|
|
|
Model for the absorption of foreign-sourced critical understandings by PF Critiques have consequences. Right now the greatest superpower on Earth, the United States, is faced with fundamental questions about its existence that it just can’t answer. What are we? Who are we? What should our strategic goals be? What are the fundamentals of our culture? All of these questions in my opinion are iterations of the first one: what are we? No satisfactory answer is forthcoming or can be agreed upon. It is possible to intuit how an entity subject to such mass confusion cannot possibly continue to exist, but rather appears to simply be waiting on a series of transformations which will alter it beyond recognition. This is because an entity that doesn’t understand what it is, cannot maintain itself against the forces of entropy which, necessarily, will pull and push and work on it. Our predecessors in the 60s, 70s and 80s laid the cultural foundation for this dissolution of nationhood. In the late 70s, 80s, and 90s the resulting anomie began to have obvious consequences for the structural aspects of national existence - of which I would mention Ponzi economics and the dumbing down of school curricula and pop culture. Today the only thing that is sure is that the knock-on effects and unintended consequences of these mass movements are likely to carry us past several consecutive points-of-no-return, into a reality unmapped, unplanned, and given what little we can foresee of it, likely very dangerous. To think, it may one day all end in nuclear war. (If you have quibbles with the articulation of the preamble, I ask you to holster them, on the grounds that I wish to discuss something besides The General State of Things And How We Got Here) Probably the most important causal strain underlying this cultural transformation was an act of intellectual warfare summarized in Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. The perpetrators of these acts answer to the names of Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, and Boasian Anthropology. Its quite remarkable to experience how these understandings, having trickled-down into knee-jerk reactions of even the intellectual proletariat, infuse every discussion. As Jonathan Bowden put it, they “permeate the ether”. The conclusions and tactics of these critiques have become some of the only common threads of our intellectual discourse, and an unconscious intelligenzia has busily spun itself a whole new cultural tapestry using them as a basis. The more people borrow their thoughts from the hive-mind, the more this ideational lattice-work appears to be independently rediscovered as an underlying facet of reality itself. Of course the observer is pointing to a reality that he himself has unconsciously structured and is calling it “World!”, as is par for the course with us, but it demonstrates that the battle which we lost was, first of all, an intellectual one. Our general cultural attitude of lackadaisical, ironically-reframed despair belies how deathly serious the white man has always taken the results of his own reasonings. Abstract truth and reasonings about the consequences of action are absolutely no joke in white society: we enforce a moral order based on our abstract reasonings about the ultimate consequences of our actions. The accomplishment of the Culture of Critique, among others, was to link the existence of suffering, violence, warfare and genocide, to certain structural aspects of white society which could not be excised without collapsing the whole edifice. In trying to eradicate these tendencies, we subject our society to a continual state of collapse. This was accomplished via abstract reasoning about Patriarchy, The Authoritarian Personality, the necessary results and implicit psychology of white ethnocentrism, etc. For example, it was reasoned that any expression of our natural territorial instincts would lead to genocide. Thus we lost the ability to express them, and subsequently we have lost our territories. Seeing that social critiques are capable of dissolving a society within a small amount of time, it is necessary to take them very seriously. Any future society which intends to exist will have to develop a protocol to protect itself from acts of intellectual warfare while stilll remaining adaptable and exploring new ideas. This implies a new seriousness in dealing with critiques which are voiced across EGI boundaries - critiques which are articulated by foreigners yet directed at one’s own society. I’m going to describe how critiques should be handled in a pre-Ethnostate society where people of foreign EGI are allowed unpunished self-expression. I should say in advance that the following procedure can be rendered unnecessary if people of foreign EGI are denied free right of self-expression within a society. More likely than whites spontaneously adhering to the intellectual rigor of the below-outlined scheme, is that our societies will continue to fracture into smaller units until foreign EGI has no voice and is accorded no trust within these social units, at which point we will be theoretically safe from intellectual sabotage. If there is no way for a critique to find wide-spread expression (e.g. the Culture of Critique found expression in pop music, Hollywood movies and TV), then there is at least apparently little danger of critical ideas causing wide-spread social destruction. We can use, to some extent already do use, the following procedure when investigating critiques articulated by people of foreign EGI. Firstly, the analogy for how to treat foreign-sourced critiques is to treat them as if they were a shipment of dangerous weapons. This in the understanding that, likely as not, the shipment may contain weapons that are either booby-trapped or themselves intended for use as weapons against the receiver. In other words, the critiques may contain ideas permitting us to advance strategically, or they may contain ideas that deliberately will harm us, and most likely they contain a mixture of both. For example, a Darwinist critique of German romanticism might advance the truth search of Germans, in which case the foreign critique would have brought them advantages. If Englishmen had deliberately ‘rigged’ the critique to denude the German philosophical tradition of its ponderous, imagination-based method of self-relating, that might be a deliberate attempt at harm. European peoples don’t have much experience with intellectual warfare, since they don’t have much experience with tribalism generally. Strategic disinformation on the part of our governments is the height of aggressive ethnocentric intellectual warfare which we are usually capable of. Since our states are genocidally inclined against us, we can’t even lay claim to this being an ethnocentric act, which is the only strategic context in which they would even make sense. When you get a shipment of foreign-sourced critiques there are several questions to be asked. The first question is: who is this from? Second question: what is their EGI? Third question: What inferences can be made on the basis of existing conflicts between sender and recipient EGIs, about possible motives or preferred routes of sabotage? Fourth question: how is the critique framed, does it seek an ammendment of the should-matrix? (The typical hack through which white morality is coopted to serve foreign EGI). Fifth question: what ammendments to the should-matrix does the critique suggest and what strategic advantages does it promise? Critiques which have the potential to be extremely dangerous or which come from known enemies should be recapitulated by local-source EGI’ed persons, the equivalent of rebuilding our own version of the weapon using the original as a template. In this recapitulation procedure, a person who is intellectually able to understand the content of the critique, but whose loyalty is known, restructures the critique into a series of strategic “if-then” statements. These statements diffuse the moral ardour and tone of urgency typically used by foreign saboteurs to force acceptance of their critique on the recipient. The suggested logical outcome matrix (“If you do this, then this will happen, which is what you want”) can then be looked at abstractly and dispassionately, to see if the critique actually suggests a usable amendment to current behavior. In the future I will take apart a common shipment of foreign-sourced critiques, what I call the ‘Sensibility Critique’, articulated in our times by uh and Silver, to show how they contain disastrously harmful memes which really are sufficient by themselves to destroy an ethnic polity. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:46 | # Sorry, missed that one. There’s something in the email protocols, I think, that creates line breaks all over the place. That one slipped through the editorial net! On the substance of the post, I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere, which is that in political matters EGI is much more dominant than even we are inclined to grant. Your second question, PF, should be a default for all significant political discussion. If it turns out one’s interlocutor is so mentally divorced from his or her EGI to the extent that ethical considerations predominate, well, we are all familiar with the art of snappy ethical refutation. 3
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:46 | # Not being a German intellectual, I’m finding this all a little heavy-going PF, even while grasping the basic premise. Can I make a plea for your deconstruction of the ‘Sensibility Critique’ to receive a higher priority that perhaps otherwise, in order that those of us a little slower on the uptake might be able to jin in at some point in the proceedings. As an initial remark, I’m a little concerned at this early stage that the model doesn’t appear to have a ‘green channel’ for friendly foreign critique, appearing to assume by default that all foreign critique is necessarily dangerous and must be inspected. Can this really be so? I mean, wouldn’t it behoove the English to respond positively to critique from Germans about things that the latter do well, like making cars or beer. And vice versa of course for important matters like cricket and the care and nurture of trainee stand-up comedians? Just saying. 4
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:33 | # PF doesn’t come out and say it, yet it is right on the tip of his tongue: the Krauts’ romanticism/idealism is what amounts to a group evolutionary strategy in that it flows naturally from their genetic proclivities and acts as a mechanism of social control in reinforcing their greater baseline collectivism as oppose to the English. The implication should indeed be jarring. The fire-bombing of those million or so Krauts was not an act of military necessity, or moral punishment, but an act of genocide motivated by genocidal hatred for what Germans are essentially (one does not burn alive those which one does not hate). As for the epicenter of White American EGI, people of German descent are the most numerous of all European-derived Americans. Something to think about at least. 5
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:07 | # Contrast the profound selflessness with which Rudolf Hess sacrificed the balance of his free life in what even Churchill referred to as a “completely devoted and frantic deed of lunatic benevolence.” with the near implementation of the Morgenthau Plan as the extended phenotype of Jewry. It must have been things like that which motivated Goebbels to write:
The English, and their extended phenotypes, are demonstrably not responsible stewards of the White race. 6
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:50 | # In an effort at searching out the higher moral ground I shall not be rising to the Cap’n's bait. 7
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:54 | # Good article. These ideas require inquiry and expansion. I recommend reading Antonio Gramsci in the original…but warn against summaries or interpretations - Gramsci was a forceful, direct and dynamic thinker/writer .... understood by anyone sufficiently educated, requiring no intermediary interpretation into marxist political jargon to deaden the original import. 8
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 04:05 | #
It was implemented as JCS 1067. “Mass starvation under the aegis of the American flag” was the policy of the directive. The main players were Morgenthau, White, Bernstein and “Mickey” Marcus. The directive was signed by Truman. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 05:25 | # I just copied that surprisingly objective Wiki article on the Morgenthau Plan linked by Desmond, storing it in my computer as a word document, the entire thing complete with the footnotes: it’s only a matter of time before the (fill in the blank) _______ Wiki editors destroy the article’s objectivity, rendering it totally useless and worthless, as they’ve done with dozens of articles relating to Germany which I’d valued highly only to return months later to find them transformed into crap. This has happened also in the German-language edition of Wikipedia. In fact it happens even more there than in the English-language edition. No matter what, and no matter how things have to be twisted, the anti-German propaganda always finds it way into every article it can be shoved into. 10
Posted by Gussie Fink-Nottle on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:04 | # PF, this is a good idea (if already well-grasped by most nationalists), but this post did not need to be almost 1500 words. Your tendency towards wordiness holds back your writing at this website. 11
Posted by PF on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:15 | # Fink-Nottie wrote:
I know. In retrospect, I wonder why I wrote this article. It just describes something we already do. As far as the wordiness thing, I hear ya. My style is due for a massive overhaul of some kind. I’m thinking of starting future articles with “YO, EVERYONE!” just to get myself out of the formal style that I seem to fall into. I have to learn to vary the amount of detail according to the necessary nuance of the idea being conveyed, e.g. the whole introduction here could be replaced with: “We’re fucked, and critiques played a role.” Then I could just say “EGI is important for when people make critiques of you. Check their EGI.” I got this idea when taking a laboratory materials safety training class where they classify all manner of different chemical compounds according to their possible unsafeness. We should do the same with critiques before we even give them a hearing. In retrospect, that material safety training course was approximately as over-belabored as the article. 13
Posted by ronery asian guy on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 07:18 | # Gentlemen, I have a question to ask with regards to the absorption of foreign ‘social critiques’ beyond the context of the western/white world. Jonathan Bowden mentioned in one of his speeches that neo-liberal/soft-marxist ideas are transnational in nature and that they will eventually spread out to the rest of the world. I for one am curious if the possibility exists for the liberal zeitgeist of the West to have a repeat performance in other developed nations, especially in Asia. At the moment, Asia is in a very precarious position. Japan has the 2nd largest debt in the world. Korea’s economy is dangerously in decline along with its workforce. China’s greatest economic weapon - cheap labor - is now almost completely gone and a repeat performance of its economic rise is highly improbable. In fact, it was estimated that around one out of four China’s male population in its rural territories will not be able to get a Chinese wife. Coupled with a rapidly aging population, the breakdown of social cohesiveness and the proliferation of suicide clusters in various Asian countries, it seems that the nihilism and decadence of the West has reached us here as well. Just out of curiosity, and considering the mounting pressure of both international agencies and economic necessity to push Asia in the “right direction,” would you say that the ideas of “multiculturalism” and “diversity” have a good chance of taking root on this side of the world as well? 14
Posted by Bill on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:31 | # How did all this come about? Not a lot of people know that. Personally, I can only pick up the story (with hindsight and the Internet) from say the 1960’s, but history and the Internet tell me things started to go seriously wrong toward the end of he 19th century. The vehicle chosen for the journey of change was the United States of America, which at around that time received what was to become a serious influx of persons from Eastern Europe, this infusion was the vanguard of the agent of change. This journey, overtime, manifested itself in these newcomers infiltration of the ruling structure of the infant United States of America, and by the turn of the 20th century was well emplaced in the corridors of power. It could be said that from that moment on, American democracy had been infiltrated and hijacked - and was no more. From the beginning, this was a journey of deceit, the moment was seized and the democratic process silently captured. Even so, such was the cunning employed, the illusion of democratic choice was maintained. To the public at large, nothing had changed. Only those at the top echelons of power were fully aware of what had taken place, even so, some were probably complicit in its affairs. For the infiltrators, this state of affairs was the perfect scam, the guile and ingenuity of the parallel force behind the curtain was such that the public at large never suspected, even to this day, over a hundred years later - it continues to deceive. Which painstakingly brings me to the point. For the past 60 years at least, behind the curtain forces have been diligently at work engineering the downfall of Western man and his living arrangement. So successful has this deceitful plan been carried out, the people of the West still have no idea what is going on. We are each born into a world that is, and we accept without question what is, is. This state of affairs is because we learn from our elders whom we entrust, little realising that they in turn are parroting what their elders imparted to them, in such a manner is our world perpetuated. To question what is doesn’t occur to most folk and so they live out their lives in content, not knowing there are forces at work whose whole raison detre in life is to deceive and convince us what is, is. Modernity has unwittingly given man the tools to enable us to see through the matrix that our rulers have intricately woven to deceive, they have herded us into a bubble from which we cannot see outside. Now we can! Behind the scenes, no matter which government has been democratically elected, programmes and agendas have been carried out and pursued that have run contrary to the interests of the people. The history of the last century to the present day is littered with incidents that were engineered without the full knowledge of the people, wars, legislation, economic engineering, culture, all have played their part in the tightening of the noose of tyranny around sham democracy’s neck. All of this has been accompanied by unparalleled technological advance in every sphere of life’s activities, especially in the field of electronics, psychological propaganda and communication. It is these huge scientific advances that have enabled the opportunists behind the curtain to deceive and become even more successful in their guile. But having said that, the advances in mass psychological brainwashing and communication has become for our rulers a two edged sword, communication between humans is now world wide and information is available on an unprecedented scale, under such circumstances the wall of decades of deceit is slowly being chipped away. To sum up, a vanguard of the suspicious is beginning to detect all is not well and menace is in the air, much pawing of the ground and sniffing the oncoming wind is starting to spook the herd. The distant drumbeat is beginning to be heard. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:37 | # Excellent comment by Bill above. This part is especially clear-sighted and well-put:
Well said. 16
Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:49 | # Correct on all points PF. I really took to your use of the terms: hive mind, permeate the ether, and ideational lattice. I hope you won’t be offended if you find me using them in the near future.
Perhaps this is as good a place as any to share my views on writing. For me, good political writing is akin to sorcery in that it should captivate the mind of the reader in such a way that he finds himself yielding to the writer’s influence. There are many factors that go into this process such as the potency of the ideas used, choice of wording, rhetorical pace, etc. If all goes to plan the reader’s experience should be so enjoyable (ideally) that he doesn’t notice the length of the article until he’s finished it; however, I would say that the longer the article the more difficult it is to maintain the spell because the reader will naturally wear down. In so many words, good writing is about the quality of the reader’s experience and not the particulars of the literary elements themselves. The literary elements can take many different forms but they must fit together in such a way that they captivate the mind of the reader. 17
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:58 | # http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd67z2lIoiw “The Putin System” I got the idea from the videos that Putin circumvented this process of “...scout them out years in advance as having potential — meaning they’re reliably malleable or already sympathetic — then groom them for high office and, if they don’t disappoint during a few years of grooming, are backed to the hilt at election time, with money and favorable press. He seems to have existed in government for decades without revealing his nationalist sensibilities. He took advantage of his handler’s greed and used them to facilitate his rise to power. Then, when he was finally in a position of power, he pulled the rug out from under them. Is my interpretation correct? Can this be done in other governments, or was it specific to Russia? 18
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:05 | #
This is what the English typically do, refuse to address opposing viewpoints, that being allegedly beneath them, and then assert moral superiority. Eerily similar to the Jewish tack of “dynamic silence”. Due to the genetic constitution of the English (more individualistic, more materialistic, more morally vain in contrast to the filthy Krauts), they are more vulnerable to becoming extended-phenotypes of Jewry. Which is why they signed off on the mass extermination of their Germanic cousins. On the face of it, perhaps unforgivable - but we know they can’t help it, so we forgive. 19
Posted by Justin Huber on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 01:29 | # Man, Captainchaos is hittin’ em hard tonight. I do think there is something to his argument that the English, in many instances, have taken on the Jewish mind set. Winston Churchill, in my opinion, is the epitome of this. Americans don’t have much room to talk either. Can anybody say George W. Bush? 20
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:20 | #
Whether or not there is any rational basis for this assertion, I decline to answer if only because it is rude to hijack someone else’s thread for the purpose of having a canter on one’s favourite hobby-horse. I would suggest that you set out your hypothesis in full and ask GW to put it up as guest post, at which time it can be addressed to the extent it merits without creating an unnecessary distraction in what is otherwise a valuable discussion. 21
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:15 | # I think Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society is a reasonable formulation for testing with hypotheses in human ecology—the “If then” assertions mentioned by PF. This succeeds ethically on two levels: 1) It is ethical in that it does not claim scientific validity for untested hypotheses. 2) It does not impose treatments, even if “tested and validated” on unwilling human subjects. It succeeds practically with Euroman because of his innate attraction to fairness or the “fair contest”, as well as his innate respect for individual moral agency. 22
Posted by PF on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:20 | # James wrote:
Yeah, this is the idea of yours that I always most liked James. The ability to admit that we are testing hypotheses when we ‘instigate social change’. The idea that society could operate this process semi-consciously. Have you read Robin Hanson’s work on Idea futures and Idea markets? His idea is similar to yours. 23
Posted by PF on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:24 | # Notus Wind wrote:
You are one guy I would take writing advice from, Notus. The articles on ecology “read themselves” for me to the point where I noticed with surprise the ease with which I was reading it. It was like running down a smooth hill. 24
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:40 | # PF asks: “Have you read Robin Hanson’s work on Idea futures and Idea markets?” The problem that I see is mere prediction is less powerful than control groups in teasing out causality. Interesting you would ask that. I actually worked on the first computerized Delphi conferencing system under the PLATO Comm Project back in 1974: So, yes, I’m more than a little familiar… 25
Posted by PF on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:37 | # So did you work with Hanson, James? I dont get the context of your mentioning the HP project. 26
Posted by PF on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:45 | # James wrote:
Yeah, you hit the nail on the head with that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futarchy I think if we - by evolution or by genetic manipulation - break a certain IQ threshold for the average person, something like 130 or 150 (wild speculation here of course!) then I think mankind would just do these kind of self-governance measures spontaneously. I think this would just be a natural principle within a society with an average IQ of 130. Maybe that kind of speculation is worthless though. But I was debating with myself whether to work on developing ideas like this and then I thought: while we are dumb, we will never know how to implement them. And when we are smart enough, we will do them spontaneously. Its a catch-22. 27
Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:09 | # James, I followed the link and found your essay on secession to be fantastic, it managed to come from a perspective that struck me as being novel, ethical, and correct. It’s too bad it didn’t win the essay contest on secession and gain a wider audience. PF,
Thank you, that is exactly the kind of feeling that I am going for and it is very satisfying to see it articulated by someone else. It’s an effect that I try to achieve by constantly rereading and revising my words until a certain measure of “smoothness” is obtained in my mind’s ear. Unfortunately, it can be a rather laborious process and I often settle for something less than ideal. 28
Posted by PF on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:33 | # CC, Surely you must realize that a philosophy that empowers white men would empower the German-Americans to own up to their place in America, while also empowering their cousins in Germania to do the same. The point of such a philosophy is that, once developed, it could probably be exported. There is no other reason to wish for such a thing. The quibbles between English and German EGI are small, and in the past have been tragically, tragically overexaggerated to the detriment of both groups. You are now exaggerating them again in such a way as to deflect from our obviously common purpose here. A philosophy that is useless, effete, and doesnt inspire action would be useless to Germans and English. A philosophy that empowers and emboldens would be useful to both. There is no way any of us are going to engage in the moralistic Judaizing hijinks necessary to paint Germans into some unique corner of blame, or deny them acknowledgment as people who have their own specialness, which they must honor, and which many of us even appreciate personally. Apparently you have some big issues with WWII. You are not sure that your EGI has an existence apart from the tenets of nazism, and you feel if one of us were to barricade off this ‘escape route’ into the Ausnahmezustand, we would condemn your people to death. Because you think if we delegitimize this survival response of a nation we prevent its self-defense and cause its death. We are not even interested in delegitimizing it - we simply acknowledge the critiques of it existing in society as being partly true. We are not going to use the internet to create a revisionist bubble where craterized Berlin achieves a different moral meaning - because we are not interested in historical moral meanings. Philosophy is not a moral inquiry office. Moral judgments cannot even be true in some sense, if you believe PF. There ‘is’ no ‘should’ is what I have said. What we are interested in, or convinced of, is that it can’t win the battle for the white mans mind which is our ultimate goal right now. Everything else that was said, you have provoked by your deliberate one-sidedness, such as the critique of german sensibility which would never have been voiced aloud here had not your slavish Teuton-do-no-wrong mantras inspired a response that Germans might not be all that. In spite of like, being able to die for the fatherland and everything, yo. You are making yourself into a cautionary tale about the power of palingenetic ideas to inspire unproductive ethnic rivalry which ignores the larger context of our threatened common EGI, as well as mistrust, projection, and all the other things you manage to engage in while making your comments. You need to check yourself, before you wreck yourself. 29
Posted by Joshua on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:33 | # Can someone respond to “ronery asian guy”? I’m interested in y’all’s take on his thoughts and concerns. Of course the Northeast Asians are less susceptible to the Jews than us (thank goodness for them), but this guy seems to think they’re about to fact hard times as well. 30
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:47 | # PF asks: “So did you work with Hanson, James? I dont get the context of your mentioning the HP project.” Not directly. I worked with Randall Burns who was working with Hanson. It turns out that Burns had prior experience with the Delphi method of prediction and was interested in hybridizing the approaches. Hanson was interested in helping. The code is in Perl and and since that’s my forte in terms of programming languages, and I had the only direct experience with a computerized version of the Delphi method, it was natural for me to provide technical support for a while. I don’t know what happened to that project but I believe there was to be an academic paper coauthored between Hanson and Burns. The E-speak project was HP’s bid for an “Internet Chapter 2” and I wanted the highest scoring futurist—according to the Idea Futures Exchange—on the job. He ended up being put into some obscure Java project having little to do with the future of the Internet. 31
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 23:56 | # Joshua, the short answer to him is “Yes, NE Asians are in danger.” The thing that allowed them to burn the merchant ships of the eunuch that brought Africans into China was a relatively intact body politic with an impressive implementation of eugenics—the Emperor having among the world’s largest harems in history—and all males who might come in contact with them having discarded their genitals. I see China’s achievement as what happens when more recessive types take the body politic seriously. Metrosexual castrati are for folks who don’t take civilization seriously enough to actually start sterilizing large populations leaving reproduction to the elite of elites—almost like a hive. It also left its imprint but that imprint has been throttled by Marx and now by globalism’s temptation. The West’s horizontal transmission curse is now infecting their elites and it won’t be long before they haven’t the foggiest idea what the old traditions were about. That coupled with their long-time breeding for groupism will leave around a billion people as disoriented as a eusocial insect hive deprived of its pheromone signaling. 32
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:41 | # Bowery says this, and as far as I am concerned, this says it all:
I do not believe there can be any effective action manifested at the group level sans some degree of moral rehabilitation of Nazism. The accusation of “Nazi” is absolutely crippling, the person accused of it is then transformed from a nuanced human being into a unidimentional monolith of pathology - an unperson. And as a result, the connections between individuals which are need to form a cohesive, and therefore effective group, are extirpated from jump street. Those who engage in this - and you do, you know it - do the work of the enemy for them.
The outcome of WWII has been intentionally mythologized as the founding, and morally consecrating, event of the present socio-political epoch. That is hardly my doing; but were it not so, yet it is. Even if I cease to be any longer concerned with it, it, so to speak, will not cease to be concerned with me. Nor you, as I’m sure you are aware. So another in a long line of strawmen for you, then.
That is hardly the case, everything that is said now in response to my commentary was said about Germans and Nazism before I even became aware of this site’s existence.
Then you are not interested in what is arguably decisive and will have confirmed your own irrelevance. As I stated above, you may not be interested in it, but it is interested in you. 33
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 01:05 | #
I’m sorry, but this is such an egregiously short-sighted, monumentally stupid categorical statement of what philosophy is not, except that for most of its existence it has been precisely that - in other words, the search for meaning in and the value of human existence, along with mentation directed towards establishing a basis for a hierarchy of values - that it is worth highlighting for cautionary purposes a second time. You really will say anything, throw everything against the wall to see if it will stick, just to win an argument, won’t you? What was it you said? Ah yes:
34
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 03:24 | # In this case the English didn’t sign off on the US directive JCS 1067. It was strictly an “American” affair, the leading proponents of whom were the “Morgenthau Boys” and arguably the Soviets.
According to Michael Beschloss, this was Ike’s fate after essentially being called a Hitlerite by Morgenthau. The nematode had turned the ant berry red, ready for the plucking. Ike: “The German is a beast” and “God, I hate the Germans”. 35
Posted by Blake on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 07:24 | #
James, how do you surmise their elites will behave once they don’t have “the foggiest idea what the old traditions were about”? And what do you expect this “disorientation” of around a billion people to look like? 36
Posted by Ronery Asian Guy on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:15 | #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganguro and
Yes, these things are real and yes they are signs that everyone is in danger. 37
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:16 | # Ronery, (btw is the spelling of that supposed to be the slang word “Ornery” instead? — just asking) if you’re interested in the threat that China will allow itself to become at least a little Negrified (maybe more than a little?) you might check out the following series of entries by Canadian scientist Peter Frost. (Frost specializes in the genetics and evolution of skin color, hair color, and eye color and is one of the top experts in this field.) At the first four links in the list below he prepares the groundwork by reviewing the falseness of “Lewontin’s <strike>Fallacy</strike> Jewish Communist Lie” which he says he used to believe in, and affirms that there are indeed races. Everybody who is well informed already knew that so I for one was a little puzzled when I read this series of entries as they appeared one-by-one last winter — why was he making such a point of going over this old stuff everyone already knew? — but Frost does this apparently so that he can “officially” feel on solid ground scientifically in talking later about race-replacement in the entries that follow: he’s “officially” preparing the terrain with this initial review of academic race-denial and its debunking: http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/01/cavalli-sforza-price-of-collaboration.html http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/01/richard-dawkins-price-of-collaboration.html http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/02/claude-levi-strauss-refusal-to.html http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/02/john-tooby-and-leda-cosmides-why-not.html Then Frost discusses, among other things, what happens when a significant number of men in a society can’t find wives (he’s still preparing the terrain for what will follow): http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-is-tipping-point.html Now he comes to what he’s been preparing the terrain for, his prediction that 1) China will Negrify itself and 2) no one will be able to do anything about it: http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/02/china-and-interesting-times.html http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/03/china-and-interesting-times-part-ii.html http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/03/china-and-interesting-times-part-iii.html http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/03/has-china-come-to-end-of-history.html He then goes on to predict Israel will do the same. It’s an odd series (read the comments threads too, by the way) coming from Frost who otherwise drops hints all over the place that he leans left if anything, hates racism, doesn’t object to race-mixing and looks down on those who do. In more recent entries he’s gotten back to his old form, again implying he hates racism, the whole nine yards. Maybe he’s inwardly “conflicted”? One could speculate on why he went to all that trouble to give that warning about the Negrification of China. (And clearly it was intended as a warning, not “a celebration,” to use the “liberal” lingo currently in vogue to refer to race-replacement.) I don’t agree with Frost regarding China and Israel but who knows? Also why no warning about the Eurosphere nations, given that they’re all currently Negrifying themselves at the gallop? He’s being just a little bit weird, no? I think so. But hey at least he broached an important topic (the most important of the past ten thousand years if not two million) and sounded the alarm bell. I think….... 38
Posted by PF on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:39 | # James, Someone else is thinking along the same lines as you apparently were how ever many years ago: http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_social-science.html The article is on iSteve as well. 39
Posted by PF on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:05 | # CC wrote:
LOL. OK.. let me try to answer this.. You’re interested in the moral rehabilitation of nazism? I don’t believe in morality, in the objective sense that you mention it. To me it is a largely subjective thing that changes depending on one’s perspective. It is something that only exists for the person feeling its compunction, and the society that can agree - in a stable way, over time - on certain fixed moral rules. These moral rules are never true, and never mean anything - but they are adaptive ways of interfacing with one another. Some could say they are clues to aspects of our nature, OK, but a lot of them are just social pressure, because this mechanism is overused. Get me? I don’t believe in being Right. I dont think anyone can ever do anything Right. Nothing is wrong. There are only strategic outcomes, and better or worse strategic outcomes, and then there is metaphysically non-existent shame-shading of morality. Sex? Its bad. Or: Its good, be free about it and no prude, else you’re bad. Look at how people jump up and down on the moral yo-yo mechanism. You want us to ride this mechanism to our freedom, I say this mechanism almost the source of all slavery. What am I saying, concretely? I’m saying that the demonization of Nazism as it has been accomplished, is one shining example of why all moral judgments that are enforced as if they were objectively true, fail. 1) Dont escape the laws of cause and effect What experiential validation is there, then, therefore, for the socially validated experience of being Right? You can have whatever view of Nazism you like. But our people have a certain view, many of them, to the tune of 99%. My view is that I am very skeptical. I wrote: Philosophy is not a moral inquiry office. CC replied:
And what has come of that philosophizing about what is right and wrong? Think about that, as I have for years, and you might arrive at an idea of how useless it all is. We can say whats true and whats not true - or rather, what is more or less true. We can talk about strategic objectives and strategic outcomes - the ‘is’ matrix. We can point to gradients - how to move along a truth gradient, how to move along a Being gradient towards oneself. am > is > should You are at the outer perimeter of this gradient, trapped by the ‘shoulds’ of society/your mind which you imagine dictate all men’s behavior. Some people actually do what they want, though. That is, their lives are something more than seeking to prove oneself Right and be a good boy. This indifference to the Should is a characteristic of someone who lives in ‘is’. And a person who has moments of ‘am’ is further along still. Many contributors to this blog are morally clean - that is, they live in ‘is’. Not under ‘should’. You want to reprogram society’s ‘should’ because you think this is how behavior is controlled (it is, largely). How are you ever going to do this though when you are two perceptual shifts away yourself from departing from this matrix? Eventually you will turn, just like Friedrich Braun turned, if you have any access to reality at all. What was I thinking all those years when Friedrich Braun posted post-after-post about secret Nazi memos that indicate more Allied culpability than is commonly thought? I thought: this cannot go on forever. Eventually this guy will be forced to step out of himself. It probably won’t come from political thought, which you have turned into a closed loop. When you have to move to a new city, take a new job, or when your personal or professional life experiences some jolt - and other people’s perspectives invade your life, and part of you is forced open, you will realize that tacking together justifications of nazism on the internet is not a viable enterprise. You are too afraid to grant other people’s perspectives validity because you think it will destroy your world, whereas in fact it will only destroy your world as presently structured. As I said: You need to check yourself, before you wreck yourself. Also: Talk to the hand. 40
Posted by MGLS on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:21 | #
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-45-million-irish-immigrants-became.html
Madison Grant, The Conquest of a Continent, pp. 278-279
Instauration, December 1982, “Senseless numbers from the Census”
Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, p. 571, Third Edition
Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, p. 573, Third Edition
41
Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:51 | # PF,
Interesting. I would like to know what your take is on the difference between “am” and “is”, and in what way the former is greater than the latter. Is it that awareness of self is much more difficult to obtain and speak from than awareness of external truth about the world, or is it something else? 42
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:06 | # PF, Jim Manzi’s article on experimental validation in the social sciences is about what I would expect from the Manhattan Institute when ordered to find a way to immunize the debate against ideas like those presented in ” Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society”. Note he never talks about the well-developed system of medical ethics surrounding clinical trials. Indeed, departs from medicine as soon as he possibly can, spends 90% of the remainder talking about experimental treatments conducted without the consent of the treated, and without monitoring of side-effects of the experimental treatment (for example, how is family stability over time correlated with various experimental treatments of domestic violence—and how the hell can you form a “control group” without essentially abandoning the feminist experiment?). Then he throws up his hands at the end and says its probably hopeless, so “trial and error” is the best we can hope for until biology is somehow brought into the picture but we can’t expect that to happen for decades because, well, Lewontin and Gould said only Nazis do that kind of thing, so just STFU, Bowery. My response to Sailer’s lame review posted there:
PS: Manzi was CEO of Lotus Development when Ozzie invited me to join the founding team of Lotus Notes. The Manhattan Institute is also where Gerorge Gilder was hired to essentially stop his work on the impact of feminism on family stability (“Sexual Suicide”) and start pushing for the economic destruction of the marriages hence fertility, particularly male fertility, of the mid-to-late boomers. I recall writing a very hostile letter to the Manhattan Institute when Gilder was betraying the sons of the Nation—being quite literally a proponent of anti-Patriotism. Really, I wanted to kill the slime bucket. 43
Posted by PF on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:14 | # James, Its amazing how much connected you were/are with these people and with developments in silicon valley, James. Why did you not sell-out and become a kingpin? You should write (or give me a link to if existing) an account of your times there and the change you saw. I know you wrote some detailed account that had a scene in it with you sitting in your car at night thinking about the Subcon invasion. Where is that piece? 44
Posted by PF on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:22 | # Notus Wind,
“is” is the mental is-matrix of statements about the world and oneself. “am” is the experienced (i.e. felt) reality of oneself. It is hard as an evolved human being, who by dint of discovering this very inquiry must assuredly be extremely intelligent (i.e. possess captivating mental landscapes), to get out of the ‘is’ matrix long enough to have an ‘am’ experience. But all the esoteric stuff and disciplines exists for that purpose. Michael Brown describes this in The Presence Process as interfacing with the emotional body, which determines the character of our existence to a degree that it is impossible for us to imagine initially. It determines the ‘taste’ of an experience, and it will pre-empt perceptual shifts, such as wanting to see something as bad, by initiating contractions in the chest/viscera spontaneously, which we perceive as ‘contours of reality’ (my term) that we react to with thoughts. Contractions and feelings in our body prompt habitual thought patterns in a way that we dont even realize. There is an emotional score to our life, even though it is papered over with thoughts, as if a movie is so engrossing that one fails to notice the soundtrack which determines the mood. One can totally destroy one’s thought world through deconstructive reasoning, as I have attempted to do with myself, and still perceive the throbbing and pulsing of an emotional rhythm underlying all experience. This emotional rhythm will say “misery” even if you teach yourself to acknowledge that the world is beautiful (LOL at that, for reasons unexplained). “Misery” is your ‘am’, even if “Beautiful world!” is your ‘is’. And this self-interfacing is not really possible in any moment when you are underlying the dictate of a ‘should’. 45
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:38 | # PF asks: “I know you wrote some detailed account that had a scene in it with you sitting in your car at night thinking about the Subcon invasion. Where is that piece?” I have no recollection of it. I probably did write about a programmer who committed suicide in his car after the subcons locked down the remaining jobs in Silicon Valley for themselves when the dot-con bubble burst, and the rest of us magically became “unwilling to keep up with technological trends”. I’d have to look up the name of the programmer and see if there is something I wrote naming him. 46
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:49 | # PF writers: “Why did you not sell-out and become a kingpin?” I didn’t like the smell. I have written scattered anecdotes posted to the Internet over the decades. It will be a chore but I’ll probably gather them and edit them down. People are starting to think and have not yet reached the point of blind panic… 47
Posted by A Reasonable Asian on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 22:43 | # The links in Fred’s reply comment to the Asian Guy were very, very intriguing. If things go as the author of the blog claim they will (which I frankly doubt, as the Chinese CP leadership has much more good sense than the naive Euro or US ones), I see a decline in China’s economic capability, simple because dedication and hard work are not qualities you can expect in an African. Can someone also shed light on the Indian demographic situation? I know that there is no danger of fertility loss there; on the contrary, their population continues to grow. Needless to say, the small Indian land mass (only 1/3rd of China’s size) wont be able to support them for long, and like the Africans, they are bound to proliferate around the globe too, if one follows that blog author’s line of reasoning. Will an Indian immigrant be as big an economic (and social) parasite as an African one? Going by the US experience, I would say they would definitely be preferable. Maybe Indians immigrating into China? That would do wonders for the bilateral relations between the two countries, and be a win-win situation for both countries, imo. 48
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:45 | # Hey Scrooby, you always claim that the Jews (and Israel) will not fall into the race-replacing mess that they endorse in the US and Europe. What do you think about this? http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/03/walking-to-promised-land.html 49
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:41 | # PF,
Thank you for clarifying your views here. Naively, I would have placed “am” and “is” in the opposite order on the grounds that we cannot have true knowledge of ourselves and the world if we are not consciously aware of our own reality and how its shaped (both internally and externally). On the other hand, the distinction you make between “is” and “should” I find to be absolutely compelling. 50
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 04:07 | # It was not long ago that PF was strenuously objecting to National Socialism on precisely moral grounds; him contending for the profound immorality of Adolf Hitler’s alleged view of German men as little more than cannon fodder to be used for the realization of Hitler’s grandiose vision. But now, PF is of an Olympian indifference to morality, saying for him it does not even exist. Of course, when confronted with this clear contradiction, PF will resort to his favored shell-game of claiming that he is merely viewing the matter from different perspectives and dismissively accuse his interlocutor of being too stupid and/or close-minded to follow along with his, he will claim, superior perspective de jure and mental agility. Don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t mean to accuse PF of conducting himself as little better than a piss-ant conman, but I wouldn’t be inclined to judge too harshly those who did come to that conclusion. And worth noting, Hunter Wallace is also a renowned perspectivist and man of impeachable character. 51
Posted by Cobb on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:37 | # James Bowery, Fred Scrooby seems to disagree with you and think that China won’t allow itself to be negrified. If and when their elites ‘haven’t the foggiest idea what the old traditions were about,’ how will they behave? What do you expect to see? What do you mean when you say they will be ‘disoriented’? 52
Posted by ronery asian guy on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:57 | #
The real issue here is not the sensitivities or intelligence of the PRC top echelons. It’s not even China’s economy. The real fundamental issue here is that globalism as the ultimate socio-economic system and various associated multiculturalist ideologies are being blindly adopted by Asians and other non-whites to our detriment. If you’ve read links given by Scrooby, it clearly states the China’s declining population/workforce, along with its increasing demand for raw materials necessitates that it become “global,” that it follow the Western path of transnationalist geo-economics. Closer ties with Africa, and other sources of cheap material along with lax immigration policies are economic necessities for China’s, and to some extent, Asia’s continued growth. In other words, we have to go down the same path as the West is now just to sustain our economies. Asia is in a very precarious position. We may not feel it yet, but it’s in the wind. A dwindling birth rate in many Asian countries, even the poorer ones in south east asia, like Thailand and the Philippines, means that 20 to 30 years down the line Asia will not have the workforce to support its vast economies, and given the burden of social security for the elderly it seems that we will have to import foreign laborers just as the West has. Don’t kid yourself. The figures are all there. Just go to Wikipedia and look for China, Korea and Japan’s age demographics. Or better yet, research the demographic transition model. The question now would be: Is Asia prepared to pay the same price the leaders of the West are now paying to sustain their economies? You may not think so, but given Asia’s current dependence on luxury and the corruption of many Asian leaders, including some from the PRC, I don’t think we can simply dismiss the West’s globalist ideas entering into this part of the world as a fanciful tale. If one system works for one group (the West) then it can be exported here (Asia) and to every group in the world until we’re all stuck with the same problems (like cultural deconstruction, multiculturalism and race replacement) the Western world has now.
Asian culture is actually in decline or at least in a state of corruption. Mass urbanization and global culture has destroyed the traditional Asian family, causing it to become more “Westernized” and by “Westernized” I mean adopting Western modernist and post-modernist values. Consider, for example, the current generation in China, the one child policy generation. Chinese society is based around kinship and clans. Because of rapid modernization coupled with radical changes/destruction of the traditional Chinese structure due to dwindling birth rates, Chinese society may be in a very precarious state. You can see this in the increasing nihilism and suicidal tendencies of many Chinese youths and adults. The same things hold true for Japan and Korea. Although liberal ideologies have not yet infected us, I think it’s obvious that we are still (IMO even more) vulnerable to the globalist agenda. Our social structures have all fallen apart, and given the right push, we could very well end up with the same problems as the West is now having. 53
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:26 | #
I take issue with this idea that the Western societies has used mass immigration as a policy to maintain their respective economies. To the contrary, many of us believe that mass immigration was inflicted upon Western society for reasons that are fundamentally political and not economic. Certain people, like Brimelow, have looked at the numbers and concluded that mass immigration as public policy is at best economically neutral and doesn’t confer any measurable benefits to the native born. 54
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:38 | # Cobb: Both Israel and China are in serious danger. Israel because too many Jews buy their own material that Jews are not a race, but a religion. The African Jews will see to it that particular conceit is continually brought up and they will and have been increasing antipathy between the Sephardim and Ashkenazim to ensure they—the African Jews—aren’t the focus of any residual impulse toward nationhood. China because Jews have identified China as new human ecology to exploit now that they’ve used up the West and they can’t go to China without dismantling what was left of China’s nationhood after Marx/Mao. International socialism (communism) simply paved the way for the capitalist antithesis: both extended phenotypes of “The International Jew”. China will not continue its national socialist posture. It is already breaking out of its historic imperial boundaries and taking over natural resources in Africa. That’s all she wrote for China. 55
Posted by Angry Beard on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:52 | # Ronery, 56
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:46 | # It’s unclear why ronery should be fretting about dwindling birth rates in Asia. According to the most recent (2008) middle-series World Population Projection from the UN, the five largest countries will experience population increases between 2000 and 2050 as follows: Bangladesh - 81 million China - 150 million India - 571 million Indonesia - 83 million Pakistan - 187 million
*Which figure in itself includes substantial numbers of Asian and other migrants. 57
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:05 | # That should have read: “... The increase in these five countries alone is about the same as the total projected population for the entire Eurosphere in 2050.” 58
Posted by PF on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:26 | # Here’s whats wrong with morally revamping Nazism, besides the fact that morality ‘isn’t’. (1) In short, the theory implies that if we could just win a good name for the Nazis - by explaining how their approach was justified by EGI - then we would be saved from the consequences of our intellectual position, which includes a non-recognition of our peoplehood. But multiculturalism and the liberalism in which it is gestated, has already spread to fill society much more deeply than this single reasoning process from the historical example of Nazism. Destroy the Nazi parallel - which as a meme is already fading and giving way to more ambiguous understandings as we move away from the historical high-point of its propaganda - destroy the nazi parallel and liberalism will raise another hydra-head. It will point to South Africa, or simply to its own vast body of theory about what caused historical conflict (acknowledgment of differences/territoriality/the delineation of an Other). The implications of a philosophy that is beyond good and evil is that it would - in a sense other than the one CC might be meaning - rehabilitate all historical action from imposed moral judgments, by showing them to be partial, relative and therefore not of lasting value. This would make Nazism largely irrelevant for modern whites, which is the case. It wouldn’t rescue Nazism in the positivist, teleological sense that CC might be intending. I think the most honest moral reading of Nazism is that it was highly morally ambiguous. That is a summed judgment from the totality of perspectives as I was able to sample them, and there is something honest to it. Cultivating a bubble of pro-Nazi thought ignores the mentality of our people which is a fact-on-the-ground. It also requires such perspective shielding - i.e. the dismissal of perspectives inimical to one’s own - that it is quite laborious. As a general heuristic, perspective shielding protects weak truths. If you have to protect your truth by trying to only see one view of something, while you suspect it is legitimately seen from multiple views, that truth is weak enough to merit a visit to the philosophical Tarpeian rock. I mentioned the book by Joachim Fest - and in spite of being such an interesting view of Hitler’s psychology, I noticed that it happened to be dismissed offhand by the Nazi-sympathetic readership each time I mentioned it. That is perspective shielding in action. Our people don’t live in a marginalized corner of the internet, though, they exist in the wider world. The perspective matrix that they have access to doesn’t even include Nazi-sympathetic views, and yet this purported plan would have us fill up their world with Nazi-sympathy to the point where all doubt was removed? Apparently we dont yet understand that everyone else in the world has an opinion, and also believes that they are right. Most of them are equally stodgy and self-involved. The only point-of-insertion for a philosophy being born is the upper level of the memetic lake, where the big, powerful fish leap out of the water to acquire truth. This is where thinking minds maintain themselves within a perpetual ‘teachable moment’ so that they are lastingly, or at least often, open to new perspectives and the remodelling of their is/should matrices. These fish flop back down into the water and bring back whatever they have got with them, which is conveyed to the other, smaller fish too weak to make leaps. But truths have to make it to the lake in order to be caught. This means weak truths, lacking the wings to fly, i.e. truths shielded from the analytical process by self-consolation and indulgence, never make it to the lake. Truths gestated in Romantic ideals, I will argue, are too weak fliers to make it to our lake nowadays. 59
Posted by John on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:20 | # Ronery Asian: To belabor the obvious, low birth rates in China are not by force of nature but rather by government fiat. Pensioner to worke ratio could be used as a convenient excuse, a problem in search of a solution (and has been, in the West) for Third World mass immigration. As we are more individualist in the West, they couldn’t get away with something so high-handed as dictating family size, so what we’ve gotten instead, increasingly from the 1950s on was social engineering through the media, primarily aimed at white people, discouraging large families: feminism, sexual permissiveness, promotion of homosexuality, feminising men, masculising women. Government did its part, of course: dysgenic wars, managed trade treaties, government as ersatz father aka welfare, easy divorce, community property and child support laws discouraging men from marrying, high income tax, making it difficult economically to support families, etc. And big business, primarily by offshoring manufacturing. And as Angry Beard points out, “third world immigrants to the west are actually a financial and economic liability.” 60
Posted by A Reasonable Asian on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:37 | #
Those are some scary stats, considering that three of the countries are muslim (india has a muslim ‘problem’ too) As to the breakdown in family values in China and Japan with increasing prosperity, can there be any other way? Would a Chinese man, who only recently has tasted real material prosperity, give it all up so that he could go back to the village and his traditional family life? A trade-off is unavoidable, in my opinion…even the ultra conservative arabs and persians are realising that prosperity and modernity are taking a toll on their traditional values, despite their being armed with islam, the best brain-washing tool the world has ever known.
Pardon me if I sound naive, but I was given to understand that these immigrants perform the jobs that the natives normally do not, in which case they wouldn’t exactly be a liability, would they? Their numbers should, however, be restricted. I’ve been to London several times, but have never seen a white man drive a cab. 61
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:10 | #
That would be an amazing accomplishment. Drivers of official London cabs - the so-called black cabs, although they’re often multi-hued these days - are not only probably >99% white, but also highly reactionary. The training that a licensed cab driver has to complete 9the the ‘Knowledge’ effectively rules ethnics out of the profession, as does the system by which licenses are often passed on within the family. You’re probably thinking of the so-called mini-cabs, which are often unlicensed and driven by recent immigrants many of whom may not even have a driving license. 62
Posted by John on Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:28 | # “Pardon me if I sound naive, but I was given to understand that these immigrants perform the jobs that the natives normally do not, in which case they wouldn’t exactly be a liability, would they?” You might want to look at the unemployment and social services usage rates, broken down by race (for a Western country keeps such statistics. I remember seeing rates as high as 50% for some immigrant groups in Europe. Another thing to consider is the higher crime rates and the ward costs associated with that. And perhaps some social pathologies don’t show up well on statistics but cost the hosts nonetheless. 63
Posted by Angry Beard on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 07:25 | # In a nation with a highly developed welfare state and ‘public goods’ such as the UK, and attendant high taxation to pay for it all, a certain level of income, and thus skills and productivity is needed for any individual worker actually to ‘break even’ ie over a lifetime to pay more in tax than he takes out. 64
Posted by ronery asian guy on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:45 | # This will be my last post here. I pretty much got the answers I required (thank you for the links btw). I will however point this out. Thinkers like Professor Nicholas Eberstadt and Professor Cai Fang, director of the Institute of Population and Labor Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, believe that the social and economic transformation of many developing nations, especially those in China will lead to a breakdown in social cohesiveness which will render us vulnerable to the same problems the west is facing (e.g. mass immigration and race replacement). Despite the growth of our population, it still remains clear that Japan, China, ROK and various SE Asian nations are experiencing the same decline of social cohesion the west has experienced in the past. It may not be there yet but as Fred Scrooby’s links indicated, the possibility is strong. East Asia has after all adopted many Western ideas in the past. There is a strong possibility that we may - out of increased economic dependence upon labor and product markets - eventually follow the path the west is currently taking, and that is why I am particularly interested how white advocated, white nationalists or ethno-nationalist will defeat neo-liberalism and diversity, as your successes could provide Asians with the intellectual arsenal we require if the worse does happen. 65
Posted by MarkMuses on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:48 | # @captainchaos
Indeed, where would we be today with out “Hitler”, “Nazis”, and “Holocaust”? It doesn’t bear thinking about. We must be blessed. 66
Posted by The Ontology of Granite on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:52 | # “What was I thinking all those years when Friedrich Braun posted post-after-post about secret Nazi memos that indicate more Allied culpability than is commonly thought? I thought: this cannot go on forever. Eventually this guy will be forced to step out of himself.” “I mentioned the book by Joachim Fest - and in spite of being such an interesting view of Hitler’s psychology, I noticed that it happened to be dismissed offhand by the Nazi-sympathetic readership each time I mentioned it. That is perspective shielding in action.” I know that most of the more perspective people have stopped coming here, wearied by the sterility and hypocrisy of certain Anglo-centric fellows, and thus are no longer around to point out the gaping holes in everything said Anglo-centrics write, but have the contradictions in their various statements really become this blatant?
67
Posted by The Ontology of Granite on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:57 | # The surname of the famous American basketball player and seemingly polished public speaker Michael J. was replaced by hash symbols when I submitted the comment. Clearly some type of allegory can be drawn. 68
Posted by PF on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:25 | # Granite:
Whats the contradiction? That I shield myself from memos about Allied culpability in the same way that posters here shield themselves from intensive examinations of Hitler’s psychology? I read those memos. Only the issue of allied culpability is a nullity for me, since to me this web of cause and effect is obviously too complex to resolve into a narrative of blame placed upon a single actor. I know both sides caused it. But then I read the Hitlerreden, the speeches, and it becomes clear which side had a huge part in instigating this conflict. I’ll give you a clue. Its the side which was dominated by a personality cult around an eccentric loner whose catch-phrase was “World-Power or Downfall”. Thats the side with the most clearly visible causal role in instigating the war. It doesnt matter whether I resolve the “blame” 40/60, 30/70, 90/10, or 50/50. Even to know that Germany bears partial responsibility is to invite a critique of nazism. I am really wasting precious time participating in this debate. 69
Posted by verdi on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:27 | # @MarkMuses My small Italian town was overrun by Albanians. Most Italians left. My family couldn’t afford to leave. My mother told us to always walk with dignity, that we had a culture and heritage to be proud of, and that if we could just work with our remaining cousins we could form a group that could withstand the onslaught we were suffering day in and day out and perhaps, someday, have our town back. Last year the Albanians raped and killed her. Our life became even harder than it was. To this day in our town, some of the Albanians mock her memory for thinking she, and we, were in any way better than them. I now hate my mother. It’s her fault the Albanians continue to beat my siblings and me. Like my cousins say, it’s because of her we’ll never get our town back. 70
Posted by PF on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:45 | # completing the thought… um den kries zu schleissen…. PF wrote:
The discussion of culpability is relevant for one side of the argument but not for the other. People who are skeptical of fascism are not arguing that British actions in the 20s and 30s and 40s were somehow beautiful, morally perfect, or even very clever. They could have been wrong and misguided in all sorts of ways. Its a fucking disaster for all I know. But there is no priviledged position accorded the antics of the British government in those years whatsoever in our thinking. We dont wish to bring our people back to the political policies of the 30s and 40s and pin the future of our existence on the system as it existed then. Advocates of Nazism are, however, trying to argue that their system was beyond culpability and/or strategic weakness. They are trying to bring our people back to the political policies of the 30s and 40s and pin the future of our existence on them. So this discussion of culpability really has a completely different meaning for both sides. 71
Posted by The Ontology of Granite on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:16 | # “Whats the contradiction? That I shield myself from memos about Allied culpability in the same way that posters here shield themselves from intensive examinations of Hitler’s psychology?” LOLOLOL. Little boy, outside the echoing caverns of your lonely head, there is a chasm of difference between historical documentation and “psychological” assessments of individuals. If I were to gather all the tedium you’ve coughed up here over the years and reconstitute it and redistribute it filtered through my own worldview, I’d paint a picture of a verbose and confused lapdog type looking for a father figure and a racial identity, enormously opinionated and enormously ignorant. But if your mom was the one dishing out the descriptions she’d probably state something very different. So who’s right? To some, I am. To others, your mother would be. When you finally turn your Fest book into the library - it’s long overdue, don’t you think - go to the section dealing with the subject you bring up a lot but bizarrely seem to know nothing about, Psychology. After you’ve spent some of your time - and like you say, I know your time is precious, based on how much you seem to worthily spend on this website - studying aspects of human cognition rooted in beliefs, attitudes, values, and the like, perhaps you can come back here in seven years and tell the nine readers why a “psychological” portrait of a man like Hitler would vary from writer to writer, era to era, social clime to social clime, and thus any definitive and all-encompassing psychological description equally valid to all people is, in the end, impossible. You are now free to return to youtube video watching and thinking thoughts about “what you are” in order to fend off the forces of entropy. 72
Posted by PF on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:43 | # Granite wrote:
LOL right back at you. Are you saying all perspectives are equally valid and contain equal information value? I mean, do you assert that you know as much about me as my mother does, for example? It would be pretty amazing if you did. Fest’s description of Hitler’s psychology go right to the source - his own writings. Whenever he wants to make a statement about Hitler, he usually likes to use Hitler’s own words to emphasize it! There is very little wiggle-room, and you can imagine this impressed me quite a great deal. If you write a book about me using clippings from my journals, things I’ve said, things I’ve posted on blogs, and a description of how I interacted with each of the people who played important roles - I would have to confess that you have pretty deep knowledge of my persona. Then your psychological sketch of me might have some value. As is, I just don’t see it. I’m obsessed enough with self-knowledge to mine whatever you say about me for descriptive value, but I just don’t see it. A lapdog type? I can’t say many who know me will validate that one.
Clearly any claims on being definitive and all-encompassing are out the window immediately. Thats the nature of human knowledge and you’re bringing it up here is asking for more wiggle room and/or prompting your opponent to offer a perfect description, which we both know is impossible. Is Hitler a social construct? Can nothing be concretely known about him? A real relativism doesn’t just switch on when your idols are under inspection, it holds true for all knowledge and since I’m not making absolute claims, its irrelevant. I claim not to be correct, but to be more correct than you. Not to contain absolute information, but to contain more information than you. There are gradients of truth, which we can move up or down. An exhaustive biography like Fest’s is closer to the truth than many other things that could be written. Certainly its closer than anything that is going to be born out of a viewpoint that refuses to acknowledge Fest on the basis of “all perspectives being equally valid” and “nothing being perfect”, i.e. perspectival shielding based in relativism. Anything else to say about me, besides the fact that I write like Michael Jordan and am seeking a father figure while being an enormously ignorant “lapdog”? 73
Posted by uh on Thu, 05 Aug 2010 22:37 | # That was a very weird & upsetting bit from “verdi”. Why do you hate your mother if, as it seems to me, she tried to instill in you a faith in your racial identity and so strengthen your bearing, a courageous enterprise for which she was brutally martyred? You and your cousins are the worst traitors—your politicians have betrayed your land, but YOU have betrayed your family. Instead of taking pride in your mother, you come here and tell us you “hate” her, and whine that you agree with your no doubt brave & brilliant “cousins” that she’s made life harder for you. Guess what? You deserve it, because Albanians have destroyed your land and folk, and there should be no rest in you until you give those Albanians a turn they’ll understand or go to your grave. Trust me, there will be “cousins” to come to settle into a life of disinheritance and effaced identity. Unless you’re one of those ugly multicult types actually crowing about your love of disinheritance and the death of peoples. In which case, may those Albanians meet a similar fate upon you. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Struggle for Struggle-Cred
|
|
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 PF on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:11 | #
Third line contains ugly pagination at ‘what are we?’