|
|
|
“Lost Lands” and The Tragedy of London: John Derbyshire as Grief-Thief John Derbyshire is a smooth operator. A mathematician who gained fame writing for National Review, he married a Chinese and emigrated to the United States. Who better to inform us about internationalism, and the right way and wrong way of thinking about it? In 2001 he wrote an article for National Review Online where he condemned nations who held greivances over pieces of land formerly in their possession. The piece opens up with a quote from Osama Bin Laden:
Osama bin Laden, October 7th He then explains how the tragedy of Andalusia’ refers to the loss of Andalusia to the Reconquista, and marvels that this fact should remain in the memory of the Ummah. What follows are his listing the greivances of the Irish and Chinese against the English, recounted as personal anecdotes. And in each case, he minimizes the claims on the basis of time passed and the supposedly impotent stance of countries who would need to nourish such greivances. Reflecting on his Irish friends discussing Ulster in a bar with some sense of passion, he writes: “An awful long time to be nursing a grievance, I thought quietly to myself.” The grievance-thief, the stealer of long-cherished bile, continued: “And of course, thoughtful Moslems surveying the complete failure of the House of Islam to come to terms with the modern world, are likewise humiliated, and salve their hurt pride by picking at 500-year-old wounds.” But lo! There is a way to subdue these errant, incorrect emotions: “Nations that have modernized successfully do not feel like this.” And by “Nations who have modernized successfully” he apparently means the United States and England. The two examples he calls to mind - and here his knowledge of history comes to the fore - the examples of Calais, until 1558 under control of the English House of Plantagenet, and Hawaii for modern day Americans. The example of Calais is supposed to express this thought: “Hey, we don’t have grievances over Calais, so why does any other nation anywhere have grievances over any other piece of land lost to them?” And the idea of Hawaii being ceded from America, is posited essentially in this way: “Hey, what if you guys/us lost Hawaii, would it matter much to you/us?”. Derbyshire holds these two Anglo countries up as examples of nations who have avoided nurturing grievances over lost territory, and the implicit recommendation is that all nations who hold such grievances are somehow behind the times’ and should just forget about it and get with the now.’ The quote above and reference to Osama Bin Laden makes it obvious that Derbitron* (this is his robot name), intends this also to apply to the situation of Israel, which is especially ironic because Israel is a nation founded on a 2000-year old historic grievance. Israelis can make claim to a territory after 2000 years, but displaced Palestinians should essentially just give up after a few decades, it’s the modern’ thing to do. In my travels I’ve met Poles who thought back whistfully on certain cities in the Ukraine, Germans who thought back on places in Poland, and Serbs who thought about Kosovo. All these people, please forget your grievances. John Derbyshire has declared them unnecessary and even excessive. That is just not a modern way to feel. But allow me, the critique-bringer, server of word-mead to heroes, to unravel the cracked leather holding case containing my tools of the trade, and go to work on the artless article. The above comparisons of Calais and Hawaii are bogus, because Calais was never truly settled by Englishmen and if it was the site of a colony, never played an important role in the genesis of English culture or history or tradition. That’s why Calais has no significance for the English. And the same is true for Hawaii these territories were both effectively toys. Calais was, perhaps, a bargaining chip for the English royal house to make alliances and marriages with continental nobility and Hawaii is, among other things, a destination for shallow minded American tourists. The other places remembered in historic grievances tend to be places formerly inhabited by and firmly in the possession of those peoples who mourn their losses- like Kosovo was once home to the Serbs, a place where Serbian Orthodox Christian culture left its stamp on the landscape in the form of Churches, a place ruled by prudent Serbian royalty, and also the location of a vitally important battle in Serbian history, The Battle of Kosovo against the Ottoman Empire. If the Serbs lose control over Kosovo, they lose a connection to a vital part of their history, which henceforth becomes the province of imagination, since one cannot see it written in buildings, place names and landscape. Comparing this with the theoretical loss of Hawaii seems flippant. What history has perhaps kept hidden from Derbyshire, is the fact that he alone amongst the people he mentions belongs firstly by birth and secondly by adoption to two nations who have been history’s winners - inasfar as they have never been conquered since their genesis as nations. For most other nations, that is not entirely true. In a very real sense, Derbyshire just doesn’t know what its like to be conquered or to belong to a people who has once been conquered - he has no frame of reference from which to understand this. That could probably be said for all Anglos the world over. So he comes across as being uniquely unqualified for the calculus required to estimate the half-life of a historical grievance, amongst indeed literally an entire world of more qualified peers. People whose nations have actually lost significant territory seem to take it less lightheartedly than Derbyshire would deem reasonable. But that isn’t the last word. Because some of us have gotten a taste in recent years, of what it is like to be conquered - flat out, that’s basically what we’ve been experiencing. And the question I would pose to Derbyshire San is this: how long would the English grievance last if they lost London? Would it be substantial? Could it last 100 years? Could it theoretically last as long as the English nation continued to exist? Because I seriously doubt that anyone who feels even a proximal attachment to English culture could cede London and be at peace with himself and his surroundings. In fact, I don’t think the loss of London, the tragedy of London, something we are still in the process of understanding and absorbing, can even be grasped at this time. People can come to terms with it in a de facto sort of way, but understanding what it really means, and the psychological realignment it demands, are things which will take time to penetrate national consciousness, and, having done that, may not let themselves be quickly removed. In short, Anglos are reverse engineering the conquest of their own historic countries, hence, before too long, we too are going to have grievances. “Instead of taking these “lost territories” claims seriously, we should understand them for what they are: irrational and undemocratic responses to a sense of cultural humiliation, coming under the scope not of political science but of psychopathology.” The arrogance of this paragraph is indeed even bigger than me presuming to imitate Beowulf’s kennings in an article on a political webblog. But I could see why his Jewish superiors liked it: because their “lost territory” has already been regained, hence this not only offers a model at building a cohesive world-society by delegitimizing national grievances (which smiling Jews and vaguely confused Anglos can agree are very inconvenient), it even allows Israel to turn a deaf ear to the bleatings of Palestinians, since grievances are unmodern, and “come under the scope of psychopathology.” Who will save the millions of people, from Ulster to the Drina, who are now nourishing national grievances over lost land, from the grip of this psychopathology? Ah yes, the Kung-Fu miscegenist, a man without a country. He’s in a unique position to advise us how to feel, when he’s not solving math problems, chopping wooden blocks, or carousing in the rice-paddy under the sunny smile of his Jewish Keeper. Wong Chong Hong, John! That’s WN-darin for get a f**ing life!’. PF Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:41 | # At the risk of repeating myself (I just responded to part of this issue in the wiki announcement post): The most crucial problem in human migrations is one of carrying capacity, as Salter pointed out in his book. In this respect I look at the application of British gardening techniques in Israel as evidence that Israelis did pull their own weight from a carrying capacity perspective. The action of diaspora Zionists in subverting foreign nations to support Israel is another matter which may ultimately doom Israel. However, Derbyshire’s mendacity is even more obvious when you consider the fact that some of the Asian cultures with which he identifies clearly have the ability to raise carrying capacity, and it is equally obvious that there has not been an commensurate increase in GB’s or in the US’s carrying capacity as a result of recent immigration. On the contrary, housing prices have skyrocketed and carcases of fetuses rot in dumpsters if they weren’t prevented from being conceived in the first place by those with genes for conscientiousness—thereby darkening the prospects for future generations. Your point about London is important. Cultural artifacts of a people—sacred sites—are a matter that is difficult to deal with in carrying capacity terms. These spiritual connections are unquantifiable yet important in some sense. Moreover, the Jews do have historic roots in Palestine so there is some difference between them contending for Jerusalem and Asians contending for London. There is a lesson from German history to learn here. There are some good analogies between Zionists and Nazis that apply to this situation as well: To what extent are the claims of Israeli victimization of Palestinians being exaggerated? Certainly the extent is going to be less from a Western mainstream standpoint since Jews pretty much run the Western mainstream, but there was a time in the West—as others have pointed out—when the mainstream had not yet adopted an entirely Holocaustian religious commitment, but those outside the mainstream eventually elbowed their way into their current dominance. Something similar may happen with Islam in the West. Likewise, stories of minority victimization are already exaggerated in the West due to a market-dominant minority prone to spinning yarns. 3
Posted by VanSpeyk on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:35 | # Derbyshire is quite the unsavory character. It is obvious that he has quietly convinced himself long ago that Whites are on their way out and that resistance is futile. This makes him feel very much morally superior to those of us who have not yet grasped or accepted this. I found his criticism of MacDonald to be pathetic. It boiled down to whining that he didn’t mention any positive Hebrew contribution. Like Sailer he is intimitaley aware of racial reality and of universiality of ethnocentrism but still he can´t get himself to support that. 4
Posted by ohp on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:24 | # “Anglo-Saxons” is the word you’re looking for. “Anglos” is hispanic gutterslang for “(white) Americans”. 5
Posted by PF on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:46 | #
The man is adept at embarrassing himself. I read some of his other articles, where he claimed for example that he would have taken on the Virginia Tech shooter without a gun. He seems like an awkward kind of person, like he is used to being the angular eccentric who everybody laughs at, like he is comfortable in that role. Actually, there is a goldmine of embarrassing, looney statements he made in his career, if I was less lazy, I would have researched them exhaustively and put them in this article. See the Wikipedia page for two or three of them. 6
Posted by asd on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:07 | # VanSpeyk said: Derbyshire is quite the unsavory character. It is obvious that he has quietly convinced himself long ago that Whites are on their way out and that resistance is futile. This makes him feel very much morally superior to those of us who have not yet grasped or accepted this. I found his criticism of MacDonald to be pathetic. It boiled down to whining that he didn’t mention any positive Hebrew contribution. Like Sailer he is intimitaley aware of racial reality and of universiality of ethnocentrism but still he can´t get himself to support that. Although they are currently much abused, the terms ‘racist’ and ‘genocide’ will soon discover a real utility. Derbyshire ought correct his published opinion and his family’s location if he expects an excess of tolerance. 7
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:24 | # Derbyshire said a few months ago that the Jews are a net positive for America. They have pathologized the very basis of our civilization, but Jews have invigorated American pop culture (through disgusting Hollywood movies) and are drastically overrepresented in the social sciences (this is a good thing?). The Jews have made America a better place
8
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:11 | # If you haven’t done so, read the whole exchange between Derb and Kurtzman at Jewcy. 9
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 03:47 | # Like Buchanan, I find Derbyshire worth reading. Still, he carefully tailors his words to remain within the mainstream, which can often be very annoying. I found this response particularly instructive: Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You: Criticizing Jews is professional suicide
10
Posted by second class citizen on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:23 | # Fred Scrooby: I’m not so sure. I think it may just be a temporary setback, much like when the Romans created the Jewish diaspora in the first place. (Although we should never thank them, except perhaps ironically in the future. Much like a child who undertakes a strict discipline of fighting arts thanks a schoolyard bully… after he takes his eye for an eye years later.) Cheap travel, and the spread of modern technology enabling exponential growth of population may have made some form of multiracial population inevitable in our countries. However, in a lot of ways Jewry has arsed it up. In their indoctrination attempts, they have let their greed, emotions and long-held grudges get the better of them. Instead of encouraging their liberal sheep to breed in greater numbers, they have told anyone responsive to their mass media toxin not to breed - it’s something only racist rednecks do. They have introduced other races into our historical habitat. These are all selection pressures typical of continents, versus islands. And we will need these traits until we start colonizing other planets. They have introduced genes for high IQ and ethnocentricity into our midst, guaranteeing that there are those who see themselves as White and are capable of thriving in a continental setting. They have eviscerated Christianity and made their original creation as laughable as Matt Groening has made Ned Flanders. In its place they have promoted reason, the scientific method (up to a point). There will be those who will only be satisfied with authentic European imagery, partners, children etc and shun everything else. There will be those who refuse to trust in a foreign God or a local preacher who sends the weekly donations to God knows where, and instead engineer plans for the benefit of their tribe and their children within the sanctity of their own home, irrespective of who is in power. They will organize when necessary to fight, to elect, to infiltrate, to do whatever is necessary to safeguard the future of their children. They will breed at exponential rates in this new environment. In all likelihood, they will see themselves in diaspora, and thus by rights, to consider the whole world their own (as the Jews do). It will be impossible to wipe them out even with nuclear means. We’ve got a billion people. There’s a lot of variation there capable of bringing this together, and a large haystack to hide the needles in. 11
Posted by Proofreader on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:20 | # Perhaps diaspora Europeans (Americans, Australians, etc) can survive in a ghettoized environment. Some of them have in fact lived that way for centuries, particularly in the Southern states of the USA. Who knows? They might already have been self-selected just for that when they set sail for the Unknown. 12
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:11 | #
His fellow AmeriKwans, presumably. 13
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:16 | #
I hail from such a racial ghetto. I grew up in a county in the Alabama black belt that is roughly 50% black/50% white. Needless to say, whites are far more racially conscious in such areas than elsewhere. Still, the lack of positive reinforcement from society in general has a strongly negative impact on the racial attitudes of upwardly mobile whites, even in these places. 14
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:33 | #
American Christianity was going to pot long before the rise of Jewish power after 1917; through the Interfaith movement, Goodwill movement, Social Gospel movement, etc. In fact, the American clergy committed itself to racial egalitarianism before Jewish influence became palpable:
This passage from Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America is especially revealing:
15
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:27 | # “second class citizen” wants us to become more Jew-like in our genes because he sees the future of terrestrial evolution as that in which the Jew thrives and we must do likewise. He doesn’t explain what it is to be “white” except to say that some will continue to “see themselves as white”. Clearly this quoted idea that “whiteness” is a matter of how one self-identifies, is precisely what the current race-denial indoctrination teaches. He then discounts the present value of future “island” due, presumably to some their remoteness in the future. First, are you John Derbyshire? Second, what is it to be “white” and why are you so cock sure that eliminating Euroman’s “island”-optimized genetic behaviors won’t destroy Euroman’s value? Third, how do you propose Judeuroman will avoid evolving virulence via horizontal transmission, as Jews have evolved virulence—particularly given your stated assumption that interbreeding with Jews is part of Judeuroman’s heritage? Fourth, the present value of future “island” habitats depends greatly on both the timing and scale of that potential, even assuming that Euroman’s vital character is not molded by Europe’s isolating geography. How do you know the timing and scale of such future island habitats results in a field of evolution of sufficiently low present value that we may safely put our “island” adaptations at risk? 16
Posted by torgrim on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:48 | # “American chrisitanity was going to pot long before the rise of Jewish power in 1917; Through the Interfaith Movement, Social Gospel Movement, etc. In fact, the American Clergy committed itself to racial egalitarianism before Jewish influence became palapable.” This can be shown as a trend also with the diaspora from Scandinavia with the Lutheran Church in America. The first generation American Lutheran Church was a cultural refuge for the diaspora, German, Danish, Norwegian, etc. Within just one generation the Norwegian Evangilical Church morphed into the Missouri Synod, to the American Evanglical Lutherans and just twenty years ago there was a call to merge the American Lutheran Church with Rome…
I must say, this is brilliant. The Euro diaspora, because of it’s “wholeness”, may be more fit, to accomodate survival adaptation, especially as the host becomes threatened. The “west”, is standing on dead mans legs, men that built it are gone and their decendants are being replaced, so those in power today, do truly, “stand on us”. 17
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:02 | # In reply Rep. William Vaile of Colorado made this superb statement…. Funny that Auster can’t credit MacDonald for digging up that quote. 18
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:14 | # I wouldn’t say the Jews “started” misbehaving in the 1960s. Again, I return to Kaufmann on this point: this had been going on steadily since the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that Jews became so powerful and influential that their ideas began to deeply penetrate American popular culture. The spread of television durings the 1950s and the postwar GI Bill accelerated the change. One last point. Jews are only able to thrive in certain kinds of environments. Iran, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, China, etc. don’t have this problem. They don’t have the liberalism in their culture that enables the Jews. Even in Western Europe, Jews were kept in check throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. The spread of liberalism is what led to Jewish emancipation in the first place. 19
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:16 | # It is extremely important to keep in mind that Jewish power is an effect of liberalism. But what caused liberalism? At least one Jew (Adam Sutcliffe) thinks it was the presence of the Jewish community within the European community. 20
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:04 | # Reaction to the Thirty Years War, English Civil War, and Scientific Revolution during the seventeenth century. To my knowledge, John Locke wasn’t Jewish. 21
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:16 | # Right, but Locke followed Enlightenment trends that emanated from Holland’s Jewish community. 22
Posted by second class citizen on Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:06 | # James Bowery: I probably shouldn’t even have touched the subject of “where do you draw the line?” except for a recent conversation with an owner of a Red Heeler, who said that they make a very effective cattle dog because of their intelligence, but the problem is that they breed with the wild dog population which makes them much harder to eradicate and more virulent. I hope you can see the analogy there, how the Jewish miscegenation with Whites since their so-called Emancipation is causing or will cause them some problems down the road. Sooner or later the descendents start identifying with a region of people where the bulk of their makeup is from, and are indistinguishable from a native phenotypically (provided they keep mixing with natives). It’s not ideal, but it has happened and it may end up working to our favor. At some point this issue will need to be broached anyway, as it was in the Third Reich. http://www.adolfhitlerresearchsociety.org/index_files/Page817.html +++ Fred, thanks for the in depth response. Good catch on the Roman thing, I’ve read that quote too. You are of course right. However, the Romans did get them to commit to diaspora full time, burning their bridges so to speak. No argument from me that we’d rather not go through this selection, any more than you’d like to selectively breed your children by being asked to pick which half lives. As for why doesn’t the inevitable happen to other countries, you certainly have a point with China, even if not everyone there is Han Chinese. At least they aren’t getting race replaced. Japan… is not so cut and dried. Have you been there? The island thing helps, I think. There are a reasonable amount of foreigners there in certain districts, and no laws as far as I know to stop miscegenation. The language barrier is more significant than it is with Germany - making it a bit harder for a foreign occupier to police their media. Also even though Jewry thought nothing of it but to drop a couple atom bombs on there for target practice, it was the German nation with which they had their blood feud. There was no Morgenthau plan ever drawn up for Japan. So I think Germany has had the worst of it all, it’s not an even comparison. Can you imagine what would have happened to Hitler had he not shot himself? He certainly wouldn’t be kept on as some sort of Fuhrer-lite like the Japanese Emperor. No doubt Hitler would have been hung upside down on Purim with the rest of the leadership, stuck with skewers and been left to bleed to death. Or worse. The Japanese were in relatively recent conflict with the Ainu as well, perhaps this has honed a bit more ethnocentrism than the average islander. There is a lot more difference between Japanese and Ainu than there is between Celt and Saxon. I don’t see the multiracial state as inevitable or desirable, however, if life is handing us lemons we should at least try and make lemonade. There is technically nothing stopping us from marrying among our race, and employing similar nepotistic tactics that work for other races to elevate our positions in the Babel in which we live. It certainly won’t be a bad skill to have. Particularly when living in a monoracial state breeds complacency and perhaps the need to have those skills in future now even more than we currently do. We may have the IQ strata we do for historical reasons, but I don’t think it is especially desirable that we have so many at the low end who are easily conned by the media, not particularly capable in fighting a war, and a net drain on the country’s resources. If you look at the mean IQ variance among Euro nations, it’s not 100 everywhere. You get the Germans and Dutch near 110 (depending on which source you look at), and Portugal below 100 somewhere. Look at elite fighting units - they tend to be exclusively White because of the IQ floor required. A whole army of such would be that much more effective than “the army you have”, to quote Rumsfeld. As the German army was, man for man. And in most European nations in the early part of the century, we had means to achieve this for our nations. (Probably earlier than that if you consider that the feudal system and possibly the Industrial Revolution society was eugenic). But yes, fair point about IQ. It is more the heightened ethnocentrism we need which we are lacking as a race. However, genes for high IQ will not go astray. A nation of people too stupid on average to research references and background material (and detect whether what they are reading is a lie or not), who can’t analyze their politicians by their voting records, who can’t analyze the politics of their nation and ask “Is it good for White people?” are never going to get what’s in their best interests with societies this large and complex and with this much information to sift through. 23
Posted by a Finn on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:15 | # Scrooby, Bowery and Scc made good points. Scc is right in that we will have to learn from the jews (and muslims). But we will not become a copy of jews. IQ is not central in “Is it good for the jews”. Many of our intellectual elites have espoused an opposite of ethnocentrism despite their high IQ’s. Understanding with high IQ requires too many right elements, which have to be combined and fine tuned carefully to produce the right results consistently in large masses, for it to work. Also high IQ’s are fairly easy to trick, often with low IQ also. Many methods can be used, e.g,; witholding and inventing information (refugees’ asylum application stories); talking about a field in which a person is not knowledgeable and/or intelligent (e.g. politics to a mathematician); bypassing intelligence with emotions (crying black child in TV pleading for affirmative action); creating e.g ideological ruses, like international socialism; imitating something familiar (using front men who have as much as possible our looks, way of talk and names); combining our crucial needs with something destructive, like in sex area promoting homosexuality to all; hiding supremacism and conquering goals in religion and pc talk, like islam; even too good conditions can fool people to soften their politics too much; etc. The whole ethnocentrism must be based on much more automatic and simpler system, so that it would be efficient. It is built on loops of community like the following example: - People are automatically on emotional level more fearful and hateful of people outside of their ethny. They also automatically like/love their own ethny. Own ethny is everything, outsiders are enemies. - Everything outsiders say and do is distrusted, even if they say and do good things. If facts don’t show otherwise, members of own ethny is trusted in general. - Those not going along with own ethny’s politics are shut out of community and punished with other means. - People don’t need to analyze complex facts, because authoritarian leaders do it to them and people almost blindly follow. - Authoritarian leaders have freedom of action (everything goes), as long as they satisfy people’s “Is it good for the X?” -question, loyalties, fears and hates. Due to intense feelings of solidarity, religion and culture, martyrdom is also good for the X. If leaders don’t fulfill these, people revolt and install leaders that fulfill their emotions and needs. - Authorian leaders benefit from their authoritarian position, freedom of action and their people’s intense ethnocentrism. So leaders intensify their own, their ethny’s and ethny’s other leaders’ ethnocentrism. - Religion and culture are molded according to ethnocentrism and they intensify it. This simple loop intensifies people’s and their leaders’ ethnocentrism to the point of automatic loyalty and paranoia, which are positive to own group. In reality the system is more complex, but here is the central part of it, that makes it work efficiently permanently. Other loops can be developed, but they must resemble the described loop. The loop evolution is started by ethnic competition and intelligent design, which produces better success than other methods. Why we have to learn from jews, muslims etc.? Because we have to create permanent community that witholds all conditions at all times. Assuming we will always have monoethnic and ethnocentric land in idealized future would be self -deception. We must prepare ourselves for the worst conditions, where we are minorities in hostile/assimilating multiethnic environment. If we have as a community the permanent ability to survive and succeed in the worst conditions, we have the means to survive and succeed in all conditions, including easy and softening conditions. 24
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:16 | # I add to my previous post another basic jewish self-strengthtening loop, interaction with outsiders: - Jews follow talmud and their culture. It means among other things exploitation, lies, dissimulation; gratuitous distrust, blaming, hatred and fear; striving to control key junctions of money, information and power etc. - This causes severe problems to native populations, they resist and this has included in history violence, especially when native populations didn’t know how to compete ethnically. - For jews this seem to confirms the paranoid fears and distrusts, that are teached by their culture. It says that non-jews hate jews for no reason, plot always against them secretly, while showing friendly face, want or try to kill them etc. This strenghtens talmud and their culture. Also logic is diverted from the facts in another way. When violence and oppression reaches jews, they are tought by talmud, that this is punishment from god, because they have not followed talmud exactly and strongly enough. So the jews, who survive the violence and oppression, follow their culture and talmud (talmud is almost = jewish culture) more strongly and exactly. These then mean that jews exploit, strive to be in junctions of power, money and information, hate, blame, fear and distrust gratuitously etc. more strongly than before the violence and oppression. This starts the same self -strenghtening cycle again. There will never be mending of harmful ways of jewish culture. Those jews that mend their harmful ways are actively expelled from amongst the jews or they just drop out by themselves or they become jews in the outer circles of jews (= Not core, meaning in practice, real jews. Outliers may still perform useful functions to core jews, like forming bridges to inside other communities, donating money, helping in secondary jewish work etc.). Are the jews right rendering reality and facts this way? This depends on the frame of reference. Objectively they are of course wrong. But life, evolution and nature don’t ask for everywhere objectivity and objective facts, they ask for good results. They don’t ask for how the good results were achieved. So e.g. any objectively stupid belief that produces success and more efficient community are good according to rules of ethnic competition and evolution. Simple imaginary example: Community A believes in laughable carved wooden gods, that require among other things lot’s of children. Community B believes in similar laughable stone gods, that require among other things that families have only one child per family. Community A has an edge over community B, and ethnic competition and evolution side without laughing the community A. Same goes for morality. Evolution and ethnic competion don’t ask for benign morality towards outsiders and universal nobility, they ask for good results. My kin survived 1860’s famine in Finland among other things by mixing flour with lichen, moss and with the substance between tree bark and wood, by inventing all kinds of novel ways to obtain food and working relentlessly in the right ways despite hunger. They certainly would not have won any evolutionary beauty -contest, but they would have won the most tenacious life force -contest. Finns are very honest. It’s amazing how much and how complex lying and plotting Finns produced in WW2 against their enemy. And partly because of that Finns survived, retained independence and were the other European country participating in WW2, whose capital was never conquered. We need for our ethnic groups self streghtening loops and cycles that resemble the jewish loops and cycles, but rely more on our own work and not exploitation on others, and are more benign (but not assimilating and inclusive) towards benign outsiders. Our loops and cycles must be designed to strenghten and increase the numbers of our ethnic groups, and strenghten our ethnic competition abilities. 25
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:26 | # I wrote: We need for our ethnic groups self streghtening loops and cycles that resemble the jewish loops and cycles, but rely more on our own work and not exploitation on others, and are more benign (but not assimilating and inclusive) towards benign outsiders.——> We need for our ethnic groups self streghtening loops and cycles that resemble the jewish loops and cycles, but rely more on our own work and not on exploiting others, and are more benign (but not assimilating and inclusive) towards benign outsiders. 26
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:57 | # Addition, also: Our ethnic groups must rely less than jews on authoritarian leaders and more on e.g. council decisions and each individual’s responsibility to follow the groups’ rules. Post a comment:
Next entry: Freetown Massacre of the RUF
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Wong Derbysinore on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:36 | #
Derbyshire frankly describing his marriage, and his need to engage in “measured groveling” here:
http://olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commentary/HainanAtHome.htm
Of particular interest is his wife’s extreme xenophobic ethnocentrism and view of Americans as “them” - a view which, of course, doesn’t stop her from living in America, and spreading her Chinese distinctive genes into the populace.