white men and especially white women who race mix OUTSIDE marriage we will see a truer picture. Interracial marriage statistics alone DO NOT inform us of the magnitude of the problem. If anything, interracial marriage statistics give us a false impression of just how pervasive race mixing really is - especially the Euro-female/African-male type.

196

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:28 | #

There once was an anti-racist
The hypocrite never faced it.
Ignoring the facts,
he couldn’t relax
‘til his race, he had replaced it.

197

Posted by Frank on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:33 | #

“especially the Euro-female/African-male type”

The fact that in America we now consider so many more “white” than we used to speaks volumes as well.

India here we come.

198

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:14 | #

A man once knew what was right.
Blacks were righteous in his sight.
When it came to n*ggers,
he was taken by shivers
but all that he hated was White

199

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 19:43 | #

The signals were clear from the brink.
But white people failed to think.
They didn’t know better,
or couldn’t care wheather
that they’ll all become slaves to the chink.

200

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 19:47 | #

There was this man who was very bright
Being what he was, he was always right
Having no stomach for people no frank
He decided to take on a kike - de Frank
Not surprisingly, the hypo-crite, immune to his crit,
Refused cease and desist from the bright of this site

201

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 20:17 | #

The site has been hit with wide-spread contagion
Not immune to it people born with a thorn
Not black, not white, not even the asian
Hell, not even ivan - the stupid caucasian

202

Posted by Walker on Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:47 | #

The fact is that race mixing is still a behavior practiced by a significant minority of whites. IIRC, n/a pointed out that perhaps 93% of white men and 89% of white women marry whites.

Does marriage data tell us the whole story regarding race-mixing?

Sexual activity and reproduction have been divorced quite a bit from marriage.

And the marriage rate has plummeted over the past 40 years, and the decline may even be accelerating:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/08/the-end-of-marriage-2/

“The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia publishes an annual report titled The State Of Our Unions which includes data on US marriage rates since 1960. From 1970 through 2008, the US marriage rate has declined from 76.5 to 37.4 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women — see the chart below:

“Not only is the marriage rate declining, but the rate of decline is accelerating. Let’s fit a trend line. The best fit trend lines are second and third order polynomials with R-squared of 0.9868 and 0.9871 respectively:

So there it is. If the current trend continues, sometime between 2028 and 2034 the US marriage rate will reach zero.”

I imagine the current “Great Recession” and “jobless recovery” will only exacerbate this precipitous decline.

203

Posted by torgrim on Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:17 | #

Gudmund wrote; “You could actually argue that, in Darwinian fashion, the white race is becoming more racist by evolution because the least ethnocentric are marring out.”

A lot of this loss of Whites is due to 40 years of propaganda and even with that most whites prefer their own. Something hard-wired is at work here.
It just so happens the NYTimes of all places, put up this article in their science page.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11hormone.html?_r=1

204

Posted by torgrim on Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:27 | #

From the Trend line above;

Trend line; I expect the trend line will break before 2028, as this is another indicator of a civilizational breakdown. The trend will break.

Off topic, but just can’t help to comment on the Establishment’s use of the language with quotes such as these;

“Jobless Recovery” and “Great Recession”...ARH, “the humanity” Our language looks like a picture of the Hindenburg going down in flames…

205

Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 16 Jan 2011 02:15 | #

I you look at the statistics of white men and especially white women who race mix OUTSIDE marriage we will see a truer picture. Interracial marriage statistics alone DO NOT inform us of the magnitude of the problem. If anything, interracial marriage statistics give us a false impression of just how pervasive race mixing really is - especially the Euro-female/African-male type.
>Thorn

This is true, and I didn’t intend to discount it. Generally, however, those who have children outside of marriage are still underclass. The higher up the class ladder one climbs, the more likely individuals are to married and the less likely to race mix, for that matter.

But again, what does it matter? Those who choose to race mix with ‘groids or other cruds are not quality individuals. Ultimately what any racialist movement needs is quality. And a diminution of overall numbers will be offset by the more ethnocentric nature of the remnant.

Sexual activity and reproduction have been divorced quite a bit from marriage.

And the marriage rate has plummeted over the past 40 years, and the decline may even be accelerating:
>Walker

I don’t doubt that this is the case at all. Marriage has been discouraged through legal means. A white man in America faces the prospect of not having any real authority in his home and the possibility of an unfaithful woman who can use divorce to ruin his life. White women are increasingly drawn to careerism and early promiscuity, which from my perspective means fewer and fewer who are desirable mates. To say that there are disincentives to marry in present-day America is a rather large understatement.

There’s no positive spin on this. High quality people are made into anti-whites by environment. It took an unusual set of circumstances to make me racially oriented.
>Frank

Frank, I respectfully disagree. The type of person I as a racialist look for is not going to be swayed by environmental conditions. Healthy individuals, that is, those who are fit in the Darwinian sense, do not need to be told which are in their in-group and which are not. “Having race” is more important than being of a certain race, i.e. race is a feeling or instinct. Ultimately there is going to be a percentage of people who simply are not susceptible to this sort of conditioning or suggestion. This is the type of person who is the future of the white race.

And I am not afraid of being considered uncompromising. Frankly I think compromise on the race issue is the worst thing one could do. If my kin or friends decide to go down that road, I will simply disown them. That is the example I think we should set. Bend not to the multicult in terms of values, accept no compromise, and stick to one’s principles is the model I intend to follow.

206

Posted by Frank on Sun, 16 Jan 2011 02:51 | #

“If my kin or friends decide to go down that road, I will simply disown them. That is the example I think we should set.”

I’d do the same, but I just know too many who would never uphold this.

“Ultimately there is going to be a percentage of people who simply are not susceptible to this sort of conditioning or suggestion. This is the type of person who is the future of the white race.”

Heh, had I been born outside the South, I wonder if I’d fall in this group…

Reg. my “high quality” family btw: I meant it’s above average not super-genius, of course. Some in here are likely geniuses, and I’m not one of those. My extended family is relatively healthy I think, though producing children rather late too.

207

Posted by daily bugle on Sun, 16 Jan 2011 23:07 | #

This story reminded me of Ivan:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/nazi_dressing_alleged_jihadist_charged_with_biting_two_fbi_agents.php

Nazi-Dressing Alleged Jihadist Charged With Biting Two FBI Agents

Emerson Begolly, a 21-year-old Penn State student who allegedly expressed pro-jihad and anti-Semitic sentiments, was arrested in the parking lot of a Burger King in Pennsylvania last week after he allegedly went for a gun in his pocket and then bit two FBI agents when they tried to question him about his online activities.

His mother told FBI agents that Begolly’s father (shown here) sparked her son’s interest in Nazism, encouraged him not to take his medication and stocked up on weapons, and FBI agent testified. Photos of Begolly in a Nazi uniform were taken by his father, Shawn Begolly, when the younger Begolly was approximately 11 or 12 years old, his mother allegedly told FBI agents.

Kowalski also told FBI agents that her son had a passport and expressed an interest in traveling to Chechnya to become a martyr and had an AK-47, according to an FBI agent. Begolly’s stepmother reportedly told the FBI that he wrote poems about causing harm to Jews.

208

Posted by Ivan on Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:28 | #

Once there was a boy by the name of Begolly
He understood the importance of being holy
Too bad - his old man has failed him to teach
How to avoid being charged with some folly

209

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:08 | #

Desmond,

It can’t be both.

My comment directed to Harry was intended as a provocation to focus his mind on the existential threat that faces our race. To bring his feet back in contact with the ground of the genetic continuity of our race; down from the clouds of the airy-fairy discussion he was conducting with GW. He did indeed express some round-about concern for the genetic continuity of his people - so my tack produced the desired result. I mean, if he is for White preservation then who really should fucking care if he believes in God or not? I know I don’t. Perhaps others do.

Possibly, but of little consequence

It is of little consequence that negroes are consuming as a reproductive resource some of the ever dwindling supply of White breeding age females? Whatever you say, chief.

An interesting perspective considering the 1924 restriction and Boaz’s claims

My conception of Nordicism as a subsidiary manifestation of White Nationalism is my own. I make no claim that it jibes with your historic understanding of both of these in relation to each other.

If Nordic preservation concerns you why embrace erocide?

Er…I’m not aware that I’ve embraced “erocide”. I didn’t make the baby boomers embrace “erocide”. I’m not a baby boomer - my folks are baby boomers. Hope that clears matters up for you. Make sure to notify your hard-drive.

GW,

I am not ill-disposed to the argument you are making about Barbarossa.

Of course not. Because that would tend to put the Krauts in a more negative light vis-a-vis the attachment of historical guilt to them. It would tend to make the English look better by contrast and allow for English nationalists to triangulate against the Krauts. Pretty old hat at this point.

I think CC, who has often retailed the imminent Soviet invasion line, will disagree with you.

You don’t believe the Soviets were planning to invade? Then why did they not have their forces deployed in depth consistent with a defensive posture?

Jimmy,

When it came to n*ggers,
he was taken by shivers
but all that he hated was White

Glad you caught that too. The next time Bowery sees a nigger in public with a White woman it would seem he would wish to put his money where his mouth is and challenge said congoid to single deadly combat. But since Bowery is not stupid he clearly won’t. Although he may keep talking as if he would.

210

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:34 | #

GW: I find CC’s comment gratiutously offensive. Do you agree?

211

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:48 | #

You don’t believe the Soviets were planning to invade? Then why did they not have their forces deployed in depth consistent with a defensive posture?

The Soviets were not planning to attack - that’s a fact
That’s why Uncle Joe longed for Non-Aggression Pact
Führer would honor Molotov-Ribbentrop - he thought
See, CC, the reason behind the lack of deployment act?

212

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:26 | #

Bowery, we can penetrate the zeitgeist with our ideas. The time grows near, I can feel it, I see more signs of receptivity every day. But to do that, we must strive to make intellectual racialism accessible to those who would hear us. And that means rendering said as relevant to the lives of prospective listeners. To do that we must trim some fat. I do not believe NS or single deadly combat can gain any reaction other than revulsion - so certainly then no traction.

By way of example: Last evening I attended a lecture on the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. Pretty standard fare. But, during question time, a girl voiced her disapproval to the speaker regarding the “anti-racism” trope. This, she stated, had the unavoidable effect of imputing racism to her in that she is White. She cannot be but White.

This is just the kind of ontological consciousness (nascent thought it was in her case) I assume we here wish to nurture. It can be done, but it needs to be presented in effective fashion. Where I have myself erred in not doing as such then I am remiss.

213

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:20 | #

There is a website for Whites.
They call it Majority Rights.
It has the potential
to be consequential
but it often leads to fights.

The writers get quite attached
to ideas that they have hatched.
and if its suspected
they’re disrespected
its like their Mom was dispatched.

For those who are writing nightly,
your words are not taken lightly.
Pay your dues
with P’s and Q’s,
and treat each other forthrightly.

214

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:17 | #

James,

CC is often offensively anti-English. It has something to do with our ancestors killing one another. Which has everything to do with that European tradition of non-civilian warfare which our respective elite duellists democratised in 1914. It turned out that asking people who don’t have a stake in the argument to duel to the death has no benefit to anyone. So it’s not just the drama of the duel (to bring the social-harmers to heel) or even the sacredness of the cause (to re-centre society on our true interests). It’s the stake in being white that matters, and which whites have forgotten in their headlong rush into the individual life. I think you presume on that stake, if you don’t mind my saying so.

CC,

Think of the social effect of James’ idea in the sense of Heidegger’s being-before-death. Or even that moment of existential confrontation that every serious gym nut, every mountain-climber, every marathon runner knows - something we discussed a while back. The young lady at the anti-racism seminar is getting close to that moment, as you saw. It’s the seriousness of the moment, then, that is the revolution-maker.

James’ idea is good because it clarifies that moment, although it isn’t terribly clear itself. But even Heidegger couldn’t get the NSDAP heavyweights to understand. Ontology does not communicate well, and its social power is underestimated as a result.

215

Posted by PM on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:43 | #

I don’t think there’s much doubt over the Soviet plans to invade the West, is there?

Even in the ‘World At War’ series (which I have watched as a more discerning adult, and once you remove your own filters and listen properly, there is much to be gleaned) during the episode on Barbarossa, there is a Russian soldier talking about the surprise he felt at the German invasion, because he had been told by his superior officers that when they eventually came to fight the Germans, it would be on German soil (I’m paraphrasing, but this is essentially what he said).

216

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:33 | #

GW and CC:

Intellectual honesty demands that one attack the strongest arguments of one’s opponent, not make caricatures. I don’t see that from either of you. The worst I’ve said of the ontology project is that I don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel as, apparently you two do. My offering of Rota’s challenge to the ontology project still stands unanswered and until it is, I have nothing to contribute nor do I see true relevance in it. This is not to say it is not relevant nor even possibly the salvation you see, so I do not progress from that position of ignorance to insulting caricatures of the ontology project as you have done to my ideas repeatedly.

In short, if you are representatives of civil behavior then we must, indeed, taken down civilization and replace it with something in which insults to honor offered up in response to intellectual challenges, are subject to more substantive challenges.

217

Posted by Ivan on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:50 | #

Gift of clear thinking is a god-given bliss
Not clear with your idea? - something amiss
Clinging to a poor idea is not a good idea
Just let it go, partner, with a goodbye kiss

218

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:42 | #

Cardinal ideas work like compasses. Regardless of how true, they can rarely be followed literally. Frustration sets in when mundane obstacles intervene.

Making better compasses is important. Cultivating patience and perseverance is critical.

Billions will die. We will win.

Rise against the enemies of God!

219

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:50 | #

James,

I cannot answer Rota’s challenge directly because I don’t have enough information to hand without reading him. In any case, why “as”? The formulation, for me, is “am”, or one loses presence from the relation of self (I) to self (being), and without presence one is left only with thought - not an equal trade. Presence, I might add, is not present in Heidegger’s thought. Or I haven’t found it yet. If anyone knows different, please elucidate.

You raised another point in that Rota entry which was interesting in this regard:

My chief insight was that, functions being degenerate relations, in going from a single massively parallel computer to a massive network of computers in which “time” itself became a problematic formal entity ...

But, as I see it, the computer programme in the instance in question (the individual person) relates to a network of programmes (a tribe or ethnic group) through the same process of fidelity in the moment (ie when the programme is on, or present) which renders experience of self or the real. So, “I am = we are” not because “I” and “we” are the same, but because the moment is the same and contains everything from everywhere. All self-realisation is in this same serious and truthful moment. The rest (when the programme is off) is memory, tales of memory, memories of tales of memory.

Does that resonate in the slightest?

Now, you criticise my comment above for lacking intellectual honesty, ie, for not being my “best” argument. But if my best argument - the differential factor of human presence - is not glimpsed by you, as it was not glimpsed by Heidegger so far as I know, I’m not going to get a hearing from you, am I ?

I wrote:

It’s the stake in being white that matters, and which whites have forgotten in their headlong rush into the individual life.

... in gentle critique of your idea. I am not saying your idea is wrong in what it claims. I am saying it is a rapier and not an atomic weapon, and I happen to have a philosophical weakness for the all-encompassing solution. So, naturally enough, I find your idea lacking, and in one clear essential. You presume for isostasy ... for the automatic recovery of our ethnic solidarity if only the agents of harm are removed. It’s a common presumption, I’ve found, among more individualistic WNs, and I think it is simplistic and wrong. The causes of our malaise are principally historical and general. The effects of the harmful agents today, ideological and human, are much less than we tend to think. But then the agents are very much in our face. It’s understandable.

Nonetheless, we are separated from the vast cultural confidence of the Victorians, say, by the effects of their industry and urbanisation, by wars of unequalled ferocity, and by the genetic drift of liberalism itself over the last one hundred and fifty years - the broken homes, the anomie, the consumerism, etc. How does replacing a harmful agent with a benign one in Congress or in the Commons touch a hair on the head of the self-estranged, atomised child of this history?

220

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:53 | #

GW writes: “Now, you criticise my comment above for lacking intellectual honesty, ie, for not being my “best” argument. ”

That’s unrelated to my criticism.

My criticism, again, is based on my assertion that:

“Intellectual honesty demands that one attack the strongest arguments of one’s opponent”

Clearly, this is not criticizing your ideas nor your presentation of them. It is criticizing the attacks on my ideas. Like the attacks of the antiracists, these attacks take comfort in the safety of numbers and therefore present degenerate arguments (such as caricatures painted by like likes of “CaptainChaos”, whoever he is).

Moreover, it is intellectually dishonest to impute stupidity to one’s opponent where one is ignorant of the opponent’s opinion. It is not mere politeness to ask “Is _insert idiotic position_ what you mean?” rather than “You mean _insert idiotic position_!”. The former allows the dialog to progress. The later terminates dialog in a misleading state. When such “imputation” flies against stated positions it is beyond mere intellectual dishonesty and is simple trolling—which is why they are most likely from the pseudonymous. Such pseudonymous individuals should be taken with the seriousness they deserve.

221

Posted by Frank on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 01:27 | #

James,

it’s common to use pen names to protect oneself from the powers that be,

Were he to name himself John Smith, would that be an improvement? How do you know Frank is really my name and that I’m not a GW alt ego who uses a proxy?

222

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 02:35 | #

James,

Intellectual honesty demands that one attack the strongest arguments of one’s opponent

Is this the Queensbury Rules of blog debate? Why be “intellectually” honest if the honest thing to do is to try to win, and the best way to win is to seek out the weakness?

It’s not, but let’s suppose my purpose was to beat your best argument, and let’s say your best argument is the economy with which honour, once restored to national life, would effect the body politic and public discourse. Why would I argue with the sentinels who stand guard over the principle of economy of effort and over honour as a vivifying force if I can put up a barrage to the effect that you can’t change the structure of human personality in any meaningful way without a totalistic approach?

Where, exactly, is your strongest argument - economy - as a result of an attack which changes the terms to “scale”? Does it make any difference if the attack is “honest” or not? Is “honest” merely a way to restrict the attack to the terms of your own argument?

In the duelling game we never know the strength or the strategy of the opponent until we are committed. We can’t dictate terms. And we aren’t duelling with sabres. Dishonest or otherwise, it’s with paper, stone and scissors.

223

Posted by Ivan on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 04:16 | #

You are dishonest! - cried with resentment Du El Guy
That’s what you think - came back a dissenting reply.
Why would I accept your questionable moral precept?
Well, isn’t that obvious? You defeat me - that’s why.

224

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 05:00 | #

Frank I have never criticized anyone merely for being pseudonymous—for the reasons you state. It is when the pseudonymous take off after the well-identified that the rules become more restrictive—specifically with regard to insults.

By the way, Jimmy, thank you for loosing the blood dimmed tide of Ivan’s poetry upon MR.

225

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 05:12 | #

GW writes: “IIn the duelling game we never know the strength or the strategy of the opponent until we are committed. We can’t dictate terms. And we aren’t duelling with sabres. Dishonest or otherwise, it’s with paper, stone and scissors.”

We aren’t “dueling” at all, nor am I recommending “dueling” as I’ve previously pointed out the poisonous connotation given the word—no doubt by those threatened by combat by any means but using words as weapons to manipulate the largest and most powerful masses of humans into killing each other senselessly! The entire 20th century is written in the blood of men made zombies by words used as weapons. Let men spill each others blood, by the billions if necessary, in something sensible like single combat for things they, as individuals, care about deeply enough to lay down their lives.

You say this is contrary to human nature. I say the history of civilization is but a recent fad at best and, at worst, an expression of virulence of such magnitude that we can barely conceive of the replicators for whom civilization is an extended phenotype causing the largest extinction event since the Permian—given the plausibility of global ecological overshoot.

226

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 05:33 | #

I[f] you look at the statistics of white men and especially white women who race mix OUTSIDE marriage we will see a truer picture.

It’s not much different. The largest group for white women and white men is Hispanic. 90.5% of white women are living with non-Hispanic white men.

Jessica Alba native American or European?

UPDATE: The polls are now closed.

Here are the results:

37% European
14% Sub-saharan African
14% East Asian
35% Native American

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZNAqwrm9hY

227

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:12 | #

By the way, Jimmy, thank you for loosing the blood dimmed tide of Ivan’s poetry upon MR.

You give me too much credit, James, but even if I were the father of Troeltry, my accomplishment would pale alongside that of my 19th century namesake.

228

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:25 | #

Happy Robert E. Lee Remembrance Day.

Breaking news in Spokane

229

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:37 | #

Thanks for that news alert, Jimmy.

As I said: “the rapidly evolving situation in the field”

230

Posted by Ivan on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:57 | #

Jimmy, I am smart, while Ivan is mere Asian.
So why am I losing to this rugged Caucasian?
Well James, he is not a student of Heidegger
Circassian prefers the company of his dagger.

231

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:14 | #

WWII appears dysgenic since many strong fighters died. No genetic advantage will stop a bullet.

Foucault suggests it was considered eugenic by the Nazis. The objective of the Nazi regime was not really to destroy other races although that, he suggests, was a component. He suggests that the real purpose was to expose the German people to absolute and universal death. He suggests that exposing the total population to absolute death was the only means to bring about its definitive regeneration as a superior race. Thus Nazi society produced something extraordinary. It re-generalised the old sovereign right to kill while building a new state mechanism around discipline and regulation…managing, protecting and guaranteeing the life of it people (socialized medicine etc.) which coexisted with the sovereign right to kill anyone including its own population.

232

Posted by Frank on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:43 | #

Desmond Jones,

I’d like to believe that’s propaganda, though I suspect some few of the NS legitimately did believe such.

Is Foucault the same whom wikipedia quotes with, “I am a Nietzschean”? You can’t expect such a low-life to be honest. People say all sorts of things about the Germans today just as Christians used to say all sorts of things about pagans.

You have to remember, I’m a Southerner. And I grew up being tested on lies about my ancestors. I don’t trust experts. It’s easy for me to give the Germans the benefit of the doubt, because I’ve heard what’s said about Southerners - blatant fabrications.

A “bio-state” as you call it is merely an enormous tribe. If anything it’s going to care more about its citizens than would other states. Any state could be concerned about eugenics, not only a nation-state. If the Germans were inclined to be immoral, it was only because they were too centralised, large, and secular - the same can be said for the Americans.

233

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:34 | #

I am not saying your idea is wrong in what it claims. I am saying it is a rapier and not an atomic weapon… How does replacing a harmful agent with a benign one in Congress or in the Commons touch a hair on the head of the self-estranged, atomised child of this history? [G.W.]

I see James’ idea as having very little to do with removing harmful agents, per se, and as being more about the transformation of the atomized child into a meaningful replacement for the atomic weapon, (industrialized mass warfare).

Conceding the inevitability, and evolutionary utility of lethal struggle, the idea seeks to make that struggle meaningful on an individual basis, and thus humane.

The alternative is a nightmare scenario of meaningless chaos, which explains why James’ is willing to go to DeathCom IV to defend his idea.

234

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:38 | #

If I were to condense into a sentence the idea as it relates to the “self-estranged, atomised child of history”, it would be:

Undo the damage to unprivileged individuals—damage that is done by not executing privileged individuals who refuse challenges to natural duels.

“Natural duels” being my currently-favored idiom I’m using to attack the connotation-poisoning of the word “duel”, and,

“Privileged individuals” defined, temporarily, as “public figures” due to current propagandistic use of notoriety via the old media’s continued strangle-hold on the minds of billions.

Of course, I don’t go even that far since my proposed law would allow any public figure to challenge any unprivileged self-proclaimed sovereign individual (or other public figure), while, at the same time, temporarily outlawing execution of non-privileged individuals who refuse challenges from other unprivileged individuals (unless done so within a closed, secluded community). This is to prevent phenomena like “The King’s Champion” from arising surreptitiously until such time as there are no more “kings” or their modern equivalents.

I’ve explicitly stated all of this before in various places and the intellectually honest, if ignorant, should have imputed these statements where they were not in the immediate context.

235

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:43 | #

The alternative, Jimmy, is a connectedness to self, and not a striving toward a variant of false pride. And yes, human personality, inauthentic as it is, will process honour through pride. The point being that inauthenticity begets only inauthenticity.

236

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:49 | #

GW writes: “inauthenticity begets only inauthenticity”

Which is why inauthenticity needs killing.

Who are you to judge for others, what is inauthentic hence to be killed, GW?

237

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:03 | #

James,

my proposed law would allow any public figure to challenge any unprivileged self-proclaimed sovereign individual

In my thought-world men and women are not defined by legal instruments but by their self-relation. So, for example, for 99.99% of us there is no sovereignty and there is no individual. We are men, not gods. And these are descriptions of sublime being bastardised into the liberal canon from our esoteric religious tradition. It is done without knowledge of the exclusivity and precision of psychological meaning of these terms. And so the presumption arises that a slave to the zeitgeist - a hip-hop wigger say, or an anti-racist professor - can be both sovereign and individual merely by legal fiat.

I’s just not true, and the further we are cantilevered away from our nature, as we are with time and modernity, the less does its untruth seem to matter!

This is still not to say that your idea is not good or useful. But there is a scale to these things.

One question. Frank mentioned Bushido on another thread, and says it is a beautiful thing. But honour does not seem to me to be the first stop for the virtuous Western mind. The one time a system such as you propose was introduced, the ruling virtue was chivalry. Did it not occur to you to work with that, which would have had the advantage (over honour) of moving the focus from the person to the cause?

238

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:14 | #

The alternative, GW, is a connectedness to self in its relation to death, which in truth, is the only relation it has.

Fear of death = Fear of life = Inauthenticity

The prescription lies neither in honor, nor bravery, but in awakening to the truth that we don’t fear death. We fear meaningless death which marks the graves of a meaningless lives.

Fear of meaningless death = Fear of meaningless life = Authenticity

239

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:21 | #

We fear meaningless death which marks the graves of a meaningless lives.

The judgement of a man over fifty!

Yes, up to a point. But you are familiar with the surge of positiveness that hits you in a moment of presence. I cannot find in that a relation to death, but only to being.

240

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:33 | #

GW writes: “The judgement of a man over fifty!”

Are you that oblivious to the demographic tragedy befalling our race NOW?

Here’s what anyone who would lead intellectually or materially must perceive:

Hundreds of millions of aging men facing destitute old age at the hands of invading hoards of young men trained to hate them by the State, and given the resources of the State to “care” for the men they hate in their old age as liabilities to the State.

Every second that would be “leadership” remains unperceptive is a military loss of virtually incalculable magnitude.

241

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:43 | #

you are familiar with the surge of positiveness that hits you in a moment of presence.

You make a good point, but in my experience, nothing foments that moment of presence as thoroughly and dependably as a brush with death. So, it seems to me that a social system which allocates maximum control to the individual over the circumstances of that encounter would be the most authentic.

242

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:46 | #

Yes it is Frank and you may be correct. However, he outlines a theory of “historico-political discourse” as a major turning point in the political landscape of Western Europe.” And he found it upon a belief in the struggle of race.

The historico-political discourse emerged as a form of history built upon the “decentered position” of the historian who tells a history that “…is interested in the totality only to the extent that it can see in one-sided terms” and is considered a truth in the sense that the truth “is essentially part of a relationship of force, of dissymmetry, decentering, combat, and war.” As for the historian, he is “inevitably on one side of the other…and is working toward a particular victory” . Thus, historico-political discourse is a discourse that takes as its “truth” the truth that is in the best interest of his “race” or group’s rights that the historian can justify historically.

Foucault’s primary example is Henri de Boulainvilliers.

Boulainvilliers’ writings are characterized by an extravagant admiration of the feudal system and bitter opposition to absolute monarchy, which he deemed a decadence that had started with the Crusades and the Direct Capetians, whom had allowed the original aristocracy to be diluted through miscegenation with the Third Estate. Boulainvilliers was thus an aristocrat of the most pronounced type, attacking absolute monarchy on the one hand and popular government on the other. He was at great pains to prove the pretensions of his own family to ancient nobility, and maintained that the government should be entrusted solely to men of his class.

According to him, the nation was divided on one hand into the aristocracy, whom he called the Français, who were the descendants of the Franks, a Nordic race, and dominated France by right of conquest; and on the other hand into the Third Estate, who were considered to be an almagation of the indigenous Gaul people and their previous Roman overlords. Opposing himself to the alliance of the throne with the people, he considered that the earlier Gallo-Roman population had been subordinated by the Franks through conquest and inheritance on one side and replacement of the Roman elite through treaty and agreement on the other.

As such the Third Estate had no legitimate role in government, and that the aristocracy constituted not only a separate class, and not only the sole legitimate class by virtue of history, but a distinct and superior “race”. True Frankish policy demanded unconditional acceptance of the rights of aristocracy to rule over their feudal domains and to participate in the councils of the nation. The Absolutist rule of Louis XIV had undermined these traditions by concentrating power in the state and encouraging the rise of meritocrats from the lower classes to serve the monarchical state. Such people had been granted the status of nobles (the noblesse de robe) but could not lay proper claim to it because they were not of true Frankish ancestry. Although, Boulainvilliers thus opposed the Nordic race to the Latin race, his concept of “race” predated and did not specify anything to do with the biologized concept used by 19th century’s “scientific racism”.

Thus Foucault juxtaposes the two theories: the “discourse of race struggle” and the “juridical and philosophical discourse of sovereignty”.

243

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:09 | #

GW writes: “The one time a system such as you propose was introduced, the ruling virtue was chivalry. Did it not occur to you to work with that, which would have had the advantage (over honour) of moving the focus from the person to the cause?”

The Code of Chivalry was introduced to protect the nobles from the ancestral culture of valor. It codified that culture with the condition that it not include the “peasants”. It was a powerful “civilizing” force.

The Knights of the Round Table would run screaming like little girls from their ancestors whose natural culture was far closer to this code:

SEVEN POINTS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS
<ol>
<li>Except in self defense or enforcement of this agreement, no one may willfully kill, disable, or permanently disfigure another. No one may secretly restrain another. No one who has reached the age capable of procreation may physically force upon another any offensive, sexually-oriented act; nor engage in any offensive, sexually-oriented act with any person who has not reached the age capable of procreation even when no force is involved. An open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns assembled as set forth In 3 below shall be the effective determination as to whether the alleged act took place and whether the act was offensive and was sexually-oriented. Any degree of participation in group force that results in violation of this point of agreement regarding offensive, sexually-oriented acts makes every participant fully guilty of the result, along with the person actually performing the act.</li>

<li>No man shall force the act of procreation on a woman. Rape Is hereby defined as an act of procreation without the involved woman’s deliberated consent. Any man who engages with a woman in an act of procreation without her formal, publicly-proclaimed deliberated consent may be found guilty of rape. In the absence of a formal public acceptance, the individual woman involved Is the sole judge of whether an act of procreation was rape. If a woman who has not made advance formal acceptance of a man prior to the act of procreation, formally accuses him of rape within three months after the alleged act, and if a majority of sovereigns assembled as set forth in 3 below vote that the man engaged in the act, then It shall invariably be construed as rape - even though it may clearly be shown that the woman Invited, or even persuaded, the man to engage In the act. A woman may revoke formal acceptance of a man at will by giving formal notice of such revocation.</li>

<li>Any individual, either sovereign or shielded, or any group of Individuals, may restrain persons suspected of breaking these agreements for a period of not to exceed fifteen days, conduct a trial for them at a specified, easily accessible place on a date, time, and place publicly and formally announced three days In advance, and penalize (in person or by proxy or proxies) those deemed guilty by an open (not secret) majority vote of all sovereigns at the trial who are permanent residents of the community. (The composition of “community” and the meaning of “permanent resident” is to be defined by those entering into this agreement.)</li>

<li>No one shall be required to give testimony at a trial but it Is agreed that one found guilty of perjury by formal trial, as set forth In 3 above, shall be subject to the penalty set forth In 7 below.</li>

<li>No additional agreements that give a group’s decisions effective power over individuals shall be made. Any group of two or more individuals who make other agreements giving a group decision effective power over Individuals, or who fail to abide by these agreements, shall be deemed a conspiracy against Individual freedom. All acts against them by an Individual or a group of Individuals who have entered into this agreement shall be construed to be self-defense. — Further explanation: Anyone may bring interpersonal problems before a voluntarily convened formal open Forum structured after the manner of a traditional court of law. In such a Forum opinions regarding the interpersonal problems, and deliberated recommendations for settling differences, can be formally given, but such opinions and recommendations will not be binding on those Involved. Those who bring problems before the formal Forum may, if they choose, make personal agreements congruent with the Forum’s recommendations after the recommendations have been made. Those found guilty of making agreements to be bound by the Forum’s recommendations before the recommendations are made are guilty of making agreements giving a group decision effective power over individuals.</li>

<li>Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:
<ol type=“a”><li> All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual.</li>
<li>A challenger shall give formal public notice three days prior to combat and a formal public declaration of reasons therefor.</li>
<li>There shall be at least a one year interval from the time one Is engaged in formal combat as the challenged before one may again be engaged as the challenged.</li>
<li>Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed. Terrain of the combat ground shall be varied and extensive enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them. Combatants shall have equal weapons and clothing. Weapons shall be a sword or knife with a blade not to exceed 25 cm (approximately 10 inches) plus a 15 meter (approximately 50 feet) length of strong cordage. All previous agreements between challenger and challenged are automatically suspended during the period of formal combat. There shall be no rules within the combat ground. Challenged and challenger shall enter combat ground from opposite sides. No one but challenger and challenged shall be within the combat ground. No one shall attempt to aid, hinder or observe what happens. It Is intended that only one shall return alive from formal combat. When two return alive one shall forever be shielded by the other. The relationship must be announced jointly by them before they are permitted to leave the combat ground. Two are not permitted to return alive if one has been permanently disabled or disfigured by his opponent.</li>
<li>No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one’s sovereignty.</li>
</ol>
<li>Guilt for breaking any point of this agreement shall be determined according to Item 3 above. The invariable penalty for anyone found guilty of breaking any point of this agreement shall be death within twenty-four hours.</li>
</ol>

p90-93, “Valoric Fire And a Working Plan for Individual Sovereignty” From the Valorian Society ISBN 0-914752-18-9

($5 to Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Rd., Rochester, WA 98579)

244

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:17 | #

GW writes: “We are men, not gods.”

We are creators. We are gods. It does no good to deny this, it only impoverishes Being.

GW writes: “And so the presumption arises that a slave to the zeitgeist - a hip-hop wigger say, or an anti-racist professor - can be both sovereign and individual merely by legal fiat.”

We share the perception that these man-like beings have lost their authenticity. They, of course, would disagree in the context of civilization where they are protected from those who would kill them for being inauthentic. If confronted with death in natural duel for their inauthenticity, they would at least have hope of salvation and it is certainly the case that their influence over young women would be gelded.

245

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:36 | #

The judgement of a man over fifty!

Are we not discussing a prescription for an aging race, knave?

It’s cultural Geritol, lad. Drink up!

246

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 02:01 | #

We are creators. We are gods. It does no good to deny this, it only impoverishes Being.

Well, let’s wind back a bit:

We share the perception that these man-like beings have lost their authenticity. They, of course, would disagree in the context of civilization where they are protected from those who would kill them for being inauthentic.

I don’t blame mere men for being what they are, however negative or traitorous that may be. In the face of the totalic formative forces of the noumenal universe into which we are born - all of us - and which carry us like a stream down to the sea, it is ridiculous for those who, by no deed of their own, are a tad uncomfortable in the water to blame those who make like a fish. We are all weak. We are all formed, we do not form ourselves. Who is there, then, among these formed creatures who lays claim to creativity and killing rights?

We can never escape from human personality. We can never end its false witness to being. But around the edges of consciousness, which does exist as a potential, are more authentic things, things to do with kinship and feeling, and with our natural mind, and everything, in fact, that is real. If we found a way to move our race away from the totus it is to these things that it would migrate. You would think. But that shit ain’t the truth, as someone once said, because Man must acquire personality or he will be a “natural”, a “simpleton”. It is, therefore, a question of the quality of the formative forces which is at issue.

The truth is that it’s the totus that must be healed. IMO.

247

Posted by Redneck Factotum on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 03:03 | #

The truth is that it’s the totus that must be healed. [GW]

Take a bottle of beer and decrease its temperature in totus, by putting it in your freezer for about 30 minutes.

Nothing will happen.

Now pop the cap, and observe: Somewhere in the bottle a change will take place between two individual “beer molecules” and rapidly spread, via chain reaction, through the entire liquid which transforms it, in totus, to a solid, demonstrating a very important sociological principal:

You can’t have your ice, and drink it too.

There may have been some other point to this comment, but it got lost along the way. Possibly I’ve been affected by too much lab work.

248

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 03:23 | #

There once was a man named Notus.
He has now disappeared in totus.
Engaging Neitzche,
he failed to capiche.
Now, I fear that his being was bogus.

249

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 03:34 | #

GW writes: “I don’t blame mere men for being what they are…”

Instead of talking of “blame” or of “men” may we talk of causal structures?

250

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 05:19 | #

A Muslim who hailed from Kabul
Had a varicose vein in his tool
While attempting to come
Up a little boy’s bum
It burst and he did look a fool

251

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:45 | #

Instead of talking of “blame” or of “men” may we talk of causal structures?

“Causal structures” in the way you mean can only ever act upon what is innate of us to begin with. If your favored causal structures are experienced by a critical mass of our people as being intolerably rebarbative then they will spit the bit - it is only a matter of time. It can hardly be a coincidence that what most repels our people from openness to consideration of their own interests, rooted in their peoplehood, is that the latter has come to be associated in their minds with genocidalism. It goes well beyond the abiding sense our people have that to press the boot down on the necks of the weak is an abomination and the antithesis of honor. Not for nothing are our enemies able to couple the interests of non-Whites with the perceived interests of our White people; to lead our people to believe that ethnocentric action on the part of Whites is not only a threat to non-Whites but also to Whites. In explicating your solution to the existential crisis now facing our race you openly acknowledged that this will entail the mass killing of other Whites. So, in effect, by your own admission, your solution is a threat to many members of our own people that may otherwise come to agree with us on racial preservation. Staying the hand of vengeance is not only a moral act of forbearance, it is objectively in its foreseeable consequences an act of self-preservation. Why? Because vengeance taken against the Other will not be the last of it.

252

Posted by Ivan on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:56 | #

Writing good limericks is albatross
Not to be taken by likes of Al Ross
Stick to simpler tricks
To avoid wall of bricks
Ivan advising you from Mother Rus

253

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:58 | #

CC, stop the negative imputations.

GW: Do you have an answer? I’m trying to take simple small steps with you to avoid missteps but since guys like CC jump wildly in and stir the pot for no good reason, I’ll just say this (although this mode of “communication” is becoming very tiresome):

Any reasonable man can see clearly your “wigger” and “anti-racist college professor” are unimportant in the causal structure of inauthenticity. No reasonable man would lay down his life to kill them when:

1) There are so many better investments of his life and
2) Neither of these inconsequential individuals would likely qualify as a “privileged” or “public figure” so they would be protected from challenges anyway.

What provides them with hope is the general atmosphere of valor that changes the social status structures with which they identify—status structures headed by men who are considered by reasonable men to be important in the causal structure and who are very likely to be “privileged” aka “public figures”, hence under the threat of being held, by reasonable men—men of genuine valor, accountable for the lives they are destroying. It won’t take but one or two instances of these privileged public figures to be held accountable before your “wigger” and “college professor” to take stock of their own inauthentic identity and moral vanity respectively. CC is, as usual, imputing the worst when he could, with very little thought, understand this. I gave Ivan the benefit of the doubt when I called him “stupid” in that if he weren’t stupid, the best explanation for his behavior would be that he is evil. I’m tempted to give CC a similar benefit of the doubt.

So, GW, can you at least admit that it is rather ridiculous to claim that I would advocate that people go after the inconsequential exemplars you put forth for discussion and indeed, given my prior message, posted just a few comments ago wherein I describe the limitations on enforcement of challenges, it is inexcusable?

254

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 07:33 | #

Bowery, I don’t oppose those who wish to live under a regime of single deadly combat being granted the freedom to do as such. If it is indeed a superior arrangement then by its fruits we shall know it. Let the experiment proceed. In professing this, I am in keeping with what you yourself say is the sine qua non of moral rectitude. So by your own lights I can hardly be said to be “evil”.

255

Posted by P.Dofyle-Proffett on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 07:47 | #

A mad old Haji from Qom
Decided to construct a bomb,
“I’ll blow up the West,
Not set fire to my vest
Like before”, he said with aplomb

256

Posted by Akbar the Magnificent on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:57 | #

CC has good inclinations.
Striving for whites-only nations.
Drives Bowery to fits,
with regular hits,
of negative imputations.

257

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:40 | #

Redneck,

I just know you can grasp this.

Let’s suppose that you were born not in 1980 but in 1920, into your grandfather’s generation. What would you be like, personality-wise? Well, like him, right?

By “personality”, of course, I don’t mean that winning smile you use with your boss’s PA. I don’t mean what a great guy you are, or your grandad come to that. I am talking about who you both are and how you differ as creatures of your respective circumstances.

Not there yet? Let’s go back further and relocate you to Galway in 1850, facing the wrench of the sail west out of the world you have known to a new life in a new land. The time-world creates the greater part of human personality. So would you say that the time-worlds of the America of Coolidge and the 1924 Act and of the Western Ireland of famine and emigration did a better job than the late 20th century in forming solid, sound human beings with healthy attitudes and moral values, and some sense, at least, of what is real in and about them, including their kinship?

You see, what is good from this perspective is so because, for the most part, it is faithful to what is innate to us, what is natural. Good never comes out of the negation of the natural, obviously, and the pursuit of the true in the ontological sense never deviates from it. So the measure of the great systemic nurturers that form and temporalise human personality is their fidelity to our natural and ontological truth as Europeans.

Which brings us to the measure of liberalism in its total sense as one such nurturer, and the critiques of it radical thinkers, conservatives and traditionalists have been making for well over a century.

OK? It’s not complicated or difficult and I do apologise for lapsing into lazy speech that I probably shouldn’t expect my peers to understand.

258

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:11 | #

James,

Instead of talking of “blame” or of “men” may we talk of causal structures?

No “may” about it. We are all free to think as we will. But I thought earlier that a concentration on cause might be more productive, which is why I asked about chivalry (though I entirely accept your point about the elitism of the code itself).

Do you have an answer?

Yes, and I am trying to give it, within the confines of the question that has been asked so far.

Any reasonable man can see clearly your “wigger” and “anti-racist college professor” are unimportant in the causal structure of inauthenticity.

Of course, I am speaking from my own position when I portray wiggers and profs as victims of modernity, the same as anyone else. All human personality has the same ontological value. Its characteristics are mechanicity, absence and suggestibility, not dishonour, not even treachery. Not if we are genuinely looking at causal structure. Of course, if all you want to do is to interpret structure so that certain saliences, ie privilege, status and authority, emerge and certain individuals can then be identified and treated differently, ie challenged, then OK. But that isn’t what I understand causal structure to mean.

can you at least admit that it is rather ridiculous to claim that I would advocate that people go after the inconsequential exemplars you put forth for discussion and indeed, given my prior message, posted just a few comments ago wherein I describe the limitations on enforcement of challenges, it is inexcusable?

I repeat, from my perspective, which rests on the principle of scale rather than economy, we are all equally formed. It isn’t what some men do that makes our people’s future so dark. It is that none of us can do “the good” because it does not exist in the totus, and we are the totus.

259

Posted by Redneck Factotum on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:13 | #

GW, I think I get your message: Modernity shapes my being. Good point. I was born for these times.

One of the joys of the present however, is romancing it with the past:

From Limerick, a social climber,
Gramps was a half-good rhymer.
But even on a diet of non-fat,
his body resembled a wombat.
Unfit for the fight
his fancy took flight
in a state of jingle combat.

260

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:36 | #

I think I get your message: Modernity shapes my being.

... “shapes my personality”. Being comes from Allah. If that’s your thing. Or perhaps being is produced by organic life, so it’s not the “ground” of identity but its “relation”.

261

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:40 | #

GW writes: “none of us can do “the good” because it does not exist in the totus”

What is the difference between “the totus” and “totality” or “universe”?

It is almost as though you are claiming that in some sense there is no cause for which men can strive because there is no “good”. Hence all talk of causal structure is futile because there is no effect that is good.

Can you see how your words might be taken as something akin to nihilism?

262

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:03 | #

James,

What is the difference between “the totus” and “totality” or “universe”?

No difference. I am just hitting every button I can find like a demented rat looking for the reward of some understanding.

It is almost as though you are claiming that in some sense there is no cause for which men can strive because there is no “good”. Hence all talk of causal structure is futile because there is no effect that is good.

Well, let’s define “good”. Here are two possibilities:

a) Good is what protects and advances the interests of those with whom I am united.

b) Good is what draws us away from unconsciousness of self and being and towards consciousness of these things.

These are the same. The interests of those with whom I am united are protected and advanced precisely by a reorientation towards, as I said in an earlier comment, the “more authentic things, things to do with kinship and feeling, and with our natural mind, and everything, in fact, that is real.”

Can you see how your words might be taken as something akin to nihilism?

A critique of personality in a world in which what is essential to us is so ignored and denied - a world, as Leo Strauss said, “of entertainment without the possibility of political struggle” - is also a critique of the world as a whole, since it and personality are one. Of course, criticism that has nothing constructive to propose can easily decline into nihilism. But the reorientation I am calling forward is absolutely constructive. I will have to think how best to weight the argument to avoid that charge.

263

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:58 | #

...the reorientation I am calling forward is absolutely constructive.

Sometimes, I think you full of bull.

264

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:58 | #

A pellet slips and slides down the tube, and hits the deck with a couple of short bounces. It stops an inch, no more, from the rat’s already mobile nose. There is the unmistakable whiff of fresh, raw fish. “Mmm,” thought the rat, “Sushi. I could have sworn I pushed the lever for Aish.”

265

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:36 | #

Attempting to translate GW’s Latin borrowing to English: “Action is futile because good does not exist in the universe. That is because we are the universe and good is not in us.”

Then there is “the reorientation I am calling forward is absolutely constructive.”

I can see how reorientation, as a subjective action, is not action in the ordinary sense of the word. Moreover, I can see how you might be saying, “By changing internally, we can remedy our lack of internal good, hence the lack of external good as we are the universe.”

I hope you can see how I constructed the paraphrases from your words without any desire to do violence to your concept.

266

Posted by Zion on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:27 | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 19, 2011, 04:33 AM | #

I[f] you look at the statistics of white men and especially white women who race mix OUTSIDE marriage we will see a truer picture.

It’s not much different. The largest group for white women and white men is Hispanic. 90.5% of white women are living with non-Hispanic white men.

Jessica Alba native American or European?

UPDATE: The polls are now closed.

Here are the results:

37% European
14% Sub-saharan African
14% East Asian
35% Native American

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZNAqwrm9hY

What results are these? I was amazed, because, according to the George Lopez link, Jessica Alba allegedly came out 87% white, 13% native American. She looks like a Hispanic. I would not classify her as white at all. Of course, she says “Alba is a name from Spain (no kidding - one remembers the famous Duke of Alba), and the Spaniards I have known look much more like Third World peoples than they do Clinton or Bush or Blair or Cameron (true white men all, at least racially).

267

Posted by Frank on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:32 | #

Lopez had a poll people could vote on, and then he released the real percentages.

These are from the poll:

37% European
14% Sub-saharan African
14% East Asian
35% Native American

I’m too bigoted for WN. I’m going to end up in a cabin in the woods growling at everyone as a N—.

268

Posted by Armor on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:28 | #

GW: “The liberal no doubt believes he is only “following orders” to do good”

Orders from whom, if not from Jewish activists?
Even government seems to be taking its orders from the media.

269

Posted by Armor on Sun, 23 Jan 2011 08:02 | #

“Liberals and obedience”

It isn’t exactly obedience. It is more a matter of suggestibility, conformism, and stupidity. You have written about suggestibility in some of your posts. The fact that the liberals are afraid to protest against the “Muslim grooming of white girls” is proof that they are unable to think for themselves. Instead of trying to understand what’s wrong with them, I think we should try to do something against the Jewish “over-representation” in the media.

In fact, there are too questions :

1. What’s wrong with white people, and especially with white liberals?
Answer: their suggestibility is the problem.

2. Who are they obeying to?

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments