Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:57 | #

how did our political class come to this estate, and what keeps them like it?

Money, power, status and the self-righteousness gratification of immolating their own.

Posted by Fiotheth on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:24 | #

how did our political class come to this estate, and what keeps them like it?

Here in the States it has come about through:

Jewish Media Control (destroying anyone who questions Israel Lobby: example: Paul Findley)

Competitive Altruism

Whites as Bottom-tier of Society (What about Black Skin Privilege? by Michael A. Hoffman II - Michael Hoffman II has revealed that Majority of Whites have been Bottom-tier, whilst Blacks were the middle class and Rich, Elite Whites were Top-tier!!!!!!)

Posted by Frank on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:28 | #

By possessing the right skills is what gives the managerial elite its power as I recall. Since institutions naturally wish to expand, they continue to seek to expand without a long term view of society and without respect for various boundaries.

They’ll remain until they’ve completed the undermining of their power base with the third world Babel.

The Holocaust is the founding religion, along with other tales of northwest European male oppression. And these are bolstered by the mass media, academia, and mass culture. The Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights movement need special mention too. That’s what comes to my mind anyway.

Posted by Bill on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:26 | #

Because we let them.

Redirect the question.  Why did we let them?  Why are we still letting them?

Posted by Bill on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:03 | #

This website discusses various issues related to the preservation of Western culture and the ethnic genetic interests (EGI) of people of European ancestry.  This site does not argue that the EGI and cultural concerns of non-European people are less important than those of people of European ancestry.

These discussions taking place here (re-above) are on a multitude of differing levels, FWIW, I think the bottom line is, we are seeing the rapid demise of our civilisation, probably by the end of this century.

To what degree this state of affairs is attributable to the natural life and death cycle of all civilisations and how much is due to deliberate engineering by Western man himself - is an intriguing question.

Either way our civilisation is tanking fast and it is ultimately this which is under discussion here.

Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:06 | #

The old hereditary nobility of Europe was destroyed and replaced with the current class of opportunists who will gladly sacrifice nation and anything else of value for short-term gain.  The rise of America, a haven for these scoundrels, taken with the concurrent decline of Europe allowed the virus to spread to the other European nations and colonies when all nationalism and particularism had been extinguished by force in the World Wars.  So we find ourselves in civilization decline some 60 years down the pike.

The political class is sustained by absolute authority over all major institutions coupled with the attraction of power, influence and being part of the “big club”.  Crass materialism and self-interest are extremely powerful motivators.  They attract people of high ruthlessness and virtually non-existant civic conscience which perpetuates the cycle from generation to generation.

Posted by Bill on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:42 | #

Something from over @ VFR

The crash of the liberal West that can’t be stopped

Takuan Seiyo’s Didn’t Fred take a wrecking ball to this guy recently?

hhtp://www.amnation.com/vfr/

Posted by Fiotheth on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:02 | #

Here is a better link: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013314.html

Good analysis and it should be noted that the most liberal of the enterprises The Soviet Union has already collapsed!  So the process is slow but ongoing.  Assuredly I shall live to see the Collapse of the United States and other parts of the liberal systems.  Probably Belgium will be the first to go in Europe. 

What to do in the mean-time????  RIDE THE TIGER! as Baron Evola advised all Men of Race.

Posted by Jupiter on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:17 | #

Something to consider:Why did Southern Evangelical Christians in South Carolina elect the race traitor Linsay Grahm when they they could have elcted a Southrn White Christian patriotic immigration refromer.

Southrn Evangelical Christianity is weird, utterly corrupt….and incredibly dumb.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:03 | #

I read the Auster piece Bill and Fiotheth linked but not the original Takuan piece Auster is commenting on.  Notice Takuan, as excerpted by Auster, recommends virtually exactly GT’s microcommunities as the solution to the crisis.  In the excerpts he doesn’t mention a barter economy but a barter economy is more or less implied in the rest of his description.  (Once again, I am in favor of microcommunities if they work, or any other reasonable solution that works.)  Takuan also seems, in those excerpts, to touch upon secession, which is my preferred solution for Euro-race North America (the U.S. and Canada).  It’s not clear from the excerpts whether he intends secession as something separate from microcommunities or not.  I’ll have to read the original Takuan piece, but thanks to Bill and Fiotheth for mentioning Auster’s summary of it.  I’ll add that secession, though not right for Europe in every case the way it is right for the U.S., is in a way implied in Norman Lowell’s idea or regionalism which I also FULLY support, and secession is right in certain cases, such as the case of the Vlaams Belang and the Northern League and some others.  Where secession is NOT the way to go in Europe, the way to go is of course to vote for parties such as Haider’s party, Le Pen’s party, the one in Switzerland that put up the posters showing the black and brown sheep being kicked out by the white sheep, and the BNP.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:19 | #

Make that,

In the excerpts he doesn’t mention a local barter economy but a partial barter economy is probably more or less implied in the rest of his description.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:35 | #

One thing wrong with the Takuan view, as excerpted by Auster, is his unsatisfactory treatment of race:  he leaves too many “outs” for the continuation of race-replacement genocide. 

Race means race, it doesn’t mean “if you have a huge population of Nigerian Negroes in your country but they’ve adopted your language and culture, it’s OK, they can stay and even more can come provided they likewise adopt your language and culture.  Ultimately the actual biological race you are makes no difference.”  No.  Race doesn’t mean that.  Race means race.  If Takuan wants to make exceptions to race on grounds that the numbers involved in any such exceptions are too small to make a noticeable difference, let him say that.  But the way he dances around the biology of the issue leaves open to the David Blunketts of this world their “no theoretical upper limit” option.  Sorry, that’s a non-starter.  RACE MEANS BIOLOGICAL RACE.  That’s your starting point and your ending point.  If within those biological parameters you want to leave room for a tiny number of exceptions, a number too small to change things biologically, that’s fine.  But the overarching racial principle has to be explicit, sorry.  If it’s not explicit the race-replacers will always get around it and have you race-replaced quicker than you can say <strike>Jack Robinson</strike> Takuan Seiyo.

Posted by Bill on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:41 | #

Posted by Fiotheth on June 01, 2009, 12:02 PM

The crash of the liberal West that can’t be stopped

Here’s a better link….

Thanks for that, my computer is all over the place, it’s my grandsons.  Mine has had to go in for major heart surgery and is not yet out of intensive care - so everyone please bear with me.

Posted by q on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:38 | #

Why did Southern Evangelical Christians in South Carolina elect the race traitor Linsay Grahm when they they could have elcted a Southrn White Christian patriotic immigration refromer.

They, like almost all Christian denominations have gradually transformed from traditional Christian teaching to liberalism. It’s a sign of the times, I guess. It certainly wasn’t always that way, perticularly the teachings of the Catholic Church. They were at the vanguard against all things LIEberal - pre Vatican II that is.

PS, Lindsey Graham strikes me as gay.

Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:06 | #

The Takuan article was posted at Brussell Journal a fortnight or so ago. Odd that only now are people commenting on it.  The Takuan view is only partially correct, as it does not take into full account the Jewish role.

How has the current Western political class come into being?
And how has this Western political class been sustained in power?

I would venture to guess, it is due to the infiltration and occupation of the West by a hostile (foreign) ruling class and co-opted native elites, whose rule is facilitated and sustained by a combination of unprecedented material prosperity, cultural subversion, and ‘soft’ authoritarianism. The answer is multifacted, but not necessarily complex.

Let’s answer these questions so we can prevent the same thing happening again in future. But for the time being, for the system, the sole solution is catastrophe.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:53 | #

The acquisition of wealth and power is/was adaptive.

The Indicted and the Wealthy: Surnames,
Reproductive Success, Genetic Selection and
Social Class in Pre-Industrial England

Gregory Clark, University of California, Davis
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
January 19, 2009

A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World, argued
controversially that in pre-industrial England the rich replaced the
poor demographically, and that this helps explain why England
became more “bourgeois” in these years: less violent, thriftier,
more literate, more numerate. Here evidence from a different
source, surnames, again shows the takeover of English society by
the economically successful between 1600 and 1851, and the
disappearance of the criminal and the poor. A man’s economic
success in pre-industrial England predicted a permanent increase
of his surname frequency, and hence his gene frequency, by 1851.
But the surnames also shows that despite this mechanism, preindustrial
England was a society of great social mobility, with no
permanent upper class.

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell to Alms/Clark -Surnames.pdf

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:17 | #

As homogeneity declines assortative mating increases.

In particular, Americans are increasingly pairing off by education level, according to the sociologists Christine Schwartz and Robert Mare. In an article published last year in the journal Demography, they reported that the odds of a high-school graduate marrying someone with a college degree declined by 43 percent between 1940 and the late 1970s. In our current decade, the researchers wrote, the percentage of couples who are “educationally homogamous” — that is, share the same level of schooling — reached its highest point in 40 years. Assortative mating by income also seems to be on the rise. In a 2004 study of couples wed in the 1970s through the early 1990s, the researchers Megan Sweeney and Maria Cancian found an increasingly strong association between women’s wages before marriage and the occupational status and future earnings prospects of the men they married.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/magazine/19wwln_idealab.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

n/a’s research also suggests that the wealthy/educated (both men and women)are less likely to engage in interracial marriage.

Education is not a significant predictor of Asian exclusion, but college-educated females and males are more likely to exclude blacks than those with only high school degrees. This finding is consistent with racial–economic exchange theories predicting that less educated white women would be more open to minorities of lower racial status.

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/miscegenation.html

Posted by CullTheDumbest on Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:54 | #

Judeo-Christianity, The Enlightenment, American and French Revolution, Bolshevism. Anthropocentricism is the cause of these.

Posted by q on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:56 | #

Notice Takuan, as excerpted by Auster, recommends virtually exactly GT’s microcommunities as the solution to the crisis.

Yeah, but GT better improve on the design of the “little do all machine” so it’s capable of fabricating a cloaking device. That way he could effectively make invisable his “microcommunity”(a close variation of Alice Rosenbaum’s Gault’s Gulch, btw) from the elites, otherwise they will discover it and subject him to a royal shillelaghing.

Posted by q on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:03 | #

Maybe Obama will impose microcommunity style living for all of us, such as 8x10 foot huts for all! Just like his half brother lives in over in Africa. Sound crazy? Talk to me in 25 years.

Posted by GenoType on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:58 | #

Actually, q (formerly Onlooker, Dave Johns, .357 Magnum, and Shabbos on VNN - for those who care about such things), the following letter has generated several favorable comments via email.  The rural strategy, alternative socioeconomic systems, intentional communities, local politicization, secession, and the moral crucifixion of easy money traitors is the future of white nationalism.  Get back to me about this in ten years or so, okay?

“I point out this rich tapestry of Jewish ethnic activism to give some idea of what those who advocate for White identity and interests are up against.”

Until White advocates change strategy they haven’t a snowball’s chance in hell of doing anything about jewish activism.

Why should urban whites, complacent and dependent on “our” judeosystem of socioeconomics, risk financial security and social status to confront the jews? They won’t. It’s too risky.

Rather than confront the jews head-on the way to handle them is to not play their game. The present system encourages the pursuit of easy money and rewards “correct” behavior with social status. The pursuit of easy money is jewish. Whites playing this game are cattle. Cattle are not White. We must bypass the jews with alternative socioeconomics based on Whiteness, with stature awarded for adherence to White principles in one’s personal and social behavior.

European ancestry is “not good enough” for inclusion in these alternative socioeconomic systems. Any definition of Whiteness must include a behavioral component. This behavioral component will, of course, disqualify the overwhelming majority of urban Whites in North America. Too bad, so sad, but the fact is we don’t need them. What we need are the Whites in flyover country - the lower middle-class, the blue-collar, and poor - for given the proper incentives these people are willing to take risks for reasons that the empty suits of the urban ‘Kwa shirk, shun, and ridicule.

Alternative socioeconomic systems must be designed for these people, and must emphasize the achievement of social, political, and economic independence at local levels. Localization is necessary to bypass and undermine the local Republican and Democratic “bosses” of gentile persuasion who not only own each and every small town throughout North America, but ultimately serve jewish interests in their greed for easy money. These bastards are judeo-America’s first and foremost line of defense, and they will not be “converted” by words.

Until White advocates implement alternative socioeconomics and include behavior in our definition of Whiteness, we are nothing more than empty suits - nonexistent on the ground and marginalized on the Internet.

——-

Hi G_______: I think you are right about all this. I do think a leader will arise, and probably in the next 10 years or so. If not, then I guess we deserve our fate.

Posted by GenoType on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 05:14 | #

Maybe Obama will impose microcommunity style living for all of us, such as 8x10 foot huts for all! Just like his half brother lives in over in Africa. Sound crazy? Talk to me in 25 years.

What a dipstick you are, q.

Ever hear of Swiss communes?

Here’s a picture of one with a population of 25 built on a mountainside.

This retired couple don’t appear to be suffering, do they?

A new community.  Is it outfitted with toilets or outhouses?  Only q knows for sure!

Here are some fine African mud huts in the Swiss Alps!

Posted by q on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:58 | #

What a dipstick you are, q.

I’ve been called worse.

Ever hear of Swiss communes?

No I haven’t, but I just did a quick google search and found they are struggling to survive.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=4693157

http://www.swissworld.org/en/politics/general_information/the_future_of_communes/

If the highly cooperative Swiss are having problems keeping their communes viable, what makes you think you can be successful? Especially given the fact you lack leadership qualities?

BTW, GT, nice pictures.

Posted by Fiotheth on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:12 | #

This may be off topic, but it could be of interest to micro-community types who possibly may not have heard of Jost Turner:

Back to the Land

by Jost Turner

In the late 1960’s I had just returned from two consecutive tours of combat duty in the rugged mountain highlands of South Vietnam. California had become a very different place from the one I had left, and two years of isolation in the Asian jungles had not prepared me for that to which I had returned. I was suddenly in an alien world of long hair and beards, drugs and sexual promiscuity, civil disobedience and racial color blindness. It was the day of the “Hippy”, “do your own thing”, and the encouragement to “drop out” of society.

For a while I was in a state of shock, but as I adjusted, I began listening and observing. I dismissed most of this “new age” philosophy as childish nonsense. However, two years in the jungles had given me a different outlook on life. I could now see the selfishness and materialism into which the White race had sunk, and I had some sympathy for my hairy co-racialists. I especially liked their idea of destroying the system by non-participation, and it has always remained in the back of my mind.

By the early 1970’s there was a growing movement among these social drop-outs to go “back to the land”, advocating self- sufficiency on the land, free from modern society’s support, living simply like our ancestors. Their pioneering in this area has done our Folk an invaluable service.

By the mid 1970’s I had given up trying to be part of the urban social and economic system. Already I could see the growing political power of non-whites, and the indifference and growing materialism of the white majority. Seeing no real alternative, I packed up my family and headed back to the land. There, I discovered a whole new world, a much better and more natural way of life! In the isolated mountains of Northern California, there were already a number of individuals and families, many college educated, who had fled the cities and begun a new life of homesteading. They were all permeated with an anti establishment idealism which was directly descended from the hey-day of the hippy movement. Their philosophy of life was a combination of left-wing politics, oriental religion, Robin Hood and brotherhood, as well as a tolerance for drugs which ultimately led to an early destruction of the movement.

Nevertheless, these urban refugees had done a staggering amount of research, and a great deal of practical application in the field of self-sufficient homesteading. They learned to build their own simple shelters, everything from log cabins to yurts. They learned the skills of organic gardening, animal husbandry, and home processing of foods. They revived the arts of midwifery, herbal medicine, and such skills of self-sufficiency as spinning, weaving, and leather craft. In the spirit of being anti- establishment, they put great effort into supporting themselves off the system, and made some great progress into the area of cottage industries. They spurned corporations and conducted their business exclusively with thrift shops and small businesses. They made great progress in pioneering alternative education for their children.

As their numbers grew, they began manifesting a real spirit of community and Folk. These modern-day pioneers were happy to help any newcomer, and I spent the next couple of years learning the many skills of homesteading and self-sufficiency. For the first few years our family lived in crude octagon cabins, barns and even tepees. We cut firewood with antique handsaws, used herbal medicines, raised organic gardens, and learned to process our own food.

Our lives were simple, yet fuller than ever before. Summer work was hard, but there was always ample recreation at the river swimming hole where numbers of locals from all over the mountain ridges would congregate to relax and cool off. Like our pre-christian ancestors of old, they were not burdened by christian puritanism. They saw nothing evil or dirty about the human body, and they swam and sun- bathed quite naturally unadorned by swimsuits or cutoffs. Winter was the time for enjoying the fruits of summer labor. We joined other modern-day homesteaders in rough-hewn cabins all over the mountains, sitting around the wood stove, repairing tools, watching the rain and snow, and planning the next season’s chores. But these pioneers did not understand the importance of discipline to their own idealism and homesteading success. They generally failed to pass anything on to their children. They opted for Jewish permissiveness.

The heirs of the movement can be seen here and there throughout the area - purposeless, undisciplined, drug-using youth. The end really came with the rise of marijuana cultivation. Ideals began to vanish with the temptation of large amounts of easily acquired cash. Materialism and the greater supply of drugs destroyed both the community spirit and idealism. Today, the mountains are waiting for a new back-to-the-land movement, one imbued with a true idealism, and a sound spiritual philosophy. This time it will not be the pressures of White middle class materialism that will spur a back-to-the-land movement. This time it will be the awesome pressure of mass non-white immigration, and White second-class citizenship. All of the elements for building a Folk community are here. The time is now ripe. There is little future for White youth in any city. The cities are becoming more and more non-white. Economically, it is getting more and more difficult to survive in the city. The social welfare system is becoming more and more anti- white. The schools are sorely anti-white. Today, the disenfranchised White youth are beginning to stir. The Skinhead movement is a reaction to the growing non-white terrorism, and White indifference. It pains me to see our youth sitting in government prisons for smashing a few degenerate heads in a futile attempt to fight back against overwhelming oppression. How much more useful it would be to put their energy into hewing themselves a homestead, and ultimately a folk community, out of the unsettled rugged mountains.

There is still a great deal of open land in this country, and although it is not as easy as it used to be, it is still possible to live there simply, inexpensively, and reasonably independently. It is also quite possible to establish communities which are largely independent of the established system. Why not take up the old hippy slogan to “drop out”, and begin destroying this anti-white system by non-participation? We advocate a new back to the land movement. We hope that Volksberg, our family homestead in the secluded mountains of Northern California, will serve as an example, a viable alternative for the responsible and self-reliant of our Folk, to begin a new life, a simple, joyful, life, close to nature, and away from the degeneracy of the urban cesspools. As our Folk grows and grows, we hope to provide a viable destiny for our folk: Back to the Land!

Posted by q on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:13 | #

Ha! Score one for a Jew that’s (marginally) on our side.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

Posted by SM on Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:13 | #

>There is still a great deal of open land in this country, and although it is not as easy as it used to be, it is still possible to live there simply, inexpensively, and reasonably independently.

————
That has been said all along before. It is the exploration age and colonial ethos.

It didn’t work the first time.

Gamble that civi self destructs through all the worker bees it forces into John Galt status.

How many more generations, runaway, can last un ‘absorbed’ in the outback? (Especially relevant question, since all—pertinently the females—know how to use a phone now.)

I think the fight is in the cities etc. Control of media and military [catch 22 there].

[Convince soldiers, mano e mano, that they fight for the wrong side—ie their enemies—as duped Useful Idiots; seize media; convince the rest. Note, soldiers are very thick though; La Machine likes it that way (Natural Selection doing its thing, selecting for conformist simple minded warrior drones).]

Then once victory achieved (as if), a strong _government_ created so as to prevent the problems of liberalism from ever rearing up again. (Ie get that whole “government is a bad word” thing out of your skulls; and you don’t need a “tax break” either, you dupes.)

————-
If man makes it to an ‘undiscovered continent’ (eg space platforms), then varying social models will spring again, including MicroCommun.

Once there, I’d recommend for MicroC (and all) A) being very isolated; and B) grappling with, so far un analyzed, gender (ie the females), child rearing and rank and caste issues among the male monkeys. Note that controlling gender and status issues—ie creating contentment—will stifle “growth”/change… Thus allowing the more vibrant and hungry effete hives to find and absorb the MicroComms unless MicroC are well out of reach. Natural Selection will do its thing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:24 | #

“Ha! Score one for a Jew that’s (marginally) on our side.”  (—q)

Good for Savage!  Serves the bitch right.

Posted by GenoType on Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:34 | #

If the highly cooperative Swiss are having problems keeping their communes viable, what makes you think you can be successful? Especially given the fact you lack leadership qualities?

I’m sorry to capsize your “Ah ha!” moment, but the picture accompanying the article was the first one I used.  Do you actually believe I didn’t read the article?

Unlike Swiss communes, intentional communities in the U.S. would be unincorporated.  Informal, unincorporated communities comprised of family and friends needn’t concern themselves with funding mayors or providing costly municipal “services” to members. 

The point which has flown above your head is that intentional communities can be “high-tech,” “low-tech,” or anything in-between.  Switzerland is “high-tech,” for example.  Traditional Amish communities are “low-tech.” 

I have the technical and leadership experience you lack, Mr. Onlooker.  My moral standards are higher and unlike you, I outgrew Objectivism in my early teens.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed that I’m not interested in leading capitalist or socialist free-loaders?  My concern with easy money -types is to see them identified and ridiculed, if not prosecuted, tried, and convicted of theft.

There is no doubt in my mind that should this idea succeed you will beg for inclusion when the shooting stops.  Don’t apply for inclusion in my neck of the woods, asshole.

Posted by a Finn on Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:11 | #

Genotype, what you lack is marketing abilities. I am sure you know many useful things about communities, but you sink the idea with hostile language.

Guessedworker, some of the reasons, the exact “order” here is not important, just that the development arrows all point to the same direction:

Increasing number of people—> concentration of people in the cities—> the need for hierarchical structures and organizations—> separation and differentiation of many new subsystems and institutions, increasing system complexity (e.g. bureaucracies, separation of sciences, diversification of companies, diversification of laws etc.), diversification of roles (e.g. employees in labor market, increasingly ostensible political legitimation by democratic participation, consumer market, clients of bureaucracies)—> diversification of interests in the subsystems—> lessening of organic relations and/ or communication between people of different subsystems and inside the subsystems (e.g between classes, high status - low status, between different sciences [because the knowledge required to master many or all sciences is too large to one person, different scientific “languages”, competition and borders between sciences], between scientists and the public, between politicians and bureaucrats, and public, etc.—> separation of capitalist system (the main system) and the state—> separation of culture/ lifeworld from system and subsystems—> differentiation of social integration in families, in lifeworld, in system and subsystems—> increasing search for profit from anywhere; new consumer identities, profit from minority group integration into the capitalist producing and consuming, profits from marginals, economies of scale, race to the bottom, international integration—> dependency of the state from global capitalist system that doesn’t need legitimation from states/ peoples—> leftists that vie for power with capitalism by trying to integrate the whole world to leftism, at the same time doing their dirty work and living with them in symbiosis—>

Let’s take a break here. We have here unprecedented separation and differentiation and at the same time an attempt at global dedifferention, and barely nothing to genuinely connect people. How to integrate this hopeless, extremely diversified mess and atomization to the capitalist and leftist power systems? “Tolerance”, human rights, political “correctness”, “positive” discrimination etc.  At the same time this “tolerance” weakens native majority peoples by organizing and helping everybody else against them, thus giving more power to the “elites”.

Then there is (partly overlapping):

* Stupidity and ignorance (see also reification).

* Indirect bias, people recognize high status marks of rich liberals and copy unthinkingly their thoughts as a single block.

* Preferring short term interest over long term interest (evolutionarily the norm in humans) and the tendency of people to maximize profits and at the same time to produce negative externalities to the detriment of others.

* Reification; humans produce large complex systems that they can’t understand or govern properly, the system has unintended consequences and then turns against humans.

* Relevance universes. The concrete life and cognition of humans is limited. They have e.g. the ability know about 150 people well. Things and people outside this relevance universe has at best ethereal existence.

* Distant status - solidarity incompability.

* The lie of the first generation becomes the truth or institution in the subsequent generations. E.g. the development might go approximately as follows; the first generation knows that the “tolerance” talk it created is just public deception tool to integrate the different parts of society more to the producer-consumer society. It knows the inception, history and evolution of “tolerance” talk. The next generation receives only parts of this and the public deception starts to gain more prominence as real, received truth and wisdom, the way things are done. The third generation receives even less of the original truth and the public deception becomes not only the only truth but it becomes institutionalized in power system. Because the “tolerance” ideology is now mostly based on a few snippets of information, it’s history becomes more and more replaced by false history supporting the institutionalized “tolerance”. Those in the third generation who know approximately the real history might have political agendas, and they could strive to replace the surviving truth with falsehoods, confident either that people’s “tolerance” knowledge is based on almost nothing or that those believing in or pressured by institutionalized “tolerance” will silently look the other way or say public approval even if they know the truth. At the next stage “tolerance” starts to diversify and colonize new areas.

* Homo economicus. Although pure homo economicus is fiction, it has enough truth in that many atomized, alienated and individualized people are in essence homo economicuses, greedy people interested in reality only in themselves. But they also react easily to economic incentives in environment. This makes them easily governable by those who have power and money, thus homo economicuses and their societies are easily led to their destruction.

I don’t deny importance of money, but as a single factor it is drastically insufficient, a little bit in the same way that breathing is important, but if it is the only thing in life, the life will end miserably.

* Adverse selection in positions of power. In highly hierarchical and diversified societies the best manipulators, narcissists, single mindedly and selfishly greedy people gain power the most easily. Or they are pliable friendly looking and sounding puppets of the men behind the scenes.

Etc.

The result is that civilization self destructs and is largely incapable of stopping it. The solution to this is, in short, self sufficient networks of small ethnic communities (150 - 500 persons/ community) located strategically quite near fairly large cities, but not in the cities.

Ps. Reading a book in today’s world is a revolutionary act. Jürgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2. Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality. Michel Foucault, The Security, Territory and Population, and The Birth of Biopolitics. Joe and Natalie Henrich, Why Humans Cooperate.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:59 | #

Some highly relevant background for my “serves the bitch right” comment earlier in this thread:

The latest MP to have been caught flipping is none other than Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, of whom I said when she was appointed to her post in 2007 that “the spelling of her name produces in me a feeling of great confidence that she is really on top of her job of enforcing Britain’s laws.” And, indeed, Jacqui’s no average, ordinary flipper: her second home in London that she falsely designated as her “first” home was not even a home, but a room in her sister’s London house. What’s the English equivalent for chutzpah?

Here I think is the deeper significance of the scandal. These MP’s have had exactly the concern for their responsible use of tax payer monies as they have for their conduct of the nation as a whole. When they’ve left Britain open to insane immigration; when they’ve sided with Islam against Britain; when they’ve given terrorists asylum status and put them up in state subsidized homes; when they’ve allowed savage crime to become normal and go unpunished; when they’ve criminalized normal political speech; when they did these things and so much more, it was because they have no regard for their country. And their behavior in the expenses scandal reveals the same contempt.

Then consider Jacqui Smith in particular. Not only, as Thucydides points out below, did she bar Geert Wilders from entering Britain. She’s the one who released a list of names of people she has barred from Britain, including American radio host Michael Savage, because they don’t represent British “values” (Smith doesn’t believe in defending Britain, but in defending British “values,” i.e., cultural leftism). She’s the one who, in the spirit of a true totalitarian as I described it, sought to punish people for belonging to the BNP even as she mocked them for not wanting their names to be made public. And she’s the one who declared that Islamic terrorism should henceforth be referred to as “anti-Islamic actitivty.”

( http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013339.html )

See in the following video how she turns <strike>a knownothing Labour-Party bimbo’s absolutely insufferable cultural-Marxist arrogance</strike> a deaf ear to reasonable criticism of her outrageous banning of talk-show host Michael Savage from entering Britain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwJPQUlkQCw .

After watching just that video alone, can any decent human being not positively gloat over her subsequent political humiliation?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:04 | #

And she’s the one who declared that Islamic terrorism should henceforth be referred to as “anti-Islamic actitivty.”  (—quoted in my comment above)

There’s no typo in that sentence quoted there, by the way:  this beyond-odious individual actually decreed that henceforth Islamic terrorism be called not Islamic terrorism but “anti-Islamic activity.” 

So, 9-11, 7-7, and Madrid were all to be referred to as “anti-Islamic activity” and doubtless if she had had her way, calling any of it “terrorism” instead of calling it the equivalent of “attacks on Islam” would have been added to the list of “hate crimes” punishable with prison or heavy fines and other penalties. 

Think about that.  How twisted and sick is that?

Think about what kind of person would make that sort of not just totalitarian 1984-like decision on official terminology, but either insane decision or thoroughly mentally retarded decision and arrogant decision or a mixture of all of the above.  And then think that this person, the selfsame, has power over you and over all you hold dear in this life.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:28 | #

So, 9-11, 7-7, and Madrid were all to be referred to as “anti-Islamic activity” and doubtless if she had had her way, calling any of it “terrorism” instead of calling it the equivalent of “attacks on Islam” would have been added to the list of “hate crimes” punishable with prison or heavy fines and other penalties.

That doesn’t even make sense to me.

Wouldn’t it be the “attacks of Islam” or “anti-British Islamic activity” and not the other way around?

Posted by SM on Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:06 | #

So, 9-11, 7-7, and Madrid were all to be referred to as “anti-Islamic activity” and doubtless if she had had her way, calling any of it “terrorism” instead of calling it the equivalent of “attacks on Islam” would have been added to the list of “hate crimes” punishable with prison or heavy fines and other penalties.

That doesn’t even make sense to me.

Wouldn’t it be the “attacks of Islam” or “anti-British Islamic activity” and not the other way around?

I think she tactically means that the “extremist” behavior is an insult and/or embarrassment to so called “real” islam. ‘Attacks on the “good name” of islam.’ She wants to co-op the moderate muslims over to her side.

Posted by q on Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:27 | #

That doesn’t even make sense to me.

As it shouldn’t make sense to you, Daniel. You’re a clear thinker.

On the other hand, vermin like Jacqui Smith are fanatic promoters of political correctness ... PC being, in part, a twisted political tactic designed to prohibit Whites from speaking, or even thinking certain truths. Truths that expose the Lefts anti-White agenda - particularly their anti-White-heterosexual-Christian-male agenda (i.e. social tyranny). Moreover, the price of engageing in this deadly egalitarian experiment has now brought us to a place where the fate of the entire White-race hangs in the balance.

Posted by q on Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:33 | #

Oh, And BTW - BNP Hu Akbar!!!

Posted by CullTheDumbest on Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:28 | #

Buy Nothing resources: voting with the wallet is an elegant and more efficient alternative to angry, impotent protest. Unless you like financing your race replacement.

Buy Nothing Day

Buy Nothing Christmas

Buy Nothing Europe

Buy Nothing Black History Month

Buy Nothing Green Parenting

Buy Nothing Jewish History Month

Buy Nothing Existentialist

Buy Nothing Der Fuhrer’s Birthday