|
|
|
Money and the blame game The fact is, I am not noticeably impoverished. I have a house and a bit of land, a business, cars, a few sticks of old furniture, young wine in the cellar, no debt and money in the bank. I don’t know why, because I haven’t done what you would call a decent day’s work since I was sorting bedsheets and theatre gowns in East Dulwich Hospital Laundry, aged 18. Maybe life’s unfair like that. Maybe it’s a mistake to go off and do the uni thing, I don’t know. But is it wrong? Is it morally wrong and spiritually - even racially - debilitating to graze the sweet meadows of middle-class life? Are the bourgoies, as people who juice oranges and read French novels like to call us, to be despised for wringing some solace out of liberal capitalism? Well, I hope not. But this afternoon Tom Sunic circularised me with his his latest piece for Occidental Observer, and I’m beginning to wonder. Specifically, I’m wondering how we creatures of modernity are supposed to be other than what we are. I’m wondering what demands can realistically be placed upon mere men. Tom’s article sways between a high-critique of the banking equivalent of “money in furs” and perfectly ordinary white people who “live on credit in their petty little niche with their petty little pleasures and without incurring any risks”. Well, Tom has been in my home and knows the shameful truth! Here are some extracts from his article:-
Well, I don’t know. I can’t find it in myself to blame people guilty of no more than living lives of their time. I can’t morally separate men and women who live destructively in a destructive age from those who practise virtue in a time filled with life. Human virtue belongs to those who pay the price for it, not those who have it all around them like free jam. It is an impossible demand that people should withdraw from the vast and subtle power that formed them. They do not know that they are not free, do not know the historical meaning of their lives. And if they did, there is precious little they could do about it as individual cogs in the system. A cry of “Renounce modernity” would meet with disappearingly few takers. Post-Milgram, post-Stanford, we can’t really revile the young men on the trading floors and the exchanges who put the house - our house - on an all or nothing bet on greed, and lost. They, too, are products of the temporal forces that shape us all. Very annoying products, of course. But only their role is immoral. They themselves are nothing but what they were been made into long before they ventured into the City or on Wall Street. In the end, it is up to us, the ones who think in the historical and claim the right to critique the world, to free them. That’s one stage further than Tom takes us in his article. And that’s what I really want to hear from him. I wonder if I can tempt him onto the thread to transmute the usual OO commentary into some MR creativity? Comments:2
Posted by Bill on Thu, 14 May 2009 07:39 | # From Hunter Gatherer to wine in the cellar and ride on lawn mowers, all in less than a blink of an eye. It wasn’t meant to be like this, modernity is a head fake due to fossil fuel discovery. We’re heading back from whence we came. Hmm, where did I last see that spear? 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 May 2009 11:16 | # James, I’m still making the case for ontology here. Tom, like most European thinkers, is forced to develop a critique of the manifest because, ultimately, his politics relies upon movement towards a human ideal. That is the nature of his revolution. Mine makes its distinctions at the level of what is and is not. It recognises the unchanging nature of European Man and the formative power of social culture, before which we are so substantially passive. It distrusts teleology as a maker of illusions and a likely producer of negative results. It seems to me that, intrinsically, Elizabeth Warren’s critique of the war on the white middle-class accords with the ontological view. She moves the focus away from white middle-class venality and towards a victimhood to circumstance. I would claim, James, that in supporting her analysis you are ostensibly favouring the ontological - without, of course, necessarily making the further distinctions of nature and nurture. Then the question becomes one of whether political action this very day to support the white middle-class victim has lasting value, if the wider social culture is still enthroned. In other words, where do you make your revolution? Now, and hope for isostasy, or later when the culture, which is (judaised) liberalism, can be challenged. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 May 2009 14:13 | #
GW, you say it isn’t just race-replacement but there’s a whole matrix of false philosophy, bad philosophy, we’ve been embedded in since whenever, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the English Revolution, that we have to overturn first otherwise whatever we do to get out of this mess won’t stick. All I can say is I hope your instincts in regard to the need to “first get the philosophy straight” are sound. I for one am no good at philosophy, so I don’t follow all this “ontology” stuff exactly. Again, from my point of view the other side didn’t cite any “new philosophy” as justification for race-replacing us, they just went ahead (without ever once properly consulting us), so to undo it we wouldn’t appear to require a “whole new philosophy” — just undo it on the basis of whatever philosophy was out there when they decided to do it, Plato, Kant, whoever, only emphasizing the proper interpretation of that philosophy, not the twisted version they would have invoked if challenged. I suspect that with the undoing of what they’ve forced on us will naturally come whatever “philosophy” is needed, which will get stated explicitly or implicitly step-by-step as the thing is undone and the world is made whole again: in fact, what “philosophy” will be invoked will simply be the old philosophies that have always existed but never yet, since this mess began, been invoked in their right ways to defend our point of view, as they ought to have been. And that includes the philosophy that has always been inherent in Christianity: nothing in that says that to be a good Christian you have to submit to the genocide of your race by race-replacement immigration together with all these “non-discrimination” “non-hate” laws that guarantee the replacement of your race the minute the strangers have so much as landed on your shores. They don’t even have to do anything: once they’re merely there, they get precedence over you thanks to these laws, and your side’s chances of survival are taken away, simple as that. Nothing in Christianity demands Christian submission to that, yet those details of it saying so have never been openly emphasized since this mess began. In other words, to undo the crap you don’t need a whole new Christianity and I don’t see why you need a whole new “philosophy,” just proper application, for once, of that which has always existed while you get on with the job of undoing the crap. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 May 2009 15:19 | # Fred, you say it isn’t just race-replacement but there’s a whole matrix of false philosophy, bad philosophy, we’ve been embedded in since whenever, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the English Revolution, that we have to overturn first otherwise whatever we do to get out of this mess won’t stick. In a nutshell, classical liberalism is securalised Christianity, and Christianity is universalised Judaism. Obviously that’s trite, but it will serve to explain why liberalism makes such a hospitable environment for secular Jews to perform their version of tikkun olam. the other side didn’t cite any “new philosophy” as justification for race-replacing us Of course they do. All the time. The entire process is justified by the rubric of liberty - ours as much as our race-replacers. we wouldn’t appear to require a “whole new philosophy” — just undo it on the basis of whatever philosophy was out there when they decided to do it, Plato, Kant, whoever, only emphasizing the proper interpretation of that philosophy, not the twisted version they would have invoked if challenged. There wasn’t any non-mythic, non-religious thought out there between the Roman Stoics and Descartes. I suspect that with the undoing of what they’ve forced on us will naturally come whatever “philosophy” is needed The “undoing” will be done by blind men, then. in fact, what “philosophy” will be invoked will simply be the old philosophies that have always existed but never yet, since this mess began, been invoked in their right ways to defend our point of view, as they ought to have been. Nothing formal existed, Fred. And if it had, the appeal of it today would only be anti-modernist and likely silent on the National Question. And that includes the philosophy that has always been inherent in Christianity Christianity can regain its equilibrium only by dispatching its errant child - and then it might not. 6
Posted by GenoType on Thu, 14 May 2009 17:21 | # Excellent article by Tom Sunic. Human moral “reality” has always had sloth, greed, conceit, cowardice, and deception at its foundation. Western civilization owes much of its existence to the impoverished Socrates, the soldier and teacher who refused payment for his services, and Plato, the wrestler who believed in balancing physical training with skill acquisition and intellectual development. These men broke from the norm, physically tested themselves, and served. Today’s egoist citing “The Virtue of Selfishness” and “Free to Choose” to justify economic theft, personal moral failings, and physical softness neither tests himself nor serves. He is unfit to follow, much less lead. Unfortunately the article Money Talks will go over like a lead brick with the majority of today’s racialists. As a group we are morally unequipped and too financially dependent upon liberal capitalism to effectively oppose it, much less create something different. That is why we are limited to blabbing about race on the fringe of cyberspace, whining about our racial competitors’ “unfair” tactics, praying for liberation through the unfolding of some natural or economic disaster (or military coup), being surprised as the perimeter continues to close upon us, and blaming the eternal enemy for our weakness and failures as individuals and as a group. Nevertheless, in my opinion, something different from liberal capitalism can be created in which a large number of the American working- and lower middle-classes would be receptive. Look to intentional communities. Look to alternative energy, production, and distribution. Look to various forms of barter and local currency. Google “distributivism” and “distributism.” Couple these to intra-community relationships, inter-community collaboration and networking, economic and political independence, moral self-examination, service, and free association. These ideas interest many people. We should be ashamed for not having pursued them decades ago. The world’s non-doing complainers of all stripes are foundationally conservative. What we need is an audience comprised of doers. Perhaps Tom Sunic is interested in finding them. If so, then more power to him. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 May 2009 17:44 | #
But you seem to be the biggest non-doing complainer around here, GT. In the time you spend hanging around here complaining about “easy online racialism” (a meaningless expression) you could have started fifty microcommunities. What are you hanging around here for complaining when there’s boots-on-the-ground work to be done out there in the real world and universal machine-tool milling machines to be operated? You’re acting like an easy-money armchair easy online racialist complainer-non-doer, GT.
Good, how soon can you get started, GT? With your boots-on-the-ground hands-on willing-to-get-his-hands-dirty know-how you should have had something up and running long ago. What’s holding things up? Are you hanging around here too much with the rich trust-funders, the 35-year-old Wall Street retirees, the easy money racialists and the easy-online racialists? Get to work! 8
Posted by WN Activist/Hedge Fund Advisor on Thu, 14 May 2009 17:45 | # Brilliant. The nod of sympathy (?) extended to young professionals working in the belly of the beast is well appreciated. Thanks and well done, GW. This is why I keep reading MR. 10
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 14 May 2009 17:59 | # GW writes: I would claim, James, that in supporting her analysis you are ostensibly favouring the ontological - without, of course, necessarily making the further distinctions of nature and nurture. If by the “ontological” you mean putting a high priority on the descriptive—“what is”—then I think your use of “ontological” is essentially the same as my use of “science”. But one thing to keep in mind: Not even science is value-neutral because it depends on what we observe and what we observe cannot be divorced from our choices—specifically our choices of where to look. In that respect, we might thank guys like Sunic (and, presently, GenoType) for reminding us of where to look—but what I object to is the polemic tone taken with regard to people who really are hamstrung, not by any lack of cajoling, but by necessities growing out of their ignorance; their “blindness” to use your metaphor. If people are wandering around cautiously and fearfully, perhaps it is not so much because they are cowards, slothful or self-indulgent as they are metaphorically in this position:
Polemical cries at man in such a position make more sense as a torture technique than as bootcamp discipline. 11
Posted by GenoType on Thu, 14 May 2009 18:11 | #
A better metaphor for the egoist, in my opinion, is this: 12
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 14 May 2009 18:18 | # I’m not seeing the middle class families described by Elizabeth Warren, and myself—the bulk of our middle class people—as “egoists”. The “egoists” don’t become a serious factor until you get into the upper 10% bracket of net asset holders. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 May 2009 18:29 | # Geno Type, I strongly suspect that this “masculine will to be tested” is really just mate competition. That definitely hasn’t gone away. It has been channelled, for the most part, into sport and business and other forms of male competitive tendering. Certainly before the late Middle Ages in Europe it was indulged solely for warfare, and had no moral or social connotation. But if you want to test yourself in a fit of private virtue, I’m afraid the broadsword and charger are out. You might join a heavy gym (let me know when you can 6-rep a 180k deadlift). If you really have to face risk you could sink some cash into a circuit-racer. Make it a fast one. And if you really must kill some mother’s son in armed single combat so every morning you can look at yourself with manly satisfaction in the bathroom mirror, join the army and go hunting for JR’s local Mossad sniper. Be sure to pinch his gun-camera afterwards. When you’ve done all that, let us know whether these still look like spiritual paths to the ubermensch. They aren’t. There is no ubermensch. There is only enculturation and personality. All the rest is fantasy, albeit sometimes a compelling one. Google “distributivism” and “distributism.” Altogether more sensible and deliverable than distributism. What we need is an audience comprised of doers. Well, quite. But what will they do? And why? There are doers, of course. The BNP is filling up nicely with them. But do any of them actually know what it is they are really engaged upon doing? Not to my knowledge. 14
Posted by GenoType on Thu, 14 May 2009 19:33 | # GW, Socrates was both soldier and teacher. Unlike ESPN, Plato the wrestler sought balance: physical training, skill acquisition, and intellectual development. Both men served. Both were tested physically - the skillful application of strength, dexterity, stamina - and intellectually. Plato encouraged balance to promote the survival of nation and state, one positive effect of which is some measure of choice in mate selection. Rightists linking race preservation to the ethics of liberal capitalism neutralize genuine opposition to the regime. Some are foundationally conservative (slothful, greedy, conceited, cowardly, and deceptive). Others are ignorant or just plain dumb. Effectively, both types are allied with the eternal enemy despite reams of word tonnage to the contrary. Here’s another metaphor for liberal capitalism:
I have nothing more to say at this time. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 14 May 2009 20:58 | #
I don’t know whether to laugh or to weep tears of joy. 16
Posted by q on Thu, 14 May 2009 21:50 | # Here’s a good companion article to Sunic’s:
17
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 May 2009 22:24 | # James, “Science” might translate across to my secondary meaning of “being”. But the primary meaning of “subsistent Nature” surely escapes it. Polemical cries at man in such a position make more sense as a torture technique than as bootcamp discipline. I think the bootcamp mentality, and a great deal of the belief in “doers”, is the voice of the proto-American individualist ... self-reliance as ceasura ... pride as consolation. There are good things to be said about the American individual. But let us not pretend that he is other than a barrier - yet another barrier - to White American group belonging. GenoType, The economic model needs to be scaled at least so as to deliver progress at a macro-group level. I don’t mean the progress which is a cardinal value of classical liberalism, but that striving for security and control and betterment which is inevitable with intelligent, cold-climate evolved peoples. If it does not do this, it is not an economic model of value to Europeans. Does that make me a rightist? I don’t know. WN Activist/Hedge Fund Advisor The nod of sympathy (?) extended to young professionals working in the belly of the beast Yes, I claim the money-obsessed, and the politically hostile, the criminal, the infirm, working girls and their punters, union members, county ladies, old soldiers, liberal priests, winos, the homeless, heroin addicts, football fans, the Costa crowd ... I claim them all. Does that make me a leftist, I wonder. 18
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 14 May 2009 23:43 | # It is racially debilitating because your wealth is accrued and protected by a centralised state and thus relinquishes you of the responsibility to provide for kinship. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Germanic tribes of Western Europe relied on the protection of their kin or extended family to guard against attack or famine. It was the sole intent of the Roman Church and the aristocracy to undermine the extended family relationship in order to free obligations to collateral kin. Embracing individualism in exchange for state protection reduces the cost of the obligations you would otherwise bare for the protection of an extended kinship.
It’s not the individual that is the barrier, but the acceptance by the individual that the state will accept the burden s/he would otherwise bare for the protection of kin. American individualism and the pride in self-reliance, the desire to see small communities of extended kin be self-responsible for the protection of their extended family will enable greater tribal/ethnic awareness. American individualism is only a barrier to statists, not to the ethnocentric. The historical record is clear. The South by far the most individualistic, was also the most racially aware. Why was the Roman Church and the aristocracy able to convert the Germanic tribes to a reliance on the state versus extended family? It may be because the nature of evolution in a cold climate provided an evolutionary basis for such a transfer. 19
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 15 May 2009 00:53 | # I have a feeling that GT would prefer outright National Socialism, if he thought it could be achieved; he was in the National Alliance after all. I guess he has down-scaled his hopes to a Hezbollah style insurgency. He’d probably have no compunction with personally putting - at least some selected egregious - race-traitors and Jews up against the wall and pulling the trigger. Neither would I, btw. They deserve it. Most Whites I talk to about race, no holds barred, pretty much agree. They just don’t have the brains or the stones to do anything about it. 20
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 15 May 2009 02:57 | # From this article you can see that the objective cognitive/ emotional content driving the Jewish liberal politics are (on average) as pathetic as ours, a few simple maxims. It has been corroborated elsewhere, directly and indirectly. No conspiracies. No extreme inhuman evil. No complex and vast plans. Some residue pompousness, distrust, hatred and fear from the Talmud /Jewish culture. Etc. But, if their maxims, complemented with certain propensities, are put against our comparable, it will first create problems to us and then later to the Jews, and thus the conflict of interests. When we create immunity against such, the conflict with the Jews will attenuate considerably and for practical purposes, will cease to exist. Our effect on the Jews is limited, and on us, maximum. We are the center of our goals and purposes. If we change others, the results are vague and precarious, out of our control. We control for the most part what we create for us and in us. Thus the natural choice is to direct almost all of our efforts to changing us. This has correspondence in the Bible. The Jewish prophets of old Testament didn’t blame for the most part those nations or leaders that attacked Israel or Jews, but the Jews themselves. They framed the situation in such a way that the attacks were punishments from God, because the Jews didn’t follow the rules and laws of Judaism or didn’t do it enough or properly. This same method was applied to diseases, droughts, famines, etc. This created an intense loops in the minds of the Jews. Every adversity strentghtened their religion and rules, and their ethnic group, and created more endurance to them. This then changed their interpretation of adversities. Loops became mostly self-strenghtening. When there was no present adversities, the prophets predicted them. We could create comparable logical frames and loops to almost all our adversities. Everything bad happens to Europeans because we are not pro-European and ethnocentric. It is logically just that bad happens to us. We must change towards those principles or else it will continue and become worse still. We must have pro-European and ethnocentric rules. As a Christian, I interpret our troubles as a punishment from God, and this could be used with Christians, but always supplemented with sound logic. http://www.vdare.com/cleburne/090501_lukeford.htm “Steinlight says: “I spend a lot of time in shuls because I speak about immigration to Jews. I spend a lot of Shabboses in shuls. It ended up being part of the job…I find myself amused when I go speak at synagogues, particularly Reform synagogues, when my worst antagonist is invariably the rabbi who will often interrupt what I’m saying and will jump on me and who has only three things to say — we were immigrants, he will tear Leviticus 19:33 totally out of context, and then say that anyone who disagrees with him is a nativist. And then he’s finished because he has nothing else to say. “Leviticus 19:33: ‘You shall love the stranger.’… What’s really being said here? What’s the translation? What else does the Torah say? That wasn’t a charter of independence for people dwelling among them. One law for everybody. You better conform to our laws. If you put up idols, we will stone you. If you want to become one of us, you have to undergo circumcision. It’s saying that if you dwell among us, you have to obey our laws….”” Genotype: “Unfortunately the article Money Talks will go over like a lead brick with the majority of today’s racialists. As a group we are morally unequipped and too financially dependent upon liberal capitalism to effectively oppose it, much less create something different. That is why we are limited to blabbing about race on the fringe of cyberspace, whining about our racial competitors’ “unfair” tactics, praying for liberation through the unfolding of some natural or economic disaster (or military coup), being surprised as the perimeter continues to close upon us, and blaming the eternal enemy for our weakness and failures as individuals and as a group. Nevertheless, in my opinion, something different from liberal capitalism can be created in which a large number of the American working- and lower middle-classes would be receptive. Look to intentional communities. Look to alternative energy, production, and distribution. Look to various forms of barter and local currency. Google “distributivism” and “distributism.” Couple these to intra-community relationships, inter-community collaboration and networking, economic and political independence, moral self-examination, service, and free association. These ideas interest many people. We should be ashamed for not having pursued them decades ago. - I couldn’t agree more and these could be offered as far as upper middle classes. My modest hope is that Fred and you could find a way to settle your differences. Mutual friendly language could facilitate this. These things are too important to sink with quarrelling. “The economic model needs to be scaled at least so as to deliver progress at a macro-group level. I don’t mean the progress which is a cardinal value of classical liberalism, but that striving for security and control and betterment which is inevitable with intelligent, cold-climate evolved peoples. If it does not do this, it is not an economic model of value to Europeans.” - No, old chap. At first we shouldn’t worry about economic macro-level. The local economies are meant to be complementary to macro level economies, to create more resources to us, to create a fallback position to us if somebody tries to dominate and dictate us with work and dollars, to protect us in times of economic depression and to enable us to take greater risks in businesses and such with more safety. We can switch between local and macro-level or use them simultaneously as needed. We are not then dependent on liberal capitalism and internationalism, the target of their negative externalities or the victim of their internal colonization. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 15 May 2009 04:50 | # Finn you’re right of course that we have to make ourselves invulnerable to Jewish attack, not plead with the Jews to stop attacking us. But you can’t defend against attack without knowing who’s doing the attacking. Knowing who’s doing the attacking isn’t the same as pleading with him to stop, it’s merely knowing who he is, getting that important information straight. Finland wouldn’t have mounted a strong defense in the Winter War if the identity of the attacker (Soviet Russia) had been kept from the Finnish people. The U.S. wouldn’t have mounted a strong defense in the war against Japan if the identity of the attacker of Pearl Harbor had been kept from the American people. Euros won’t be able to mount an effective defense against the current Jewish race-replacemnet onslaught if they don’t know whom they’re fighting. Talking about the Jewish role amounts simply to identifying the attacker’s identity. It’s not asking the Jews to stop: we know they’ll never stop. 22
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 15 May 2009 06:19 | # Fred, naming e.g. those who support and enable immigration policy is of course inevitable, although it is important how it is said. Still, there are huge number of different persons and numerous different ethnicities. More important to us is to recognize all those universal properties against which we need immunity and/or have to resist. Somebody supports immigration policy? Oppose, whether Turk, French or Nigerian. Somebody tries to dominate you, whatever the method? Oppose, whether Scotch, Indian or Chinese. If some ethnicity has greater likelihood to do something that must be opposed and uses deceptive methods, then add this information to general recognition information. You can compare this to Jews. They oppose those general factors they see necessary to oppose, whether Jewish, Irish or Italian, although their threshold to oppose Jews is generally higher. But if a Jew persist in doing what they oppose, they might oppose him more than non-Jews. 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 15 May 2009 15:14 | # Finn, comrade, I agree with you and so does everyone here. But I suspect you don’t see how preponderant is the Jewish influence, since in Finland and surrounding countries you see mostly Euros doing it, not mostly Jews. The center of the Jewish influence is the States because here the Jewish population, some six million strong, is big enough to furnish plenty of Jews to get into everything and influence or outright control everything. They’re all over the place here, government, the legal profession, journalism, Hollywood, the universities, publishing, the mass media, everywhere — and what they touch they influence in the direction of open borders and race-replacement almost without exception. You in Europe are race-replacing yourselves in large part because the very heavily Jewish-influenced United States both influences you and coerces you similarly to the way Moscow (also heavily Jewish-influenced) both influenced and coerced its Eastern European “satellite” countries from 1945 to 1990, and also, in the specific cases of Britain and France, because of home-grown Jews. Jews everywhere in Eurodom, from Australia to you-name-it, push for open borders, legal subordination of Euros to non-white immigrants (i.e., the legal enthronement of non-whites as whites’ new overlords), and race-replacement genocide of the Euro peoples. One purpose of pointing that out explicitly isn’t to “plead with Jews to stop doing it,” but to get Euro people to see it’s not happening by itself and it’s not Euros doing it to themselves, so they’ll be more likely to question it and oppose it. Of course I’d LOVE for Jews to stop, but that’s not why I often post comments citing their role. I post those comments to expose their role to Euros. As you know, many strong opponents of race-replacement, such as Lawrence Auster, Ian Jobling, and Constantin von Hoffmeister, deny what I’ve just said about major Jewish influence. The above is my view, shared by many opponents of race-replacement and denied by many opponents of race-replacement. You know all that as well, of course. I’ll sum up: I see Jews as, let’s say, something like 85% of the problem, you see Jews as something like, let’s say, 10% or 15% of the problem. Therefore you don’t agree with any need to expose their role, and you would concentrate much more on the role of Euros. But you can appreciate my tendency to dwell on their role, knowing now, as I’ve just explained, the importance I ascribe to it. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 15 May 2009 15:18 | #
Therefore you don’t agree with any great need to expose their role (you do agree with a need to expose it, but not a great need and you don’t see a good reason to dwell on it to the extent I and some others do) 25
Posted by Valerian on Fri, 15 May 2009 20:09 | # Working in retail, I’m a fairly good witness to the day-to-day operations of neoliberalism and behaviors that capitalism has spawned. Anyone that has worked in a corporation or a fairly large work place can attest to the struggle and the conflict that’s inherent in a capitalist system. People at work for the most part do not look at each other as united under a transcendental order or as a racial organism; people are in competition with one another and they foment suspicion among one another. There is no unified structure in the work place that everyone has a direction to go through because liberalism creates “individuals” that only go to work as a means of survival with no forethought to the other man next to them and in the end creates strife and mis-communication between peoples. The “temporal forces” of the capitalist order, to use GW’s terminology, has created a man that only looks to his own survival, his own selfish whims and thoughts, and his own dreams that appear in that person’s behavior knowingly to that person or unknowingly. The stupid part is that this “capitalist man” doesn’t realize that he is perpetuating his own reality onto others and other people with similar attitudes push their reality onto him. It creates that situation that Darwin called “the survival of the fittest” and man in turn becomes no different then a beast that looks to bare survival in the environment that beast is in. The capitalist order creates beasts out of what should be men. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 May 2009 23:58 | # Valerian, All that you say is true. But capitalism is only one part of it. Abstract the formational principle and apply it to the totality. What name shall we give this? Liberalism is not quite it - more a sidelight shining on it, a way of placing it politically and philosophically in its historical context. Modernity, then? Perhaps. In any event, we are talking here about the sum of everything “out there” that forms and informs us. The process isn’t peculiar to our time, of course. We merely have to struggle with something very, very toxic. Our forefathers did not. This - not the race issue, not genetic interests, not love of kind, none of that - is the reason we are anti-liberals. Our work is to re-form the formative totality, to filter from it all that is harmful and replace it with the vivifying. This is why philosophy matters, and why the idea that a white world minus Jews and invaders will automatically self-repair is wrong. Why, precisely? Being transcends the common business of living in the world, and cannot live in the world, cannot solve the problem of Time and Continuity, of making adaptive choices - that’s the work of what is formed. This is not a conscious agent, however - that’s the most remarkable thing about it. It exists in and functions through the evolved thinking, emotional and sensatory media quite mechanistically. Consciousness is something we impute to ourselves - again for evolutionary reasons. A sense of the solid self offers a fitness gain (pressages survival). Real consciousness may be possible, but it is not the business of a politicist like me to venture there. All that we have is intelligence and, to a degree, intentionality. These are our only tools. Now, mechanicity means that things just happen. There is no internal guidance system, absolutely nothing productive of straight lines. Everything is subject to the hazard of the external. Left to itself, that Jew-free white society will proceed like any pilotless vessel, directionless and disorganised, subject to the evolution and involution of all its constituent parts, confounding all the expectations of those who desire the restoration of Nature’s order. Are white men capable of intellectualising and initiating the return to that order? Not if they are so fascinated by the Jew or the left or the power elite or capitalism as to limit themselves to singular causation. But look how they do, here and everywhere! 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 16 May 2009 15:59 | # Silver has commented on a new piece by Edmund Connelly over at TheOccidentalObserver.net. The Connelly piece, which apportions a large part of the blame for what’s happening to those who control the media, is here: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Visual.html . I agree with Connelly totally. Silver says no, and gives his own view of why every single white man, woman, child, and old person on the planet is, at the present moment, being forcibly changed by government into a Negro:
To repeat, I agree with Connelly totally. 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 16 May 2009 16:13 | # Imagine a group, be it a herd of animals, a school of fish, a group of people, whatever, relying on warning signals to react appropriately when danger approaches. Imagine someone or something that prevents that warning signal from going off or keeps it from being heard by the members of the group. That’s exactly what those who control our mass media are doing with respect to the demographic crisis. (Yes, their control over the internet is less but that’s not a mass medium, and furthermore, in Europe the overlords do control the internet a lot more than here.) Those who control the mass media also (apart from preventing the sounding of the alarm or ensuring it’s not heard when sounded) actively propagandize in favor of the approaching danger, not just disarming the “herd” against it but persuading them to actively welcome it. The ones who control our mass media are the Jews. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 16 May 2009 16:52 | # Just to finish my thought: I posted the above with Finn’s comment in mind.
No. Only the Jews control the mass media here. Ted Turner was a bit of competition for a few years and got completely rolled by the Jews in their take-over of CNN. He himself says he never expected the tricks they pulled on him and ended up in a position far inferior to that which he wanted to end up in or expected to end up in. And Ted Turner was no “babe in the woods.” But against the Jews he was. And there’s Rupert Murdoch but apparently whether he’s Jewish or not is questioned. So there’s not “a huge number of different ethnicities we’re dealing with” as regards mass media control and the pushing of open borders (and the subordination of whites to non-whites) by the mass media, it’s essentially just the Jews. You saw the “Oligarchs” phenomenon in Putin’s Russia, where there were eight “Oligarchs” I think the number was, eight, who owned, controlled, and ran everything in the post-Soviet Russia? Remember that? Seven of the eight were Jews. Well, it’s the same with control of the U.S. mass media: it’s controlled essentially completely by U.S. Jewish Oligarchs here. Jews, as John Jay Ray was fond of pointing out and many others also remind us constantly, differ in their opinions of most things: there are different opinions on communism, on capitalism, on abortion, on homosexual “marriage,” on Israel even. But on one topic the Jews are essentially monolithic, they demonstrate no difference of opinion, and that’s in regard to open borders and race-replacement immigration: they all insist on those. (I said influential Jews, Jews who wield power, not ones with zero power like Steven Steinlight, Prof. Gottfried, Prof. Hart, and Lawrence Auster. You’ll find no Austers, Harts, or Steinlights, zero, among the Jewish Oligarchs who wield Mass Media power and every other kind of power — political power, financial power, “cultural” power, university power, every kind of power — in the United States. Without exception these Jews demand open borders and race-replacement volumes of non-white immigration from the Turd World.)
Yes, now, thanks to the Jews prying open the borders of the United States in 1965, there are Turks, Nigerians, Subcons, and Chinese in the country, all opposing white interests. There didn’t use to be. We used to be safe behind our nation’s borders. That we no longer are is thanks to the Jews. We used to have one ethnic enemy within our borders plotting and working hard to overthrow us, now we have a thousand. Within our borders. Thanks to the tireless efforts of you-know-who. 30
Posted by Valerian on Sat, 16 May 2009 17:01 | # “All that you say is true. But capitalism is only one part of it. Abstract the formational principle and apply it to the totality. What name shall we give this? Liberalism is not quite it - more a sidelight shining on it, a way of placing it politically and philosophically in its historical context. Modernity, then? Perhaps. In any event, we are talking here about the sum of everything “out there” that forms and informs us. “ Absolutely Guessedworker and the processes and principles that effect societies and civilizations are a mixture of culture, economics, education, and various other organic or mechanic processes that effect reality at different levels. I’m a big believer that the Universe is an organism and I’m currently reading Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West which outlines his “organic philosophy” and his morphology of world-history. Oswald put it correctly that a civilization’s mathematics determines in effect that civilization’s “view” of spatial and temporal reality. The Classical world viewed numbers as pure magnitude and this Modern civilization (or for him “faustian”) views number as pure function or spatial relations; the Modern world in a sense knows no boundaries and doesn’t realize it’s own limitations where else the Greeks and Romans knew their limitations. Without proper limitations or boundaries, humans in turn commit some of the most grievous errors; ecological pollution, racial mixing, bureaucratic insanity, States that operate on delusions and fantasies of reality, and the list goes on and on. The rest of you previous post, Guessedworker, does a good job of explaining the role of Being and philosophy in society and how drastic of a change we need. With thinking like yours and the rest of the contributors to this site we are all in the Vanguard of a “new beginning” you can say; it’s going to be a long, tedious process but these processes happen for a reason in the first place anyways. 31
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 16 May 2009 20:29 | #
A strange thing for an Englishman to say, considering the highly adaptive evolutionary outcome brought about by the removal of Jews from English soil by a Norman king.
Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism Book by Kevin MacDonald; Praeger Publishers, 1998 32
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 May 2009 21:23 | # Desmond, If there is one lesson to take from the last forty years it is the ease with which 20th century European Man has been relieved of his adaptive societal norms and provided in their place with every kind of social pathology. I do not see a short path for the pathologised back to adaptive ways. I see confusion and ignorance, selfishness and self-estrangement. Possibly the fall of Rome holds lessons a la Spengler. English history from 1290 to 1657 is irrelevant to our problems. Valerian, If you happen to get your thoughts on DotW down in the form of a postable article it might interest the readership. Please give that some thought. 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 16 May 2009 23:33 | # All Americans know what the “racially diverse school rooms” look like which the U.S. Jews force on white children. Now have a look at the degree of racial diversity which the Jews reserve for their own schoolchildren: http://h2oreuse.blogspot.com/2009/05/kever-benjamin-israels-classic-music.html . I think Jewish schoolchildren are deprived of the benefits of racial diversity in the schoolroom. What anti-Semites are keeping them in this deprived state??? We have to get more Negroes into that school room in that photo. In fairness to “J the Israeli Water Engineer” I’ll acknowledge his log entry demonstrating that there are Israeli Jews also trying to auto-genocide themselves: http://h2oreuse.blogspot.com/2009/05/battle-of-halamish.html . I knew about that Jewish auto-genocide phenomenon mainly from reading Professor Steven Plaut’s entries (“Plaut’s Complaint”) over at MoonbatCentral.com, a now-defunct David Horowitz/Richard Poe blog. It turns out Jews are born with a nation-destroying gene which is adaptive in the heterozygote state, the state of most Jews, because it makes them destroy only the Euro host nations they live in while allowing them to recognize, when they live in Israel, that they don’t want to destroy that, and they suspend their nation-destroying activities in that one case: Israel. But the homozygotes can’t do that because they’re homozygous for the Jewish nation-destroying gene: homozygotes have the nation-destroying compulsion so bad that they try to destroy Israel too. Professor Noam Chomsky is a homozygote for example, as well as these Israeli Jews who sent volunteers to physically protect Yassir Arafat from attack by Mossad agents or whatever it was. The vast majority of Jews of course are heterozygotes for the gene, and so strive to completely destroy, utterly devastate, ruin, and render unliveable, only the Euro host nations they live among, NOT Israel. 34
Posted by battle on Sun, 17 May 2009 00:12 | #
“Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog!” http://www.holywesternempire.org/tob_shebbe_goyim_harog_first6.pdf From the Pharaohs to Hammarubi to modern times JEWS have been the object of dread and disgust. WE ARE WITNESSING today on the world stage a tragedy of enormous proportions: the calculated destruction of the White Race and the incomparable culture it represents. Europe, former fortress of the West, is now over-run by hordes of non-Whites and mongrels. The same is true of Australia and Canada. The once productive White civiliza- tions of Rhodesia and South Africa, extorted by the ILLUMINATI and its enforcement unit, the United States, have been forced into DEMOCRATIC governments, thereby surrendering their White families to the mercy of numerically superior and mentally inferior Negroes whose ancestors were incapable of inventing even the wheel. The most concentrated attacks on the White Race, however, are occurring in the United States of America. JEWRY has no intention of becoming part of the UNIVERSAL NATION they are creating for the dumb goyim. DEMOCRATIC DIVERSITY is good only for goyim! 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 May 2009 04:18 | # Berlusconi’s announcement that Italy formally rejects its own race-replacement, which should be a newsmaking bombshell, is of course being kept deliberately underreported by the MSM for obvious reasons: they know perfectly how popular Berlusconi’s action would be if others knew about it, and don’t want it to catch on. You’ve gotta really look to find articles on it. Meantime if complete unknown communist lesbian Peruvian Amerindian Rigoberta Menchu farts the wrong way we hear about it from every newspaper, wire service, TV and radio network on the planet 24/7 for sixteen straight months till we beg for mercy, anything, throw your other Jewish icons at us, Gertrude Stein, Alice B. Toklas, anything but PLEASE no more Rigoberta Menchu whoever the fuck she is. The Jews even made a movie about her, starring that Mexican-Turkish tart, can’t remember her name, and then nominating the tart for an Oscar (natch!), but Berlusconi drops the biggest atomic bomb on the post-communist post-1989 Western Establishment’s “OK Whiteness Is Over, Everybody Has To Turn Into A Negro Now” consensus, perhaps the biggest since the end of the ‘60s, and almost dead-silence reigns over the Jewish-controlled mass media. It’s called “shunning” — whatever the Jews don’t like, if they can’t instantly destroy it they all agree in perfect unison to pretend it doesn’t exist. Right now Berlusconi and his announcement simply don’t exist. If a tree falls in the forest, and the Jews decide they don’t like it but can’t instantly destroy it, does it exist? No. That tree has no existence whatsoever. Not until they can destroy it, at any rate. It’s as simple as that. But wait, there’s more: there’s the arm of the Homintern known as the Vatican weighing in on this Berlusconi story: Berslusconi, THANK GOD!, FINALLY!, pipes up and says Italy isn’t so sure anymore that Italy WANTS this forced transformation of every Italian man, woman, child, and old person into a West-Central Sub-Saharan African Negro, and what does the Vatican do? Does it support it? No. Does it tell the truth and say it doesn’t support it but it can’t theologically oppose it and a Catholic can support it and still be a perfectly good Catholic? Nah. It sends a bishop out to condemn it! (In reading the following, bear in mind that “multiculturalism” is nothing but a euphemism for “multiracialism,” itself merely another term for race-replacement.)
( http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=7550904 ) So what’s going on? Is it a homosexual thing? The Homintern’s got full control of the Vatican now or something? Have the Marranos snuck back into the Church after five hundred years? What’s up with the genocide endorsement? Can any Catholic today in good conscience be other than a Sedevacantist? 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 17 May 2009 06:32 | # Guessedworker, The issue is not English history, but the impact of removing resource competitors from the environment. The speed of it is not surprising considering the mass migrations that took place. Mill warned that the “society of strangers”, evolved because of the homogeneous nature of the English population, would not survive a multi-ethnic onslaught. Even the wilderness returned to Chernobyl, once humanity left, despite the poisoned environment. 37
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 17 May 2009 07:31 | # Fred: I’ll sum up: “I see Jews as, let’s say, something like 85% of the problem, you see Jews as something like, let’s say, 10% or 15% of the problem. Therefore you don’t agree with any great need to expose their role, and you would concentrate much more on the role of Euros.” - Fred, I am afraid you understood me wrongly: * I don’t care who becomes exposed, as long as we have the necessary information to protect us. I just say it is less dependent on ethnicity than it is on processes (E.g. processes of domination and manipulation). Processes are universal knowledge. * I haven’t said anything about percentage portion of problem, but whatever the Jews do, I would like to say that it is 100% European problem. That would compell us to change and direct immense reform energies to changing us. Fred, unwittingly you give (evil) power to the Jews. It is somewhere there in the distant media houses, law firms, etc., and we have limited possibilities to do something about it. But when create defenses within us and our communities against domination and manipulation (all of it, whatever the origin), 100% of the power is in us. That is why the Jews themselves used this method, whether they were weak or strong. * This is an additional advantage. As I qouted Steinlight, the Jewish reasons to support immigration are as pathetic as ours is not resisting it enough. Ordinary Jews have common interest with us in resisting immigration, whether they know it or not. Jewish “elites” have in reality betrayed the Jews as much as European “elites” have betrayed us. Concentrating more on the processes reduces the Jewish fear of changing sides and thus increases the probability of conversion. But let it be said that the Jews are not the reason I am concentrating on processes. That is an endogenous European thing. “Yes, now, thanks to the Jews prying open the borders of the United States in 1965, there are Turks, Nigerians, Subcons, and Chinese in the country, all opposing white interests. There didn’t use to be. We used to be safe behind our nation’s borders. That we no longer are is thanks to the Jews. We used to have one ethnic enemy within our borders plotting and working hard to overthrow us, now we have a thousand. Within our borders. Thanks to the tireless efforts of you-know-who.” - Remember how the Jewish open border politician said in about 1965 that the defenses (of European-Americans) are cardboard. When you push, they give in. Here we are then. The weak suffer and/ or die in this world. Living in small nation gives wonderful clarity to life. We have less illusions about the goodness of life and others. If we are not constantly with our fists in the air, the big and ruthless (or small and powerful) will steamroller us. That situation is bad seems to me to be the usual thing. 38
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 17 May 2009 07:39 | # Addition: I would say it is 100% European problem, if there would be a little less necessity to influence the outside world. Now I say it is about 95% European problem. 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 May 2009 14:06 | # Finn, I would say we’re both correct: you in pointing out that whatever Jews or anyone else do, in the last analysis it’s a 100% Euro problem, and I in pointing out the Jewish role as often as I do. I’ll repeat the analogy I made before: what to do about the Russian invasion of Finland (“the Winter War”) was in the last analysis a 100% Finnish problem, and those Finns who also pointed out that the ones doing the invading were the Soviet Russians were also correct to do so. The latter — the Finns pointing out it was the Soviets who were doing the invading — would have been incorrect if that was all they did, just point that out and not help to defend the country, and the ones helping to defend the country would have been incorrect if that was all they did, just help defend the country and not point out it was the Soviets doing the invading (incorrect because no effective defense would have been possible without knowing who the invader was: if no one ever said who the invader was, maybe the defenses should be deployed along the northern or western border of Finland — why the eastern border?). 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 May 2009 14:18 | # Finn, watch this video and see what the Gordian worm does to the cricket: For the cricket to save himself, one thing must happen: he must understand that his urge to jump into the water is not coming from himself but from the Gordian worm telling him to jump, and he must therefore resist that urge. If he thinks it’s coming from himself he’ll jump — why should he resist his own urges? Never before have his own urges led him astray. He must understand there’s a Gordian worm inside him. Otherwise he’ll jump. 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 May 2009 15:16 | # Finn, you’ll say the cricket doesn’t have to know there’s a Gordian worm inside him, he only has to remember the general rule he’s always known, “Don’t jump into water.” But when he gets the urge to jump, he might think he’s simply changed his mind, and therefore it will seem safe. If he understands there’s a worm inside directing him, he’ll comprehend better that he hasn’t “changed him mind” and must not act on the urge. To sum up: what he does is in the last analysis 100% up to him, 0% up to the Gordian worm, and he’s always known the rule that crickets must not jump into water, so whether or not he knows of the presence of the worm, he must realize he shouldn’t jump. Therefore, strictly speaking, he needn’t know of the presence of the worm in order to do the right thing and save himself. BUT: if he knows there’s a worm inside telling him to jump, it’ll be easier for him to save himself, and a favorable outcome will be surer. Likewise if Euro peoples know what the Jews are up to. There’s also the question to what extent people’s capacity to make choices has been compromised by certain sorts of conditioning, conditioning that’s easier to overcome if one knows one has been subjected to it and if one knows WHY one has been subjected to it. For one thing, if a plausible culprit is not named as doing the conditioning, along with a plausible motivation for his doing it, the victim might refuse to believe he’s been conditioned on grounds of pride, or it’s too unlikely, too bizarre (“Me? Conditioned? Nonsense!”), there aren’t sufficient grounds for thinking it, etc. Female voters, especially, are in this situation: highly vulnerable to conditioning and highly unlikely to entertain the idea they’ve been conditioned. The scientist interviewed in the second of the two Gordian worm videos (the one where the infected host is a grasshopper instead of a cricket) mentions proteins found in the grasshopper’s nervous system at the stage where it jumps into the water, proteins that mimick grasshopper proteins but were produced by the worm; presumably these proteins had something to do with getting the grasshopper to jump. James Bowery has speculated, for example, on the human brain’s amygdala as a possible anatomo-physiological substrate of certain kinds of behavioral conditioning (do a site search on amygdala using MR.com’s “Search” feature), conditioning whose urges will be easier to resist if the human subject understands he’s been conditioned to act against his interests, and understanding he’s been conditioned will in turn be easier for him if a plausible culprit is named along with a plausible motive, not just a claim that, “Well, you’ve apparently been conditioned, but we don’t know by whom or why.” If you tell him “by whom he was conditioned and why,” and if that seems plausible, he’s more likely to accept it and to succeed in resisting and finally undoing it. This leads into the question of whether the “left” has been right all along in saying “white society” has been bad for non-whites by inflicting harmful self-images on them, and subjecting them to harmful conditioning in other ways, sort of, “OK, you whites have inflicted harmful conditioning on non-whites for centuries, now you’re getting a taste of your own medicine as the Jews are inflicting harmful conditioning on YOU. See how YOU like it for a change.” There are several answers, two of which are: 1) the whites who are complaining now, such as the blog MajorityRights.com, DON’T WANT any continuation of anyone’s conditioning but separation so that all will be happiest and healthiest among homogeneous societies; 2) there are PLENTY of objective studies PROVING not all failings of various non-white groups are due to unhealthy conditioning they have doubltess, it’s true, undergone as a result of being exposed to whitedom. There are many more answers to this as well. None of them weaken the positions MR.com takes but only reinforce them in all cases. 42
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 18 May 2009 11:04 | # Fred Scrooby: “Finn, you’ll say the cricket doesn’t have to know there’s a Gordian worm inside him, he only has to remember the general rule he’s always known, “Don’t jump into water.” But when he gets the urge to jump, he might think he’s simply changed his mind, and therefore it will seem safe. If he understands there’s a worm inside directing him, he’ll comprehend better that he hasn’t “changed him mind” and must not act on the urge.” - Fred, what I mean that one must know that the world has ubiquitously many kinds of hostiles, free riders and manipulators in many guises and that they are always, every day, manipulating you and probably using you and then list all their types with approximate probabilities and distributions. That which today is not a manipulator might tomorrow be and vice versa. There is nothing magical in this. Somebody is just operating in their self-interest and producing negative externalities or effects to others. That Europeans live in this kind of world with open arms is nothing short of insanity. In history, intestinal worms were quite common among those Finns who ate lightly and quickly salted fish. They sometimes developed beliefs that the worms were necessary to life. If the last worm would exit the gut, the person would die. Not so. They might just develop little allergies, when the immunity system don’t have enough work. The possibility of allergy is better than tapeworms. Still, it might be useful to give the immunity system something to work with, which keeps it fit. 43
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 20 May 2009 04:52 | #
Look around, GW. It is not inevitable. You’re searching for a solution which appeals to the fashionable “I wannabe rich too!” egoists of the urban middle-class, but puts them at odds with our rulers. That is a contradiction. It is not going to happen. It is easier for the typical, “sophisticated” white urbanite to go along with the “smart money.” We can not beat our rulers at their game. Our choice is to truckle or undermine. Ultimately, racialist devotees of easy money capitalism - faileocons - must truckle. Faileos can’t win. For my part, I’ll be goddamned before supporting a “movement” comprised of lazy, greedy, materialistic individuals looking to hoodwink young working-class kids to do the heavy-lifting – that is, the fighting, imprisonment, and dying – just to put another group of easy money sonsofbitches (which secretly despise them) into power. Easy money racialism had its chance and was bought. We’ll not be fooled again. 44
Posted by o^o on Wed, 20 May 2009 12:26 | # Some would have us believe that jews forced white, easy money “get rich quick using other people’s money” employers to hire these spicano “mechanics.” News 8 Investigates: Airline mechanics who can’t read English Hundreds of aircraft mechanics improperly licensed Part 2: Hundreds of aircraft mechanics improperly licensed Whistleblower agency calls for probe of aircraft mechanics
They, too, are reaping the benefits of not having done a decent day’s work in their lives. Why do we count on them to “convert” to “our” side? The conversion is not going to happen. Those people are easy money capitalist trucklers. Trucklers will continue doing what they do and reaping the benefits (one of which is the ability to buy racial isolation up on the hill, behind gates in neighborhoods patrolled by private security or local law enforcement). They are bought. Just as “racialists” supporting easy money capitalism are bought. Question: Why should the easy money crowd fight for something which can be bought? 45
Posted by I know everything on Thu, 21 May 2009 01:14 | # Even in medieval Japan, the merchants were a despised lowly lot. A poor Samurai was held in higher honour than a rich merchant. In Vedic India, the merchant or Banya/Vaishya caste was below the Brahmins (priests), Kayasthas (intellectuals + woldiers) and Kshatriays (warriors). 46
Posted by Don on Thu, 21 May 2009 22:55 | # Fred Scrooby on May 16, 2009, 10:33 PM, commented on the Jewish heterozygote situation and compared it to a Jewish homozygote situation. In fact, many Jews rip and gnaw at the Jewish nation with gusto. For an example, consider the text by Jonathan Cook reviewing a book by Shlomo Sand which completely deconstructs the totalizing & centralizing religious & historical pretensions of Jewry. It is difficult to imagine a work which more thoroughly undermines the Jewish nation.
47
Posted by Wild Bill on Fri, 22 May 2009 03:52 | # I have been involved in a lawsuit for eight full years, being sued by a now sixty four year old half brother for money. There have been not less than seventeen lawyers involved, all going against me. All of them are white. My white lawyer threw the case and I almost went into bankruptcy. The white trial judge is probably biased against me, but maybe not… its an incredibly frightening situation. Of the three appellate court judges, each with one of the three issues to review, only the Black man got it right. The other two, a white male and white female skillfully misread and artfully supported the unjust verdict found by the jury of six morons, five whites and one Mexican. I eventually found a Jewish woman who took my case, and unlike my white lawyer did not over charge me as best as I can tell, and got me some relief at the appeals court. But the old boy network has not given up and the lawsuit continues… From being inside the pressure cooker I observe that the vast majority of *our* people are greedy and jealous far beyond my previous imagination. I had no idea that they would actually kill grandmother and get away with it to come after an honest working stiff like me. I will state that there might be some genetic potential in some of the white people I had to deal with in this ordeal but whether its their innate personality or a result of the economic situation, the vast majority apparently cannot conceive of any higher purpose than to take from you and me. I will bet that when the oligarchs push the button for a real communist revolution in America it will go down very quickly. They will do what Lenin ordered: kill the beautiful children 48
Posted by Mailing list broker on Mon, 25 May 2009 08:21 | # Crown Lists is a mailing list broker offering high quality business mailing lists, consumer mailing lists, direct marketing lists, medical mailing lists, email lists. We are a mailing Post a comment:
Next entry: The Iranian take on swine flu
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 14 May 2009 03:44 | #
“live on credit in their petty little niche with their petty little pleasures and without incurring any risks”, “economic dreams”, “accouterments of economic success”
When a cognitive cog from Harvard is driven closer to the truth by the data than either you or Sunic—even after you’ve been given a chance to watch and respond—I really have to wonder…
You guys sound like you’re from the GI generation.
This economics-driven demographic vacum is the most important event in the history of the European people and you guys aren’t even on the same page with reality.