|
|
|
Linder at MajorityRadio. VNN annexes Poland. Soren interviewed Alex Linder a few days ago, and the result is now on the radio page. Alex can make strong meat taste like boiled chicken, and a certain degree of editing was needed to calm my prissy English sensibilities. And my fear of going to prison, of course. The interview was aimed not at exploring the JQ but at exploring Alex. The man is an energised, flowing speaker, and genuinely sees the JQ as the problem, if not the only problem. That isn’t Soren’s view or anyone else’s at MR, and the views Alex expresses are, of course, wholly his own. But if you listen hard, you will find that the humorous, harshly sarcastic ideologue of VNN is also courageous, honest and true. File size is 36.1MB. Run time about 38 mins. Comments:3
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Wed, 23 May 2007 03:47 | # Get what Ron Paul has said:
For all you people out there, Ron Paul is the enemy of nationalism and us! He is a traitor. Say, Hell NO Ron Paul! All you people supporting Ron Paul—-he’s the Wrong man! It is from http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm 4
Posted by Chertoff makes Right on Wed, 23 May 2007 04:00 | # Not know where this belongs but because of its importance am posting it in the first thread. Don’t let this one go in the memory hole!!!! History will pin this bill on, guess who???, jews!!! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201466.html?hpid=topnews
5
Posted by Underlings delete borders on Wed, 23 May 2007 04:06 | # Final paragraph from above link:
6
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Wed, 23 May 2007 05:57 | # I found it disturbing that Alex Linder doesn’t have an appreciation for the potential of eugenics. He should get of a copy fo Lynn’s book on eugenics. http://www.amazon.com/Eugenics-Reassessment-Evolution-Behavior-Intelligence/dp/0275958221 Can you get someone else than Soren to do those interviews, G.W.? His speechifying and mumbo-jumbo (even Linder didn’t know half the time what Soren was asking him…“abstract”, was the polite word he used…) are tiresome. He should learn that the star of an interview shouldn’t be interviewer but the interviewee. 7
Posted by wintermute on Wed, 23 May 2007 09:43 | # He should learn that the star of an interview shouldn’t be interviewer but the interviewee. This is over-harsh. Soren is a fine interviewer in most cases though I agree that the Renner-Linder pairing might not have been as productive or entertaining as some other pairing, but: a)this is no reflection on Soren, interviewer-interviewee chemistry is hardly an exact science b)MR radio is more or less his baby and b)we learn by doing What we learn by doing in this case, in particular, is to re-match Linder with some other interviewer, one whose presence is more likely to put off sparks by which me may catch glimpses of the road ahead. There is nothing else for it: Round II MUST be: Guessedworker v. Linder. Nothing else could possibly do. As always, I wish to extend to Soren my personal gratitude (and I’m sure I’m not speaking just for myself) for the hard work, initiative and good humor he has displayed in the creation of MR radio. Linder, like Sunic, is going to need to be interviewed more than just once. The hardest question, regarding the moral and intellectual quality of his VNN associates, was not pressed home in this interview. Linder was crucial to my conversion, I read him for three years straight in the early part of this century; and everything that was merely intellectualization in MacDonald was slowly converted inside me, by Linder’s intelligence, indefatiguablity, and lacerating wit, to confidence, vision, determination; in a word - bone and muscle. What concerns me about contemporary VNN is that it has slid into a gross parody of “White Power” grousing that is - and will remain - repellant to the larger middle classes, whose money and brains and organizational skills are specifically pointed out by Alex as what is missing. If he were to kill that damn forum, reinstate the letters column as the principle conduit between him and his audience - always careful to edit out the screwballs - and return to the straight up reporting where news items which would appear innocuous to the average American are tirelessly retranslated into their overarching Jewish context - he could do a thousand times more damage to Jewry than he dreams of. But the presence of excresences like Glenn Miller, Bill White, “Outis”, usw. guarantee that the ‘name the Jew’ wing of WN will remain marginalized. This is not an idle speculation - the people who move away from FR or vdare have nowhere but Amren, Auster, Makow, and ‘Inverted World’ to turn to - an utterly ‘judenrein’ WN movement, though not in the way any of us would wish. Linder has two very powerful voices: the arch-satirist, who is close in talent and aptitude to his hero, Mencken, and the straight-up newman, a mode he employs to incredible effect on his ‘Kirksville Today’ log. This is the editor in me speaking, but if a kindred spirit were always onhand to remind him of his better self, his effectiveness would be enhanced tremendously. I think longtime fan Il Ragno would be an excellent consultant of this kind. Linder is something of a ‘California’ WN: as he goes, so goes the movement. Even people who hate him have nothing better or more useful to do than gossip about him endlessly; OD was especially guilty in this regard. And even if I regard the current organiation of VNN as something of a cesspool I don’t visit happily, I have never lost my respect or my hope that it might become a better version of itself; closer in tone and spirit to its early days. Soren asks Alex in the interview about ‘base emotions’ - presumably hatred, though fear is foregrounded in their discussion - I am far more concerned about ‘base people’; namely the lower orders. Linder can cause a ferment among this rabble but without critical middle-class money, networks, organizational ability, and brains, nothing will ever come pandering after trash. George Rockwell got an interview in Playboy, but that’s about all that model is capable of. One thing Soren is right to emphasize is that this is - for the time being - a war of discourse. Legitimating fellow-feeling among Whites and exposing the nighmarishly inverted Propaganda world they have been brought up in is our first job. All talk about other options at this point are worse than fantasy; they are mortal threats to our eventual success. I admit to much interest in Soren’s “Revolution in Discourse” - I think we would learn much and benefit by a discussion of this and other issues between GW and Alex. Alex is, as everyone says, a good interview. He galvanizes. Our own Dear Leader, GW, is a more measured personality in this regard, and they both have divergent opinions on the causes of our current situation, our prospects, and what our best strategies might be. I can’t think of a better way to brainstorm regarding what our next step might be than to run these two down the long magnetic corriders of Soren’s particle accelerator, and see what constituents emerge from their collision. I move: a GW/ Linder discussion of one hour as MR radio’s next project. Do I have a second? 8
Posted by wintermute on Wed, 23 May 2007 09:54 | # found it disturbing that Alex Linder doesn’t have an appreciation for the potential of eugenics. Linder has written about eugenics on dozens of occasions; usually dismissively. I think he has an intuitive understanding that human mauling of complex systems: economies, genomes, ecologies, social systems, etc. are bound to have enormous and unintended consequences. “Out of the crooked timber of man . . . “ Certainly the terminator gene would be a fine example, right out of the box, on how even limited human interventions in systems that can’t be wholly understood can be disastrous. OTOH, negative eugenics (culling) is a fine idea, with minimal possibility of some sort of hubristical screw-up. Certainly in public places I often find myself mentally reaching for my “Norplant rifle”. I am less sanguine about more adventurous approaches: what did you have in mind? 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 23 May 2007 12:00 | # WM, I have exactly the same anxieties you do about the self-alienating effects of his methods. But I also have no desire to put Alex up against a moral or intellectual wall - and I am not sure that I could, or that it would be wise of me even to try. It seems to me that if there is any calculation at all behind all the invective and risk-taking it is precisely to invite on to himself attacks from the outraged and unwary. In the fighting sense, Alex is another Leonides at the Hot Gates. He is skillful and well-armoured, and unless the poor fool attacker has a million men at his back he will very quickly find himself dancing on the point of a spear. For me, what really came through in that interview - and suprised me somewhat - was the total conviction and sincerity of the man. He speaks exactly as he sees, and he means every word. There really isn’t a cleverly calculating strategist at work here, suffering the slings and arrows of his detractors for some wider benefit to kind. In the strategic sense, Alex is as Alex, and not Leonides. Speaking personally and at the risk of sounding like a typical European, I am not much attracted to Gibsonian sincerity in a leader. I want to see that there is something beyond the immediate personality, however earnest or colourful it is. I admire reserve and understatement, because these things belong to someone who commands greater inner resources than those on public display. Serious leaders are elitists well before they are demogogues or “men of the people”, and they are all the more effective for it. So as I have said often in the past, it is not us and, probably, not anyone from the generation of those now in middle-age who will emerge to lead the Great Reclamation. We have to be able to appeal, therefore, to the generation of college and graduate age - and college and graduate quality. Is Alex Linder an asset in that appeal or a lead weight around our necks - for, certainly, he is someone who cannot be ignored? 10
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Wed, 23 May 2007 13:56 | # Guessedworker I am of the view that that the closer American society is to a meltdown, the appropriate political strategy is rebel rousing. The type of rebel rousing I would advocate is one that mixes logic chopping,outrage and threats. We should not be looking for any great leaders or Dear Leaders either. I like self-goverment. I don’t want to be governed from above by the negro version of John F Kennedy. Grassroots rebel rousing combined with a very high level of vigilence. Jews are able to get away with murdering European societies because European people are in a state of moral dissapation. I Ultimately we can’t give European people excuses. I am no longer in favor of understatement. The situation in America is beyond the pale. There is no way to be nice about it anymore. The recent bad news from the census has obvioulsy made Pat Buchanan much more agitated. In his next book, Pat Buchanna should come out for the ending of all non-white legal immigration. I don’t like Kings and Queens,Kennedy,Bush and a possible nigra political dynasties. And fuck the experts. The revolt should be grassroots all the way. Websites such as American Rennasaince and Vdare .com should each have a victims wall where the victims of post-1965 immigration policy can tell their stories. These are already very popular websites. There would be potetnially thousands of victims stories. OUR PEOPLES suffering and anger should be out there in public view. James and Bo Sears, what do you both think about this? 11
Posted by Underlings delete borders on Wed, 23 May 2007 16:21 | # Speaking personally and at the risk of sounding like a typical European, I am not much attracted to Gibsonian sincerity in a leader. I want to see that there is something beyond the immediate personality, however earnest or colourful it is. I admire reserve and understatement, because these things belong to someone who commands greater inner resources than those on public display. Here’s an Englishman who’s learned to speak American [quoted elsewhere in another context]: Make Them Laugh Out Of The Other Side Of Their Faces—Give To VDARE.COM! 12
Posted by Graham Towers on Wed, 23 May 2007 18:13 | # Loved the ending! Soren can ruin interviews with guests that have something worthwhile to offer, but with Linder, he absolutely carried the day. Congrats. 13
Posted by wjg on Wed, 23 May 2007 19:00 | # The interview’s ending was very awkward; seemingly disrepectful as well. Other than that it was fair enough. Soren is to be commended. I agree that a follow-on interview is in order. GW, like you say it may not be for you but maybe another contributor like Bowery. Aligning MR with VNN - even in this small way - is good. This type of confederation is exactly what is needed within White Nationalism and needs to keep expanding until we have the makings of a self-sustaining cadre. MR is more of an intellectual forum whereas VNN is more into activism. They complement each other. Kind of a Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde thing. MR sending a reporter with a camera to cover the Knoxville Rally is more of the same. Back to Linder… I listen to him on various VNN programs and he is as Wintermute describes a towering figure; charismatic, intelligent and witty, all the while extremely bold in our cause. GW, I am still at a loss as to your unwillingness/inability at seeing the primacy of the JQ. But at least your reluctance seems to be fueled by honesty (if not myopia) rather than the cowardice/“realism” of rightists (Taylor, Griffin, etc.) who go mute when it comes to saying the J word. Either way you seem to understand the need for us to interconnect with our brethren in arms. “I want to see that there is something beyond the immediate personality, however earnest or colourful it is. I admire reserve and understatement, because these things belong to someone who commands greater inner resources than those on public display. Serious leaders are elitists well before they are demogogues or “men of the people”, and they are all the more effective for it.” Well said, though Linder has never sold himself as our Hitler but more as our Goebbels. For that he is well equipped. We may hang together but we will be hung apart for sure. 14
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 23 May 2007 19:38 | # I haven’t listened to the interview, but I don’t think aligning MR with VNN is the best idea. That’s not because VNN discusses the JQ (we discuss that on The Civic Platform all the time). The quality of the discourse that goes on here is simply far superior and VNN style vulgarity/sleaze does not appeal to me. I believe friedrich had a bad encounter with the cretins over at VNN Forum the other day. 15
Posted by wjg on Wed, 23 May 2007 20:06 | # Well Daedelus. Are you gonna win any war without vulgar men with scars and tatoos? Hell no. Then again maybe this isn’t real war but just a debating club. By all means then shun them. 16
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 23 May 2007 20:38 | # Well said, though Linder has never sold himself as our Hitler but more as our Goebbels. It appears from the interview that he is too guileless to be a Goebbels, and Godan help us if another loser like Hitler misleads the people. I wouldn’t have been competent to interview Linder because of my ignorance of him and VNN. I’m not that interested in street protest style activism although it will be interesting to see if the tactic pays off in the case of bringing attention to the the reasons so many of us need separation from other races. But I’m not sure who the target audience is. The massive flight from diversity shows that people definitely are voting with their feet in an implicit cognition of their needs but the explicit cognition remains taboo. Does Linder help the transition from the implicit to explicit cognition of their needs? 17
Posted by Jeff on Wed, 23 May 2007 21:09 | # I believe the VNN forums serve a purpose. I was awakened around 2001, a link in a PC simulation forum pointed to Resistance.com. The forum was having a fit over a game called ‘Ethnic Cleansing’. So, in a way it was a negative that turned to a positive. I educated myself over the years and worked my way up the ladder of truth, a learning process. There will always be avalanche creators (the ones who try to slow you down or confuse you on the way to the truth) in any movement or organization. You can’t remove a forum and expect them to go away. 18
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 23 May 2007 21:17 | # We already have plenty of vulgar men with scars and tattoos, in abundance, in fact. As of this moment, we are not winning the war. I would not go so far as to argue it is because of skinheads and their ilk, as Inverted World does, but such individuals hardly lend respectability to our cause (which we desperately need). Discussing the JQ does not necessarily entail dressing up in a costume and parading around your neighborhood as the “World Commander of National Socialists.” See Kevin MacDonald. 19
Posted by wjg on Wed, 23 May 2007 21:33 | # “It appears from the interview that he is too guileless to be a Goebbels, and Godan help us if another loser like Hitler misleads the people.” James, I think Linder has plenty of guile and he could/would use it if needed. Keep in mind that he is trying to reach a different audience than MR so being caustic and overt is more effective. Hitler a “loser”? Hitler didn’t lose WWII. We lost WWII and the Jew won. We are the losers. People like Yockey realized this in 1949. Can’t we also with 58 more years of hindsight? 20
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 23 May 2007 21:54 | # We are the losers. “We” were mislead. In that respect, yes, we are the losers. But understand something about civilization: When you have people out there creating food for the support of civilization, frequently they have more critical things to do with their time than overcome the absence of good sources of information—like creating people from nature. Nowadays, there are better sources of information, although in many ways the straits of the people are more dire. And when I call Hitler a “loser” I am speaking of him in his role as leader. He had the power to save us and while he succeeded only in demonstrating that a depression-era Germany could raise itself out of the abyss by ridding itself of Jewish influence—an admittedly important contribution—he did not have to: 1) Place so little emphasis on the Transfer Agreement while placing so much emphasis on militarization. 2) Invade Poland. Those failures of leadership are his. 21
Posted by wjg on Wed, 23 May 2007 22:02 | # “We already have plenty of vulgar men with scars and tattoos, in abundance, in fact.” Agreed but VNN is trying to channel them into something valuable for our cause. Is that not someting we want? Also, some of those vulgar men are very smart and motivated. Don’t casually look past a friend when your ship is sinking. “As of this moment, we are not winning the war.” Oh so true. “I would not go so far as to argue it is because of skinheads and their ilk, as Inverted World does, but such individuals hardly lend respectability to our cause (which we desperately need).” There are two different kinds of respectability. One is the cringing, slavish attempt of Whites to please our genocidal masters who think the only good White is fighting in Iraq, dead, or a queer; preferably all three. The second is what I think you are getting at and that is true Aryan nobility. The problem with the latter is that is is currently anachronistic in our judeo-culture. Vulgarism is now normative it’s sad to say. “Discussing the JQ does not necessarily entail dressing up in a costume and parading around your neighborhood as the “World Commander of National Socialists.” See Kevin MacDonald.” True. The exoteric trappings of NS Germany in the 1930s and 40s are no longer useful to us today. But the underlying worldview that guided them then has much to offer including the primacy of race. 22
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 23 May 2007 23:04 | #
Do you honestly think they have been successful?
I’m not convinced descending to that level is either practical or desirable.
That’s questionable. The last thing we need right now is to be at each others throats over trivial ethnic differences. 23
Posted by gt on Wed, 23 May 2007 23:13 | # Cultism, nihilism, midnight literature drops, demonstrations, discursive “analysis” of the regime’s latest transgression – these are attempts by a dependent, marginalized group to change the enemy’s urban-centered regime from within. We are banned from the regime, yet depend on its leavings for sustenance. Can we blame the “lemmings” for not joining us? We have nothing to offer but poverty, social ostracism, imprisonment, and possibly death – all to no purpose whatsoever. Easier for them to mumble PC platitudes and do the Yuppie thing! How to fight back? Promote independency! We must direct our efforts toward minimizing Euroman’s biological dependence on the regime and providing him with a worthwhile, 21st century substitute. We begin by targeting and economically empowering our rural kin and the urban lower middle-classes. Or we continue down the same path for the next 50 years.
24
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 May 2007 00:04 | # James left out the offensive Master Race trope, the Goebelisation of public discourse, and the gross infringements of free speech and freedom of association. Idealising the Hitler era makes little more sense than idealising the Stalin era in Russia, because that too could be, and often is, described as nationalist, ie the Battle of Stalingrad. That said, I think that a healthy society must be an honest society, and such honesty necessarily includes the ability to discuss, determine and judge the Jewish contribution. To the extent that this was, of course, possible in Hitler’s Germany, it might have been more enlightened than our society. But do we know whether the Hitler era was freer in this regard than earlier times? After all, a national obsession with the Jews does not automatically signal the freedom to hold an opinion not prescribed by the Party. The production and control of opinion was pursued far more ardently in Hitler’s Germany than in our Pee-Cee age. Perhaps the real area of interest for us in respect to NS Germany was economic. I think that Wintermute has demonstrated here that the modern Japanese ethnocentric economic model has profound similarities to the National Socialist model, and offers a very viable alternative to neoliberalism/globalisation. Am I missing anything? 25
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 24 May 2007 00:37 | # As I’ve said before, I consider freedom of association to be secondary to freedom of speech. Moreover, the belief that one’s particular people are “the best” is not something unique to the national socialist Germans—although thinking one’s people to be “the best” doesn’t mean one should therefore define them as “the master race” because that fails to preclude slavery. Voluntary servitude is another matter but voluntarism must be within a context of biological independence—ie: sovereignty over enough fertile land for self-sufficiency given reasonable agricultural practices. So, particularly given the dire straits within which national socialism took root, the problem isn’t so much with freedom of speech/expression but with freedom of association—the failure to vigorously pursue the Transfer Agreement. Imagine a world in which Hitler had ordered the might of the German people be turned, rather than to militarization, to the creation of greater irrigation and other infrastructure for the Palestinians—at the same time that the low-level Jews were set up with housing and subsistence farm areas there. High level Jews who had participated in nation destruction should, of course, not have enjoyed the fruits of the German people’s labors and many should have been executed for treason after formal trial. How many young German men were sacrificed during WW II? How many would have had to have been sacrificed for the establishment of a viable return for the Jews to Palestine? Clearly the German people were capable of economically “miraculous” feats. How tragic Hitler didn’t let them work their miracles for the Jews, Palestinians and themselves! We might, to day, Jews and Aryans alike consider Hitler to have been the Messiah, had he simply led his good people to free Europe of Jews and Jew from Europe. In such a counterfactual world “master race” might not be too strong a phrase for the people of Germany for we might be sufficiently grateful to them to voluntarily submit ourselves to their guidance. 26
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 24 May 2007 02:54 | # The NS model isn’t really applicable to the United States. White Americans are too heterogeneous to unite around a single ethnic identity. The U.S. doesn’t have any territorial grievances against neighboring countries either. 27
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thu, 24 May 2007 03:25 | # I don’t know whether something irritates me more than listening to foreigners (especially of the American and British variety) evaluate us Germans and our history and give us “grades.” Adolf Hitler wasn’t a “White Nationalist” or “British Nationalist” or “American Nationalist,” he was a GERMAN Nationalist. His objectives were the following: make Germans & Germany great and powerful; defeat Judeo-Bolshevism in the East; thereafter establish a Germanic Empire. ...the Goebelisation [sic.] of public discourse [meaning?], and the gross infringements of free speech and freedom of association. You know almost nothing about Germany, G.W., and even less about National Socialism. Adolf Hitler completely identified himself with Germans, with their destiny and that of Germany; and Germans viewed him as an incarnation of their collective being & will. No one has ever loved the German people more and there was no German leader in German history more loved by his people. Fact. The Germans-Hitler relationship was one of reciprocal love. As to so-called infringements of freedom of speech and association, that’s also nonsense. In National Socialist Germany there was no room for any thing that was detrimental or hurtful to the Volksgemeinschaft. The days of the Jewish Weimar bordello were over; and Germans expressed a collective sigh of relief. 28
Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 24 May 2007 04:02 | # Here’s a great Dutch documentary (in english) on the Israel Lobby: The Israel Lobby. Portrait of a Great Taboo Tegenlicht, a documentary program by the Dutch public broadcast organization VPRO, allows several interesting opinion makers to speak on the future of the American and Israel relationship and the reception of John Mearsheimers and Steve Walts article “The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy.” Includes interviews with John Mearsheimer, former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, cofounder of the Christians United for Israel lobbying group John Hagee, neoconservative Richard Perle and historian Tony Judt express their views in Marije Meermans and William de Bruijns documentary. 29
Posted by Amalek on Thu, 24 May 2007 13:53 | # No true conservative could possibly approve of Adolf. Hitler was an ignorant, uncouth, rabble-rousing part-Slavic Austrian interloper who unnaturally forced Austria into ‘Germany’: itself a Wilhelmine political novelty against the grain of the traditional, separate Germanic polities, which ranged from a Catholic monarchy to Protestant quasi-republican city states. As a socialist innovator and imperialist to boot, it is not surprising that Hitler failed to incarnate the disparate instincts and traditions of the peoples living east of the Rhine and south of the Baltic, and so brought them to ruin and humiliation in a very short time. They made a corrupt bargain and deservedly lost by it. Today’s Germany is also unnatural, the artefact of foreign conquerors, and so has to protect its bogus unity by an elaborate apparatus of spying and political persecution of ‘extremists’. But at least it acknowledges the true divisions of the Teutonic land mass to the extent of having devolved much power to the provinces, some of which roughly replicate historical boundaries. May we conservatives live to see the day when Germany, and Italy, fall apart into their old constituents as the United Kingdom seems to be doing. Fissiparosity is the best guarantor of non-intervention: it has happened in other artifical creations such as the USSR and Yugoslavia, so why not in western Europe? Christendom for us all, and ethnically and religiously and culturally coherent polities for the many members of Europe’s white extended family. In short, the sharpest possible contrast with the dying USA. And no EU or NATO ‘new order’! The regimes of the Hitlers and Mussolinis and Stalins do not last because they force together peoples who did not wish to cohabit. Franco lasted because most Spaniards, except the Basques, on the whole did prefer unity. Franco, like Ataturk, bequeathed a constitutional settlement which has endured and evolved. For both the precondition was to forswear foolish imperialistic ambitions. Empire is the death of racial solidarity, always and everywhere since the Romans—the bitter lesson the mongrel Moronicans are beng taught today. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 May 2007 14:00 | # Friedrich, I am no excavator of 1920-30s German history, that is true. Nonetheless, I can say with absolute certainty that the rehabilitation of Hitler’s Germany is an absurd goal in this thoroughly Americanised modernity of ours. The sooner that German-Americans (and -Canadians) realise this, the sooner we can get on with uniting around the goal of dealing with the present. Nazism was a creature of its times, and the grave social and political excesses it produced are enough to tell us that neither it nor, virtually, any part of it is transplantable into the present. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 May 2007 14:52 | # Friedrich, Do you recognise that the political and philosophical currents that inform liberalism in the widest sense today differ significantly from those that engendered the National Socialist revolution (ie, Versailles, Judaised Bolshevism, Weimar)? 32
Posted by The Anglo-Judeo Imperium on Thu, 24 May 2007 15:32 | # As someone who is neither of German extraction nor a member of the Hitler Defense League, I do however question the leadership of British Isles-descended peoples who seem divided by their loyalty to the White racial cause, and their triumphalist WWII narrative which undermines the former by bolstering the perceived paramount importance of the Holocaust. Most Holocaust propaganda is tailored for Anglophones; meanwhile, “we” are to unite in order to deal with present causes and, I’m assuming, under present leadership and its lingua franca. “We” have had six decades of your conniving with the Chosens, and now consider you one in the same. 33
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Thu, 24 May 2007 15:48 | # Ditch the pro-Hitler stuff as soon as possible. He was the mortal enemy of European people. Hitler was a flatulent weirdo homosexual who had sex with his neice and then- probably -murdered her. When young German men who were put to work building the autobahn wrote a letter dear Fuhrer letter complaining about the brutal work conditions, the Dear Fuhrer sent the SS to visit these young German men and beat them so as to instill an even deeper reverence for Dear Fuhrer. 34
Posted by wjg on Thu, 24 May 2007 16:18 | # “Do you honestly think they have been successful?” Yes, to a point, though it is still a work in progress. I would clearly say that we as White Nationalists (and its various and sundry sub-groups) have benefited from VNN. It is primarily a WN media hub that provides more of a working class content to searchers. Not all searchers are primarily slaves to respectability. Some, maybe most, are but many have cast off that crutch in favor of truth and life whether other folks like it or not. Alex Linder, Yankee Jim, Craig Cobb, and some of the regular posters in that forum (like New America) are bright and very motivated and just because some of them use words that offend respectable ears is trivial by comparison. Respectable people can come to MR where the racism is served with fine silver and linen napkins rather than paper plates and plastic forks. I’m not knocking MR since I think BOTH sides are needed. I prefer the MR approach myself but I see the value of the other. WN will become respectable when we make it respectable by aligning with like minded groups and never granting an inch to our enemy regarding their poisonous conditions. We need to approach on our terms (as free white men) refined or rough, men of words or action, but confederated such that our enemy gains no leverage for triangulation from our own weakness. In other words respectability comes from strength not the weakness of cringing conformity. Jews, to their credit, understand how the real world works as far as change goes, making them more “conservative” than many ideologues here. The dialectic process of change works. Propose something radical (the role of western liberals), respond with something less radical (the role of conservatives), then blend the two over the objection of the other two (the role of moderates). As is plain to see the liberals in our contemporary spiral of “progress” drive things. WN needs similar “wings” that though they may have superficial disagreements use this type of process for real progress. Using the “N” word by vulgar men provides cover for respectable men to talk about the real effects blacks have in a White society. If the vulgar men weren’t providing cover the animus of the enemy would be more directed at the respectable. The enemy constantly uses this process against us (cop killer music paving the way for milder hip-hop, etc.). Let’s use it against them. Let’s not attack the hill wearing pretty red coats in perfect formation unless we are masochists.
Any concepts borrowed from NS Germany for use today by WN should not use the parts that didn’t work. National Socialism is very close to what you say you espouse as a preferred political model. It has race-based collectivism as its foundation. And economically for us to wean ourselves/cleave ourselves from materialism, usury, and other elements of the false economy we will have to do it as collective acts thru coercion. Whites trapped in their cocoons of individualism are no threat at all to the ene 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 May 2007 16:51 | # WJG, It isn’t race-based collectivism that we must try to engender. It’s sociobiological normality. 36
Posted by wjg on Thu, 24 May 2007 17:14 | # GW, I don’t disagree with you but what structure should this normality take and how do we get there? Also I was proposing that to Daedelus who while criticizing National Socialism had also said somewhere else (I think) that he supoorted racial collectivism. His preference struck me as NS without the label. 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 May 2007 17:56 | # The difference is that between a National Socialist, Linderite “heavy model” and a conservative English “light model”. 38
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 24 May 2007 18:25 | # I think “normality” is best viewed in terms of the environment of evolutionary adaptation. In that environment there is gene flow constrained not by governments but by male territoriality organized, at most, into small groups internally consisting of ecologically imposed monogamous pair bonds. Therefore you have an exceedingly low rate of gene flow that isn’t exchange of females, and the exchange of females is limited. 39
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 May 2007 19:45 | # Sexual mores in the cold north, James. Social conservatism is EC sociobiology by another name. 40
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 24 May 2007 20:43 | #
Some of us here aren’t “conservatives.”
No thanks. 41
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 24 May 2007 20:47 | #
National Socialism is German volk nationalism. Obviously, that wouldn’t work in the United States. White Americans are far too heterogeneous to rally around any single ethnic identity. If Germans want to embrace National Socialism, that’s their business. 42
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 24 May 2007 21:33 | #
VNN caters to a small cross section of the American WN community; a percentage that seems to get smaller every year. I have followed VNN and its outreach efforts over the years. It looks to me like the same crowd is there today that has always been there. Linder’s appeal seems to be limited to that sort of audience.
True. Most of those people have given up trying to appeal to a wider audience, or are simply irrational.
I’m not knocking Linder or VNN. Why bother? There is nothing that has been said about VNN that hasn’t been said a million times already. All I am saying is that VNN is going nowhere.
WN will never become successful barring some kind of catastrophe. Even dressed up in its most polite and civilized form, white Americans have little to gain and much to risk by voicing racialist sentiments.
The non-conformists have demonstrated neither strength or respectability.
The Jews have a decisive advantage over us: they are not hopelessly individualistic like we are. They are capable of building strong, well-financed organizations to advance common ethnic goals. The average white American would rather get drunk watching baseball in his living room. The typical Englishmen would rather see his daughter marry a Negro than offend someone.
There is virtually no organization whatsoever in the American WN community. WN attacks on Jews are more like barbarian raids (that’s incredibly generous, too).
WN needs above all else the talented people that it sorely lacks, and they won’t join the WN cause for class reasons or their own individualism.
What aspects of National Socialism could work in the United States? If you subtract radical ethnic chauvinism, you aren’t left with much else. Sure, you still have dislike and suspicion of the Jews, but there is nothing specifically Nazi about that.
The preconditions of our ultimate success are 1.) the demise of liberalism amongst the general white population and 2.) the substitution of a more collectivist ethos. We can’t even begin to tackle the Jewish problem until this is accomplished. Until that happens, our efforts will continue to be met with indifference or hostility. 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 May 2007 22:21 | # Daedalus is correct. We are, all of us, revolutionaries. We did not seek this station in life. It is not an easy or even particularly pleasurable one. But it is the only one open to anybody who seriously cannot stomach the unfolding of modernity. I have said before that the only honourable life at the end of history is a revolutionary life, and such it is. Understand that the revolution is metapolitical. It is not about raising racial awareness, though that is a part of it. It is not about “going through the Jew”, regardless of what Alex says ... though detachment from the service of Jewish ethnic interests is a part of it, and a large one. It is about the replacement of the liberal metapolitic - that socio-cultural space that lives within and between us - with another that allows only those results in the life of European Man which we desire. At present we cannot agree on the “weight” of any putative replacement. Let’s then at least agree on the primacy of such a solution. Let’s draw together in the manner of the old radical socialist Labour Party in Britain who used to declare, “No enemy to the left.” Let’s try to pull together the disparate strands, and then look for a development on method. Otherwise, I fear we will go round and round with this same argument, and never take the great steps that we must. 44
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thu, 24 May 2007 23:14 | # “the Dear Fuhrer sent the SS to visit these young German men and beat them so as to instill an even deeper reverence for Dear Fuhrer.” Hitler also murdered little kittens and had them for lunch. The truth is that life for the German worker was immeasurably superior in the Third Reich than before or since. National Socialism was incredibly progressive for its time. Stop the bullshit. Talk about things you actually know something about. 45
Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 24 May 2007 23:18 | # wintermute once suggested to me that if we ever find a way out of this mess we should adopt Gene Roddenberry’s “Prime Directive” of non-interference with the internal affairs of other civilizations. I thought that was a good idea. In the Star Trek fictional universe, Vulcan society is organized around the moral precept, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” We need a similar ethic. 47
Posted by wjg on Fri, 25 May 2007 02:35 | # Daedalus, The biggest problem I see with WN right now is the various factions are not really serious. VNN bashes Strormfront as Scamfront, Stromfront treats VNN like a leper colony, National Alliance is bashed by many as not professional enough, National Vanguard is ridiculed as too volkish, MR toasts the arrest of Shaun Walker and raises nary a peep about ZOG’s persecution of O’Farrell and Sheppard (though I may have missed it), Bill White attacks almost everyone (David Duke, April Gaede, Don Black). The list goes on. The combination of petty empire protection, unstable personalities, and ZOG stooges makes this a lot harder than it should be. Ronald Reagan had a smart rule for political unity: Republicans never bash Republicans. White Nationalists should not only adopt that rule - at least as far as public action - but go further and view an attack on any one of us as an attack on all. If we adopted that approach we would be on our way to developing the cadre (a revolutionary elite) William Pierce so rightly said we lack. Even if the catastrophe you say we need to jump start us happens - and I agree that is necessary - we wouldn’t be able to take advantage of it. Jews are always ready to take advantage of the turmoil that they themselves create. When more WN organizations/forums/personalities adopt the approach of looking after other White Nationalists as brothers then we will better grow and, more importantly, strengthen the cadre. The JQ is also a critical litmus test. Once it is abandoned or inverted (into philo-semitism) the entity has dramatically compromised, if not forfeited, its standing as WN. 48
Posted by wjg on Fri, 25 May 2007 03:04 | # “It is about the replacement of the liberal metapolitic - that socio-cultural space that lives within and between us - with another that allows only those results in the life of European Man which we desire.” GW, How do you replace the liberal metapolitic unless you “go thru the jew”? MR certainly analyzes politics from the WN perspective but for this to catch on and becoming again our zeitgeist guess who will be there to block you? Even us ruminating in the fever swamps of the Internet is on thin ice once hate crimes are pushed thru the US Congress. Again, who will be in the forefront of this attack? 49
Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 25 May 2007 03:25 | # If every WN became a clone of Jared Taylor and united behind the Amren approach tommorrow (suits and ties, good manners), even putting on our most presentable face still wouldn’t be enough. Long term social and historical factors are at work that are beyond our control. I think we would be modestly more successful than we are today (maybe where the BNP is in the UK), but nowhere close to achieving our goals. Liberalism has to go. No one is going to care about their race or what the Jews are doing to it until theyfirst cease to be satisfied with their own atomized existence. 50
Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 25 May 2007 03:33 | # How do you plan to “go thru the Jew” without first getting past liberalism? Every attack you make on the Jews will be deflected by the same standard arguments. 1.) Jews should be free to do as they like provided they are harming no one. . . . and so on. 51
Posted by Wunderhund on Fri, 25 May 2007 04:25 | # wjg You sure hit the nail on the head! I have always been amazed at the level of conflict between WN’s. Like a bunch of school yard kids, always squabbling about who is more right, or whatever. Sad. Do these people suffer from ‘Fearless Leader Syndrome’? Let’s focus on what we have in common, and reserve the animus for those who are causing the real trouble. 52
Posted by wjg on Fri, 25 May 2007 04:29 | # Daedalus, Do you really think the Jew is built on top of liberalism or liberalism on top of the Jew? The answer is important for once the foundation is weakened the whole rotten structure is at risk. Jews have no problem functioning as communists or capitalists, liberals or conservatives, as a Rothstein or a Redstone as serves their purposes. Go ahead and pull up liberalism and throw it into the fire and burn it to ashes. How long before there’s another ideological construction to hoodwink us into thinking piss is lemonade? The genesis of liberalism itself has roots far deeper than just the French Revolution and the ravings of Rousseau. Revilo Oliver makes compelling arguments about Christianity itself being the soil from which liberalism grew, though its germination was quite long. From whence did Christianity come is a good question. Is what we eventually came to accept as Christianity really what happened or was it interpreted into its written form from the imaginations of our timeless friends? In other words did Jews create the Christianity we now know long ago during the dotage of Rome and feed it to the mongrels of that decaying empire to help instigate its collapse? And from this “Christianity” comes our modern disease of liberalism? I am not convinced of Oliver’s theory but there is plenty of evidence that liberalism is a result rather than a cause. If liberalism is nothing more than a symptom of a disease spawned from a virus then it will never stop its work until either it or us are destroyed. So, yes, destroy, discredit, or otherwise defeat the Jew and liberalism can be picked off like an old scab after several generations of recovery. The healing can’t begin until the virus is cured. 53
Posted by Viridovix on Fri, 25 May 2007 04:31 | # The Enlightenment reoriented western man’s thinking from the Christian God to individual people as the universe’s center. Liberalism is applied anthropocentricism. More complex holistic polytheism fell to these two simpler forms, with the latter, anthropocentricism, representing the most simplified and accessible consensus to date. 54
Posted by wjg on Fri, 25 May 2007 04:41 | # Wunderhund, At the least we should do that. It’s Real Politics 101. We have enough obstacles to cross without creating more out of thin air. 55
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 25 May 2007 05:33 | # M.R. should think about interviewing the great wintermute. 56
Posted by Might makes Right on Fri, 25 May 2007 06:11 | # In other words did Jews create the Christianity we now know long ago during the dotage of Rome and feed it to the mongrels of that decaying empire to help instigate its collapse? I do not believe that one should indulge in a “Jewish conspiracy” extending beyond than two centuries into the past, when the Jewish Nation first took definite form admist the Age of the Nation-states. The evidence does support the formation of this Jewish nation, which would defeat, rubbish or subjugate the others by 1945. By 1945’s end, the only nationalism remaining would be Jewish nationalism. The head of gentile nations had been lopped off, and remain headless to this day. 57
Posted by jonathan on Fri, 25 May 2007 07:11 | # Friedrich Brawn, you have a nice blog- I’m almost tempted to watch your clip of The View, but I think I sort of know where they’re coming from having seen the show on my own television a few times. I kind of like seeing YouTube clips in stillnes on blogs before I click on them to begin. With that arrow for ‘play’ plopped in the center, it feels like “abstract” art! 58
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 25 May 2007 07:50 | # “In defense of Soren’s star power, I recommend not listening to “Experimental, trash, jet set and no star” by Sonic Youth, no star being the drummer, which hence makes him the anti-star, therefore in this day and age, maybe? The Star! the Angle of Repose, The Tipping Point, when it comes to a screeching halt.” That made about as much sense as Soren’s questions. 59
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 25 May 2007 13:25 | # Sonic Youth hmm. Its probably time they changed their name. 20 years ago fine but now… 60
Posted by Maguire on Fri, 25 May 2007 17:22 | # I think the first question is whether the real nature of the struggle is properly defined. If not then no amount of media effort can succeed irregardless of its quantity or style (i.e. “quality”). A reasonable question is to ask all would be pro-white editors and other would be leaders of whites: “Exactly what do you expect and want a recruited and committed person to *do* tommorow, next week and next month?” Wunderhund, “Do these people suffer from ‘Fearless Leader Syndrome’? It’s more accurate to say they’re financial competitors for limited white consumer dollars spent on ‘White’ media. The pattern since the early 1960s has been to structure pro-white organizations around a core media operation. VNN, the National Alliance, E.U.R.O., National Vanguard, Metzger’s W.A.R. and the rest have been media operations first and foremost. Poorly managed and edited media for the most part. However, their overall failure does not lie in sub-standard editorial and production values or the quirkiness of their staffs. The fact is that many very successful mainstream anti-white media workers are far more dysfunctional individually and in groups. Pro-white media failure lies in the fact this media serves absolutely no economic function to anyone except their proprietors and employees. 61
Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 25 May 2007 22:20 | #
The former. Jewish emancipation tended to go hand in hand with the spread of liberalism (which was pioneered by Euros like John Locke).
1.) In the United States, “conservatism” is nothing more than a different version of liberalism.
I would agree there is a connection. Christianity is another problem we have to deal with.
This doesn’t answer my question. How do intend on destroying the Jew without first getting past liberalism? That’s like trying to rob a home without disabling its security system. 62
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 25 May 2007 23:11 | # Viridovix, Are you suggesting that polytheism has a future or just an interesting past? I am open to persuasion on the former, but you would need to be pretty persuasive. As for your principal observation, and I’m speaking now solely about European Man, both Christianity and liberalism are of the same psychological root. They are both universalist faiths. They are not in opposition merely because their paths to a claimed perfectionment and understanding are different. Locke, after all, was proposing a rational alternative to faith. He was not disagreeing with the raw teleology. It has become something of a cliche to observe that today’s liberalism has degenerated absolutely into a secular religion. But for me, it is a religion of projection in a psychological sense. Instead of demanding the transcendence and nullification of the believer’s self, it demands the breaking of our bonds as fathers, as families, as instinctual heterosexuals, and most of all as a distinct people with a birthright to our own homeland. The real acolytes of this secular religion are just conventional thinking people, precisely the same kind of conventional thinking people who for generations filled the pews of medieval churches, and died as fervent believers in the Christ. Hobbes, Locke, the Jew Spinoza, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume and all the rest argued their world to the point of schism. But they did not change the human type that is attracted to teleological belief systems. 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 25 May 2007 23:31 | # I also think that Jewry is “built on top” of liberalism. WJG is correct in saying that “the Jew” has made himself a gatekeeper through his control of mainstream media. He has also hijacked the political zeitgeist, culturally Marxising it in the aftermath of WW2, in fact. That’s not news to anybody, of course. But he is an opportunist, a niche-filler in a liberal rockface pockmarked with darkly inviting niches. It’s a point I made a couple of years ago, following a similar discussion about the way things work. No, we must be clear that once great and powerful intellectual currents have brought us to this pass, and that even the ease with which Jewish intellectuals have claimed ownership of them in the last half a century demonstrates that they are old and weak, and riddled through with corruption. It is necessary for philosophers to speak, not anti-semites. The semites, let it be said, could not be heard in a din of true and healthy speaking. 64
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 26 May 2007 00:09 | # Maguire, I am impressed with the authority with you lay out your arguments. GT and you make a formidable pair. You say: the first question is whether the real nature of the struggle is properly defined. So, please, define it. 65
Posted by Mr. Bond on Sat, 26 May 2007 00:24 | # Linder sounds like a reasonable, responsible, educated white man. The interviewer, otoh, came off, well, to use his own word, prissy. Not to mention, unprepared. I’ve been reading Fade/Daedy/guessedworker/whatever for a few years now and the only consistant theme he espouses is directing white wrath away from the Jews. Always. 67
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 26 May 2007 03:19 | # The Jews are a problem, but it is liberalism that enables them. 68
Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 26 May 2007 03:48 | # Jewish emancipation tended to go hand in hand with the spread of liberalism (which was pioneered by Euros like John Locke). How is this supposed to support your thesis? 69
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 26 May 2007 04:09 | # Liberalism and created and disseminated throughout Europe by whites like John Locke in the wake of the Thirty Years War/English Civil War. It was not a Jewish conspiracy designed by Jews to get even with gentiles. The new emphasis upon religious tolerance eventually led to Jewish emancipation. Jews have exploited the language of liberalism to promote their own ends ever since. 70
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 26 May 2007 04:10 | # Mr. Bond, Guessedworker had made a lot of progress over the last three years. I remember when he would periodically send me angry emails about things like linking to David Duke’s site. He needs to be congratulated. 72
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 26 May 2007 04:15 | #
All the influence Jews currently wield in the media and academia is ultimately reducible to liberalism: treating every Jew as an individual, ignoring his religion, attributing to him inalienable rights, respecting his “freedom” and “equality” as a citizen. 73
Posted by JB on Sat, 26 May 2007 05:04 | # re: Ron Paul/W.LindsayWheeler he’s against birthright citizenship and he will build that fence on the mexican border. http://youtube.com/watch?v=EF37-9OGblw his libertardian stance on race isn’t that much of a big deal if his other libertarian ideals will lead him to put an end to forced integration and all the anti-white federal laws. If he remove all federal laws against discrimination and leaves those things to the states it would be a one less hand strangling white americans 74
Posted by JB on Sat, 26 May 2007 05:12 | # about those murders Linder was talking about: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/05/the_knoxville_h.php
75
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 26 May 2007 05:53 | # Liberalism and created and disseminated throughout Europe by whites like John Locke in the wake of the Thirty Years War/English Civil War. The story of Michael Servetus is an interesting one.
http://www.socinian.org/michael_servetus.html Servetus’ main theme was to deny Christ as divine. Very interesting, in that Servetus was a descendant of Conversos.
Michael Servetus, humanist, denier of Christ, inspiration for Locke, Hume, Mill and Madison was most likely a Jew. 76
Posted by JB on Sat, 26 May 2007 06:14 | # The last few months I’ve only been downloading the VNN radio shows. I’m not even tempted to check out the forum to see if there’s a good thread cause there’s just too many idiots and costumed virtual nazis in there who drag down the level of discourse and debate, it gets boring real fast.
There seems to be two Linders, the one who speaks on Goyfire, the witty and coherent who uses his tongue to whip the audience, and the other one who publishes the TAA and doesn’t seem to care about the quality of his printed material. He must know by now that the tabloid hasn’t attracted a lot of whites to the cause and that his newspaper plans have to change.
I have not really watched TV for about 7 years and the last time I tried to sit down and watch it I felt physically uncomfortable I couldn’t do it for more than 30 minutes. Sometimes I listen to bits of TV news but I can’t sit down and stare at that thing. I only use the television set to watch movies or science documentaries
All their propaganda about WW2 being The Good War has to be demolished, we don’t do that by idealizing the nazis of course but simply by telling the truth about them and the war and by telling whites to look at the bigger picture. WW2 wasn’t just bad, it was the worst war we have ever been involved in. And the anglo-american Allies sided with the worst mass murderers of the 20th Century and possibly of all History to defeat Germany. How come nodoby ever points this out or even ask why the UK and France didn’t declare war against the USSR when it invaded the other half of Poland ? As I wrote here: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_power_of_film/P100/#c41906
Was The Second World War good for us ? Only a fool would think this war was good for the West. Only a Churchill fanboy would believe that destroying the 3rd Reich was so important that it was right to collaborate with Stalin’s regime to achieve that goal. At worst we should have let the USSR and the 3rd Reich fight each other. There was no justification for a total war against nazi Germany. Amalek:
not that I am a Hitler admirer but I have to correct you here: the Third Reich was militarily defeated, not culturally or politically defeated like the USSR was. Franco lasted only because he kept his country out of WW2 and that’s something spaniards should be thankful for. 77
Posted by Thought-provoking quote on Sat, 26 May 2007 10:15 | # <blockquote>Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission. —Michael Ledeen 78
Posted by Viridovix on Sat, 26 May 2007 13:25 | #
I organized a simple timeline where polytheism preceded Christianity, which preceded liberalism. I believe polytheism was a better arrangement for our outlook because the many important aspects of our existence (kin, protection, war, harvest, weather, fertility and so on) were each given an ideal, but not necessarily perfect personification. We don’t really want to attribute each of our values to any theistic incarnation, but rather they each need evaluation and if found an ideal fit for us today, reinforcement. Christianity convinced us of spiritual universalism as assessed by God’s acceptance. This has no value in life. Liberalism attempts to convince us of material universalism: each human body and mind is holy in life. The effects of our new anthropocentric outlook have resulted in atomisation and a brash egoism; we are each holy by default without effort. Those brave few who are able to, or forced to judge themselves honestly, despite whatever popularity (altruistic pity), money or other superficial modern value they have lived for, may find a depressing lack of real worth. That revelation opens up an opportunity for individual change. Useful propaganda breaks our modern/liberal illusions, guiding us to each rebuild ourselves anew, better people united among a mass of divided lessers. Liberalism’s lynchpins are individual ego and self-worth. These are typically built upon superficial values. We are not each inherently worthwhile. We must earn it in a lasting, non-superficial manner, primarily, in my view, to the satisfaction of our inner being.
Purposeful existence: what do we truly value that is not fundamentally selfish in nature? The noblest among us who embody these values are our ideal. Who are they? Contrast that with an isolated, truly forgettable, meaningless life found with liberalism and the cowardly shallowness of its advertised equality. Let’s recreate our genuine aristocrats, those noblest among us, for everyone to see and aspire toward. Where are they? Note that none of this need involve any ultimately fruitless entertainment battling with outgroups. What’s so great about whites anymore? Start there. 79
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 26 May 2007 14:28 | # JB, War was declared in 1939 for reasons of statecraft. But it was fought and won, finally, for human dignity. Hitler’s Germany was a beast unto its neighbours, and no Germanic imperium of that nature would have been bearable for those forced to live under it. In that sense, and that sense alone, the Second World War was a just war. Do not confuse the product of peace in Western Europe - the imposition of a Judaized Americanism - with the necessity of defending Germany’s neighbours. The one took advantage of the other, that is all. And remember, too, that Soviet hegemony in the east and American hegemony in the West were political cousins. The American settlement was never intended by the very conservative British Establishment - and I include in this all parties to the coallition government at Westminster with the exception of Churchill (who was an Atlanticist elitist, a half-American and never a Conservative in the first place). 80
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 26 May 2007 16:42 | # “War was declared in 1939 for reasons of statecraft. But it was fought and won, finally, for human dignity. Hitler’s Germany was a beast unto its neighbours, and no Germanic imperium of that nature would have been bearable for those forced to live under it.” Funny BS. First, Eastern Europe was outside of the British sphere of interests and none of your business to begin. I love of it when self-righteous and sanctimonious Anglos talk about “human dignity” and such while they have centuries of experience of brutalizing and murdering foreign people. You Brits always excelled at that. You’re the undisputed masters at it. You have centuries of experience in what Lloyd George called “bombing niggers.” * I won’t mention now how you butchered and fire-bombed and murdered our cities and civilians. You’ve proved your respect for “human dignity” again and again and again. You didn’t protest too loudly either when Poles were oppressing and killing our people in the interwar period either. We didn’t hear a peep from you when Stalin was raping the Baltic republics. No, indeed. You gave the Georgian Butcher half of Europe as reward for his valiant services. When will you stop your moralizing bullshit, G.W.? You people are the last nation on earth who should give anyone lessons in this area. Typical Anglo hypocrite. *David Lloyd George cited by V.G. Kiernan, European Empires from Conquest to Collapse, 1815-1960, p. 200. 81
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 26 May 2007 20:57 | # To my knowledge, Michael Servetus is not considered a significant figure in the history of liberal political theory. The early liberals were inspired mostly by the new empirical science and religious fanaticism of the early seventeenth century. The French Wars of Religion, Thirty Years War, and English Civil War taught Europe the necessity of toleration for religious differences. 82
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 26 May 2007 21:23 | #
How did the United States impose “Judaized Americanism” upon Western Europe, Germany and Austria aside? French intellectuals of the postwar period like Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvior were virulently anti-American and pro-communist. De Gaulle was no close ally of the U.S. FDR never liked him. Churchill fell from power in 1945, in part because he was perceived as being too pro-American. It was the Labour government under Attlee (which had rough relations with Truman) that began decolonization and passed the British Nationality Act 1948 (which opened the door to third world immigration to the U.K.) Whatever the faults of Churchill in the Second World War, he was a committed British imperialist and a white racist who opposed nonwhite immigration in the 1950s. Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden and so forth were never occupied by the U.S. Army. During the 1950s, the most implacable anti-racists in Western Europe were Scandinavians who were outspoken critics of American segregation and gave the U.S. a hard time at the United Naions. The most racist country in Europe was West Germany, which was easily the most influenced by the occupation. It wasn’t until the late 1960s/early 1970s that German self-loathing over the Holocaust made its appearance. The mouthpiece of anti-racism in Europe during the postwar period was the USSR, not the United States. The Soviet Union was spreading anti-racist propaganda all across Europe and the third world at the time. This was the major reason the U.S. federal government started supporting desegregation too after half a century of indifference to civil rights. 83
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 26 May 2007 21:26 | # Rustic superstition is no alternative to Christianity. 84
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 26 May 2007 21:33 | #
No. It evolved from a regional conflict in Eastern Europe into a general war against “racism.” In the aftermath, the Allies found themselves hostage to their own war rhetoric. 85
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 26 May 2007 22:49 | # FB - how do you account for the Belgian and German behaviour in Africa then? Their ‘bombing niggers’ or the pre-air power equivalent far exceeded anything done the British. Did we somehow force them to do that? 86
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 26 May 2007 23:05 | # Daedalus, If we are, as we clearly must, to lift from German shoulders the calumnies that, in oppressing Germans, oppress us all, we must be careful to observe the boundaries of the true. Your co-blogger is not willing to do this, not because those boundaries don’t exist - they do, and they are the boundaries of human decency - but because he is a German-Canadian. His stubborn loyalty is impressive in its way, and understandable. We all understand loyalty. But it is not an argument, and we who are not Germans parse the complex issues of the JQ, Hitler’s Germany and the post-war political settlement through argument of historical fact and moral interpretation. Very well, this is my argument. Insomuch as the bastardisation of Germany is propaganda employed in the abuse and dispossession of European Man we may identify it, protest it, ridicule it, sink it. These are moral acts. But insomuch as the pathologies of supremacism and land-greed caused suffering, humiliation and loss to Germany’s neighbours, we may not endeavour to wipe the Nazi slate clean. We do not have the moral right. Now, you ask how the endemic liberalism of the West rode in on the coat-tails of war. I am not sure why this isn’t obvious to you. I wonder, in fact, whether it is and you are just asking out of mischief. Anyway, I will take you at your word. It isn’t a question of post-war military occupation. It is a question, from the American side, of the ownership of the zeitgeist, of national energy and cultural power, and of prestige, direction, glamour and dreams - much of which was very evident to Europeans even in the 1890s. But it is also a question of European civilisational exhaustion ... of moral insecurity ... of the stresses to the social fabric created by Marxist class-warfare ... of the very important popular conviction that a new time with new opportunities was dawning, and Europeans could prosper again via a new and democratic openness and equality and via new freedoms. These powerful ideas were self-evidently not constricted to Germany and Austria, not least because America the victor, America the wealthy, America the nuclear was now the guarantor of a Soviet-free West. American liberalism, so exportable, so futuristic, was the only possible filler of the void. That it atomises and is anti-national was a positive to the post-war generation of centre-left and centre-right Social and Christian Democrats who inherited and shared power in Europe. The wonder is not that this engine of change, this egalitarian twin of Soviet communism conquered all, but that we are standing here only sixty years later watching it decay and involve into a hate object ... and trying to get a shot at determining what will happen next. 87
Posted by Bud White on Sat, 26 May 2007 23:07 | # But the presence of excresences like Glenn Miller…wintermute What, are you some kind of an elitist snob? At least Glenn Miller put his neck on the line for his people! What have you done except display your superior intellect on the Internet? You have no moral authority putting down Glen Miller et al. if you yourself haven’t got your ass out their in public and made a difference. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9158422089779051101&q=Glenn+Miller 88
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 26 May 2007 23:17 | # “But insomuch as the pathologies of supremacism and land-greed caused suffering, humiliation and loss to Germany’s neighbours, we may not endeavour to wipe the Nazi slate clean.” What I refuse to accept is your double standard. One for N.S. Germany and another for the British Empire. When will you let go of the idea that your orchestration of W.W. II was in any sense virtuous and not sheer stupidity? There was nothing rational about going to war for Danzig. Tell me where your compatriot is wrong in his assessment?: http://youtube.com/watch?v=MottK8Roem8 This irrational British hatred and envy of Germany dates back to the 19th Century. 89
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 26 May 2007 23:25 | # “...how do you account for the Belgian and German behaviour in Africa then? Their ‘bombing niggers’ or the pre-air power equivalent far exceeded anything done the British. Did we somehow force them to do that?” The British have no shame. Do you people ever stop lying as far as Germans are concerned? But I’m glad you brought up the African continent. You’ve also showed what you could do down there….to WHITES!!! Let me quote a Dutch South African: The cowardly British could not conquer the Boers in a honest war, so they waged war against the woman and children by burning down the farms and houses and destroying the cattle,then dumping the Boer woman and children in concentration camps. Approximately 36% of the Boer population was destroyed during the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1904. There is no such thing as British gentlemanship - they are nothing but scum of the earth. Comment by eduard — May 18, 2007 # |Edit This http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/05/17/when-anglos-mass-murdered-germans/ 90
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 26 May 2007 23:36 | # Friedrich, I do not wish to point out the deficiencies of your argument. I do not wish to fight with you at all. It will certainly end in a display of Teutonic fireworks and your leavetaking from our threads, which I would regret. 91
Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 26 May 2007 23:36 | #
How so? By having a mongrel child? 92
Posted by Bud White on Sun, 27 May 2007 00:03 | # “How so? By having a mongrel child?”—-Daedalus I didn’t know he has a “mongrel child.” But if so, does that take away from the central message he articulates in his speeches? Daedalus, even Thomas Jefferson had mongrel offspring, are you going to revile him too? 93
Posted by Steven Palese on Sun, 27 May 2007 00:33 | # From the vnn front page - Update: Alex Linder has been arrested at the Knoxville rally for disorderly conduct, assault, resisting arrest and vandalism. He is being held on $4500 bail at the Knox County Detention Facility. More updates at the VNN Forum 94
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 00:39 | #
I’m no fan of radical ethnic chauvinism myself.
It’s a serious question. I can understand how liberalism was transplanted to occupied Germany and Austria after the war. A liberal constitution was imposed on Germany by the Allies. Denazification of the German media and universities was quite thorough. Jews who had fled from the Third Reich were let back into Germany and were placed in important positions of power. The Adenauer government was an American satellite for many years. These are legitimate complaints. I can understand them. What mystifies me, however, is how this allegedly happened in other Western European countries, especially France, and those which were not occupied by the U.S. Army like Sweden. The French have always loathed American culture. They still do even today. So, how was France under de Gaulle Americanized? Neither the Gaullists or the French left cared for the United States. Did the Netherlands suddenly become liberal in 1945?
The problem with this is that Western Europeans generally did not share the American zeitgeist during the postwar period. The United States of the 1950s was at the peak of its power and influence. Americans were incredibly optimistic about the future. It seemed like Americans could do anything. In contrast, the Germans were utterly demoralized and were eeking out a substinence level of existence in a devastated country. France and Britain were reeling from their losses during the Second World War. Insurrections broke out throughout their colonies. Postwar French philosophy was incredibly pessimistic about the human condition. Nationalism waned in Europe after the 1950s while waxing in Eisenhower and Kennedy’s America.
Wasn’t this caused though by the Second World War? Europeans came to take a dim view of Western civilization for the first time after the war. The U.S., which was untouched by both world wars, never bought into this cultural malaise, at least outside of its elite. Americans are still deranged patriots even today.
The French were never comfortable with American influence in Europe. De Gaulle was determined to remake France into a “third force” which could stand up to the Americans and Soviets alike. NATO headquarters was moved from France to Belgium because of this. The French ultimately withdrew from NATO military command and demanded that America close its military bases in France. They also developed their own nuclear arsenal along with the British.
I have to disagree with you here, GW. Once again, I will use France as my example. The French have never liked American culture. They were never comfortable with American troops on their soil. The French didn’t swallow much Yankee poison after WW2. Instead, they continued to wallow in the self pity that had overcome them after the Nazi conquest, which evolved ultimately into what became known as postmodernism. Even before postmodernism, French intellectuals like Sartre were already combining third worldism with hatred of the United States.
Is the culprit here American modernism or French postmodernism?
It was the postmodernists who pioneered hatred of the West, hostility to “metanarratives,” cultural relativism, and multiculturalism. 95
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 00:42 | # The U.S. had its own “crisis of confidence” at the height of the Vietnam War. Europe went through this phrase immediately after WW2. 96
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 00:49 | #
Ask him about Rabang. It takes a brave man to declare war on the federal government, vow to die in a blaze of gunfire, and surrender piss drunk in his pajamas in a filthy trailer surrounded by automatic weapons. Did you know he beat his ex-wife, or that he ratted out his comrades to secure a reduced prison term?
That’s never been proven. The only thing we know for certain is that a male of the Jefferson line fathered Sally Hemmings children, which could easily have been Randolph Jefferson. The Monticello Association does buy into this MSM myth. I’m amused you would compare Traitor Glenn Miller with Thomas Jefferson, though; as if Miller had a fraction of Jefferson’s knowledge or intelligence. 97
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 00:52 | #
Take pity on Linder’s child. 98
Posted by Bud White on Sun, 27 May 2007 01:02 | # “I’m amused you would compare Traitor Glenn Miller with Thomas Jefferson, though; as if Miller had a fraction of Jefferson’s knowledge or intelligence.” Hey, Daedalus, Im here to learn. Thanks for your instruction. 99
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 27 May 2007 02:26 | # “Update: Alex Linder has been arrested at the Knoxville rally for disorderly conduct, assault, resisting arrest and vandalism. He is being held on $4500 bail at the Knox County Detention Facility. More updates at the VNN Forum.” Linder’s showing that he’s not just an “Internet Nazi” and has physical courage. Good for him. 100
Posted by wjg on Sun, 27 May 2007 03:19 | # “War was declared in 1939 for reasons of statecraft.” Whose statecraft? Certainly not the Brits’. Chamberlain may have understood statecraft but not the drunken buffoon who followed him. The state of Great Britain was fatally weakened (not unexpectantly) to defeat Germany, and all for what? BTW, war was declared in 1933 by Jewry when the Nazis won a plurality in the Reichstag. It just took them a few years to get their cattle to fight for them. Apparently the Soviet Union invading the eastern half of Poland, and soon thereafter Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, eastern Rumania, and Finland was just fine. If it is argued that the Germans were the greater threat then, yes, they were - for Jewry. The Bolsheviks were the greater threat to Whites. “But it was fought and won, finally, for human dignity.” GW, I am an American with no German connection. Both sides of my family descend from Britain but I am ashamed for what my ancestors did to our brethren - albeit the masses out of ignorance. The Nazis did nothing to Aryans to compare to the mass murder at Dresden and a score of other Anglo-American crimes, during and after the war. “Hitler’s Germany was a beast unto its neighbours, and no Germanic imperium of that nature would have been bearable for those forced to live under it.” NS Germany was worse for Europe than the Soviet Union? That is preposterous. You sound like a patriotard here. Even Pat Buchanan (an anti-WN, establishment paleocon) has wondered why we (the US) fought in WWII. The Bolsheviks beheaded the elite of their enemies - as they also did to themselves. The Nazis were more interested in scrubbing the dregs. As an advocate of excellence/eugenics which is worse? 101
Posted by wjg on Sun, 27 May 2007 03:22 | # “Linder’s showing that he’s not just an “Internet Nazi” and has physical courage. Good for him.” Amen Friedrich. Let’s see if White Nationalists rally around him or remain silent while we keep getting picked off - one by one. 102
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 03:28 | # The U.S. entered WW2 because FDR considered the prospect of a German victory intolerable. Personally, I don’t approve of intervention in European wars, but I can understand why FDR did. The war was a gigantic stimulus to the American economy and ended the Great Depression. The U.S. emerged from the war as the richest and most powerful nation in the world. 103
Posted by wjg on Sun, 27 May 2007 03:58 | # If FDR wanted to “stimulate the economy” why didn’t he agitate for war with the Soviets? 104
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 04:16 | # The Soviets weren’t occupying Western Europe, strangling Britain (a key U.S. ally), and threatening to spill over into the Atlantic. The U.S. had poor relations with the USSR from 1919-1933 and from 1946 until 1991. 105
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 27 May 2007 04:20 | # “If FDR wanted to “stimulate the economy” why didn’t he agitate for war with the Soviets?” That wouldn’t have pleased all his communist advisors. 106
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 04:22 | # The Germans were also at war with Canada. A war between Britain and Germany could potentially have spread to North America. 107
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 27 May 2007 04:26 | # “The Soviets weren’t occupying Western Europe, strangling Britain (a key U.S. ally), and threatening to spill over into the Atlantic. “ What needs to be explained is why F.D.R. told the Poles to reject Hitler’s offer in 1939 and, simultaneously, encouraged the Brits to stand firm behind the Polish military dictatorship in its intransigence. Further, Chamberlain blamed Jewry and Americans for W.W. II. 108
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 27 May 2007 04:33 | # “A war between Britain and Germany could potentially have spread to North America.” This sounds like a variation on the theme that Hitler wanted to conquer North America. Hitler couldn’t even occupy Britain (not to mention that he was being bled to death in the Soviet Union) but he was somehow going to conquer North America…and, why not, the entire world! Anyone who believes that Hitler seriously thought of launching a transatlantic invasion must be utterly ignorant of Hitler as well as the military-strategical situation of the time. Let me quote Frederic R. Sanborn: 109
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 04:54 | # I’m more than willing to grant that FDR was philo-semitic, anti-German, and soft on communism. None of this is any secret. Still, I don’t think he was a puppet of the Jews. He had a domineering personality which intimidated those around him like Morgenthau. His actions are not really mysterious given his personal beliefs. FDR was as ambitious and opportunistic as Hitler and sought to advance the interests of his nation in his own way. As a Wilsonian liberal, he didn’t share the inhibitions of Washington about “entangling alliances.” FDR was a cynical political realist who put on airs of pluralism. The U.N., Bretton Woods, and World Bank were mere devices to disguise American imperialism abroad. Take a look at Yalta. FDR gave Stalin a security perimeter in impoverished, war ravaged Eastern Europe in exchange for the rest of the world. That’s one hell of a bargain. He professed his undying friendship for Britain and its plight, but cynically used Lend-Lease to eviscerate the British economy and reduce the U.K. to an an indebted American satellite. He worked to undermine the British Empire during the war in other ways like the Atlantic Charter. FDR’s sympathy for the Jews has been overstated. His relationship with Morgenthau (like his friendship with Hopkins) was personal. During the war, FDR personally intervened with the European war effort to prevent the USAF from bombing the railways leading to Auschwitz. He refused to meet with the hundreds of Orthodox rabbis in Washington during 1943. He kept Rabbi Wise at a distance throughout the war. Why? His Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, was an anti-semite, and his State Department was full of anti-semites who prevented European Jewry from escaping to the U.S. from the Third Reich? Why? Because FDR cared more about his political image than the Jews he used to advance his own ends. A strong case can be made that FDR was an amoral bastard, but he was nobody’s dupe or fool. 110
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 05:10 | #
He didn’t. Hitler didn’t plan on going to war with Britain either. Still, once the war came, his priorities changed in turn. His war against Britain naturally dragged in Canada. If Hitler did overrun Britain, the possibility could not be ruled out at the time that he would continue to prosecute the war all the way to North America. The U.S., of course, would consider any German intervention in the Western hemisphere a threat to the United States under the Monroe Doctrine. It certainly didn’t help matters that German U-boats were cruising the Atlantic sinking British shipping on America’s doorstep, or that Germany was actively courting Vargas and the other dictators in South America.
He came very close to destroying Britain economically with his blockade. If it were not for American economic assistance, he may have succeeded. With all the resources of Europe at his disposal, the possibility could not be ruled out that Britain would capitulate or be taken in a German invasion at some later date.
If Britain had been overrun by the Nazis, the Royal Navy would have been sent off to Canada. Churchill himself vowed to carry on the fight from the New World if Britain fell. Germany was already fighting a naval war against Britain inside the Western Hemisphere. 111
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 05:20 | #
I agree. Hitler did not have any plans to attack the United States. He sought to avoid war with the U.S. as well. But . . . the same can be said of Norway or Denmark, and Hitler occupied those countries nevertheless. By 1941, Hitler had been perverted from what he originally set out to do. 1.) He vowed not to fight a war on two fronts, but went to war on three fronts. Hitler’s stated intentions, even when sincere, were not a reliable guide to his future actions. It is not really far fetched to believe that FDR, who was naturally suspicious of Germans anyway, could have perceived Hitler to be a threat. 112
Posted by wjg on Sun, 27 May 2007 06:45 | # Daedalus, You are doing your best to justify FDR’s actions based on his motivations at the time but he’s not worth it. The test of his actions is the state we are in now - just 60 years later - bankrupt economically, spiritually, and morally. He created a very short term economic boom for the USA and in the process sold the soul of the one country which at that time could have saved Europe. Regardless of how he may have used the Jews for his own purposes they beat the stupid Goy like a rented mule. 113
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 07:33 | # WJG, I’m not trying to justify FDR’s actions. If you got that impression from my posts, I apologize. Personally, I strongly disagree with American intervention in WW2. I don’t approve of FDR’s actions in this respect at all. I don’t believe Hitler was planning to invade North America. If I had lived through the war, I would have been an isolationist opposed to American intervention. FDR should have extended his Good Neighbor Policy towards Latin America to Europe. WW2 started as a war launched by Britain and France to contain German ambitions in Eastern Europe, but was ultimately transformed into an ideological crusade against racism. From a racialist point of view, this was a tragedy for everyone involved, and the Allies stand guilty as charged in this respect. They are also responsible for instilling anti-racism in the German population after the war through the denazification program. The blame is shared by both sides. Hitler’s territorial ambitions in Eastern Europe were also a major factor in causing the war. I was trying to explain FDR’s actions above. I wasn’t justifying, defending, or agreeing with them. I was simply sharing my understanding of FDR. I’m not convinced he was a puppet of the Jews. Rather, he was simply a shrewd cynical politician and opportunist who manipulated various political actors (i.e., the Jews, Japanese, Brits, Germans, Poles, the isolationists, etc.) to promote his own ends. FDR took advantage of the political situation in Europe (and East Asia) to extend American power abroad. He probably was sincere in his belief that Hitler could not be trusted. Insofar as I admire FDR, I recognize that he was an extremely gifted political actor on an abstract level; one of the best America has ever produced. FDR was an expert manipulator. No American president ever mastered his people in the way FDR did. I see him in the same light as Cesare Borgia, Louis XIV, or Talleyrand. Towards the end, Hitler himself realized how much he had underestimated FDR and how skillfully Roosevelt had moved against him. 114
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 May 2007 11:46 | # Daedalus: WW2 started as a war launched by Britain and France to contain German ambitions in Eastern Europe, but was ultimately transformed into an ideological crusade against racism. I am not quite content with this formulation. Britain sought at first to avert war because the nation had no appetite for it. When it became self-evident that Germany would pursue its ambitions regardless, the policy became one of delay until the military were in a position to fight. Even so the British were overtaken by events, were in no way war-ready in Sepember 39 and entered upon the Phony War in continuation of the preparation policy. Chamberlain’s government had simply run out of diplomatic options, unless it was willing to renege on a second Treaty, bear the national disgrace and the relinquishment of its 19th Century tradition of statecraft, and return to watching the cricket at Lords. It wasn’t. Neither was the war turned into a fight against racism - not as such and not as far as the British and Free French were concerned. It was a war for the liberation first of France then Western Europe as a whole. German occupation was not a tolerable experience. Remember, in the 1940s race was not really an issue in the European mind, except that National Socialism had made it so. The news that the untermensch were non-German Europeans was not well received. The British response to it was characteristically ribald. Ideological it was not. 115
Posted by Maguire on Sun, 27 May 2007 12:20 | # Guessedworker, “I am impressed with the authority with you lay out your arguments. GT and you make a formidable pair.” Thanks for the kind words. Any authority GT & I possess is rooted in bitter experiences of our own and of comrades, hard study and extended thought about the white future and the results of ‘activism’ to date. “You say: the first question is whether the real nature of the struggle is properly defined. So, please, define it.” In April I went to Busch Gardens in Tampa for one of our children’s birthdays. They’ve got a new gorilla mother there now engaged in full time nurturing of her infant. It’s a commentary on this evil dying Judeo society that this gorilla mother is provided with more absolute economic resource to facilitate her natural nurturing role than the average young white mother is today. And also infinitely better physical security from other predatory species, too. http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP American Dream Report.pdf http://www.economicmobility.org/newsroom/ The Pew Center has just done that definitional work in more detail. Again. Highlights from their findings include: —- “American men have less income than their fathers’ generation did at the same age, according to a new analysis released today by the Economic Mobility Project, an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts.” This naturally makes them less desirable overall as mates. Women possess a natural material acquisitive instinct. This is beneficial when applied correctly to obtaining economic resources to sustain white infants. “In modern America, mobility is increasingly a family enterprise,” said Sawhill. “While male incomes have decreased from that of the generation that came before, family incomes have risen slightly because more women have gone to work, adding a second earner to the family.” From the viewpoint of child family members - if any - it’s clear family incomes have suffered an absolute catastrophic reduction. That is, unless one considers an overstressed, exhausted and frequently absent mother an improvement on the former arrangements, as are routinely still provided to gorillas in American zoos. Changing these facts are the fundamental struggle at the street and the grass roots. Neos, skins, paleos and ‘Conservatives’ of all stripes are clueless about this. Alex Linder’s arrest yesterday in Knoxville is another page from the stock Hollywood Nazi script. He was playing entirely for the benefit of Judeo-NWO media. GT and I can provide ‘ground truth’ commentary on this too, if desired. Suffice it to say that while Alex’s tactical plan is unchanged from 40 years ago, the remaining environment has entirely evolved. For Alex’s sake I hope I’m dead wrong. But “Hate Crime” charges could easily be added to the existing four and leave Alex facing hard federal time. Maguire 116
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 27 May 2007 15:29 | # Alex Linder’s arrest yesterday in Knoxville is another page from the stock Hollywood Nazi script. He was playing entirely for the benefit of Judeo-NWO media. GT and I can provide ‘ground truth’ commentary on this too, if desired. You were there? 117
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 27 May 2007 16:29 | # Erratum: I had said: As I’ve said before, I consider freedom of association to be secondary to freedom of speech. That should read: As I’ve said before, I consider freedom of speech to be secondary to freedom of association. Freedom of speech is constructible from freedom of association but not vis versa. You can’t just “talk” your way to control over territory with others of like mind. You can just “walk” your way to control over territory of others who believe in freedom of speech if you have the right to so “walk” from the current regime. 118
Posted by jonathan on Sun, 27 May 2007 17:45 | # Maguire said, “In April I went to Busch Gardens in Tampa for one of our children’s birthdays.” I hope I’m not outing my friends here. They have no relation to WN as far as I know. This is the Tampa page though from there wonderful and exhausive 5 year photo diary. I loved the one visit my family did to Busch Gardens (in Virginia) when I was a pre-teenager, so enjoy! 119
Posted by Maguire on Sun, 27 May 2007 21:11 | # James, “You were there?” No. Nor would GT or I have gone to that event or anything else featuring convicted felons like “Todd of FL” (convicted of conspiracy to commit a bombing) or the numerous federal, state, local police, ADL and SPLC informers who throng the VNN Forums. We have the fingerspitzgefühl that comes from long experience. The Knoxville Event follows a long standardized script and ritual now. It has two goals. The first goal is trying to force Judeo-NWO Media to provide the organizers free propaganda against the editors’ and owners’ will. This is why Linder’s sign has the url to VNNF. Alex views this as sufficiently important to knowingly surrender editorial control of his message to The Enemy. The second goal is an opportunity for the participants to add a notch to their pistol handles. Afterwards they’ll display this for many months to the numerous sympathizers of the Neo-Skin-KKK cults. This basic tactic was pioneered by George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party in the 1960s. It was a response to the policy of Dynamic Silence adopted by Jewish controlled media against white racial organizations. Actual outreach to other whites and recruitment is a rare byproduct of such events. This is just as well. The event organizers have no way to effectively organize any recruits anyway, nor do they have a clear conception of how to form a viable white civil society.
This photo of Alex being arrested also shows the “Antifa” anarchist counter-demonstrators in the background. The Antifas are part of the real Jewish response to the rapid growth of Neos and Skins worldwide. The role of the Antifas is to provide a threat of violence and thus justify the ‘public’ authorities’ restrictions on the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Incidentally, the transvestite costumes are the antifa response to mask ordinances and laws. They’ll be edited out at the station and they know it. FYI, I just returned from a month in Southern Russia. The buildings there are also covered with Neo and Skinhead graffitti (heaviest in working class neighborhoods) and also Antifa counter-graffitti (more common near universities and downtown commercial centers). See http://www.antifa.ru/ This is a worldwide street struggle. Neos and Skins are not a ‘problem’. They are a sign of social conditions. I think of them as antibodies that appear in response to an infection. They are rooted in the white working and lower middle classes. If more people excavated the historical German experience in the Weimar Republic and the Nazi Period of Struggle I think they’d realize that Neos and Skins are the Freikorps and Sturmabteilungen of our era. Preventing a political union of the white working and middle classes is the highest strategic priority of the Judeo NWO. In my opinion bringing this about is Job #1 for the serious pro-white individual. “I consider freedom of speech to be secondary to freedom of association” I agree. But what can you personally do if you don’t have the economic resources to flee into deep suburbia or rural America? And you are also abandoned by white leadership classes busy practicing every man for himself? This is the practical problem Neo and Skin kids face. “Maguire” 120
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 21:30 | # GW, JJR, of course, was also exposed ad nauseum to the JQ and EGI. It didn’t take because he remained committed to liberalism. wintermute posted earlier in this thread. I’m sure he is familar with the transformation of our libertarian ex-friend Edana into a shrill anti-racist. 121
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 May 2007 21:43 | # Daedalus, One of the aspects of MR which perplexed and infuriated racial nationalists - a category that you may consider includes me - was its garnering of parties who, though decidely non-nationalist themselves, nonetheless found their opinions converging with ours in significant ways. The JJR battle caused the breaking of that model, and I regret it. Outreach in both directions is the right policy. Incidentally, Steve and I agreed that we would leave his name on the list. If he wants to change that he need only tell me. If he wants to post again at any time he can. 122
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 27 May 2007 22:05 | # The problem with JJR is he is fundamentally a land baron. He has a conflict of interest with his people, and lacking the depth of character required of a leader with his resources, he failed his ethical test. He is not welcome in my presence and if it came down to it I would hesitate to kill him less than a rabid dog. 123
Posted by GT on Sun, 27 May 2007 22:14 | # The VNN protesters relied upon the Internet to advertise the rally and there appears to have been confusion about date, location, and time. No lawyers stood by. No provisions were made for bail and property control – specifically, automobile security. No before and after rally meeting point for mustering was established. People trying to meet up with others were forced to use laptops to communicate with VNN Forum from the Knoxville area. This may have had a negative effect on turnout. For reasons unknown the VNN Forum went down for awhile. Videography and communications via cell phone were arranged at the last minute. The audio quality of the live broadcast sucked. According to the broadcast nobody knew why Alex moved beyond the barricade to confront the counter-demonstrators. He didn’t get far. It appears to have been a business-as-usual emulation of GL Rockwell to gain limited local media attention, but just as importantly to discredit criticism by “keyboard warriors” in the fight to acquire a larger share of the WN pond. To my knowledge nobody kept a video camera trained on Alex from the outset. Thus far only two photos of Alex have been posted to the forum. I hope he was nowhere near the Antifa counter-demonstrators when tackled by police, else hate crime charges may be fabricated. Hollywood Bill White was quick exploit the situation and post that he was “on his way” from Virginia with bail money for Alex. The counter-demonstrators used face-grease and make-up to get around the hood and scarf laws. They used a bullhorn to shout down the VNNers. To be heard Hal Turner was forced to scream at the top of his lungs – not good for media coverage. Despite Alex’s arrest Hal Turner is said to have left immediately afterwards. Fortunately, the VNNers have been aware of police chief Sterling Owens FBI background and JINSA training for the past 1-2 weeks. I’m uncertain to what degree rank-and-file rally participants were aware of KPD collaboration with the FBI, DOJ, ADL, SPLC, the antifas, and informers within VNN ranks in the weeks prior to the rally, or that the presence of two Africans on the VNN side of the barricade was intended to be a provocation. 124
Posted by Viridovix on Sun, 27 May 2007 22:17 | #
The Beam essays Leaderless Resistance and Revolutionary Majorities address the ideas of recruitment and organizations. They are found at Yggdrasil’s library in the Conceptual Breakthroughs section. 125
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 22:28 | # There are many roads to racialism. I don’t have any problem tolerating and engaging other perspectives. I once ran a website that was, shall we say, much more expansive than this one. People of all ideologies posted there and still do. I learned quite a lot from the experience. Over the years, I have noticed that some philosophical frameworks provide a more stable grounding for racialism than others. Those with a more collectivist ethos tend to stick with racialism longer. Their racial identity is usually much stronger, too. The point I am making here is that awareness of the JQ is not enough. It is not catch all solution that will solve all our problems. Ultimately, we have to tackle the deeper question of values and beliefs which determine the behavior of individuals, lest relapses such as those above continue to occur. As you have said yourself, a philosophy has to be replaced with another philosophy. Exploring this subject in greater detail would be good for another thread. 126
Posted by wjg on Sun, 27 May 2007 22:35 | # Maguire: “No. Nor would GT or I have gone to that event or anything else featuring convicted felons like “Todd of FL” (convicted of conspiracy to commit a bombing) or the numerous federal, state, local police, ADL and SPLC informers who throng the VNN Forums.” You may know more about Todd’s story than I do but haven’t the Feds shown themselves completely corrupt as it comes to the crimes attributed to White Separatists/Supremacists such as Randy Weaver and Matt Hale? Might Todd’s felony be cut from the same cloth? “Preventing a political union of the white working and middle classes is the highest strategic priority of the Judeo NWO. In my opinion bringing this about is Job #1 for the serious pro-white individual.” It should either be number one or very high on our list but aren’t you being contradictory by saying one, - in effect - that VNN is a false flag and two, we need to unite White classes. VNN is trying to reach the disaffected young white male and extract him from the judeo-matrix of self-hate and attach a simple and largely truthful explanation for their troubles. This prepares them to be, using your metaphor, our SA: the men who can put teeth in our words. The force to counter the colored savages who riot on demand and make our craven politicians take notice. As a whole American WN is a dismal failure now. We need to start, and continue to make, small steps of progress. Isn’t confederating disparate WN factions progress toward that goal? If not, what is? 127
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 22:46 | #
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few = Leftism! I find JJR to be quite typical of wild, unmoored, bourgeois individualists driven by material self interest. He’s a sad figure. For all his rants against “leftism,” he can’t see how hopelessly liberal his own beliefs are. 128
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 May 2007 23:03 | # Daedalus, That’s a good idea. This is the greatest question, this question of values, beliefs and aspirations. It is the coinage of Everyman, and I don’t have confidence that he can be racialised short of the spur of serious economical dislocation. The racialisation, therefore, has to enter the banquet hall with the feast, flavouring everything. Why not write the post yourself. We regularly welcome guestbloggers. I would only produce another repetitivo of my “natural conservative” theme. We could use a new bone to chew on. I will be proud to put it up under your name, if the idea appeals. 129
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 May 2007 23:08 | # Soren and AN Other drove down to Knoxville with a movie camera, as promised in the interview with Linder. I haven’t heard from him yet, don’t know if he shot any footage. The journey is 190 miles, I believe. So he shouldn’t be out of touch for too long. 130
Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 27 May 2007 23:29 | # I will need some time for my thoughts to congeal. This issue can be explored from many different angles: an assault on liberal political theory, the origins of liberalism in a historical context (U.S., Australia, U.K., France, Germany, etc), liberalism in relation to the JQ, liberalism in relation to conservatism, the corrosive effects of liberalism upon racialism, exploration of the harm principle as an ethic, liberalism and postmodernism, alternatives to liberalism. 131
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 May 2007 00:14 | # The best guide to the different angles is practicality. We are, after all, talking about changing the water in which we swim. It’s a big task. To be made easier, any new point of departure has to be based on human nature, on natural human interests. It has to be particular to the evolved psyche of Western Man. It has to answer the shortfalls the public will perceive in liberalism as it decays over the next one to two decades. And so on. For me also, it has to be “light”, that is not forcing our people through ideological hoops ... even not disrespecting the things they actually like about liberalism! And it has to be communicable. Tall, tall order. But necessary. 132
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 May 2007 00:24 | # Viridovix, Thanks for those two essay suggestions. If I have read them before it was long enough ago to have forgotten them. They are interesting. I will try to find some time to think about your comments on liberalism, and respond in some form - perhaps on Daedalus’ thread if he goes ahead with a piece for us. 133
Posted by Maguire on Mon, 28 May 2007 13:21 | # WJG, “You may know more about Todd’s story than I do” Unfortunately we do. “but haven’t the Feds shown themselves completely corrupt as it comes to the crimes” Absolutely. And it’s not just the ‘Feds’. It’s a judacized bar and police profession, at least at the upper ranks. Look at the Duke U Three for a recent famous example. There’s another recent case I can’t discuss since I was intimately involved. We ‘won’ that one in the very limited sense the individual was exonerated and didn’t go to prison. Anytime a pro-white person or non-white politics are involved justice morphs into politicized jewstice. The white is automatically guilty with about as much chance of proving ‘innocence’ as a prisoner of the Judeo NKVD in Stalinist times. In principle it’s a completely evil system. We agree the people responsible should be lawfully tried, convicted and publicly hanged by the neck until dead for being war criminals against the white race. This is the point. The lesson we’ve drawn from these many experiences is we are at Warre and the Enemy will get us any way he can. Since we know this then why make yourself an easy target with careless tactical mistakes proven to produce legal casualties? “Might Todd’s felony be cut from the same cloth?” No. “It should either be number one or very high on our list but aren’t you being contradictory by saying one, - in effect - that VNN is a false flag and two, we need to unite White classes.” Let me be clear about something. GT & I think Alex Linder is sincere and committed. We don’t think he himself is any kind of ‘agent’. We do think his tactical approach facilitates genuine traitors in doing their work, and like others we think his over the top language is counterproductive. What you’ve said should be the litmus test for all organized events like Knoxville. Who ‘wins’ in the sense of advancing their goal the most? Who ‘won’ Knoxville? Did pro-whites promote white unity by trying to ju-jitsu the Jew Media? Or did The Jew promote more white disunity and division by using that same media and subject matter? “VNN is trying to reach the disaffected young white male and extract him from the judeo-matrix of self-hate and attach a simple and largely truthful explanation for their troubles.” This is a noble goal we 100% agree with. How can we implement this outreach? Germany is a small country. It was a small country even in the 1930s, about the size of Washington State and half of Oregon. An S.A. foot march could directly reach -without any opposition filters - tens to hundreds of thousands of the objective population in a few hours. The same is still true of Russia today due to the compact urban pattern of huge apartment blocks that house most of the population. This is not true of USA 2007. It’s a big country. And the white population is highly dispersed into suburbia and living in an automobile economy. A Knoxville type foot demonstration could only reach a few hundred whites even if no Jewish filters (antifa, police, media) were present. This is well understood by veteran participants. Thus the Jewish controlled TV camera becomes the *only* objective audience. The problem is how can we conduct mass outreach to whites, beyond using the internet and without tolerating Jewish dominated filters or involuntary assistance? Here’s a few methods tailored to our circumstances, resources and abilities. They have the added advantage of hitting Jewish-‘Liberal’ weak points. They are legal, don’t require specific demonstration permits and can restore us to unfiltered mass outreach. And they all maintain the vital element of Surprise. It also takes much time for the Antifas to organize a counter-effort to disrupt our work with violence leading to police and legal action. 1. Mechanized Warfare. a. Use pickup trucks to pull sign trailers through white and mainly white areas. Since we’re not trying to recruit non-whites or stage a Judeo-newsworthy event there’s no point to traversing known ghettos or barrios. b. White Freedom Motorcycle Rides. 200 Harleys thundering down the roads will also attract attention while projecting the necessary images of strength, mass and power. 2. Air Power. a. Sign Banner Pulls. GT & I thought of this years before Hal Turner hired a banner plane. I’m a licensed pilot. Beleive me, a White Air Force of several dozen Cessna sized aircraft flying thousands of sorties can reach tens of millions this way. b. The Batman Signal. Use carbon arc searchlights to project a commonly recognized Movement symbol (not a swastika) onto low flying clouds at night. The prerequisite is sufficient organization to establish an agreed symbol and bring it into use. 3. Jehovah’s Witnessing. Go door to door in the broad light of day. This should be done by very clean cut male female teams since we’re going to homes. Advance intelligence to Know Thy Battlefield is necessary to avoid untoward events. This intelligence is abundantly available in the form of public domain census tracts, real estate records and registered voter lists. “As a whole American WN is a dismal failure now. We need to start, and continue to make, small steps of progress.” Absolutely. “Isn’t confederating disparate WN factions progress toward that goal?” ‘Organization’ deserves a separate discussion. Maguire 134
Posted by wjg on Mon, 28 May 2007 16:41 | # Maguire, Those were constructive responses. The effectiveness of rallies is marginal when the electronic Jew interprets them always to our disadvantage. We can be certain all the degenerates of the anti side in Knoxville will be airbrushed a la Pravda and the narrative will keep all the lemmings in their appropriate mental ghetto if it’s not just ignored completely. So in that sense VNN approached this rally with the full knowledge that there would be a Jew “between me and you” with the exception of the still very small WN electronic media: a violation of their very principles. But we are stuck; either try to use the Jew to our advantage and reach a wide audience or follow your approach of unadulterated contact. If we try to use the Jew’s own media against them we must be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. David Duke seems to handle them very well when he is given even a small chance even though he is excoriated by mediocrities barely fit to read a teleprompter. That more flamboyant forms of activism (Rockwell, Linder, etc.) are subject to both misinterpretation and infiltration is true. Still, if and until we find out a supposed brother is a charlatan, fake, or traitor we should “protect” him as best we can. As you say organization is a very important subject and worthy of much thought. Given our situation I am persuaded that a very decentralized cell structure is best but we need integration thru confederacy so we are more able to act cohesively. Each of the disparate components can develop its own philosophy/worldview and what comes after we are free. Harold Covington does a good job of showing how various layers of loyalty among Whites can be integrated in his NW Trilogy novels. 135
Posted by GT on Mon, 28 May 2007 18:39 | # In suburban locations advertising balloons are another possible method of getting our message out. They come in lengths of 7-30 feet. Below is an 18 ft. blimp. See http://www.arizonaballoon.com/
136
Posted by GT on Mon, 28 May 2007 19:10 | # To minimize the possibility and effects of gunfire, “political” balloons should be: 1. Multi-chambered. Balloons are intended to reach hundreds or thousands - not millions. 137
Posted by cladrastis on Mon, 28 May 2007 20:10 | # Maguire, I like your ideas. Here is my perspective on door to door tactics. In my Lefty past I worked as a community organizer for an environmental group in Southern Appalachia. Each day during my stint as an organizer, a female partner and I went door to door SURVEYING every resident within a target area to gauge their opinions about key issues (around which we were organizing). The survey method was extremely effective because it allowed us to gague the political leanings of the person we were interviewing and identify specific events/concerns we could use as a rallying cry in their community. If the person felt very strongly about a particular issue/event, we might stand around and talk to them for 30+ minutes (though we tried to keep it under 10). After leaving the person’s house, we rated them on a 1-4 scale. 1’s were extremely sympathetic to our cause and had leadership potential. 2’s were sympathetic and might turn out for events, but did not have leadership capabilites (at least not at that time). 3’s agreed with us on a few items. 4’s were essentially marked as opponents. We always asked for names, email addresses, and phone numbers if the person was a 1 or 2 (and sometimes a 3). If the person was clearly a 1, we called them after a few days to schedule a “one on one” session to flesh out their personal histories and motivations - to pick their brains and find out what will spur them into action (these tended not to last more than 1.5 hrs). Then we tried to suck them into our organization and mold them into leaders - which, by the time they committed to coming and meeting with us one on one, was nearly assured. All the data that we collected from our surveys was entered into a massive spreadsheet, which could then be used to turn out folks for demonstrations, protests, or other actions. As for how we got their names… we used an old salesman’s tactic - “neutralize the mind of the consumer by assuming the sale”. Once folks agreed w/ us on a few issues, we naturally assumed they would give us their contact info - and it worked. We never asked, “can we get your name, phone #, etc?” Instead, we ended the interview by saying, “Your name is…”, etc. It’s difficult to overcome our natural tendencies to want to avoid conflict and avoid invading someone’s personal space/time, but once you get the hang of it, it’s pretty easy. One thing that still strikes me about this method for community organizing is that we were able to successfully identify folks in a VERY conservative part of the country for our leftist agenda. I think it would be a whole lot easier to organize the same people (or people in parts of the country w/ large immigrant pops.) around the issue of immigration - then expand it to include ethnic interest (or maybe organize around EGI from the beginning?). The key is that the other person - your target - does all the talking. They tell you what they want, and you tell them how your organization can make that happen - with their assistance. Maybe other folks w/ community organizing experience can share the methods they used. 138
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 29 May 2007 04:26 | # “Britain sought at first to avert war because the nation had no appetite for it. When it became self-evident that Germany would pursue its ambitions regardless, the policy became one of delay until the military were in a position to fight.” Prior to September 1939, Germany only tried to undo the countless injustices and mendacity and humiliations of the Versailles Treaty. I’m certain that you know this. “Even so the British were overtaken by events, were in no way war-ready in Sepember 39 and entered upon the Phony War in continuation of the preparation policy. Chamberlain’s government had simply run out of diplomatic options, unless it was willing to renege on a second Treaty, bear the national disgrace and the relinquishment of its 19th Century tradition of statecraft, and return to watching the cricket at Lords.” Do you deny that it was a mistake for Britain to give a “war guarantee” to Poland in the spring of 1939? Not only did the guarantee fail to save Poland, it led to total disaster for Poland and to a German invasion and occupation of Western Europe. What happened when Poland relying on its British guarantee rejected Hitler’s very generous offer (too generous in my opinion) of 1939? Hitler attacked from the west, Stalin from the east. Poles got a beating while Britain and France sat behind the Maginot line. Stalin proceeded to murder the entire leadership of Poland at places like Katyn. Under German rule five years, Poland was then abandoned by Churchill and FDR at Teheran and Yalta, and left under Stalinist rule for forty-five years. By one estimate, six million of Poland’s people perished in the war. As for Britain and France, their declarations of war on Hitler in 1939 caused him to turn West, before setting out on his road to Moscow. Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France were thus overrun. Had Britain and France not given the war guarantee to Poland, there would have been no Dunkirk, no blitz, no Vichy, no holocau$t (whatever it was). The urging of Poles to rely on a war guarantee that Britain and France had neither the will nor power to honour was not only “demented,” as Lloyd George said, it was immoral. I continue to be fascinated by why you think that it was “the right thing to do” for Britain to go to war with Germany over Danzig. Is it just a question of your typically British anti-German chauvinism? A disturbed loathing of all things German? Was destroying Germany worth your Empire? 139
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 29 May 2007 04:46 | #
Here’s an email I got some time ago that describes well what happened prior to W.W. II: While it is true that Germany had not attacked Britain or British As Britain had fully demobilised after WW1, and was not in a position to ——- Original Message——-
This is pure unadulterated drivel. As J.P. Morgan once said, To say that the German invasion of Poland was the cause of the WW2 is Hitler had made every effort to come to reasonable terms on the corridor, His offer was contemptuously refused by the Poles who had been given Confirming this, Arthur Sears Henning wrote on November 12, 1941: But the real clincher here is that, when Stalin invaded Poland shortly The Germans had been growing too strong economically and their political And Britain, once again, justified the name it had so well earned for And all of it fit quite neatly into the Jewish agenda for a New World —Jack Martin 140
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 29 May 2007 04:49 | # The nature of the incredibly generous German offer to Poland of November 1938: P. 145-146 Quote: Further, starting in 1934 and up to 1939 Polish leadership repeatedly beat the drums for a war with Germany. Poles periodically made calls throughout the 1930s on the West to wage war against Germany. The fact is that Poland wanted to see a war between Poland and Germany because the Poles thought that Poland was going to come out of such a war a major European power with a territorial expansion in the East and West. They were the willing tools of Britain’s cynical balance of power policy. 141
Posted by MMR on Tue, 29 May 2007 05:48 | #
Confirming this, Arthur Sears Henning wrote on November 12, 1941: It’s the many pieces of evidence like this that makes one suspect that World Jewry, in a state of war with Germany since 1933, managed to set one-by-one the following against Germany by 1939, with substantial help from media control and/or the high-level Jews in each government: Soviet Union “Mainstream” history books mark out Hitler as the prime predator, when “Judah”, as wintermute refers to World Jewry, probably was the biggest of all. It would not surprise Richard Lynn to find that the world’s most intelligent tribe won, having successfully arrayed a gigantic coalition of suckers against Texas-sized Germany, giving the latter puny chances before the war began. (An ordinary Germany not supercharged by national socialism might have been reasonably expected to be stalemated or defeated by the threesome of the French Empire, British Empire, and Poland alone. Piling on was US and USSR.) So, Judah wins and imposes the post-war order, have their paid historians write this false history of WWII that each of us learns in grade school. Very clear? It certainly fits, because they practically run the world today. 142
Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 29 May 2007 07:32 | # I don’t think Poland was worth WW2, although I doubt another Munich would have satisfied Hitler. I once posted some details of how FDR encouraged the Poles to sandbox the negotiations through Bullitt. The decision to go to war was ultimately Chamberlain’s though. FDR had given the same advice to the Czechs in 1938. 143
Posted by Anchorage Activist on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:36 | # Just wanted to correct some of the misinformation regarding Glenn Miller. First, he had a mixed-race child BEFORE he became race-conscious. You cannot be held accountable for a sin before you know it’s a sin. Second, don’t forget it was Tom Martinez and Denver Parmenter who put the Order in jail for hundreds of years combined. Miller had little to do with that. Furthermore, while Miller testified at Fort Smith in 1987, ALL defendants were acquitted. Obviously, he controlled his testimony enough to help preserve reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Equally obvious, he can never disclose that publicly. Those who are concerned about unity within the WN movement ought to show it by knocking off the obsessive and redundant Miller-bashing. VNN is on center stage now, but we would like to be a bit more gracious towards the competition than the competition has been towards us. 144
Posted by Maguire on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:40 | # >>VNN is on center stage now<< Translation: Alex Linder and VNN now have bit walk-on roles in a Jewish theatrical production being staged in a Jewish-owned theater with a Jewish controlled cast and audience. Real political movements and parties don’t beg anyone, and particularly their ostensible enemies, to provide them the production staff, stage and audience. They recruit and build their own under their exclusive control. This is the hallmark dividing real political movements from the dysfunctional informer infested non-Movement. 145
Posted by JB on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 05:55 | # Maguire:
VNN Forum ? come on, Goyfire.com I would have understood but VNNF, uhh GT:
that bail money will keep him on the forum for years to come. Maguire:
instead of a publicized demonstration it would have been more effective to distribute a text either by Linder or someone else explaining how racial integration lead to the murder. No announcements, no specific location, just 10 or 20 people distributing the sheet all over the town for a period of a few days. The operation could have been repeated in smaller cities in that state. Maguire:
if I were an american I would do this and distribute copies of Byron Jost’s DVD The Line in the Sand. If Linder and the VNNers want to do something productive they should do just that : go door to door to explain the mortal danger posed to the american nation by the mexican demographic invasion and give - or sell ? - copies of The Line in the Sand. Greet the house owners, tell the truth about mexicans and open borders (with statistics and all that) and mention the absurdity of fighting overseas against arabs while the country’s southern border is deliberately left unprotected, show them the DVD and briefly describe the content of the movie, ask for a voluntary contribution to the fight against illegal immigration (talk about either the MinuteMan Project or some local or state initiative), do not bark JEWS! JEWS! JEWS!, talk about the next presidential elections and about all those traitors like John McCain and Hilary Clinton, shake hands and go to the next door. 146
Posted by JB on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:01 | # GW:
and Churchill refused Hitler’s ceasefire and peace offers: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History_07/Rufo_070407.html just war my @ss. Defending England from Germany is one thing, helping the USSR grab half the West is quite another
well thank God that war freed Poland from foreign oppressors 147
Posted by JB on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:05 | # GW:
could you start a thread and ask this libertardian to explain himself ? hello baby, me so hony, me love you all night 148
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:00 | # 1.) If a white woman had a child with a black man, I wonder if WNs would be so forgiving. Also, I am highly skeptical of the claim that Miller wasn’t race conscious before having the mongrel child. How old is he now? Whites in the Carolinas were still highly race conscious during that the 60s and 70s. 2.) Documents from Miller’s trial are available online (including his declaration of war). They clearly show how much he groveled before the feds to cut a deal. Specifically, he says that he told them everything he knew, including things he was never asked. These are his words, not mine. This substantiates the charge made by Lane et al. that Miller is a rat who cannot be trusted. 3.) WN unity is not the issue here. Hatred of Glenn Miller is actually one of the few threads that unite the American WN community. He is a reviled figure amongst WNs because he is perceived as a traitor. It’s not like WNs are being unreasonable on this point. Miller was already on his second chance at the Fort Smith trial. Note: I have reconciled with Linder. See here. 4.) Aside from that, there are other reasons to dislike Glenn Miller. For example, in the court documents he admits to being an alcoholic who beats his wife. He associated himself with murderers and thieves. He constantly accuses others of being cowards unless they send him money. This is coming from a guy who vowed to go down in a blaze of gunfire, a man who ordered other men to die (including his own sons), only to surrender piss drunk in a trailer surrounded by automatic weapons. Pardon me for failing to see how this individual has any credibility; a man who unilaterally anointed himself President of the Confederate States of America. 149
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:24 | # JB, Are you of German or part-German descent? The alliance with Stalin was made absolutely inevitable by Barbarossa. In real terms, JB, it amounted to the Baltic convoys and very little more. Stalin saw it as a means of pulling the Americans into an early land-war, but FDR was equally determined to let the Red Army bear the brunt of the “sturm”. Right up to Dresden, Stalin was complaining bitterly that not enough was being doing by the Western Allies. For me, discussion of WW2 comes down to two very big “what ifs”. What if Hitler had not violated his neighbours’ borders? What if the international community, and Jewish leaders themselves, had allowed him to peacably remove Jews from Germany? How different might the story of the West be today from its submissiveness to the global elite, its endemic liberalism and the concomitant moral and demographic decline. 150
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:58 | #
The Third Reich would have survived like Franco’s regime in Spain. Mussolini would have remained in power in Italy. The British and French empires would have continued to exist. If WW2 had never happened, the West would not have found itself ideologically married to anti-racism and decolonization after 1945. In the U.S., the Great Depression would have continued, and FDR would not have been reelected in 1940. Japan would not have gone to war in the Pacific. During the 1920s and 1930s, millions of Americans became virulent anti-semites. In fact, throughout the Second World War, Jews were actually hated more than the Germans and Japanese; which is why FDR went out of his way to keep them at a distance. This trend would undoubtedly have continued were it not for Hitler’s concentration camps. Expulsion of the Jews from the U.S. during the 1950s is not an unrealistic scenario. If it were not for Hitler’s foreign policy, we would certainly be living in a very different world today. Of course, the same question could be posed about the British and French. What would the world be like today if Britain and France had not gone to war over Poland in 1939? 151
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:32 | # Daedalus writes: “JJR, of course, was also exposed ad nauseum to the JQ and EGI. It didn’t take because he remained committed to liberalism. wintermute posted earlier in this thread. I’m sure he is familar with the transformation of our libertarian ex-friend into a shrill anti-racist.” My response to John Ray on that particular thread is to be found precisely here: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/fathers_day/#c33143 On present day policy issues, I oppose the entire government-initiated agenda of race-replacement, anti-discrimination laws, and thought-control, because they are all designed to destroy the West and transfer its remains into a one world state. Indeed, I have been published twice (in a respectable mainstream Australian classical liberal political journal) on this very issue: http://www.cis.org.au/policy/spring_06/polspring06_edwards.htm 152
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:42 | #
It seems that I confused you with On Holliday. At the time, I was unable to track down the specific post in question.
No, Edana is an entirely different person; a Canadian female, to be precise. She is now a regular poster on the MootStormfront forum. Perhaps you can explain for us your miscegenation and relocation to Vietnam in light of your previous support for European EGI. 153
Posted by PF on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:06 | # Addressing Friedrich Braun: “Adolf Hitler completely identified himself with Germans, with their destiny and that of Germany; and Germans viewed him as an incarnation of their collective being & will. No one has ever loved the German people more and there was no German leader in German history more loved by his people. Fact. The Germans-Hitler relationship was one of reciprocal love.” I’m half-German (America), and I beg to differ. The problem with this sort of jingoist thinking is the fact that its too inflexible and schablonenhaft. Germany would have done alot better with a more flexible, oily and diplomatic approach - even if that dovetails with cowardice and socialite personalities like the chest-pounding German honesty dovetails with forthrightness and heroism: modern politics is better addressed by the former option rather than the latter. Thats why Serbia got bombed to shit, despite being a self-reliant self-proud power whereas Croatia was able to work diplomatic levers through its connections in the diaspora and achieve good aliances. Your comments remind me of LindsayWheeler’s Greek adulations. Perhaps its easier to idolize one’s group when one lives distanced from them. Adolf Hitler was Austrian, which only becomes German when the Germans want to go skiing or when the threat from outside powers is so great that anyone will make an alliance with anyone. Do you know how strongly disliked Bayern is within Germany? And Austria is one step below Bayern… so that is the basis of love you are operating from, a love and unity that dissolves in the absence of foreign threat. Hitler didnt even know the German people except like you know him, through a story-book and in the imaginings of his mind. “No one has ever loved the German people more.” How can you say that, how can you know that! Without an insight into the hearts of anyone, how can you judge the content of someone’s love for their people, by the shrillness of the speeches he gives? Nationalism and love for one’s people, as visceral as it might be, also has a logical basis, which one can think about and act according to without pounding one’s fist on tables. The more you bring in this element of emotion and forced sternness, the more you obscure things and make absolute the relative. See Bill Lind’s article in the “On War” archive entitled “The Folly of Maximalist Objectives.” Ever read the Diary of a Berlin woman? It’s the narrative of a lady journalist living in Berlin during the Soviet advance. Of course, alot of it centers around the rapes that took place. She cataloges how much she was raped (3 times) with other women who were raped dozens or more times until they were dead. When the women would talk about the rapes, they would say, ironically, “And for all this we have to thank our glorious leader Adolf Hitler.” They said it ironically because before the war it was a stock-phrase used to worship him: “For all this we have Hitler to thank.” It was he who, in his maximalist grandiose megalomaniacal map-analysis, caused those millions of women to be raped and destroyed the German East, and ruined life for Germans everywhere, including yourself, by denying them the rightful pride they would have in a country that was half-sane and half-functioning. He destroyed Prussia single-handedly, I dont know how you can forgive him for that, I cannot. Even though the Prussian military officers may have been willing accomplices, those countries were all that Eastern Europe had going for it. Now its all shit and Russian vodka factories in Kaliningrad, get off a bus and be approached by prostitutes. These people were so hardheaded that they let millions of people die unnecessarily fighting their war, using their stupid concept of honor which always trumps survival. You know Germany is a country surrounded by powerful enemies, or at least it was then, and you should also have the insight to see that Germany has to be smart about who it messes with. It couldnt afford to spit in the face, or shall I say in less emotive language, to disrespect and disregarded the web of alliances it had with other powers. Daedalus’s analysis or Scimitar’s analysis is dead-on, and Guessedworkers parries are also top. Germany needs smart diplomats who are also loyal, not chest-pounding meth-addicted maniacs who scream their dedication from rooftops. Its like with a woman, however much or often or beautifully you express your love, you really only have a fixed amount of love which doesnt wax or wane in the expression. You can scream till your shrill, it doesnt mean you love your country any more. In fact the illogical emotive thinking thus induced might just bring about your countries ruin. Clear-headed in your thinking, thats the way to be, in all circumstances and always. 154
Posted by PF on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:21 | # By the way, having Guessedworker, Daedalus, Scimitar, Wintermute, Palesi on the same thread is mind-blowing. These are the kings of WN analytic prose. Could it be that people will one day be nostalgic about these beginnings of WN? I dont know, I can totally imaging people calling Svigor or Guessedworker to mind 20 years from now, with some comment like, ‘yeah, those were the good old days, when things were just new and exciting.’ Svigor converted me to hard WN, by the way, by leaving his ever-so-slightly suggestive comments on more light-hearted Rightist boards. 155
Posted by Maguire on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:40 | # JB, “just 10 or 20 people distributing the sheet all over the town for a period of a few days. The operation could have been repeated in smaller cities in that state.” The question is how to organize these 10-20 people into a cohesive and enduring group. A related question is whether these people should be ‘outside agitators’ like Hillary Hosta and road-tripping VNNers playing to the Jew Tube, or ‘native’ sons and daughters. I think the answer is clear in favor of natives. ‘Outsiders’ should never go below recruitment and training of local leader-activists. This still leaves us with the issue of building stable long term organizations. Should they be social, political, economic or all three? Recall, Antifa Hillary Hosta has her salary from her 501c3 foundation employer. Also recall that economic retaliation - unemployment - is the first routine step used against true dissidents by this Judeo totalitarian state masquerading as a ‘free’ society. The core local cadres therefore must be economically self-contained to immunize them against this first measure of repression. Applied activism should therefore merge into economic self-sustainment. “I would do this and distribute copies of Byron Jost’s DVD The Line in the Sand.” There is no shortage of high quality media of all kinds to distribute; ‘documentary’ vids; texts on home schooling, technical training, applied energy and manufacturing technology, history… None of which ever gets past the editorial filters to the wastelands of B.Dalton, Books A Million and Borders. There is so much an Avon or Fuller Brush type neighborhood sales organization can be structured to ‘sell’ this media. This is one field where we can convert the population and pay ‘full time’ activists at the same moment. Here’s a useful book for pro-whites to study and imbibe: “The Nazi Seizure of Power; The Experience of a Single German Town 1922-1945’, by William Sheridan Allen. Maguire (note to Hillary Hosta: you are just a very mediocre political clown employed by the very System you claim to oppose. The foundation grants paying your salary to oppose Coal in the name of the Environment ultimately come from Big Oil. They want to keep fuel prices high. This means keeping coal safely buried, rather than being converted into liquid fuel via Fischer Tropsch synthesis. But doing what you do at least beats standing at a cash register at Wal Mart or waiting tables at Denny’s, right?) 156
Posted by PF on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:56 | # Another thing I want to say about Adolf Hitler: Since when do we excuse people based on their having good motivations, i.e. nationalism and love of country. They also have to bring about good works. They are judged by their works, not by what they meant to do. Children are judged by their intents, adults by their results. And since when do we excuse politicians for causing catastrophic conflicts, on the basis that politicians from different nations may have also done things to contribute? Germany’s future was the sole responsibility of Germany, I don’t care what FDR or Churchill may have thought or wanted, or whining about English anti-Germanism, which for all I know could easily be a creation of a single generation of newspaper journalists. (The historic hatred is of the French, or do I err?) So I see this furious apologia for Herr Schickelgruber (Hitler’s real last name) as being totally over-indulgent of the man. One thing he knew nothing about: prudence. If you want to read the biography of a German leader who increased German territory while staying prudently out of some major conflicts of his day, read about Frederick the second. Because of his royal, cosmopolitan roots and his predilection for French culture, he had a problematic relation to Deutschtum, but it doesnt matter, because he was the man for the job and he extended territory, bettered living conditions, raised the level of culture, and made Prussia a major or semi-major power. He was also gay, semi effeminate, liked poetry and was much too complex and delicate for the kind of militarism that he actually presided over. Nevertheless, he goes down in history as one of the best leaders ever. Its time to rethink deliberate forcefulness and head-strongness as a desirable trait. I used to also pound on tables just like you seem to be doing. 157
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:16 | #
Preferably, the activists should always be locals, but the WN community is so small and highly fragmented that organizing that many people in a typical community would prove highly problematic. We’re also unlikely to draw out many natives because racism is so taboo. Even amongst racialists, showing one’s face in public usually involves an above average level of ideological commitment. The actions of SNCC in the Deep South during the 1960s can be instructive here. College kids usually have a lot of free time on their hands. Most are also working part time jobs for cash unrelated to their careers, so they have less reason to worry about job security. Organizing a public protest over a controversial issue also has the incentive of the thrill of adventure. Why not have sympathetic college kids meet up in some central location and bus them into places like Knoxville? 158
Posted by PF on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:39 | # “This interview has collapsed into a thin trickle and lets kill it now before it collapses on it’s own.” -Interviewer Soren Renner That was priceless. 159
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:50 | # Steve: It is not the same as opposing race replacement because of concerns about racial preservation in itself, which is where I part company with white nationalists. We are all, without exception, on a long personal journey, Steve. Human suggestibility is a terrible thief of time, and one we have to struggle all life long to eradicate from our consciousness. None of us fully succeed, of that I am sure. But at least we should allow two things:- 1) There is not a single path, but there are not so many paths. None of them, by my estimation, are classical liberal or libertarian, and it look very much the case to me that you have some journeying to do in the short term away from that - notwithstanding your proper rejection of the fetishism of self. 2) Man is a vain creature, and intellectuals - among whom I scarcely include myself - are often want to cleave to positions out of vanity and personal stubbornness. The implications for self-esteem of being even a tad off course can be pretty unappealing. But, as I say, we ARE all wrong in some respects because we are all still journeying. You may need to make a further break with your present outlook no less challenging than the one you made with the left-liberalism of your student days. I do not have, and have never had, any opinions about the ethics of any given pairing between two consenting partners; which is consistent with all notions of autonomy, freedom of association, and self-determination. Steve, I have an interest in the way you address the future of our people, and you in the way I do it - because, fundamentally, we carry copies of one another’s genes. We are northern Europeans. Keep on walking, and if you find the need in yourself to blog about it or anything else, do it here - not just at RW. You owe me that for the “favour” you did me over JJR! 160
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:12 | # Guessedworker makes many compelling points, not least of all in reminding me just how much this blog has changed over the past two and a half years. This place is definitely more “hardcore”, just as the situation of Europe and elsewhere has become more dire. Nevertheless, a proper understanding of dialetics in political action gives rise to appreciating the imperative of a diversity of “standing-points” among allies, for reasons I needn’t elaborate. If you can find me another miscegenist who opposes mass immigration, the entire state-enforced diversity sector, and even Britain’s declaration of war against Nazi Germany, then I promise to donate $100 to the BNP. 161
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:17 | # Seeing as I have answered one or two challenges from readers, I would like to post one of my own: why should EGI be defended as an, or even THE, ethical first principle IN ITSELF (as opposed to an auxiliary good)? What are the implications of this? 162
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:43 | # Steve, The answer to your EGI question lies in the difference between ultimate and proximate interests. A thing lost for ever is not like a thing lost and found. 163
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:53 | # Only one question, Alex. Obviously, genetic interests are not an ideology or a belief - this takes us back to David B’s “mysticism”. Genetic interests don’t arise in the abstract sphere or, if you prefer to blur distinctions a little more, in the field of non-evolutionary interests. In reality, primacy of genetic interests does not require to be “justified” at all. They just are. They are part of Truth. So, to return to the political, what general and well-known ideology or politics can serve them in the most immediate way? (This, actually, is quite a big question that splits the world of the racially conscious, so good luck with it - and my apologies for being so underhand). 164
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:05 | # No, you’ve retired into the core of your argument and I am trying to bring you out into the open, where you will be exposed to other currents. Let’s try to approach the issue more directly. There are certain differentials and sometime polarities that should be very familiar: in interests, proximate and ultimate; in self-consciousness, absence and presence; in thought, abstract and material and so forth. As pure ideas these are, in the sense that they stretch for a certain concreteness, failing propositions, for they are NOT the concrete. That lies always just out of reach of thought alone. But, as I say, these are also ideas which, rather uniquely, deal with a qualitative polarity or, if you like, with the capacity to distinguish experiences of the phenomenological world. The point I was trying to get across to Steve was that, as a self-professed race-conscious classical liberal/libertarian with personal doubts about the utility of racial preservationism, he has not yet arrived at the position where he can make the aforementioned distinctions. His interests are undifferentiated - this is what he is telling us. My underhandness consisted in trying to get you to model the political arguments that flow from differentiation, and which might have served some purpose not likely to be served amid the subtle colours of Vietnamese life. So here’s the question again: What political form best encapsulates and/or fittingly represents the fundamental ontological fact of genetic interests. There are, of course, usually considered to be only two possible answers. 165
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:37 | #
It was not my intention to insinuate that you quit posting on MR because you lost interest in politics. If you got that impression from my comments above, I apologize. I always assumed it was related to the JJR fiasco and your other project. At your other blog, you did suggest that your recent disinterest in blogging was related to your declining interest in politics.
You’re losing me here. Please explain how engaging in miscegenation is consistent with supporting the ideal of racial and cultural preservation. I’m not suggesting that you have suddenly changed your mind on this issue (although, I did originally confuse you with On Holliday). Your post in the JJR thread clearly shows your acceptance of this sort of behavior goes back at least to 2006.
I’m not interested in your politics so much as I am your ethics, although libertarians typically identify the latter with the former. Questions of right and wrong, virtue and vice, involve the public and private sphere alike. The vast majority of your actions do not involve any potential to “harm” others. What criteria do you use to discriminate amongst potential behaviors?
A hallmark of totalitarian ideology? Surely, you jest. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Communist North Korea; none of these societies ever had a problem with race replacement, whatever other flaws they had. The countries with the worst third world immigration problems tend to be liberal capitalist democracies like the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. Virtually all acts of miscegenation have nothing whatsoever to with government coercion. They involve private actors satisfying their private appetites. Also, the loudest cheerleaders for race replacement can be found in the private sector. See the wonderful new front page cover of Time for a recent example:” the case for amnesty.”
I agree. There are several different species of liberalism (classical liberalism, neoclassical liberalism, reform liberalism to name a few), but all belong to the same genus. They all share certain fundamental assumptions in common, namely, the primacy of the individual over collectives. In this sense, I use the word “liberal,” not in the way American conservatives use it to attack the Rawlsian version of liberalism.
i.e., neo-classical liberalism. Browsing your posts, I am led to conclude you sympathize more with Hayek than Locke. The latter grounded ethics in his “law of nature.” Obviously, you reject that theory in favor of some form of moral subjectivism.
Classical liberalism is grounded in ontological individualism - the belief that groups are a second order phenomena, and that communities are mere conglomerations of individuals contracting with each other to advance their self-interest. It is from this so-called social contract that the “rights” are derived from. Supposedly, the individual exchanges his “primordial freedom” for individual rights when he “enters” society. Your ethics, which I presume you identify with the non-aggression principle, are based on individualism.
I can’t say that I agree. Do you believe that all people, irrespective of race, have the same fundamental individual rights? Aren’t all people capable of error? Aren’t all people supposedly ignorant of the nature of the good life; which is why we should extend them tolerance?
I wouldn’t pin the blame exclusively on the reform liberals. Libertarianism encourages exactly the same sort of racial and cultural leveling. The only real difference is that the libertarians don’t dress it up in the clothes of “social justice.” Libertarianism is also just as corrosive, if not even more so, of collective forms of association like race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, etc.
I would argue that libertarianism is the greater problem. Look at the multiracial population of our major cities. Are white women having children with black men because they feel justice itself obligates them to do so, or rather is it because they conclude that miscegenation is fine so long as no one is being harmed?
All of these things are consequences of the larger problem: rank individualism and the political apathy it produces. The typical American booboisie doesn’t really give a damn about the world beyond the SUV parked in his driveway. Why should he? After all, ethics for him consists merely in not harming others and his freedom to pursue his private self-interest. The libertarian ethic when taken to its logical conclusion produces an atomized society of complacent individualists gradually losing their liberty to more aggressive and powerful groups. Plato described how liberty when taken to extremes degenerates naturally into tyranny over two thousand years ago.
Obviously. You believe the freedom of the individual takes precedence over the welfare of the collective. Note: Personally, I don’t consider myself a White Nationalist either. I’m more of a “fellow traveler.”
I assumed as much. It is government coercion you find objectionable, not race replacement per se. Do you believe that “willing employers” should be allowed to recruit as many “willing workers” from abroad as they desire? Should immigration be a purely private affair?
Do groups have rights?
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that you do not have any ethical opinion about the actions of any given person provided they are not “inflicting harm” upon others? 166
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:41 | #
A properly basic belief doesn’t require justification. 167
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:55 | #
I will assume this is addressed to me. To be perfectly honest, I have never read Frank Salter, although I plan to do so at some point. My racial views have nothing to do with his concept of genetic interests. GW is correct that genetic interests are not in need of justification. 168
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:31 | #
Humans instinctively pursue pleasure and avoid pain. If this is what you are saying, I can agree.
One of the most powerful objections to classical liberalism is that liberalism violates its own ideal of neutrality. Classical liberals disingeniously attempt to ground their ethics in skepticism (we should remain agnostic about the nature of the good life) while turning right around and claiming they know what is best for everyone: their curious notion that liberty (defined as the absence of restraint) is the highest good and we should tolerate the beliefs of others, no matter how bizarre. Another major objection is that the sacred liberal value of tolerance does not follow from their ethical agnosticism. Why not use force to eradicate ethical pluralism?
You are straying far away from libertarianism here.
The non-aggression principle does not enjoin us to care about anyone other than ourselves. 169
Posted by JB on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:18 | # GW:
not that I’m aware of. I don’t even care that much about my family tree
many jews collaborated with the Nazis hoping that they would help them create an Israel. That was the Nazis’ plan initially, to send the jews to Madagascar.
if you’re going to blame people you can’t just blame Hitler. Do I have to point out every time that nobody declared war on the USSR when they took the other half of Poland ? try to blame Hitler for that. Is Hitler to be blamed for Churchill’s obsessive hatred of Germany ? http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/raico_on_churchill/ I recall having written replies to Daedalus/You over his WW2 analysis but for some reason I can’t find them right now. I did found this one though: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/focal_point_photos/P100/#c17513
This review of the book Stalin’s War of Extermination is relevant to the debate:
170
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:33 | # JB: Do I have to point out every time that nobody declared war on the USSR when they took the other half of Poland? The declaration might have had something to do with the failure to declare war over Czeckoslovakia, JB - a failure caused only by Britain’s long years of neglect of the military. 171
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:09 | #
I stated above that the same question could be asked about the British and French.
This only begs the question: what if Hitler had decided against forcing the hand of the Allies over Poland? It was Hitler who was provoking international crisis after crisis with his aggressive foreign policy. If he had got his way in Poland, he would have taken that as a further sign of Allied weakness, and would have moved on to his next objective. Hitler lost all credibility when he violated the Munich agreement and occupied non-German Bohemia and Moravia. He knew perfectly well that he was taking an enormous risk. Hitler didn’t care about the interests of our race. He was only interested in the welfare of Germany, a single country. Hitler was willing to concede an entire continent - Australia - to the Japanese sphere of interest. Furthermore, the vast majority of his victims were other Europeans. In sending his troops from one end of Europe to the other, he became the posterboy of postwar anti-racism. It was Hitler who established in the minds of millions of Europeans the association of racialism with fascism.
I’m not saying Germany is entirely to blame. I have always believed that there is more than enough blame to go around on all sides.
Because Hitler went to war with the Soviet Union.
FDR did nothing to advance civil rights in the United States. Churchill was a racist who fought against nonwhite immigration to the U.K. in the 1950s. The blame truly rests with their less famous successors: Truman and Attlee. 172
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:57 | # @Alex Zeka
Tentatively, yes. Some actions which ostensibly bring pleasure also bring more strife in their wake than they are worth.
But why is that? Why the emphasis on private property and individual freedom? Because libertarians don’t subscribe to any overarching conception of the good life unlike, say, Christians or Aristotelians; at least in theory. They are ethical subjectivists who believe such questions are unresolvable and infer that everyone should be “free” to pursue his/her own private vision of what constitutes happiness. As a consequence, government should not get into the business of making such choices for private individuals, and should remain neutral amongst competiting visions of the good life. The problem with this, as I pointed out above, is that liberals violate their own ideal of neutrality. They stake out a position in this debate like the rest of us (Christians - salvation, Aristotelians - flourishing/happiness, Epicureans - pleasure). They hold that liberty is the highest good and that the purpose of government is to promote this end. This is a highly questionable assumption. It is grounded even deeper in the ahistorical myth that society was at some point “created” by autonomous pre-social individuals who “exchanged” their absolute liberty for social rights.
Libertarians believe there is no overarching “best sort of life” and that each individual should be free to pursue his own vision of happiness provided no one is harmed in the process; ironic, in that this is an overarching view of the “best sort of life.” You are backing off from libertarianism here and trying to smuggle into libertarianism a form of teleology. A true libertarian would have no objection to drug abuse, suicide, or abortion. As Steve would argue, he is within his rights to dispose of his private property as he sees fit; his own life and/or genes included.
Libertarians see the family in the same way they see all collectives: as a mere conglomeration of freely contracting individuals which can be dissolved at any point. Do libertarians have any serious objection to divorce? Of course not. There is nothing sacred about a marriage contract, or any association, really. It can be dissolved at will provided it is done so legally. What matters is every case for libertarians is the freedom of the individual to indulge his appetites, whatever they may be, no matter how irrational and destructive to himself and others. Libertarianism is no real alternative to statism. Whereas the statists dissolve families, communities, traditions, nations, and races into the omnipresent state, the libertarians dissolve them into the acid of the free market. In doing so, they license an extreme form of individualism which ironically has the effect of atomizing the individual and paralyzing his ability to resist the encroachment of government. This can be seen in almost every Western nation where the growth in permissive attitudes has advanced hand in hand with the expansion of government. In the end, the “liberty” cherised by libertarians, a mere absence of restraint, stands exposed as license; which is no virtue at all. Liberty without virtue begets tyranny: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/novak/novak200512210809.asp
173
Posted by jklfdaksjkls on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:29 | # A far-sighted statesman like Arnold Leese (Imperial Fascist League) would cleanse the British Isles of Jews and address external security issues only then. One must admit Britain fubar-ed by ridding the world Just ask yourselves which was more dangerous in hindsight, World Jewry or Germany? And if both are threats to Britain, isn’t it logical to deal with World Jewry first? 174
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:21 | # World Jewry clearly was a problem. Just look at how deeply involved American Jewry was in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. I haven’t suggested otherwise. In fact, at this very moment, I am working on a detailed response to The Realist’s latest article over at Inverted World which will touch upon this issue. The working title of my upcoming blog entry will be “The Judaization of the Professionals.” If GW likes it, he is free to cross post it here at Majority Rights. I’m not criticizing the Third Reich for Entjudung. There are many things about the Third Reich that I admire. Hitler’s foreign policy is not amongst them. His relentless pursuit of his geopolitical fantasy in Eastern Europe was reckless, unnecessary, and ultimately ended in disaster for Germany. At the same time, Britain and France were willing to go to war over Poland, and share a large part of the blame. FDR encouraged the Poles not to negotiate in good faith and shares in the blame as well. 175
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:08 | # Scimitar, You are an impressive advocate for all your opinions, and I would be very pleased to publish. E-mail me the piece when you are ready, please. 176
Posted by Tommy G on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:49 | # “In fact, at this very moment, I am working on a detailed response to The Realist’s latest article over at Inverted World which will touch upon this issue. The working title of my upcoming blog entry will be “The Judaization of the Professionals.” The Realist’s overall thesis is simple to understand. What I think he’s saying is that it was/is Jewish intellectuals that are causing the demise of the White-race, therefore, it is ONLY Jews that can save it; only if Whites will accept/proclaim the Jew version of the Holocaust. The big question is: Is he right? 177
Posted by jklfdaksjkls on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 02:40 | # The Churchill apologists must admit that World Jewry (within and without the country) posed the greatest danger to the British Empire (and the other Anglo nations). These nations badly needed a cleaning-out. Whether Germany dominated eastern Europe took a distant second to whether these Anglo nations would be alien-controlled. For some reason nobody makes this obvious point. Equally, isn’t it obvious that the Jews understnad this point? And that’s why they’re mongrelizing the West? 178
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:40 | # A draft has been posted on my blog: The Judaization of the Professionals. I plan on revising it after reading his sources myself. 179
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:46 | #
Once again, Nazi Germany did not care about the welfare of other nations, especially the Anglo-Saxon ones. Hitler was even willing to give Australia to the Japanese. Sure. It would have been nice if Germany would have cooperated with other nations to eliminate the Jewish threat. Unfortunately, as PF has pointed out above, fulfilling his geopolitical fantasy in Eastern Europe took precedence in Hitler’s mind above all other considerations. 180
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:21 | #
The Realist and Lawrence Auster want to disassociate race realism from anti-semitism for one simple reason: anti-semitism is “bad for the Jews.” He is also wrong about the Holocaust. Jews had been agitating against racialism for decades before the Second World War. Case in point, Franz Boas in American anthropology and Otto Klineberg in American psychology. Ashley Montagu published Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race in 1942. Jews had also been financing the NAACP ever since its creation in 1909. As for the “anti-authoritarian and anti-ethnocentric spirit” which The Realist describes in his essay, cosmopolitanism of that sort has a much longer lineage than he is willing to admit. It goes back to the predominantly Jewish New York Intellectuals of the 1930s and before that to the bohemian Jews of NYC’s Greenwich Village during the 1920s. It was absolutely not a response to a Holocaust. The only difference between the pre-war and post-war period is that Jews had become far wealthier and influential than they had been before. I describe this transformation in The Judaization of the Professionals. There is no evidence whatsoever that American Jews have ever thought of themselves as “white” or that they were ever “on our side” at any point in the past.
181
Posted by Tommy G on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:07 | # Scimitar, Now that you made me aware that “The Realist” is none other than Ian Jobling, I think his new pseudenym should be, ‘Ellsworth Toohey’. After all, he IS stabbing his mentor Jared Taylor in the back, isn’t he? 182
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:20 | # I didn’t know he was Ian Jobling myself until GW mentioned it on my blog. Also, I did a Google search for “The Realist + Ian Jobling” and turned up a post by “Undercover Black Man” which proves it. Something I wrote earlier today about the matter: http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/06/11/the-judaization-of-the-professionals/#comment-100 If it is any consolation to you, none of my replies have appeared at Inverted World. This negative experience (and several others) has led me to reconsider my previous views about Jewish involvement in the American racialist movement. For about two years, I was a vocal supporter of the inclusion of Jews at Amren, and was quick to dismiss concerns about the threat of internal Jewish subversion. At the time, the Amren experience seemed to suggest that Jewish/Gentile cooperation could work. Although The Realist would like to pigeonhole me as an anti-semitic “White Nationalist,” I was by no means a supporter of the David Duke/Alex Linder approach; their obsession with the Jewish Question was off-putting to me. Jews are a smart and talented people. It seemed unreasonable to exclude individual Jews as long as they were willing to identify as whites and contribute to the cause of rehabilitating racialism. Suppose for a moment that Jared Taylor had died in 2006, say, in a car accident, and The Realist/Ian Jobling had taken over at American Renaissance, after having waited in the wings all these years. Amren would have been derailed from its focus of restoring white racial consciousness and transformed into what Inverted World is now; an apologetics website for the Jewish role in destroying racialism. The actions of The Realist/Ian Jobling, Lawrence Auster, Michael Hart et al. erased any doubts in my mind that their Jewishness is more important to them than their feigned attachment to White America. If they had their way, American Renaissance really would have become just another National Review or FrontPageMag, as their critics had been warning all along. In this respect, I suppose we owe David Duke a debt of gratitude for provoking Auster, Hart, Jobling et al. into prematurely revealing their hand. Post a comment:
Next entry: Palese on the left, and how to deal with it
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by calvin on Wed, 23 May 2007 01:10 | #
“The man is an energised, flowing speaker, and genuinely sees the JQ as the problem”
Correctly identifying a problem is not the same thing as sensibly addressing it. Jewish civil rights activists didn’t march around screaming, “we must increase Jewish security by breaking white ethnic dominance”; they dealt exclusively in platitudes about “a just and fair society”.