|
|
|
Nationalist axiality It must be five years ago that there was a rash of interest at MR about creating a political compass to process nationalist political affiliation. It arose because the standard model, based as it is on conventional social and economic measures and, needless to say, the charming and by no means goy-hostile thoughts of Theodore Adorno and Wilhelm Reich, cannot process ethnocentric political attitudes and values. So nationalists who take the test find most of the questions irrelevant, and the results puzzling. For example, I’ve just taken it again and find that:
... I’m a centrist, damn it! And that’s despite slamming in a string of strongly agree/disagree answers that should have shaken things up. They didn’t. My politics just don’t compute. When we looked at the issue before there was some debate about whether we should be trying to develop a bi-axial compass like this model, a triaxial one that allowed for degrees of awakening, so conventionalists could take the test and get a relevant result, or a simple binning system. I recall that there was already a test around that could bin nationalist sentiments, but it did not impress. However, we never progressed beyond the first stumbling block, which was the axiality. If authoritarian ? libertarian and social ? economic measures describe the liberal paradigm, what describes nationalism? At least one of the measures has to accord with the reality of the human psyche (the standard compass’s authoritarian ? libertarian axis is recognised by psychologists as doing so). I’ve argued here that the primary axis of nationalism is being ? becoming, and this seems too fundamental to human life to be anything other than correct. It’s in metaphysics. It’s in religion. It’s good enough. But that second axis! That’s the tough one. In the standard model it’s also the one that relates to purely political concerns: the social left ? the economic right. Nationalist political concerns do not accord with the liberal value of endless progress. There is, though, some valuational overlap with the social element, based on the care which flows from kinship. But that would seem to dictate an opposite in elitism, and indeed the elitism of the aristocracy and of the imperium is an object of regular genuflection among some nationalists. Norman Lowell, the Eurasianists and our friend Neo-Nietzsche would be pleased, I don’t doubt. But it doesn’t sit quite right with me. I confess, I haven’t grasped the whole picture to my own satisfaction. I know I’m not thinking clearly enough. Any ideas? Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:03 | # They’ll never ask questions like this:
As I have previously pointed out, the reason they will not phrase their questions like this is that the folks concocting these “surveys” are virulently anti-science and their reason for being anti-science is that they fear the scientific discovery of their virulence. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:04 | # Odd, Ivan, I’ve re-read the post and it is quite clear to me. The lack of clarity concerns only the precise terms of the putative second axis. Evidently, you are not going to be much help. 4
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:49 | # This is intriguing (an overused word, but apt here). You need to elaborate on the “being-becoming” distinction. You also need to decide more fundamentally whether you are trying to measure philosophical or political commitments. And is the purpose of this ‘axial’ project to determine where nationalists fit in ideologically within the overall population, or to compare nationalists (I assume you mean “white nationalists”) (defined, say, as anyone who wishes genetically/racially pure whites to exist in perpetuity) with each other? This is actually the start of what could be an extremely fruitful discussion. I have in the past considered writing a taxonomical essay under the title “Race Realism, Racialism, and Racism” (alas, I never have), in which I would try to separate out the different types of racial thinking, and then defend my position (“Biological Occidentalism”), which I have discussed in some past lengthy comments here at MR. In brief: “Race Realism”: This simply refers to public recognition of the scientific and sociological facts of interracial differences in ability, achievement, history and behavior. One can be a deontological liberal, and still be a race realist. It’s about not falsifying reality. The libertarian Charles Murray is an example of a man who speaks the truth about race, but seems genuinely anti-racist. “Racialism”: Racialists love their race, wish to preserve it, and put its interests first in their array of political concerns. Race, for racialists, is a moral category, as well as a biologically valid, and socially predictive, one. All racialists are (or should be) race realists (except, perhaps, wrt their own race), but obviously not all race realists are racialists (the conservatives Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire are examples, I think, of non-racialist race realists, though maybe I am being unfair to Sailer). “Racists”: These are the real hatemongers. More precisely, racists are those who wish to use coercive power to inflict unjustified (very important qualifier) harm on persons of other racial (or ethnic, in the case of Jews) groups. Racists in a political context seem unconcerned with most of the traditional great questions of political philosophy, but embrace a simplistic politics of “us v them”. Obviously, these definitions are tentative and simplified, and are offered as part of a continuing investigation into what is valuable within the nationalist tradition of thought, and what really is hateful and must be jettisoned by morally responsible persons (which I define with reference to the Christian tradition, as I continue to believe that there is no morality without God, and that Christianity is by light years the most plausible form of supernaturalism; this should not be misunderstood to mean that I actually believe in God, as is always assumed by my opponents here; note, however, that I’m not stating that I disbelieve in God, either). [No God, no (rational) morality. That was the traditional belief of most Western persons throughout history, and it remains mine, too.] If you are going to do a compass for nationalist political ideology (as opposed to metaphysics), then I would suggest that one axis should be “nonviolent-violent” (or “political-extrapolitical”). 5
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 03:13 | # GW, Why do you take someone like “Ivan” at face value, and thus engage with him? He’s only a troll stirring up trouble. Can’t you discern who is and is not valuable in the extended conversation this site represents? Here is a prediction (not a personal threat): If you do not begin to exercise better administrative control over the course and content of threads, over time the superior discussants will drift away, and you will be left with the typical hodgepodge of ranters, weirdoes, ‘humorists’ (to themselves only), and unstable mentalities. I don’t think hosting such was your intention in setting up MR. “Anything goes” is not the opposite of censorship. The rightly condemned censor is the person who will not allow the free play of disfavored ideas. We’ve all experienced this with the MSM, which will tolerate all manner of lunacy and degeneracy, but won’t allow serious comments from those who love their blood and soil. But preventing discussions from degenerating into incoherence and silliness is an aspect of free and effective speech, too, rather as effective political freedom requires the force and discipline of law. 6
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 03:43 | # “The libertarian Charles Murray is an example of a man who speaks the truth about race” - Pomponius Ego Murray’s ‘truth’ about Jews is risible but perhaps Haller actually believes it to be the case. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/charles_murray_still_cant_subtact/ 7
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 03:45 | # http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/charles_murray_still_cant_subtract 8
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:10 | # One wonders how long the saintly GW will tolerate being lectured to on his own blog by such a sententious and tenacious bore as Haller. Well it’s Xmas after all. 9
Posted by Ivan on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:11 | # chameLeon, The more I hear from you, the more you remind me of Friedrich “multiple personality syndrome” Braun. I’m just curious: why do you think you’d survive if GW were to engage in Stalin style Great Purge. GW is no Stalin, but I believe your head would be and should be the first to roll. 10
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 04:47 | #
Maybe the test is flawed. I took it and the result was almost identical to that of GW. I thought for sure I’d wind up in the upper right quadrant. Go figure?!? http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.62&soc=1.85 11
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:25 | #
Leon: With a perfectly straight face, may I suggest that if you stare steadily into mandala of GW’s biaxial test results for 3 to 4 seconds, the answer will be revealed to you. I hope you know that I love you, Leon. I would be extremely sad to see you cease visiting with us here at MR. In spite of your sworn allegiance to austere sobriety, you are the catalyst of great mirth here, and we desperately need every fragment we can find of that sacred commodity. And this brings me to the subject of Ivan’s inability to understand GW’s initial post. You see, Ivan, the whole motivation behind GW’s post is to lure his arch-nemisis, NeoNietzsche, back into public discourse. He’s been pining over this for weeks, and I don’t blame in the least. It’s almost impossible for me to imagine the magnitude of GW’s existential crisis. It would be like me losing Leon. Unfathomable. Abysmal. A complete f*cking disaster. Don’t leave me, Leon. Ask GW to give you system admin privileges over me. Anything you demand, Leon. But for God’s sake, please don’t leave me stuck here with only Ivan to torment? 12
Posted by danielj on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:14 | # The questions leave too much up to interpretation. I’m near you and GW: Results 13
Posted by Goethe on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:35 | # http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.88&soc;=-2.05 Oh, my. Pretty inaccurate, considering that I am a National Socialist with transcendent morality and a transhumanist perspective. 14
Posted by Ivan Drago on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:34 | # Curse you transhumanists! F. Roger Devlin and your ilk, I don’t care what that French guy says, just say no to human-animal hybrids! Just say no to genetic engineering ourselves out of existence, into something that isn’t even human, but rather “transhuman”. 15
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:42 | # I was one up and two over in the blue. But, yes, this test doesn’t take into consideration that not everyone has the same idea of what a nation, country or state is/should be, and thus what is should/could do. I wouldn’t want the current US government to have more authoritarian power (or any for that matter, but too late) but I would support an authoritarian White regime which worked towards the betterment of the White race, exclusively. ‘I’m dreaming of a White Christmas’, I’m just not thinking of snow. Since old Adolph is always the example to the one extreme, I guess we have to ask ourselves if the opposite extreme could rally people to action. The opposite being the slick talking -interchangeable- bullshit artist/motivational speaker in a nice suit (minus the jacket to appear more relaxed and “relatable”). The center of those extremes would have to be Bill Lumbergh, I suppose. In a leader, platform or movement, what spirit is worse…....hot, cold or lukewarm? ... 16
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:03 | # The more I hear from you, the more you remind me of Friedrich “multiple personality syndrome” Braun. I’m just curious: why do you think you’d survive if GW were to engage in Stalin style Great Purge. GW is no Stalin, but I believe your head would be and should be the first to roll. (Ivan)
I’m not Friedrich Braun. Trust me. If GW purged the idiots I would survive, because I’m not one, unlike you. Very simple. Unless I have much overestimated GW, he knows perfectly well who is bright, and who isn’t. If GW decided he would rather have fools with nothing substantive to contribute, then I would leave. Frankly, the difference between someone like me, and mere “opinionists” like you and Al Ross, is that I am many orders of magnitude better educated, more learned, more insightful, and (I strongly suspect) more intelligent than either of you (unless of course you are merely playing the fools, which would arguably be even more reprehensible than mere stupidity, given the gravity of the issues under discussion here). Why don’t we ask GW whose head he would prefer? That would, indeed, be a metric of the seriousness of his own professed commitments. One wonders how long the saintly GW will tolerate being lectured to on his own blog by such a sententious and tenacious bore as Haller.(Al Ross) I think the real question is how low GW will allow his site to degenerate before he realizes that cretins like you are all he has left. Does Al Ross have anything to contribute to “nationalist axiality”, or any other topic? As whites around the world increasingly awaken to their existential racial crisis, do you really think that it will be to obsessional atheistic Jew-haters that they will turn for guidance and leadership?! You actually think that your ideological preferences, in the brute arena of political competition, will win out over mine?! What hermetic mental world do you inhabit? Three Nazis hold a rally, and 3000 anti-fascists show up. Where are the patriotic conservatives who should at least be countering the antifa (while not, of course, actually allying with the Nazis)? The vast majority of conservatives, including legions of ordinary people who dislike the Third World invasions, and know in their bones that they bode ill for their futures, want nothing to do with Nazism, and will choose racial euthanasia over embracing it. That is hard, empirical reality, and holds as much for secular European whites, as for Middle American Christians. Sorry, pal, but Nazism had its day, lost, and is now deader than the dodo. My racialism, both empirically honest and realistic, and rooted in the real moral traditions of the West, is the only possible game in town. Conservative racialism has a chance of being embraced by sufficiently large numbers of whites actually to have the desired effect of advancing white genetic interests. Revolutionary (neonazi) racism is going nowhere. I suppose it takes a measure of wisdom (which many here obviously lack) to recognize this. Mr. Haller, GW likes to moderate with a very light hand. Perhaps if you ask nicely he’ll let you be a moderator too! (One hopes not.) (Soren Renner) I have no desire to be a moderator. I would appreciate better moderation, however. I’m prepared to remove myself from participating at MR, if the majority would prefer my exit. But many persons here at different times have expressed appreciation for my comments. I would if the same could be said for some of you? 17
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:35 | # Haller’s proprietorial attitude to GW’s blog is presumptuous in the extreme. Haller’s naive notion that Conservatism will save the day is beyond mockery. There was a time when Conservatives, having thrown White culture and education to the wolfish Jews, could at least be relied upon to conserve hard - earned wealth. Not any longer, unfortunately. As any English conservative chartered accountant worth his audit fee will tell you, taxes are swingeing and about to get more punishing. Conservatism wont save us despite Haller’s sorry blustering. 18
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:19 | # I propose a political compass where the horizontal axis would have pro white-preservation on the left and pro non-white immigration/miscegenation on the right. The vertical axis would indicate economic theory: National Socialism on the top; Neo-liberalism at the bottom. Another option for the vertical axis could be Atheism at the top and Christianity at the bottom. I’d leave it up to GW, Bowery, Dasein, Notus, Leon, et al to craft the survey questions. 19
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:00 | # Leon Haller is not Friedrich Braun. CC and some other readers of this blog (including myself) invited him here from Takimag a few years back, and since Taki had taken to censoring racialist opinions I guess Haller decided to come over. To be honest, I’m surprised at the criticism he’s getting though I don’t know the background because I have been very busy the last few months and thus unable to read this site in detail. I don’t always agree with Leon Haller’s opinions/direction but I generally view MR as a blog which is not doctrinaire and which can accommodate many different perspectives and I think he adds to the discourse overall. Hopefully this is just one of the ephemeral flame wars which periodically spring up here. 20
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:25 | # I think this test, incidentally, isn’t too bad. I was located in the blue quadrant, 5 spaces over from the right, 3 up. I am, indeed, an authoritarian rightist conservative, loyal to race and heritage, strongly attached to private property and the free market, fairly traditional values-oriented. I wonder where Al Ross and the other Nazis would be. Right-authoritarian, or Left-authoritarian? 21
Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:13 | # If anyone cares, this is my result:
Thinking aloud for a second, the modern liberal paradigm is dominated by two concepts: individuality and philosophical right. All men are born as individuals and these individuals have rights. The big question: are individuals equal or unequal? If individuals are all fundamentally equal, then their rights must likewise be equal, and this implies anti-authoritarianism - either a “will of the people” democracy or limited government. Ironically, taking the position of inequality can lead either to enlightened despotism (a nanny-state perhaps) or towards a social-darwinist libertarianism. How would a nationalist paradigm differ? Nationalism places the importance upon the group. Nations “exist” at a level beyond that of individuals. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Of course, this means a belief that all individuals are somehow connected within the nation. The great question of nationalism becomes whether a nation is cultural or biological? The second question of organization still remains. Does a shared nationality imply individual equality? Are the masses merely ‘cattle of god’ to be commanded by an elite? The two sides would be elitism and egalitarianism. So, one could construct a graph using these axes: Examples: Nazi Germany Fascist Italy United States (early period)* Geert Wilders* *The last two examples are for illustrative purposes only. 22
Posted by Frank on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:29 | # GW, how about decentralisation vs. centralisation as the second axis? 23
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:04 | #
If the ability to get on Mr. Haller’s nerves makes one a Nazi, I think I am qualified to answer this question. In three words: “Off the chart” I could not force myself to continue past the second page of the questionnaire. Most of the questions appeared to me as variations of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” They are based on implicit underlying assumptions that I don’t hold. To answer such questions would amount to nothing less than telling a stack of lies, (and Ivan hates it when I do that). For instance, how could a National Socialist have any sentiments whatsoever regarding his “country”, when his feelings rotate around the axis of ORION, (our race is our nation). For those who appreciate southern colloquiallisms, the survey is countrified. I think James Bowery does a good job of dissecting the deficiencies of the survey here. 24
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:14 | # To properly understand the meaning of “countries” to a National Socialist, three questions must first be considered. 1). What’s time to a hog? 2.) What’s a dollar to a dog? 3.) What’s dynamite dope to the pope? 25
Posted by Goethe on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:41 | #
I’m not in favour of human-animal hybrids, and I feel that only those which possess a basic existence above a certain threshold developed by Nature should be able to benefit from transhumanism (Europeans above a certain intelligence, perhaps the top 1%). Whoever develops some of the real applications of transhumanism first wins in whatever group conflict that could arise after that point, because the process of developing such advanced biotechnology, genetic engineering, and micromachines offers many other scientific applications, especially in the military sphere. As for the political compass, I feel that it should have 3 dimensions (cube) instead of being a square. That would allow a more comprehensive description of personal philosophy. It would still be simple to represent the score within the cube. By the way, I’m 19 and transgender. I suppose that most of the posters here will raise issue with the latter. >_> 26
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 22:59 | #
I’m 57 and horny. Let’s consider the issue raised. 27
Posted by Goethe on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:24 | #
Humourous. It is clear that I meant that many posters have a blatant distaste for homosexuals and such, and trangendered people are often considered to be even worse by such types, as TG people do not conform to a societal gender binary. 28
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:20 | # GW’s political compass site gives this credit for the political compass:
29
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 02:18 | # Goethe, were you abstinent, you wouldn’t be a threat. There are logical arguments against sexual promiscuity. Pagans, not only Christians, argued against it as threatening their society. Someone might jump in to say that a transgendered person isn’t necessarily promiscuous, but that’s rarely the case. And regardless, the purpose of marriage is children, and sex outside marriage produces bastards, likely some from other races since we live amongst them, and bastards grow up in broken homes. A transgendered person isn’t likely someone who’d be having sex with the opposite biological gender in order to produce children, or upholding this social institution which encourages those who do reproduce to do so as benefits the whole. Those who are a danger to society need to be locked up, but I’m not sure a transgendered person would merit such. Society needs a place for such people, be they genetic mutants or merely sufferers of another form of mental illness. But, the social stigma shouldn’t surprise. If you hadn’t noticed though, many who blog seem to be mentally ill, so you really oughtn’t turn to treason simply because you’re excluded. Granted, if you’re molding a people into a new creation, then the new people could be suited for transgender, promiscuous individuals as well most anything else. Regarding an advantage gained from biotech: you also risk undermining your spirit. You’d need to create a new artificial social structure for people to exist within since every trace of the old would be broken. And whatever is newly created would be different, e.g. whites would be destroyed to give rise to new beings in order to defeat East Asians & Jews. This is NOT a case of “whites” using tech to win; claiming such is dishonest, and it’s unfair to play such a joke on white populists who don’t bother thinking on this. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 02:32 | # Frank: how about decentralisation ? centralisation as the second axis? Yes, I like that. The generality of the term “centralisation” is useful, making it possible to conjoin elitism and statism when the one does not, of course, necessitate the other. Similarly “decentralisation” has a suggestion of individualism that doesn’t appear to sit very well with sympathy for the people until one realises that, in nationalism, individualism can only exist as the natural tendency that Europeans exhibit. It is an aspect of the people, although liberalism makes it into first cause. Leon, The being ? becoming axis I take to be a valid descriptor of human nature. You are a religious man, so you will recognise that the two paths of spirituality are Union with God (being) and self-perfectionment (becoming). This model applies very widely and has likely much more fundamental to the human mind than libertarianism ? authoritarianism, which is what the standard compass relies upon. Btw, I would a minimum of insult, gentleman please. And I’m not minded to ban anyone. 31
Posted by Goethe on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 02:49 | #
I don’t see how I would necessarily be a threat, in any case, unless I took actions that non-transgender people could take as well. I have a tendency towards monogamy for emotional reasons, and it is obvious that in a basic society that monogamy works best, because it helps to ensure clear parentage. That being said, polygamous relationships are entirely possible with mature and consenting people. I don’t support marriage on its own as a cultural institution, because it is sullied by religion. I am male-sexed. If I do opt for SRS, then I realize that I have a responsibility to save some genetic material for the future, as mine is very valuable. By the way, ‘transgender’ and ‘transsexual’ are not synonyms. The label of ‘transgender’ would apply to anyone who has a gender/gender expression outside of the gender binary of stereotypical and enforced sex+gender roles in society. Oh, I don’t feel at all offended by those who would condemn me because of my nature. I’m sure the same people would condemn important homosexuals who have done more for Europeans than they ever have. I feel that Germanics have the seeds of greatness, that the eventual goal of race awareness and elitism should not be return to historic roots in form of an archaic society, but a strong affirmation of master morality, with a huge emphasis on self-development and philosophy. And when Europeans are the only group remaining, the goal would be expansion beyond Earth, obviously. Your biological existence can be thought of as a formed base. The technology that will likely be developed in the near future (barring catastrophe, though I hope something huge does happen so that the European camp can develop it all independent of all other groups) is merely an extension of that base. If you do not lose the fundamental truth of your consciousness, you do not lose yourself, even if you are mostly made of metal. 32
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 02:51 | #
Really? I guess you’ve been around here longer than I have, then. Let’s give it the old college try, shall we? All those in agreement with the above quote, please post an “Aye”. Those who don’t give a rag doll’s shit in hell, please post a “Nay”. 33
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 03:04 | #
Well I’ll be f@cked in the ass. You had me goin’ there, for a bit. 34
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 03:18 | # Goethe, sincere apologies if I was offensive. I don’t think I’m better than you, though I do think the argument against unorthodox sexual conduct should be known. Ideally I’d want you to switch over to become a nationalist - GW, I hope that proves useful. However, you should take into account wariness of “rule by strangers”. The more distant a ruling elite is, the less attached it is to a people. And it’s best for the state that children be loyal to their parents, villagers to their fellow villagers, etc. I tend to see myself as decentralist because I’m a nationalist. The distributist ideal, which I like, is one of hierarchy with the highest levels only managing what they must. Ah, one additional benefit is it encourages responsibility and self-respect since nearly all but the lowest units are in charge of something. Many though of course need a master and can’t handle responsibility. I see the distributist ideal as potentially serving the whole best. Ah, but of course I could be mistaken… Materialism v. the transcendent is another alternative btw. Aristocrats (not the Nietzschean definition) tend to pursue honour, especially honour among peers, which is transcendent. And valuing being is similarly transcendent. Materialism would be: pursuing pleasure, money, impiety, not valuing being. As an atheist, this likely wouldn’t be ideal for you though. 35
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 03:43 | # Goethe,
Even progress falls to relativity.
I doubt Hal’s great-grandchild cares who created Hal. Expecting ancestor worship from a machine is absurd. And eventually history is forgotten. Do we even know what part of Asia many of our ancestors came from before the recent flooding (not the great flood)? What remains of the ancients is being blown up and dug up by Israeli wars, third world development, and oil/other transit. I’m a Creationist, but even I’m Old World. Where we came from is rather important to one’s identity… We’re as children, clueless. We do have our genetic heritage though, and of course we now have the revealed truth and our more recent traditions, including what we’ve recovered after forgetting much from the Greeks and Romans, though we don’t know much about the Celts and Germans from that period. - Many others have argued against a polygamous society, due to it causing competition and thus social disharmony. Monogamy was one of the major strengths of Roman society. The “better” ought to be encouraged to have more children with their respective spouse though. The argument against promiscuity I already made: it leads to bastards. An additional argument exists that male to male bonding is threatened by blurring the sexual boundaries and similarly that social roles of the sexes are threatened. For an ideal educational environment, men and women are separated. With sex no longer an issue, they focus on studies. Men, in general, are best suited for certain areas. Women are better suited at others. Exceptions exist, but children come first for a nationalist. Anyway, if a super-genius transgendered person wanted to learn these arguments, he’d read them. I doubt you’re interested in my preaching social morality 101 here when you have the Internet. You’d prefer to block them from your mind. 36
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 03:53 | # “strong affirmation of master morality” I prefer non-Nietzschean master-morality. I refuse to acknowledge the definitions he created. As Richard Weaver, a true master who did oppose miscegenation and otherwise served his race, argued: vocabulary has power. It matters when someone attempts to redefine words. 37
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 03:58 | # “I don’t support marriage on its own as a cultural institution, because it is sullied by religion. “ Honestly, I think you’ve been programmed to think this way - and similarly programmed to think you’re a genius for holding such a view. And the pleasure you derive from your lifestyle helps reinforce the mental block. And even if you have some flaw, you can still be a superior master uber wonderful person in every other regard. Your ego needn’t suffer from admitting to being a mere human with flaws. 38
Posted by danielj on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:42 | # Many others have argued against a polygamous society, due to it causing competition and thus social disharmony. Monogamy was one of the major strengths of Roman society. The “better” ought to be encouraged to have more children with their respective spouse though. The argument against promiscuity I already made: it leads to bastards. An additional argument exists that male to male bonding is threatened by blurring the sexual boundaries and similarly that social roles of the sexes are threatened. Indeed! Nations end in sodomy. 39
Posted by john fitzgerald on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:05 | # I’m all for Leons lofty arrogance. Though the nazi tag is so nineties. Compared to Ray though he’s a vast improvement - assuming he has a sense of humour. 40
Posted by PF on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:47 | #
Hell yeah Fitzjizzle, I’m also for Leon subsuming the sun and moon and stars within himself. One man, under God, with pobblety and robblety for all. Eventually he will expand until he encompasses I guess the question that arises in my mind is this: how can a person like Leon be represented as a single point on that goddamn two dimensional axiality graph? Sorry for the fuck-language, but it maddens me when something of infinite beauty which cannot properly be contained should be relegated to a mere cartesian dot. Do yall know what Leon is about? Yeah, well, its pretty fucking larger than that fucking colored chessboard. I charmingly demand that a circle be drawn around that chessboard, to instill in our yet-to-be-born blueropeans that the swelling that birthed them is in fact larger than any can yet fathom, bigger than his opinions, and worthy of not only an ethnostate, but of a long future in which to puzzle out and finally discover the reality of his as yet undisclosed grandeur. Haller and Marr is the racial category to which I properly belong, and the most a dead viking can hope for is to be subsumed into the blob: Val Haller I believe the old dudes called it. One day, Renner willing, I will drink Marr in Val Haller. 41
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:18 | # I actually have some good things to say: Sam Davidson, Excellent, thoughtful comment. You have stimulated my thinking. Your proposed axes are well worth exploring further by others. I still hold, though, that one axis for a nationalist political compass ought to be “violent/nonviolent”, or “democratic/revolutionary”. That would distinguish between the “hards” and the “wets”. What is the purpose, after all, of a nationalist compass? To determine whether one is in fact a species of nationalist (as compared to liberal, socialist, theocrat, libertarian, etc)? Or is it to determine the extent, or the militancy, of one’s nationalist commitment? GW needs to elaborate on what he thinks we ought to be measuring or revealing. Jimmy Marr, ORION!! That has always been my position as well. Though having said that, sub-racial attachments are perfectly acceptable, too. I am more concerned with the preservation of the global white race than with the fortunes of (white) America. But I am more attached and loyal to America than to any other white nation. Frank, Good sense. You sound like a race-realistic or even racialist conservative, as opposed to a Nazi. I consider myself to be in that vein; I hope you elaborate on your (religious-based?) racialism in the future. Do you agree that white preservationists are under no intellectual or moral edict to renounce our historic Christianity, and that the cause of white preservation is retarded when white nationalists evince hostility to the Faith? Goethe, I am most intrigued (that word again, which I so rarely use!) by you. You seem extremely intelligent, esp in light of your youth. At your age I could neither write nor think as clearly as you (or so I remember it, perhaps incorrectly; I was a faculty-chosen student writing tutor at one of the Ivies). Certainly, my interests were less ‘deep’, focusing on politics, economics and history - and beer and sports and chicks! Anyway, I’d like to know: 1. What is your transcendent morality? What do you mean by “transhumanism”? 2. Are you a eugenicist or a racialist? If both, why? I can understand a TH being a eugenicist, but where does racialism enter? 3. What do you mean by “transgender”? You are anatomically male, but feel as though you have a female self-conception? What does that mean? How is that different from male homosexuality? I could posit an answer to that question, but as a very sexually conventional straight white man, how you must perceive yourself in relation to the world is something I really can’t quite imagine. No one will believe me, but in real life I am known for being very humorous. Really. All my girlfriends have always thought I was hilarious. Which is why EVERYBODY counsels me to stay away from racial topics. I cannot help but be in excessive earnest, as I watch the greatest race - My race - being systematically liquidated. The end result of nearly every trend in the modern world is leading to white extinction, and I find it maddening that this is so obvious to me, while even many of my friends remain almost willfully blinkered. I cannot discuss race humorously. 42
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:33 | # PF, One day you will be regurgitating Heidegger as various simians use your books for heating material and toilet paper. Maddening though it must be for the antinomian atheists and neonazis, the world has passed you by. As long as there are men there will be atheists, and as long as there are white men, there will be Nazis. But you will always be despised and thoroughly marginalized. My approach, to cast white preservation in a form acceptable to Christian morality (which is eminently possible), and then situating such a preservationism within the broader set of traditionally conservative concerns, is the only realistic option for saving the race (and the West). The future will bear me out. 43
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:44 | # I repost this, for the Nazis (I never criticize “Nazis” in public, but here there really are Nazis, who need criticism; incidentally, I am not offended by Nazis - to each WN his own approach - I just happen to live, mentally as well as professionally, in the real world, and understand what only mentally unstable types could fail to see - that any association with Nazism undermines the cause of WN):
Suppose all Jews disintegrated. Would that suddenly lead white Americans to reject the cult of Martin Luther King, Jr, or to embrace white separatism, etc? Too many persons here paradoxically grant the Jews far too much propagandistic power, and thus, concomitantly, whites far too little intelligence to discern their own feelings, and make up their own minds (ironically, this from the same type of people invariably bleating about white ‘genius’). The key to nationalist victory is to build outwards from the mainstream, that is, to radicalize it over time by continually ‘pushing the envelope’ on race issues. We start by focusing on genuine injustices (black criminality everywhere, illegal aliens, affirmative action, loss of free speech traditions in the Anglosphere). Then we move on to legal immigration, and the loss of traditional western identities, as well as the threat of Islam (Islamic antagonism and terrorism are tremendous political advantages for nationalists!!). Once we have actually stopped immigration and mosque building, and deported illegal aliens, our people will have been sufficiently awakened that our survival will no longer be in doubt. At that point, dealing with Jews as you might like will become feasible, even simple (note I am not hostile to Jews per se myself, merely revealing reality to simpletons). For those Nazis who actually want to save the white race (and not really just whine about Jews), the JQ should be the last topic of concern, not the first. 44
Posted by Seriously, man! on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:13 | #
Haller, when you make comments like that, it’s no wonder why people make fun of you. Does that ever occur to you? Your condescension is like waving a red flag in front of a raging bull. It only serves to invite attack. Moreover it reveals your weaknesses and character flaws. The sharks can’t help from smelling blood. Hence, they all close in and engage in a feeding frenzy. 45
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:50 | # Leon Haller, reg. my religious views: they tend to mirror Daniel’s though I often attempt (and fail haha) to argue from a materialist view here. There’s risk of race becoming a false idol, but I think the transcendent is nevertheless where such loyalty lies. I see racial diversity as created by God, so I’m interested in preserving a diversity of nations, though I’m most attached to mine which seems natural. As I recall you’d pushed for a Catholic spiritual uniting of European nations, and that would be fine with me were it legitimately so. Chesterton, a Catholic, wrote a good piece on patriotism I’m often quoting. It sounds like utopia to me. I’m a Southerner, and my views reflect what would be expected from a dereconstructed residue. 46
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:00 | # Many of the kinists, and myself included, see something unique among Europeans. Somehow we do seem special. I don’t know what if any Biblical argument could be found to support this, but reality seems to reflect it. CC, who isn’t Christian, often says in here that Europeans are a uniquely moral race. Btw, Germany’s economy is very strong! I might learn German since it’s on the ascent. I don’t buy that the British are genetically more individualistic than are Germans. I don’t care how many times the claim is repeated, I blame culture not genetics there. 47
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:19 | # Leon, you might enjoy this blog: Hungry Catholic Writer. I’ve been anti-GMO since 2002; so that blog isn’t what won me over, but it is good. Finding a GM fish at a pet store might be what raised my alarm. I’ve held pretty much the same political view since then: that a devout nationalist state should be formed to resist transhumanism, and such a state should support other states of a similar view, especially of course European ones. Before that I was merely a racialist who… haha wanted essentially the same thing. After finding this threat, I realised it reinforced what I already wanted. So, both Goethe and I see biotech as incredibly and increasingly important in the upcoming future. Honestly, I foresee humans as ultimately losing unless God intervenes… but I’d rather go down fighting. And enduring for 1000 more years is better than not. A traditional order might be able to prevent the chaos. Transhumanists are widespread throughout “WN” groups btw. You’ll find them everywhere. I’m the annoying guy who’s often pointing out what populists somehow can’t readily grasp: that if “we” evolve out of whites, we’re no longer white… They want to protect Europeans and Asians until biotech can advance to the point where it can be used to further evolution. They fear Idiocracy will occur before that level is reached. We’re only temporarily useful to them. They tend to favour the free market and an extreme form of elitism. I’m told that the EGI folks are one of the major groups resisting them. I don’t personally like EGI, though apparently I’m going to have to look at it more closely. EGI is clearly not ideal, but it is clearly significant among “those who matter”. Eugenics. We have on our side spirituality though. A united, driven nation-state could hold off superior individuals for a long time, especially if we get the advantage in tech. I’m doubtful the transhumanists could develop a spiritual structure to build upon. At best they’d “dream of the future” after all the humans are removed, but once achieved they’d lose spirit. Forcing them to see now how even progress falls to relativity is key to defeating them. 48
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:42 | # http://www.politicalcompass.org/ireland 49
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:11 | # I did the test again using only strongly agree and strongly disagree and Plaid Crymru were the closest to my views. 50
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:19 | # GW, you really only need to make your quiz this size: World’s Smallest Political Quiz. I might attempt a version too. I attempted something a couple of years ago, but maybe I got the idea indirectly from MR. I was certainly much later than MR’s first attempt. 51
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:22 | # I never got as far along as your quiz is either… I was trying to design one for the America First Party. I thought the World’s Smallest Quiz was the work of mischievous libertarians, haha. You’ve put in deeper, higher quality thought with your being <—> becoming axis. I was merely a populist, ah a very racist populist to be clear, haha. 52
Posted by Frank on Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:44 | # GW, materialism <—> transcendent Left: communists (materialist, centralisation). 53
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:35 | # 54
Posted by Goethe on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:48 | #
My perspective extends beyond the individual European nationalities.
Meaning? There must always be a goal, for the sake of social organization and harmony.
You are a large collection of cells. These cells organize by genetic data. Because of the configuration of your body, and the reactions with your environment, you have consciousness. What you are afraid of is losing what has allowed your consciousness to begin with. The biological base. I have no belief in the accuracy of stand-alone Biblical accounts.
I am not advocating polygamy as a societal norm. In fact, I don’t see the point of polygamy at all. I am stating that polyamory (different than polygamy) is entirely possible, and should not be discouraged if it is the best form of relationship for the participants. Blurring the sexual boundaries? The Greeks did quite well as a civilization, despite their “male bonding”. You seem to assume that societal norms for personal sexuality and gender are necessary. I believe that the reason you assume this to be true, is that a sex-gender binary is the simplest model to organize XX and XY people by. This completely disregards the fact that a simplest model always fails to account for significant portions of reality.
I agree with this, for the most part.
Much of social morality is archaic, and will no longer be needed in the near future. Therefore it is irrational to focus on it.
Why do you dispute Nietzschean master and slave morality? It is a clear describer of Rome vs. Judea.
Thank you. Do keep in mind that the top universities are designed for the bright, but not brilliant. Those who are brilliant either create for the love of creating, or end up killing/hurting themselves in some way because they did not receive the attention and love that they deserve for being the best examples of what a human should be. I have always been in the latter group, but have recently discovered a reason to live. 1. Transcendent morality is the affirmation and internalization of several key ideas that are necessary in order to support an ever evolving group. Group traits such as honor, charity, a willingness to sacrifice for others, and a realization and respect for the group hierarchy, are just as important as critical personal traits such as conscientiousness, honesty, love. The combination of these leads to a personal expression of virtuousness that is displayed by helping others to grow. I feel that philosophy is the highest (personal) goal in life, because it leads to an increased level of awareness. This awareness, conscientiousness of the Self and others is a form of power, the only real way to escape the inherent weaknesses of being human. By transhumanism, I refer to a class of technologies which, if developed, will have profound consequences for personal and group existence, by doing such things as curing cancer, extending life indefinitely (barring a serious accident or murder), and changing the main fear of humans from death to something else. Of course, assuming that these technologies are developed, they will not be available to everyone. And, as I have said before, I hope that they are realized in a non-capitalist/non-mercantilist situation, so that they can be given to the most important members of the society (scientists, artists, virtuous leaders), instead of those who can show how willing they are to sacrifice the group for themselves, in the form of dollars. 2. I am a strong proponent of eugenics, as well as a European/Germanic supremacist. The importance of race in determining who really *deserves* transhumanist technologies is important to me, because I believe in universal natural laws, and it is quite obvious that if a biological group does not have the consciousness, virtues, creativity, and intelligence that Europeans have, that they do not deserve any escape from the eventualities of Nature. It’s a matter of respecting Nature; I do not consider evolution to be a blind process. I feel that the more complex a thing is, and the more able it is at interfacing with other complex things, the more evolved it is. If you think of Europeans and all the complexity we create, it is obvious that we are very different than other humans. 3. I am transgender because my gender is much closer to female than male, despite my physical body. The origins of such a dichotomy between sex and gender may lie in the application of sex hormones in the womb. It is different than male homosexuality because sex is not gender. There are masculine females, feminine males, and all manner of types in between. I have a strong preference for females; I’m not quite a lesbian, but I am very close. 55
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:57 | # Ah, I just saw the error of my graph. I need to write this out… 56
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:05 | # Sam (Frank too)
There is no such things as a cultural nation. It is biological or it is not a nation. So for present purposes the biological fact of “nation” must be rendered as an idea and bifurcated in some way to expose its political polarity. Thus ... Frank, Materialism ? transcendent as a moral commentary is already descriptive of a partial truth. If one removes the moralism and shifts it to the more expansive body ? soul and then removes the religiosity and shifts it to reality ? idealism we are moving in the right direction. The movement leads into being ? becoming. It does not go further. 57
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:12 | # If I don’t print to read or hand write something, I’m often not thinking clearly. I haven’t liked the computer screen since college for some reason… Top: NS (max centralisation, moderate transcendent) That is less than ideal… Dangit. 58
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:04 | # I understand GW. I’ll come up with something for you and for me (perhaps 2 different solutions). My ideal is a religious, nationalist state on one corner, so… 59
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:13 | # Frank,
Yes, and I am indifferent, genuinely unconcerned, with what people do with their faith impulse. That is their business, so long as it doesn’t put downward pressure on the existence of the White race. An example some of the English here would do well to follow. GW,
The third axis, the “z axis”, is “ethnocentrism”. The reason you score so closely to the center is indeed because you take for granted the locus of your ethny’s “being” (not “becoming”) as the nation state - with which you would be inclined to do rather conventional things in the context of English homogeneity. The “ethnocentrism” axis would look something like this: diasporic pacifism (e.g., the Amish) <> liberal democratic nation state (e.g., the United Kingdom) <> transhumanist ascendancy to “godhood” from the root stock of the White race (e.g., a world render all-White, genetic engineering, Cosmotheism) 60
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:44 | # Goethe:
The divide ought to be between Germans like Hermann (nation-state) and Rome (empire). The Romans were religious. Judea’s faith simply proved stronger. 61
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:51 | # CC, I do accept that at least one of the poles has to be true of the way the mind works, and I am content that the nationalist equivalent in this respect to libertarianism ? authoritarianism is being ? becoming. It is the spine of nationalist thought, and it is writ in all manner of human reflection.
The other axis should be politically descriptive in the same practical way that social and economic issues describe liberal politics. And “described” means “universal” - that is, not loaded with one’s personal preferences so the scheme can account for all preferences. As such, I think it must go beyond ethnocentrism and include that Nietschean insistence on deference to heirarchy. This is what I was intimating in the log entry, and what Frank’s idea of centralisation ? decentralisation succeeds in doing. Now, whether that is the end of the line in the same sense that being ? becoming is the end of the line, I don’t know.
Quite possibly.
Lost me there. But the transhumanism would fit at the “becoming” pole of the “mind” axis. 62
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:59 | # GW, The graph as [it] stands, with only two axes, is two dimensional. [With a] third axis added, it becomes three dimensional. I am thus thinking of it in three dimensions. A [rectangular parallelopiped] in whose space an individual’s psychological orientation to their social context would be located. If their attitudes, as suggested by their answers to the survey questions, indicated indifference to their genetic peoplehood it would be as if the third axis, “ethnocentrism”, had become void, effectively reducing the graph again to two dimensions. The survey, and its resultant graph, is designed, intentionally I suspect as Bowery insinuates, to constrain and therefore only account for psychological orientations within the confines of multiracial, pluralist, liberal democracy. By adding a third axis, “ethnocentrism”, this artificial constraint in broken.
It does just that. As one moves left on the “ethnocentrism” axis one moves further away from the will to engage in temporal politics that does not affect the ethnic group even unto no will to engage in temporal politics even if said does affect the ethnic group. The closer to the center of the axis the more likely one is to wish to “work within the system” to ensure favorable outcomes for one’s ethnic group - and again, dead center, is indifference to the fate of one’s ethnic group. The further one moves to the right on the axis the more likely one is to wish for all things to be arrogated to the empowerment of one’s ethnic group - which would entail the destruction or transmutation of the conventional state as it would be a hindrance to said. 63
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 04:27 | # It would help to think of the location of one’s political/psychological orientation within the space of the three-dimensional, rectangle-graph changing over time depending upon the political objectives, perhaps consistent with long-term group goals, one wished to attain at a particular time. For instance, GW, your present position on the graph is most likely consistent with what you would wish for a settled English polity. But to get there some revolutionary changes, indeed violent changes, employing political forms you would not countenance as in the settled polity may be necessary. So, answering prospective survey questions “as if” you were prescribing those needed extreme political forms would change your location in the three-dimensional, rectangle-graph from what it would be now. With enough survey data, this even yields theoretically the potential to ascertain unconscious or unstated long-term group goals. Imagine that tool used on Jews - which is just what Bowery means when he says their virulence could be detected. 64
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 04:45 | #
Thank you. My goal was to give a hypothetical nationalist paradigm… a way to categorize nationalists and others from a different perspective than individual-centered liberalism. I think GW is pursuing something more abstract.
I agree. Unfortunately, if one simply wrote a definition of terms our quiz would give only two results: Nationalist/Not-Nationalist.
Your conclusion would be true if the Jews were not a main cause of our racial decline. However, the evidence shows that this numerically small but financially and politically influential minority has sabotaged our civilization from within. I know - it sounds counter-intuitive. For years I refused to believe in a “Jewish Cause” because I remained stuck in a kind of ‘accidentalist’ historicism. The evidence I have accumulated over the past couple of years points directly at the Jews. It is unsettling. It is unexpected. It is fact, Mr. Haller. “More than half the white lawyers who made their services available to the civil rights demonstrators in the South were Jews. Between half and three-quarters of the contributors to civil rights organizations - including the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), CORE, and Dr. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) - were Jews. More than half the white freedom riders during the Freedom Summer of 1964 were Jews including, of course, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman who, along with their black colleague James Chaney, were murdered by racist thugs in Mississippi.” But this wasn’t an American affair. The Jews were largely responsible for the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa as well. It is a subject I have been researching for the past few months. I posted some information in a previous comment: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/glauben_sie_mir_das/#c104351 I suspect this pattern happened in North America, South Africa, Europe, and Australia. I am not familiar with Europe and Australia, although a quick search for “civil rights australia” reveals the interesting fact that a Jew named James Spigelman helped organize an Australian “freedom ride” in 1965. Another scent on the trail! Here is an essay I wrote in 2009 describing the similarities between Jewish activities in the U.S. and South Africa: My conclusion is that we’ll have to find a way of neutralizing Jewish influence while encouraging a racial awakening. If we don’t manage the former we’ll never accomplish the latter. 65
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:06 | #
If it is merely a “nationalist equivalent” it hardly rises to the standard of encompassing “all preferences”, only perhaps “all” “nationalist” preferences. It cannot therefore be “universal”. I believe my addition accomplishes the goal of rendering the survey-graph “universal”. For instance, your “being/becoming” axis version accounts for less, and therefore explains less, than the survey-graph with my addition. In what way? Well, for the Amish their essentially diasporic, pacifist existence - I mean in the sense that they are settled, but if one attempted to dispossess them they would not resist it overly much, and if possible, they would set up shop some where else - is their “being”. But the English, as you think of them, are settled on the Isle of Britannia yet would resist their displacement if this were attempted - and that is their “being”. Yet, Andrew Fraser has said he would like to see - or at least he thinks it necessary for Anglo-Saxon survival - Anglo-Saxons become a diaspora people. After what point would diaspora living thus constitute Anglo-Saxon “being”? 66
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 05:55 | # My solution: World’s Even Smaller Political Quiz Populist 5. Gun rights Greens Republicans Democrats - The axis don’t make sense, but it’s not meant to be academic. 67
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 06:17 | # Damn, Frank, I think I just hit this one out of the park. Yup, I can see it sailing over the fence now. I’ll have to get back to you on the viability or not of distributism as a viable economic system for a modern nation state. I’m simply not well enough acquainted with its theoretical minutiae to comment at this time. Is there anything you could recommend which would aid me in that? Although based upon the little I do know, such that it aims to maximize the number of individuals with wealth producing property, Bowery’s proposed system does seem to go in that general direction. 68
Posted by danielj on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 07:37 | # I’ll have to get back to you on the viability or not of distributism as a viable economic system for a modern nation state. I’m simply not well enough acquainted with its theoretical minutiae to comment at this time. Is there anything you could recommend which would aid me in that? Medaille.com dog. 69
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:56 | #
This is myth, Leon, “middle American Christians” have completely upended their “chosen” belief systems in less than one lifetime at the behest of the elite who rule over them. Middle Class White American Christian of pre-1950’s and 60’s is a completely foreign animal to Middle Class White American Christian of 2010. Middle Class White American Christian has altered his views (or become more tolerant) on abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, interracial marriage, adultery, race, class etc….etc….etc…. For God’s sake, the “civil right’s act” was FAARRRR more radical, insidious, dangerous and destructive than the entire Nazi history, both on paper and in practice. And Middle Class White American Christian once agreed. But he changed his mind…..with the help of a new meme introduced by the elite. Thus the current Middle Class White American Christian will loudly declare his rejection of racism (a “sin” that didn’t even exist until about 15 years ago) yet shrug his shoulders in the face of “gay marriage” and the repeal of DADT, which itself represented a capitulation back in the 90’s. So please, spare us the “Mainstream will never except that” line. It’s disproved everyday in a variety of ways. If a new meme is introduced pushing the idea of sacrificing your firstborn son in honor of Yosemite National Park, I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that within 25 years 40% of Middle Class White American Christian will be participating with an additional 45% being neither strongly for or against it. Of the remaining 15%, 3% will ignore the meme by making sure they only have girls, 7% will choose to adopt negroes to avoid firstborn status and the remaining 5% will have never heard of Yosemite National Park. .... 70
Posted by danielj on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:03 | # Sorry Captain! There is only one ‘L’ in his name! This is the proper link: http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm 71
Posted by danielj on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:04 | # Crap… There is two of them… I don’t know what I did wrong. 72
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:13 | # CC, you make a number of good points, but I’m not following you entirely on how it all fits into a chart. I can certainly see Amish at one end, British conservatives in the middle, and Lebensraum NS seeking to expand into an ideal state at the other end. How the complete 3-d chart would look, I haven’t drawn it out yet. Distributism: Francis wrote praise for John Attarian’s Economism and the National Prospect, but it’s rather short. He then went to Chesterton’s Outline of Sanity and said there are great points but too much of it is rhetorical - he’d like to see the specifics worked out by someone. Medaille has put in a lot of work and is worth reading, but you’d be interested in a different sort of distributist than he. Medaille has improved a lot recently, perhaps influenced by Kalb’s recent book?, but his views on race… are ridiculous. I do respect him, and I do own one of his books, though only one right now. I’ll likely order them all eventually though. I especially like that Medaille writes to serve a purpose other than his ego - I think an approach like that will allow for a willingness to rethink past stances, enabling him to achieve the highest levels whatever they might be. 73
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:16 | # Regarding NS: Many US paleos are now openly hostile to the Holocaust tales I think. And we’re not nearly as hostile to WWII Germany due to Buchanan’s book. It remains, however, a foreign and historical movement. Germans speak German, and America fought them. I don’t think we’ll ever be pro-NS. 74
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 16:57 | #
I agree, and the other problem is that putting the theory of NS into practice in a colony like America would be nigh impossible. That is, whites here are from many different backgrounds and there has not been cultural unity in America since it was majority Anglo-Saxon which was a long time ago now. Something like NS had fertile ground to grow out of in Germany’s organic community but in the deracinated USA that is not the case. 75
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:07 | # Well said. Were all the recent Yankee migrants to go home, the South’s white population and the Appalachian population are fairly colonial still, including myself. It’s funny how American WN write off the US South when, despite our black population, we’re in many ways the most American region. 76
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:18 | #
I should have mentioned, though, that there were proto-NS ideas being enacted in Yankeedom c. 1920s: Eugenics, immigration restriction, industrial economy, economic autarky, etc. This is a forgotten chapter of US history, and for obvious reasons there are many people who don’t want the history of this era honestly taught. The Yankees tried to save America and the 1920s were the greatest testament to that fact but ultimately their efforts were inadequate.
The main gripe among WN, I think, is that the South generally has a large population of Christian Zionists who tend to support wars for Israel. Frankly, I’m not sure if this is a fair criticism as I’ve encountered my share of the CZ crowd here in the Midwest as well. That said, I’ve not spent much time in the South but I am told that its population is generally more sympathetic to our point of view. 77
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:33 | # I’d like to read more about these forgotten Yankees. I’m always looking for something good to say about the bastards. Look at what secession means for Vermont secessionists: Immigrants. And it’s similarly so for the Celtic “nationalists” of the British Isles. I don’t like how the LofS associates with such traitors. 78
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:40 | # Actually, I’m aware of what you’re referring to somewhat, especially the 1924 immigration act. I’d like to get together enough info for an historical entry. History’s interesting, but I’m mostly interested in just how it could be useful, not that I’d use deceit or cherry-pick. 79
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:22 | #
My knowledge of the period is general and based upon a picture I pieced together over the years from various sources. I am currently looking for some detailed and specific sources on this topic. I will get back to you if I can find some. 80
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 22:23 | # A National Socialist state would be located between the “liberal democratic nation state” and “transhumanist ascendancy to ‘godhood’ from the root stock of the White race”. On both extremes of the axis as I have described it there would tend to be a psychological/political outlook which favors a withering away of the state. The further one goes left on the axis the more the will to assert group power diminishes, which, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean the dissolution of the group. The further one goes right on the axis the more the will to assert group power increases; taken to its logical conclusion, this would tend to the dissolution of the group as the group itself would need to be transcended to achieve more power (e.g., eugenics, genetic engineering, transhumanism). After a certain point, at the far right end of the spectrum, this process of transcendence would render the need for a state to regulate the affairs of people, if they could even be called such any longer, superfluous. That these poles are extreme outliers of what would resonate with individuals is no excuse not to include them, otherwise the axis is not comprehensive. Btw, I am prescribing nothing here, just attempting to flesh out a comprehensive survey-graph. (Merely making a survey-graph for nationalism does not accomplish that, it is just a reflex against the existing Jewish survey-graph which attempts to artificially contrain descriptive power.) 81
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 23:02 | # “After a certain point, at the far right end of the spectrum, this process of transcendence would render the need for a state to regulate the affairs of people, if they could even be called such any longer, superfluous.” I’m doubtful of that. They’d exist in spiritual chaos. Keep in mind that bioengineering could theoretically be taken in any direction. They’d either embrace a delusion or embrace economism (see the Attarian article). You have absolutely no box with GE, so serving the race is NOT a given. You could serve your dog or your computer - anything is possible. 82
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 23:06 | # I suppose eventually through survival of the fittest a spiritual race of beings orienting around a power-granting idol would reign supreme. But above all some idol would have to be worshiped. If it’s the worship of the state, or non-state state as you say, then that’s one possibility. Once race is transcended, religion becomes all. 83
Posted by Frank on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 23:09 | # Well, you could also bioengineer away the consciousness. Perhaps that’s what you’re referring to. Then people could automatically act in defence of the group without thinking. Regardless, there are no boundaries, absolutely nothing, with biotech. Nothing real exists anymore. 84
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Dec 2010 23:34 | #
*sigh* I don’t support GE. The point is that some ethnocentrists could conceivably support genetic engineering to enhance the power and quality of their group. Just like individuals in multiracial liberal democracies could conceivably have ethnocentric political attitudes, yet the survey-graph as stands effectively doesn’t acknowledge that possibility. That is not science, it is propaganda. Likewise, making a survey-graph that can only say the shit we want it to say is not science, but propaganda. 85
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:08 | #
It would be an idealized vision of what the group could become that would be effectively worshiped according to the internal logic of ethnocentrism taken to its power maximizing logical conclusion.
If the ethnocentric group were to merge with mechanical technology, to become biomechanical beings, to the effect that state regulation of them was no longer needed, effectively they would have merged with the technocratic state, and the state would have been effectively dissolved in the sense of the “state” being a meaningful distinction from “citizen”. 86
Posted by Frank on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:11 | #
Oh, I know.
I’m not that stupid, haha.
I see that in the trans of today, but I’m doubtful this would long endure. Each would have his own vision and ultimately it would fall apart. I know you don’t support this, but I’m just saying.
You’d still have a hierarchy though I think, with institutions etc. just these now linked to a net, like the Borg (Star Trek) I suppose. - I do like what you’re saying overall. Not only is it becoming v. being but being v. power. You sell a little of your soul and/or durability to the devil for a bit of power. If driven to sell one’s soul via competition, then it’s justified. But ultimately it’ll be desirable to return after the threat has passed, lest you can never return. Examples include centralisation v. decentralisation and high tech v. agricultural and of course biotech v. human. 87
Posted by Frank on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:16 | # Regarding durability, the answer lies in Weaver’s:
Though strong v. external threats, modern nations tend to suicide and to similarly be short lived. Whereas a rad trad state of farmers will be overcome as was the Qing dynasty by the Europeans, it won’t be as apt to slit its own throat. 88
Posted by Frank on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:23 | # Now, that’s a really cool graph: X. Being v. becoming Y. Being v. power - If being is so central, why can’t it inhabit both axis? 89
Posted by Frank on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:45 | # X. Durability or soul v. power Y. Being v. becoming - You could enter becoming by moving towards power or towards durability (e.g. returning to an agricultural society). Temporarily during a threat you could move towards power, and then later move back towards durability (e.g. Rome returning to a Republic). - Along the line of Being v. becoming is trad state at the being pole and ideological state at the becoming pole. Due to our present-day technological changes and creative destructive economy, we’re in a more fluid ideological state rather than one with rigid classes. - A potential Z. might be materialism v. transcendent as in economism at materialism and monks & warriors / nobles at the transcendent end. Over time societies grow decadent and decay, so they must renew themselves. 90
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:43 | # Frank,
Once race is transcended the Jew becomes all. Or, at least, that’s the Judaist theory. For us, the only rock is our preservation. Religions are of utility to the religious - and only the religious - while the race is preserved. When race is lost, God dies. I might add that liberalism in its broad historical sense (and inclusive, of course, of both right and left liberalisms) is a process of the replacement of God with Man the Creator, sans boundaries, sans Nature, sans everything that is not willed into being by him. Hence, race must be dissolved in the liberal march to the Man Absolute. 91
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:18 | #
Cool. I was wondering how long it would take for this graphing exercise to morph into an ontological discussion. But I warn you, GW: No tongue-in-cheek swipes at Leon will be tolerated! 92
Posted by Frank on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 18:47 | # GW, Christianity would die in a biotech world, or rather there’d be no living adherents. I meant a false religion would have to be created by the beings for strength. Such idols would grant them power to triumph over the rest. “When race is lost, God dies.” That’s what the Asatru believe too. “Once race is transcended the Jew becomes all. Or, at least, that’s the Judaist theory. “ I hadn’t heard that. - Your being <—> becoming axis is very interesting, with your original meaning not with the meaning CC and I bastardised it with in the recent posts. I look foward to seeing the second axis. 93
Posted by Frank on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 18:50 | # “Once race is transcended the Jew becomes all. Or, at least, that’s the Judaist theory.” Oh, since there’d be no one left to resist them, they’d “inherit the Earth” via replacement at their will. I have heard this. 94
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 24 Dec 2010 19:08 | #
I hadn’t been too interested until it occurred to me that the azimuth of being terminates in Absolute Humor, while becoming disappears into the interminably unknown. I suspect even Nazis won’t be able make one exist without the other. But we’ll sure have fun tryin’ Merry Christmas, everybody! 95
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 01:47 | #
GW’s axis is too vague for my tastes. If he can provide concrete, convincing examples of what the political attitudes of individuals would look like were they operationalized on the various positions on his axis then I would be inclined to consider the merits of his axis further. So far, I have done that, and he has not.
The “right/left” and “authoritarian/libertarian” axes are just fine in my opinion, in fact indispensable to describing socio-political opinions - however flawed the questionnaire in this instance may be. As such, to get rid of one of them would not do. No, the problem with the extant axes is that they do not register at all, or at least not well, something that is self-evidently salient to most of the people of the world: namely ethnocentrism. Not “nationalism”, not “being”, but ethnocentrism. The former two being (no pun intended) merely a high-flown and round about way of saying…ethnocentrism. Seriously, no one at this point gets what I’m saying? 96
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 26 Dec 2010 02:22 | # A Question of Propaganda: Socratic Method with a Jewish Twist. I have been giving some thought to the development and dissemination of pro-White propaganda. My initial thoughts, like those of Sam Davidson and others, was around the creation and distribution of leaflets. A telephone campaign is also a possibility. As a result of studying the Nationalist Axiality thread, I am starting to have a different idea: Maybe questions are more effective than assertions in molding opinions. As much as I admire the strong character of the MR commentariat, the fact that our survey results are clustered so tightly in the center of the graph clearly indicates its utility as an opinion molding device more than a diagnostic tool. In the development of such a survey, the designer has the ability, by virtue of false dichotomies and control over multiple choice alternatives, to create the ideational equivalent of a “controlled opposition”, and thus confine the participants’ thought processes, influence their attitudes, and inform their identities. During the administration of this Blue Pill, the victims vainly imagine that their uniqueness is being asserted for the purpose of measurement. Give me a break! Consider James Bowery’s sample question from early in this thread:
This question clearly demonstrates the means by which a strong mind can take possession of a weaker one by appearing to seek its opinion. Clearly, James Bowery doesn’t give a rat’s ass about homosexuality. He’s exploiting its utility in a mock question for the purpose of activating latent feelings of nationalism. In actuality, I’m afraid there is nothing new about this idea. Our enemies are currently using it on a fairly massive scale. Political organizations design surveys and contract with call centers for scripted implementation. The call centers and the employees have no idea that they are conducting a propaganda campaign. They think they are being employed to gather data, but their primary function is to have them conduct psychological assaults on an unsuspecting target without having their effectiveness undermined by a sense of guilt. If any of you here at MR are interested in dreaming up other deviously leading questions, please post them, and I will consider incorporating them in a telephone “survey”, the real purpose of which is to awaken racialist and nationalist sentiments from their unconscious slumber in the hearts of our brothers and sisters. PS: Leon, I know you are interested in re-locating to the Pacific Northwest. Do have any experience as a telephone solicitor? 97
Posted by Frank on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:01 | # CC, The word nationalism might have been redefined, but it originally meant blood relation with a mythos behind it and common ancestral traditions within it. Back to a point I’d made that I probably didn’t make clearly enough: rural folks tend to be more conservative, including more “ethnocentric” than do the urban. And similarly, people who work for large corporations or for big government tend to be less ethnocentric. It’s worth considering that NS might only be a short-term, power granting solution that is risky in the long-term. There’s need for a society that morphs, as the need arises, to defend itself and then morphs back to preserve itself. And such a society would have to resist morphing for some internal desire (e.g. an interest group seeking money or perhaps that just seeks “change”) which it most likely would anyway. -
I enjoy life. I don’t dream of Autobots and Decepticons battling it out. I like my people. I like their history and being. I don’t see a need to risk all that because these internet loners or big city loners or university loners (majoring in biotech) haven’t experienced a normal one. The solution is more whites need to get out and experience a healthy life. Then more of us would be conservatives / ethnocentrics / original dictionary definition nationalists. 98
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:00 | # Frank,
I’m aware. Ethnocentrism refers to a psychological attitude to cultural and/or blood relations. That is why the word is more appropriate in this instance. (In this instance we are discussing ascertaining and graphically plotting socio-political attitudes.) Apologies if I did not make that clear.
I’m aware. If only because a man worthy of being Fuhrer is hard to come by. But there is the necessity of surviving. That must come first. NS is the ‘nuclear option’.
Uh huh. The struggle for life is eternal. Yet the aim of statecraft is to minimize this need to “morph”. In a word, it strives for *stability*. This is the proper context for conservatism to be deployed as GW consistently points out. 99
Posted by Frank on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:39 | # “If only because a man worthy of being Fuhrer is hard to come by. “ Same with a king. But regardless, NS is centralised, and I think the ideal is a decentralised society, should the environment allow for such. “Yes, rural folk are more dependent upon extended kinship networks and concomitantly the integrity of said networks. So, naturally, their attitudes reflect their regard for said networks.” That was my main point, but it’s not only the economic facet though of course. Rural folks also live within rooted communities that approach isolation even in this day. Cities are more transient and filled by strangers, as well as foreigners (not kin). The social life of rural folks is very different from urban. Rural tend to meddle in everyone’s affairs and know what’s going on, urban tend to leave others alone - so there’s less peer pressure. And those in charge tend to interact with those they’re in charge of, so there’s tighter attachment. Rule by strangers tends to lead to poor treatment. And since they’re exposed to strangers, city folks tend to marry them more often. It’s not as simple as genetic interests and economics. Ah, I suspect you already know all this too. I’m just wary of NS. I acknowledge it grants power and that even NS wasn’t enough for Hitler to survive the communists. Perhaps the jumpy, Jew-controlled Brits wouldn’t have attacked had Hitler not expanded so much though - who knows. Capitalism and democracy are likely the greatest threat to nationalism though - which of course American conservatives, conservatives being those capable only of feeling not thinking, embrace completely. Sam Francis didn’t though of course, and others are slowly awakening now that it’s somewhat too late… Regardless, I don’t find NS as a good alternative. 100
Posted by Frank on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:53 | # Well, I should say conservatives think with tradition. On some level they instinctively understand that pure reason leads no where, and trial-and-error generally takes things into account that reason overlooks. Similarly, a revolution destroys the bad with the good and risks bringing about something even worse. Conservatives think with symbols rather than ideological abstractions, partly due to their irrational nature and partly due to their complexity. Statecraft isn’t necessarily oriented around stability. As Plato wrote, a state is built for war! Such though doesn’t mean a state ought to seek war out, but if one isn’t built for war it’ll be overtaken by those who are. If a virtuous elite is in power, it ought to have the ability to vote on switching to a war-ready order when necessary. The Romans as I said earlier could adapt somewhat, removing or restoring the Senate as needed. I really need to learn some more historical examples… 101
Posted by Frank on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:59 | # A stable state though must be designed around what it occupies. Machiavelli, as I quoted a while back here, thought a state was either designed to endure or to expand (empire). If a state does as NS and seeks living space, then it’d want to reorganise itself such that it can endure post-expansion. And it likely wouldn’t want to continue expanding. Likely there’d be some desired ideal, unless it had some threat looming over it. A virtuous state that doesn’t provoke, and thus frighten, others ought to be capable via trade to grow powerful, in this time, without others stopping it (because they don’t fear it). A stealthy approach is likely the best way to grow dominant as you desire. China is potentially a brilliant example. One never hears about its colonists in south Asia or Africa or… America and Canada. 102
Posted by Frank on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:03 | # The British are some of the whitest and most beautiful on Earth. It’s a shame they couldn’t just retain America, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK while dominating the rest of the world via subtle trade. And likewise, the Germans should have been allowed South Africa, which they largely settled (and the British stole) - the blacks hadn’t developed anything. 103
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:33 | # Damn, this fucking cracker Frank (he’s from one of the Carolinas, I forget which), with a few minor hiccups, is really on the ball. Perhaps GW should secure his blogging services. 104
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 11:47 | # Like you CC, Frank is always welcome to offer contributions. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Attack On Civilisation From Within
|
|
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) |
(to serve what I value…)
Posted by Ivan on Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:20 | #
GW,
I have read your post twice in a row and the only sentence from the entire edifice I could make clear sense of was this one: I know I’m not thinking clearly enough.
GW asked: Any ideas?
Yes, when you are not thinking clearly enough don’t write anything down, but if you do - don’t present it to the attention of others who might think clearly. Go jogging, or skiing, or spend quality time with your family (or girlfriend, whatever the case might be) in your backyard BBQing.