|
|
|
Paranoia at a neck-tie party If you have twenty-five minutes to spare over the next couple of days, please take a look at this BBC i-player replay of yesterday morning’s The Big Questions. I don’t watch much TV, and the Sunday religious hour is not required viewing. But when I read Simon Darby’s blog this morning I had to take a look at the cause of his ire. The Big Questions is a pretty poor quality studio-audience product. It sits in the BBC’s Ethics and Religion genre, meaning “difficult issues” are supposed to be debated. The debating point this time was: does the BNP have the right to be heard? Apparently, by no means a no-brainer for the democratic and freedom-loving people of Birmingham. We are all very used to the media nose-holding that goes on when the BNP is debated. But the behaviour on display here, particularly from the three panellists and the host Nicky Campbell, goes far beyond that. In fact, beyond anything I have seen before and into the realms of Salem. Here is what Simon Darby had to say about it:-
Hate, lies and, now, hysteria sums it up. It all has the ring of a morbid psychological condition about it. It is plain that for all who speak the BNP has been built up as some spectre of immanent evil. Even with war psychosis at its height I doubt if my parents’ generation experienced such feelings about genuine National Socialists. But these folks have lost all touch with reality. One wonders in the case of the whites whether it is a consequence of sublimated anger, as David Hamilton maintains. Are they merely striking out to ward off their own exposure? The panellists, by the way, are Benjamin Zephaniah, a Rastafarian dub poet and, apparently, a great man, Louise Bagshawe, an author and Conservative Party candidate at the next election, and Jonathan Bartley, who runs the Ekklesia think tank and who is a pacifist and advocate for “the full participation of gay and lesbian people in the church as an outworking of the Christian gospel”. Comments:2
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:16 | # Soren - its unavailable as the BBC, ironically, wont provide that content to untrustworthy foreign types who have not paid the BBC license fee. There may be some way of copying it and forwarding it to you but I’m not yet up to speed on such esoteric matters as regards this new fangled electro-interweb thingy. 3
Posted by Guest on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:22 | # During Wednesday’s ask the PM it was David Cameron that started the “Hate the Nazis” attack on the BNP, charges of anti-semitism and neo-nazism. If only… 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:37 | # Cameron’s strategy vis-à-vis the BNP from here on will be to do a Sarko on them: “Don’t vote for these extreme right-wing fascists, I’ll take care of the immigration problem and the other problems you’re worried about but in a decent, democratic, effective way, unlike the Nazi totalitarian Nick Griffen and his henchmen.” Then within five minutes of getting in office he’ll do exactly as Sarko did, declare in no uncertain terms his unqualified support for government-coerced race-replacement of the English people with no intention whatsoever of addressing the immigration crisis or anything to do with the immigration crisis except to make it worse, and with every intention of not only continuing the slanders and libels against ordinary decent folk who express concerns no matter how reasonably and politely, and by his heated rhetoric which he will use as a calculated tactic, deliberately heightening the already growing tension with threats, hysteria, and over-the-top name-calling so as to prepare the ground for further governmental crackdowns likely starting with a crackdown on the internet next. That’s what Cameron will do. That’s what Sarko did to Le Pen and it’s exactly what Cameron intends doing to the BNP. And why not? It worked for Sarko didn’t it? 5
Posted by Hasbarabeen on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:49 | # The nteresting thing about this programme was that after the Two Minutes Hate at the start, the question whether the BNP had the right to be freely heard was grudgingly answered in the affirmative by most contributors. Unite Against Fascism, the Socialist Workers Party/Socialist Unity front which threw eggs at Nick Griffin, refused to be present because it would not share a platform with the BNP. That was not a popular viewpoint among the studio audience. (The fool Cameron lent his name to the masthead of this Trotskyite bunch of thugs.) Also interesting was that in the next section of the programme, the BNP chaps contributed to the discussion like any other politicians and were heard without interruption or heckling. That’s the first time I’ve seen such a thing. The BBC is having an anguished internal debate about whether it should be given the same rights of access to programmes as any other party which enjoys a measure of electoral support. Not yet in current affairs per se, but this “ethical” show looks like a toe in the water. However one Tory MP, Julian ‘trouser press’ Lewis, is trying to find ways round the BBC’s legal requirement to be impartial: http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/4426148.Victory_for_far_right_poses__dilemma__for_broadcasters/ Lewis is an unreconstructed Cold Warror, Zionist and neocon fellow traveller who would be unlikely to agree with the BNP’s isolationist foreign policy. He is also a paranoiac: “A Hampshire MP has won the backing of the House of Commons for measures to allow election candidates to keep their home addresses secret. New Forest East MP Julian Lewis launched his bid to end the requirement for candidates to reveal where they live in order to protect politicians from terrorists and angry voters.” http://www.julianlewis.net/cuttings_detail.php?id=147 Lewis’s own secret whereabouts became less so when the Telegraph revealed his huge claims for decorating. 6
Posted by Robert Reis on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:02 | # A must read for Anglophiles. http://exiledonline.com/when-pigs-fly-and-scold-brits-lecturing-sri-lanka/ 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:28 | # Robert, 1) I stopped reading Gary Brecher (“The War Nerd”) once he came out as a race-replacement advocate; 2) I began this piece on your recommendation but didn’t make it past the third paragraph when I stopped because it struck me as crap. Sometimes Brecher knows what he’s talking about — sorta — and others he doesn’t but shoots off his mouth anyway. This looks like others. 8
Posted by A. Clay-More on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:34 | # Steve Sailer used to quote the War Nerd a lot, but seems to have stopped. 9
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:15 | # It’s an interesting piece Robert. The same thought, the demographic bomb, occurred to me the other day, reading a comment by a Sinhalese regarding the Tamil protests in Toronto. The Lords of the Brampire were notorious for transferring populations all over the world, enormously profitable no doubt, to the extent that they finally decided to drop the D-bomb on their own people. One small quibble, apparently the King of the Kandymen had a Vortigern moment in an attempt to deal with the onerous rule of the Dutch. Better the devil you know. 10
Posted by Roger Gray on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:35 | # Nicky Campbell rather gives the game away at one point when he says, of BNP policies and such, whether they are “suitable to be heard”. Suitable? To be heard? 11
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:04 | # Desmond reminds me of something I’ve been meaning to broach for a while, the question of whether or not our elites are inherently treacherous. I’ve done a bit of reading here and there recently on Medieval history and the answer seems affirmative. The elite seem far more interested in their proto-globalist elite circles than in the welfare of their own peoples. E.g., an English noble seemed to feel more affinity for French nobles than for Englishmen, and his interests seemed to be far more connected with nepotistic than nationalistic ventures. As for the mechanism at work in the three minute hates, I like the KMac/Amren theory of altruistic punishment; the establishment works HARD to ensure that all righteous anger is channeled toward one target, and it seems to work. People need their Kulaks and “fellow” whites are it. 12
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:20 | # If it is inherently treacherous (class competition) then is evolutionary competition treacherous? It’s clear that the pursuit of class/wealth status is highly adaptive or was highly adaptive, depending upon you perspective, but is it a betrayal of loyalty? Can evolutionary competition be described as inherently perfidious? 13
Posted by GenoType on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:54 | # Svig,
Continue your research. You’ll find this true of more than half our middle-class as well. With these people “fellow” whites always occupy the lowest rung. African slaves (of the antebellum era) and Mexican laborers (in the present) are “higher,” for they were/are valued labor “resources” and good for easy money. This particular subset of the middle-class is, in fact, harsher toward “fellow” whites than is the white elite, for they are closer to the bottom themselves and view whites on the lowest rung as potential competitors. 14
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:57 | #
Well to to some extent English nobles were French nobles. I’m just reading a history of the crusades and the crusaders doing the crusading spent at least as much time fighting each other and knocking over other kingdoms on their way to the Holy Land. Worse still they fatally weakened the Byzantine Empire which only allowed the Muslims to encroach further into Europe. So pretty much s.o.p. for European elites. More interested in jockeying for position amongst themselves than seeing any larger threat. Especially stark when the Muslims were largely united under Saladin. There were some exceptions of course. When I say crusaders Im talking about the Kings, Princes and assorted noblemen rather than the troops of course. 15
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:05 | # But is it adaptive? Are European achievements (some anyway) in spite of this behaviour rather than because of it? Current elites are somewhat descended from these perfidious nobles, so they survived, thats good enough I suppose. But a united European nobility might have put the Muslim infidels to the sword and eventually extended Europe across Asia displacing the locals. Wouldnt that be a better long term strategy? 16
Posted by q on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:29 | #
So what else is new? 17
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:48 | # How to Destroy Nations with Love and Tolerance 18
Posted by GenoType on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:25 | #
In days of old when knights were bold there was always the risk of dying. It may help to view the European-derived elite as a different race. Their greatest fear is competition from us, a genetically close but inferior group. From this perspective the best strategy would be for them to do the very thing they are doing now. It is less risky and more profitable than anything that was tried in the past – or not tried, as in the case of your united European nobility putting infidels to the sword and displacing local populations with Europe’s undesirables. The adaptive strategy would be to join the elite and its wannabe middle-class minions, which is precisely what “respectable” conservatism has done in all but name. 19
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:24 | # With the European lower orders (us!) gone what will these elites do then? They will be at the mercy of other more ethnocentric elites. It doesnt seem like the European crusader nobility were afraid to risk combat themselves, many died in battle, in that sense they are quite unlike the present elite. Apart from their squabbles another thing preventing their eastward expansion, not the risk but the relative lack of European manpower (us again!) to combat the Turks and Muslims on a large scale. 20
Posted by q on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:14 | # The gentile elites will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to maintain their power. If it means sacrificing the white race, they’ll do it even if it only serves to maintain their power for the short term. They are blinded by their lust for power. The Jewish Supremacists know this and exploit it (foolishly imo) for the purposes of advancing their own evolutionary fitness. 21
Posted by Bill on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:16 | # The inner struggle. I don’t know if any of you pop over to the Pub Philosopher, I do on the odd occasion, and as things were a bit slow here, I decided to nip over. I’ve just returned after an interesting read. You can see the cogs in theses guys minds trying to figure out what it is they are seeing, but cannot bring themselves to believe. This is happening all over the country. Whats going on here tells it far better than I ever could. Don’t forget the comments section. 23
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:21 | #
That is true, the ancient elite were quite unlike the present elite. Consequently, they died in combat and left few offspring over the course of the millennium. The link between the ancient and present elite is tenuous, at best. The American elite died in the second war for independence. The European elite were finished off during WWI & II. The descendants of the con men and draft evaders who survived/avoided those wars have become our present elite.
What did British colonial regimes do? What did the Rhodesians and South Africans do? They protected themselves with white commandos and white-led security forces employing white technology, and providing an above-average standard of living for their non-white minions. The objective is not to wipe out the entire white underclass. Some must be kept around for security purposes and to keep the machinery operating. Carrots and sticks (incentives and disincentives) are provided to the underclass. The genes of conformists who sense/understand the dual nature of the game survive. Those of miscegenists and nonconformists are diluted or die off. 24
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:41 | #
That is, unless we can undermine the white elite and separate while the window of opportunity remains open. 25
Posted by q on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:49 | #
How gracious of you! 26
Posted by q on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:55 | # Oops! Sorry GT. After reading you comment again. I get your point. And it is a good one. 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:28 | # Undermining the white elite by separation is not possible because it denies it’s evolutionary origin.
Even in micro communities, an elite will evolve and change (not be permanent), because inherent differences exist not just at the group level but at the individual level. Somehow a bit must be put in the mouth of the aristocratic horse in much the same fashion as Christianity, per MacDonald, reigned in the European aristocracy. 28
Posted by Culnchair on Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:36 | #
This is certainly True. (Current) Whites Elites was on the top, Coloreds occupied the middle, and alleged ‘White Trash’ have been the lowest wrung for quite some time.
(Current) White Elites have largely inter-married with the Jews. Look at Winston Churchills own mother Jenny Jacobson. Another good example is Al Gores daughter (Karenna Gore Schiff) marrying a Jew (Andrew Schiff). Unless something happens soon Whites will be rules over by a Zionist Occupied Government that has entered Totalitarian mode. Hopefully the economy will deal a death blow to this horrific ZOG beast whilst Whites take the advice of Baron Evola and ‘Ride the Tiger!’ 29
Posted by danielj on Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:13 | # Another good example is Al Gores daughter (Karenna Gore Schiff) marrying a Jew (Andrew Schiff). I’m interested in this subject. http://tomorrowinvinland.blogspot.com/2009/01/disturbing-marriages.html 30
Posted by GenoType on Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:27 | #
So the ape said to the wolf. Separation denies no such thing. We share a common ancestor with every mammal on earth.
Uh huh. England’s colonial subjects did the work England’s prospering “bourgeois” were unwilling to do.
Certainly! It does not follow, however, that this new elite will follow the old.
Per the academic heavyweights often quoted for “authority” purposes, you might be surprised at who agrees with the preponderance of what I write.
31
Posted by GenoType on Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:12 | #
Another reason why England and America’s “bourgeois” prospered: Lawrence R. Kelleher: To Shed a Tear: A Story of Irish Slavery in the British West Indies’
“As an epithet, white trash, or the more extended poor white trash first came into common use in the 1830’s. The Oxford English Dictionary identifies white trash in its earliest usage as an American pejorative used by the slaves of gentlemen against poor whites who worked in the field. The real distinction is that while a black man might be slave, to be a house slave was better than any menial job, even if that job was held by a white person.” Harriet Beecher Stowe: “But it will appear that the institution of slavery has produced not only heathenish degraded miserable slaves but it produces a class of white people who are by universal admission more heathenish, degraded, and miserable. The institution of slavery has accomplished the double feat, in America, not only of degrading and brutalizing her black working classes, but of producing, notwithstanding a fertile soil and abundant room, a poor white population as degraded and brutal as ever existed in any of the most crowded districts of Europe “ Quotes provided by MR contributor Alex (not Linder): “The [Civil] war was essentially an industrial struggle - a struggle between free labor and the masters of slave labor.” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine - January 1897 “The educated free labor of Massachusetts*, we have seen, doubles the products of toil, per capita, as compared with Maryland, and quadruples them (as the Census shows) compared with South Carolina….” Former US Treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker writing from London in December, 1863. The Continental Monthly - March 1864 ‘Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan led by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages…’ Bank of England circular sent to every bank in New York and New England in 1862, Imperial Washington (1922) “It is our conviction that monopolies are as destructive as competition is conservative of the principles and vitalities of republican Government; that slave labor is a monopoly which excludes free labor and competition; that slaves are kept in comparitive idleness and ease in a fertile half of our arable national territory, while free white laborers, constantly augmenting in numbers from Europe, are confined to the the other half and are often distressed by want; that the free white laborers of the North has more need of expansion into the Southern States, from which it is virtually excluded, than slavery had into Texas in 1846…” Excerpt of Proclamation by US Brigadier-General Phelps to the loyal people of the Southwest, Ship Island, Mississippi, December 4, 1861 ...the rise of the modern industrial system made wage slavery a more efficient agent of production than chattel slavery. Excerpt of the 1907 foreword to the book The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865 (published in 1908) 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:25 | #
It’s the same reason. It simply re-affirms the data presented that the pursuit of wealth is adaptive. The problem any community has is that individuals have different capabilities and will compete to their best advantage and without some way to mitigate that competition you’ll end up in the same position. 33
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:36 | #
It led of course to mass immigration, for if capital controlled labor for its advantage, then there was no reason labor need be related to the owners of capital in any way. The better investment, in the scenario you outline, will be slavery, then the owners of capital have an investment in blocking mass migration because it will undermine their investment in the labor force they purchased. 34
Posted by GenoType on Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:47 | #
1. Separation as a strategy doesn’t deny evolutionary origins. It confirms it. 35
Posted by danielj on Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:15 | # We have 10-12 years to get our shit together, else we deserve our fate. This is true if there is such a thing as “deserved” and “justice” and we must internalize this fact. 36
Posted by Q on Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:36 | #
“It’s hard to acurately make predictions ... especially if they are about the future!” 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:14 | # We have 10-12 years to get our shit together, else we deserve our fate. I’ve said for years now that, politically, the witching hour is around 2024-2025. The conditions for action will have been optimised, ie, diversity will be unavoidable without yet reaching majority status, the demographic future of whites will be clarified in the public mind, control methodologies such as anti-racism will be morally exhausted, and the Security State will be in much evidence. At that point, I would say that there are five to seven years of declining opportunity for a peaceful resolution. Much beyond the early 2030s violence will increasingly be seen as the only viable option. 38
Posted by Q on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:06 | # GW, most people that read your comment might dismiss it as doom and gloom. Not me. I acually see it as a potential bright future. But look for counter-measures by the media to push for a neo-hippy culture in concert with a government scheme to distribute massive quantities of psychotropic drugs. That strategy may quell the backlash just as it did in the 60’s when the “civil rights movement” came to fruition. 39
Posted by GenoType on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:54 | # I can easily envision the con men of finance, philosophy, and politics telling us that the pursuit of wealth is adaptive behavior – to justify a continuation of the status quo. Desmond is correct to say that something needs to rein them in, for the pursuit of wealth unconstrained by moral fortitude, honesty, loyalty, integrity, and physical courage in service to one’s in-group is maladaptive. Where we differ is on the nature of that “something.” He believes, I think, that separation will see a repeat of the greater historic pattern in behavior. There is a large truth in this. Still, a microcosmic study of history will show that the pattern shifts incrementally – it is not quite the same – from one period to the next. This shifting is partly attributable to socioeconomic factors – religion, technology, and wealth, for example. Control these and the pattern still shifts. Part of the reason for incremental changes in historic behavior, I believe, is genetic. There is a small but significant genetic difference between whites who are clearly candidates for membership in my “in-group” and those who would not be candidates. Between the two extremes is a grey area – a group of prospective candidates who would introduce genetic uncertainty to my group. Still, I believe that my group would represent genetic changes beyond any occurring in the past millennium. The reason the criteria for membership involves past and present physical behavior. The “correct” DNA results would be inadequate for membership. Morphology, past and present physical behavior, and the occasional genealogical record in questionable situations are much more valuable. 40
Posted by danielj on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:31 | # The real problem is that people start acting highly irrational in situ discrimen. As the hard line approaches and the possibility of peaceful resolution diminishes the possibility of violence in pursuit of no definable goals increases the chances of outsiders completely destroying what remains of us even at the tipping point. As the therapeutic state ceases to provide nourishment for its deluded sucklings we will most likely have a simple temper tantrum as a result. Children are lead around by the god in their bellies and not directed by either philosophies of being or microcommunity charters. We’re probably fucked. 41
Posted by GenoType on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:36 | #
That is a very real possibility. In America sociopolitical conformity, except in matters of sexual reproduction, is adaptive. Nonconformity is maladaptive. White nationalists are maladaptive. As a group, all that American white nationalists have succeeded in “hammering out” over the past 50 years is the Turner Diary scenario, along with several footnotes to same, and very likely with ADL/SPLC/ZOG assistance. Among this group I am clearly the maladaptive personality. Perhaps I should go for broke and tell my young folks to conform in all things except miscegenation, thereby increasing their chance of survival? I am considering it. 42
Posted by danielj on Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:30 | #
Not so much maladaptive as it is a digression from the statistical norm and therefore psychologically distressing for the outlier and those engaging with the outlier while he is “transgressing” or expressing heretical opinion.
Lasch quoting William James:
1) It would only be a temporary or rearguard action incapable of long term success (this strategy you are considering 2) We eventually end up Janissaries under this scheme 43
Posted by GenoType on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:08 | #
I personally know men who’ve been fired, blacklisted, financially ruined, divorced, and subsequently saw their youngest children call others Papa for making vague expressions of white identity or simply noting social contradictions in this land of the first amendment and universal brotherhood. White nationalism is maladaptive, Daniel. That is why racialism is restricted to the Internet. Most “heretics” on sites like this are looking for others to do the heavy-lifting. That is because “taking it to the street” - that is, building a genuine white movement - requires socioeconomic separation from the mainstream. They are unwilling to do this. Such a tactic can only appeal to struggling lower middle- and working-class whites. It would never appeal to urban upper class whites who place wealth before race. Be assured, however, that if this tactic succeeded those whites would scream, howl, and bang on the doors for entry. To this I say, “No more.” Nonproductive leeches, witchdoctors, and other con men are not allowed.
Probably true, but in a world of atomized gentiles where the (unqualified) pursuit of (unqualified) wealth is adaptive one can only safeguard the welfare of one’s grandchildren - and even that is a stretch. In such a world whiteness is irrelevant and making it to the next day is all that matters. 44
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:25 | #
It is a strategy impelled by despair, not the will to fight on for a vision of what one wishes the world to be. Why compromise ever? For if we do our people will be genetically annihilated - conformity to the thrust of the system, save miscegenation, will not in fact be effective in staving off even and only miscegenation. Adolf Hitler, a man you admire, said he would press his 14 and 15 year olds into service without hesitation because he would rather them die in battle than be tortured and sold into slavery by the Bolsheviks. If we have nothing to gain by compromise there is no point in it. Eventually a firm stand must be made, isn’t it our task to prepare for that come what may? Otherwise we might as well get drunk and watch niggerball. I can’t do that. 45
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:58 | #
That is the standard of Adolf Hitler, who stated the German people deserved to perish if they could not attain their necessary victory, for themselves and all Europeans. Hitler’s life is a lesson to us of courage and devotion breakable only by death. Is that your standard?
Mere “survival” as genetically ruined goyim, and not as the revivified incarnation of our Nordic ancestors is meaningless to me.
Life unworthy of life. And if that standard be only the expression of our own will to power I can live with it. 46
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:57 | #
They were in the wrong fields then; stock brokering, advertising and middle management at Kohls. Regardless, in my case, I’m simultaneously despised and admired for my open promotion of racialism in my current position. However, when I make the transfer from outside contracting to direct employment by a utility I’ll have to keep it all under wraps or risk persecution, estrangement and financial ruin.
I don’t have a lot of Nordic ancestors but good luck to you in your endeavor, you filthy Kraut
This is what happens when antinomian ennui fills up the wine glasses of the deracinated and beer and niggerball take precedence over the generational compact for our natural constituency. For want of a lawgiver the want of law, for want of law the want of love, for the want of love the want of kin. 47
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:09 | #
The problem being is that the data, almost counter intuitively, suggests otherwise.
Over a period of 250 years the wealthy not only left a greater number of descendants but advanced (for the lacked of a less teleologically loaded word) the well being of the English race a a whole. This is why it’s controversial is because it’s inconceivable, in an egalitarian world, where all men are equal, that such an outcome is plausible at all, let alone attainable through random selection. 48
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:32 | # The problem with secessionist, separatist conceptions of White survival for those so motivated is the prospect of Whites left behind (mostly likely a vast majority) being used against separatists in violent confrontation to prevent their separation once the non-separatists are fed the standard hyper-moralistic gruel. Separation with annihilation assured is no plan for survival at all. There may be no choice but to compel, if not convince, the majority of Whites to join us. And pleading with one’s children and grandchildren not to miscegenate and leaving it at that is no plan for racial survival either. For what life that for them as an increasingly despised and brutalized minority? 49
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:18 | # is the prospect of Whites left behind (mostly likely a vast majority) being used against separatists in violent confrontation to prevent their separation That would be against their EGI unless what GT theorizes is true and the majority that are left behind have slightly different interests. There may be no choice but to compel, if not convince, the majority of Whites to join us. The combination of stupidity and malice that motivates our racial and political enemies and drives their behavior and rhetoric is creating the conditions that are doing a perfectly fine job of quickly transforming the social landscape and creating a well spring consisting of a combination of dissatisfaction and desperation that are driving people into our open arms. Where Silver has a valid point, a point which he has essentially robbed from Lasch via Prozium while excising the despair manifested by Proze, is that we must meet the psychological needs of our people. GW can have his ontology, but what we really need is somebody who understands Freud, or minimally, an ontology informed by psychology. Separation with annihilation assured is no plan for survival at all. No, it is “survivalism” without survival which is really just “ism.” Although, we can never predict the outcome of any scenario; balkanization, desuburbanization, a racialized version of Stephen King’s The Stand, the rapid collapse of the dollar, hyper-inflation, sub-hyper inflation, etc. There are a million ways it can play out so our primary concern should be ensuring our strategy is cross compatible. This means we are essentially bio-cultural custodians in the gap at present. There may be no choice but to compel, if not convince, the majority of Whites to join us. As previously stated the cosmopolitan elite are, at present, doing the heavy lifting for us. We are simply capitalizing on the psycho-spiritual malaise precipitated by the present identity crisis in the West. Fox News, although not exactly our ally in the struggle, is creating fertile recruiting grounds and the meteoric rise of Glen Beck is an encouraging development. The antifas recognize the threat and we should recognize the promising development of the complete domination of cable news by Fox. Whether it is our very own psyop (a la GW’s theory about the BNP) that will eventually have the plug pulled, or whether it is just the flash-in-the-plan-populism of William Jennings Bryan of our turn of our century; well, only time will tell. And pleading with one’s children and grandchildren not to miscegenate and leaving it at that is no plan for racial survival either. It is part of any reasonable plan. For what life that for them as an increasingly despised and brutalized minority? Have we ever been anything other? It will revitalize the Faustian spirit when we become explicitly cognizant of this. 50
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:27 | # bio-cultural custodians Did I just coin that? I like it. 51
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:37 | # And pleading with one’s children and grandchildren not to miscegenate and leaving it at that is no plan for racial survival either. Obviously, I didn’t mean that “leaving it at that” was part of any reasonable plan, but “pleading with them” certainly is. 52
Posted by Frank on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:16 | # Survival is better than dying out… It’s not a matter of leaving others behind so much as tending to one’s own first. Healthy people have family and friends - real ties to real humans. And this is a source of strength. Only a madman would attempt a pure abstraction, severing all other ties. Secessionists can be divisive and even used as tools of divide and conquer, but such isn’t inevitable. 53
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:43 | #
Damn, that’s deep. No shit. My point is - and you have made statements in the past that would lead me to believe you concur - that everything that makes life living in this world will be taken from us unless we will a future in which we wish to live. And that will never be as we grovel in appeasement to our enemies (read: the Jews). Without Final Victory there is not even mere survival. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Linder was inaccurate when he described conservatism as “organized cowardice.” 54
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:53 | # And that will never be as we grovel in appeasement to our enemies (read: the Jews). Whence cometh the time when we draw the line and jettison the enemy within? The Jews aren’t as dangerous as the fifth column GT talks about. 55
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:23 | #
There will be no jettisoning of them. They are part of our race, whilst Jews are consciously and in fact hostile outsiders. We will erect a new dispensation of status and reward that will draw them back into the fold and keep them in check. The Jews should be jettisoned at the first possible opportunity.
Wrong. As Desmond points out intra-group competition can be adaptive and eugenic if properly restrained and directed. The idea that they are a separate race and ultimately have separate interests, as Jews do, is a self-serving absurdity that GT has concocted. The bourgeois are to GT what Krauts are to GW. And Frank is just pissy because he’s a faileocon and I’ve got their number. LOL! P.S. It’s never too late to change, Frank. 56
Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:40 | #
GT, Desmond, what do you make of the claim that the Roman aristocracy survived, and even flourished, after the fall of the empire? See below: 57
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:23 | # The idea that they are a separate race and ultimately have separate interests, as Jews do, is a self-serving absurdity that GT has concocted. If you and I are both scared of them being used as weapons against us, then something is fundamentally wrong with EGI or the theory that only biology is important. I didn’t say the Jews didn’t need to be jettisoned either. Although, I think it should take the form of American styled Nuremberg laws and not physical expulsion since I think it is too risky. 58
Posted by danielj on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:24 | # Additionally, half-breed are a part of a part of our race. 59
Posted by Frank on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:26 | # Captainchaos, My point wasn’t deep but regardless it’s important you understand it. I sometimes suspect you see a divide between race and culture/particular ties/higher values when the two should be united, and your continued national political approach reinforces my suspicion. Conservatives used to be racially oriented and true conservatives still are today. Any conservative who says race doesn’t matter is a fool or a liar, though only a fool is entirely honest. 60
Posted by Frank on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:35 | # A black man dressed up as a Southern gentleman at one of these LofS events is a joke just as the same man would be in a kilt. And similarly secessionists who continue to believe the same “Yankees” who destroyed the South in the 19th century are still in power today are counterproductive. However, real Southerners ought to be Southern (white) and American (white) at the same time. And similarly those who form white micro communities ought to be able to be both. A divide doesn’t have to exist there, and allowing for such divisions would prevent mixing among the varieties of “whites” within the US. 61
Posted by Frank on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:41 | # Was Franco right or wrong to attempt to dissolve the Basque and Canary Islander nationalities into “Spanish”? I’m saying here that he was wrong. Unity isn’t worth that price. 62
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:51 | #
If you mean “culture” when referring to the current open sewer of a zeitgeist you are correct. If you mean culture as the self-conscious expression of our being then you are wrong.
I take it you mean the Jews are now in power.
I take it you mean the salutary prevention of mixing Nordic and non-Nordic stock in America - Nordicism. Damn Frank, I didn’t know you had it in ya. 63
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:20 | #
Agreed. The jews are not as dangerous as the white bastards who opened the gates and protect them. Until this group is identified and largely neutralized through (1) economic, (2) social, and (3) political separation, “naming the jew” will be maladaptive. This is not “counter intuitive.” Neither is it counter intuitive to demand that statements like “the pursuit of wealth is adaptive” be qualified. Opposition to separation is motivated by an easy money interest in preserving the present system. Within the ranks of white nationalism opposition to separation merely reflects a desire to preserve the system but change its leadership. It is economic conservatism which uses race as a hook in the rather far-fetched hope that should the system’s judeo-gentile alliance falter the service of naïve/foolish, disposable, underclass racial “patriots” with tats and piercings along with a few renegade military units may be useful. There is nothing revolutionary about any of it. Attempts to justify economic conservatism – “the (unqualified) pursuit of wealth is adaptive” - are rationalizations intended to serve that goal. Such ideas are responsible for putting western civilization in its present position. Our young people should not die to place the descendants of today’s “white nationalist” bourgeoisie in power, when at some point in the not too distant future their descendants will bring jews, coons, and spicanos back into this country. Now, why would they do this? “The (unqualified) pursuit of wealth is adaptive!” Let us not forget it. According to Desmond slave economics is adaptive. Many “movement” southerners would agree with him. So, too, is child labor. From the perspective of mainstream bourgeoisie thought multiracialism (for the underclass white competition) is adaptive; miscegenation (for the underclass white competition) is adaptive; open borders and globalization are adaptive. There is less chance of this happening again with what I propose. How much less I cannot say. What I can say is that behavior is affected in no small part by hereditary. In days of old when knights were bold many of the best of Europe’s elite died on the battlefield, leaving in their wake throughout the countryside sprinklings of bastards without hereditary rights and many an inbred retard among the oligarchy. Many, many more died in America’s Second War and Europe’s First and Second Wars to Kill White People. Long gone is the “flower of the elite” on both continents. The cowards and con men of low character survived, procreated, opened the gates to sub-humans and jewry, and were bought by the latter. The remnants of this group are not my people, although like jews they pose as such when there is advantage in it. That some may think I’ve pulled this out of my ass is not surprising for the Internet non-movement is comprised of many former/present admirers and supporters of Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, and George I with too many left-over National Review tendencies. Unfortunately for them, the facts are not debatable. Have fun guys. I’ll be back in a few days. 64
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:58 | # I don’t think of myself as a Nordicist, but America was founded by northwest Europeans, and I don’t wish to mix outside this. However, just as I’m not interested in removing non-“Nordic” elements from Europe, I’m not interested in removing them from the US. I think most of the white groups in the US will find common interest and will similarly find it valuable to preserve regional heritage without allowing such to create animosity. A significant number of pro-white activists seem to be more Mediterranean oriented, and that’s fine with me so long as they accept that not everyone wishes to be like them - that we can remain somewhat separate. I personally think very little of the Romans because of their empire and its consequences, though I admire the Greeks. - Jews are extremely powerful in the US not only relative to their numbers but also in overall power. However, other outgroups are similarly powerful - the northeast is not made up of the same people it was during the war. Similarly, all old stock Americans are targeted under the current rule. Southerners today have great common interest with old stock Americans from all over and shouldn’t be fooled into believing the living North is somehow still seeking to destroy the South. At the same time, it’s natural for Southerners to be annoyed by all of the immigrants from other regions of the US (often Jews and other outgroup populations and very often liberal), but this annoyance shouldn’t be manipulated as is often done today. I think Francis had a solid point regarding secession, but some people should still work towards greater independence and sense of community. That majority that doesn’t choose this will need a (racial) cultural force to rally around, but it should also benefit from the secure and radical communities spread throughout. 65
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:28 | #
Not true. I have more in common with the average German of imperial Germany than the Kaiser or Winston Churchill. So, too, I would bet, do you.
EGI is fully compatible with my “self-serving absurdity!” 66
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:52 | # I didn’t mean to say other outgroups even approach the power of Jews. Rather I meant that the later waves of nonnorthwest Euro immigrants led to an ethnic transformation that hit certain areas and missed others. 67
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:35 | # Btw, I actually think more highly of you now that I hear you’re a Nordicist. I’d wrongly suspected you were a Jared Taylor type WN - which is fine to a degree but it potentially poses a danger especially since Jews are considered “white” under his definition, and they certainly don’t see themselves as such. I’ve an idea of how such a “white” alliance would work, but it could also function to bastardise the white American population. I’ll leave the politics of that to another - I just have suspicions about it, though I realise we all have common interest. 68
Posted by Texan on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:04 | #
Seriously dude? This:
didn’t clue you in that CaptainChaos doesn’t agree with Taylor on Jews?
You sure you’re American? 69
Posted by Michael on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 06:45 | # Nick Griffin wants to put Tony Blair on trial for War Crimes over the bombing of Serbia: They should put Blair, Brown, Bush, Clinton, and the whole gang in the dock at The Hague. 70
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:49 | # Interesting theory Ben, but Clark, apparently, theorized that the English situation was some what unique and surprising, even to him. Nick Wade wrote:
Sailer critiqued Clark by saying NE Asian societies held values similar to the English (thrift, literacy, strong work ethic) however, the industrial revolution, the breaking of the Malthusian trap, did not occur there first. Interestingly,Clark also surveyed descendant data for the Chinese and Japanese and
71
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:28 | # The bourgeois are to GT what Krauts are to GW. Don’t forget the Micks, Frogs, Wops, Spics and Dagos, Ruskies and everyone else the British Establishment declared war on during the last thousand years. 72
Posted by Q on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:53 | # Don’t forget the Micks, Frogs, Wops, Spics and Dagos, Ruskies and everyone else the British Establishment declared war on during the last thousand years. Don’t forget the British Establishment has ostensibly -or as a matter of fact - declared war on its own native English citizens. 73
Posted by Dasein on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:58 | #
Chavs and rednecks, the manufactured enemies of Civilization. This is the Achilles heel of race-replacement enthusiasts from the traditional left: their contempt for their working-class brethren. I’ve pointed this out to leftist colleagues and they don’t have much to say beyond ‘the immigrants are doing work that nobody else will do’. If you point out the effect of importing illiterate Third Worlders on wages and their own contempt of working-class people, they’ll just change the subject. In Berlin, native Germans are subjected to constant abuse in schools from non-Whites. This is a recent program that highlighted the problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOkjdoEmk1A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhsDhJ2CcH0 I look at the the way these kids are treated and it has me seething with anger. When, after talking to a non-White colleague or acquaitance, I wonder whether I am wrong to support repatriation, I just think about these kids and how their lives have been ruined. Of course there are other, more rational, reasons to support repatriation, but this sort of thing provides an emotional jolt. 74
Posted by Q on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:27 | #
I run into that all the time. I can only conclude their attitude is deeply rooted in cowardice. They are afraid to confront the hypocrisy of their own distorted worldview. Afterall, being a liberal in today’s PC climate gives them a sense of warmth and protection. White liberals make me sick! 75
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:59 | # Texan, I realised CaptainChaos didn’t like Jews, but I’d suspected he was otherwise a Taylor style WN. You question whether I’m an American, but my views are historically in line. 76
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:05 | # How much longer will it be I wonder till WN are attempting to include those Hispanics who are mostly Spanish as well as northeast Asians (high IQs)? The movement just continues to grow increasingly inclusive to the extent there is little meaning to the word “white” and certainly no nation to go with it. 77
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:19 | #
Frank, I am unerringly a Nordicist, and depending on my mood, a National Socialist.
This not rocket science Frank, all those of European descent are White, but only those of northwestern European descent are Nordic. I, for one, wish to preserve all of the above. Btw, tell “The Monitor” and “Weaver” I said “Hi.” And tell Thomas Fleming to stop letting the Jews and the anti-racists face fuck him, LOL! 78
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:46 | #
But Krauts, as with GT’s bourgeoisie, are historically the main, most adept, out-group competitors to your in-group. Krauts are genetically less prone to individualism, and we all know, all else being equal, the more cohesive group will win out in the contest for finite resources to advance its EGI. Never the less, here is Jonathan Bowden on the importance of preserving those goose-stepping bastards, and giving them at least one of their balls back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJItW-wjtKc Consistent with that, I suppose an English nationalist may look more favorably on Americans of German descent (there are quite a few of them after all) because they can be perhaps again molded into “Anglo-Americans”, or the Nordic extended phenotype of the English. That is if they don’t let that pesky “German-American WN” get in the way. Whatever works, hopefully all roads leading to Rome and such. 79
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:00 | #
It shocks me how the BNP came from this route as well - I had known it came from there but hadn’t realised the extent. You probably saw this from the CofCC: Major Canadian Author claims Canadian Jewish Congress is propping up neo-nazi groups. That’s more or less what I suspect of most NS, and yet there’s the BNP which is clearly legitimate.
That’s what I usually mean too when I say these things, though historically “white” meant Nordic in America even if today it means European. There are other WN who are too open to the idea of expanding the definition of “white” too - one whom I otherwise admire and respect mentioned that he didn’t mind northeast Asians. I admire northeast Asians a great deal, truly, but they’re not Europeans. It’s very different to want a mass, united movement rather than a more decentralized movement that views itself as united but doesn’t eagerly seek to mix. I realise some mixing is inevitable, but if there’s too much this country will be a very different place. There will no longer be a South or a Midwest or an Appalachia, etc. and we won’t have the deep European roots we have now - broad roots are shallow. Many nonNordic whites find the term “Nordic” insulting because they suspect it brings with it a sense of supremacy and a view that they’re not true Europeans. However, the same people will be very proud of being Greek or Italian etc. - it’s merely an insecurity on their part. Everyone thinks the US is some refugee camp that accepts in all who want to come and that had no people or past society before they came. My ancestors came here in the 17th century, and I have relatives all over. I’ll be buried in my family plot if it isn’t negro occupied territory by that time, and I live near where my ancestors farmed. I’m very proud of my heritage, and it’s those of us who are of the old stock who have lost our country. America never should have seceded from Britain, and it never should have allowed in so many immigrants. Slavery was obviously a huge mistake too, though that is not the fault of the South entirely. 80
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:07 | #
I doubt there are any Anglo-American oriented folks who don’t wish for just this. To exclude Germans would be suicide and outrageously stupid. 81
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:02 | # Frank, I’m of German-Dutch-English-Scottish descent. I’m a Michigan boy. I consider the Midwest to be our New Germany - it was primarily settled by Germanic folk. Succession in accordance with that vision, to establish explicitly a Germanic homeland on the North American continent, would please me greatly; Lindbergh’s vision of a pristine wilderness blended seamlessly with an urban and rural life for our unsullied Nordic people. I’m sure you would gladly welcome back home to the South all the Negroes and mongrels (all the other assorted Third World trash will have to be repatriated) that have attached themselves to the body of our folk up here. It be a blood-and-soil thang, nom sayin’. 82
Posted by Dasein on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:04 | # Fred, that would fit under the rubric of more rational (ultimate) reasons. Of course one can get emotional about disappearing as well, but for many it’s hard to imagine. These images of German school children getting abused by non-White Abschaum are, for me, a more immediate association (of course, even if race-replacement would happen in an overall amicable fashion, I’d still be against it). These outrages are a largely untapped source of motivation (because you-know-who dominates the media). There are a lot of films and documentaries that WNs with multimedia skills could do that would win people over to our position. 83
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:43 | # Racialists often speak of the correlation of intelligence to morality. I’m not altogether impressed because much of this is measured through traditional testing and the intelligent con man knows what answers to provide. On the street he exploits the reciprocity principle – the golden rule – in political propaganda and confidence games. It is his first line of defense in the public sphere, from the sociopolitical swindles on the Left to the economic swindles on the Right. Democrats use it to promote multiracialism. Republicans use it to rip-off the average urban Joe and Sally “Iwannaberich” Investor. Both camps use it to promote miscegenation among the white underclass. Most importantly, they use it to sidestep deservedly harsh, discrediting accusations and protect themselves from just retribution. The judeo-West is “morally” propped by the intelligent exploitation of the Golden Con. Still, character (or the lack of it) is measurably heritable. Behavioral patterns are better indicators. All the above is entirely consistent with racialism and EGI. Denying the existence of white sub-races differentiated by character is akin to denying the existence of human races. The modern, character-deficient “heirs” of ancient European and American nobility are rife among us. Easy money “racialists” may not like this fact, but there it is. The white con man needs us to do his heavy lifting and dying. We don’t need him. Let’s figure out how to identify and crucify the sonofabitch. Then and only then can we properly handle the jews, assuming they haven’t backstroked to China or Africa. 84
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:44 | # The entire South isn’t overrun, so any whites who wish to continue as Southerners can find security in parts (mostly around the Appalachians). If the South is to survive, these areas must be secured against continued nonwhite encroachment, which could be done by simply renewing the sense of identity there. It’s probably easier for a Midwesterner to favour mass repatriation than a Southerner. A good bit of the South should be pretty much written off as eternally lost… Whites and blacks are living along each other fine now, but we can all see where the demographics are heading. Without the flood of whites moving into the South, we’d already be in trouble, and the blacks continue to breed rapidly. Most every white down here understands this trend - we’re not asleep, but we don’t see a solution. Repatriation sounds nice, but it’s not feasible right now since we’re far and away not masters of our lands (federal gov. is). I like your view of the Midwest. 85
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:02 | # I fully suspect Southern whites are the most racially oriented identifiable white group in the US. We should be of great use. Unfortunately we’re not intellectuals - we need to revitalise that tradition. GenoType:
I like the managerial class explanation for this. I know I’ve said it before though… It is infuriating how those with certain skills earn so much more than do others due really to economic conditions. And while they should be free to receive this boost, they should at least recognise that it’s not their superior talents and abilities but rather the environment which gave them this. Instead they believe they deserve all they receive and expect others to jump the same hurdles if desiring the same rewards. However, we all know of folks who’ve been caught with babies or other dependents and simply cannot scale these heights, and similarly we know of folks who work hard at difficult jobs simply out of inertia or a lack of interest in a high paying job (why mess up a good thing?). Money shouldn’t be seen as the value of a man, and yet in America it too often is. We need to return to the idea that those with money should voluntarily help the rest of the community somewhat. And similarly, in order to get into certain high paying jobs (e.g. a CEO), a man mayn’t take unPC political views. That pretty much excludes all decent men. Furthermore, there are other duties to attend to than just earning money. Those who earn top salaries are often doing so at the expense of their families. In order to make inroads into this class of elites, we ourselves need to work hard to break in and work to ensure our children do the same. Other promising young whites should be helped along too. 86
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:12 | # One thing about the South is the skilled professionals here tend to be more conservative than in other parts of the country. I read a book on the Reagan Democrats that said this some years ago, and I’ve found it to be largely true. We help each other out down here - ah including helping the blacks out far too much… We always vote against all this immigration and, unfortunately, we’re easily brought to attacking foreign states (e.g. Iraq). There’s a class divide, but it’s not as extreme as in other parts. Atlanta is badly class divided, but that’s hardly a Southern city. 87
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:26 | #
Yes, if I recall correctly Negroes, when contrasted with Whites and controlling for IQ, are still twice as likely to commit criminal acts - so there it is. So the alleles that tend some Whites as opposed to others to more moral, or more in-group altruistic oriented behavior, that preponderate in the latter, would constitute at least a portion of the EGI the latter share contrasted with the former. I’ve been aware of the basic personality of those individuals you speak of for some time, I guess I basically conceive of them as ‘slimy salesman’ types. The problem is, at least in my experience, many Whites tend to reflexively grant them status, whereas my reflex is contempt and disgust. If you wonder why some are driven to the Internet wonder no longer, it’s a wasteland out there. I have one bone to pick though. What of the strong correlation of IQ and achievement within the system? If the vast majority of our upper IQ quartile is left behind consistent with your strategy I don’t suspect we will get very far. 88
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:49 | # The high IQ could be targeted as with any other group… If we ourselves push into the top schools and send our children there and similarly join professional organisations, we’ll have an impact therein. The majority of people lack a guiding moral core and are thus easily influenced, especially when young. I dunno about y’all, but I was the token bigoted Southern on my diversity-is-welcome college hall of nerds. I had as much of an impact there as anyone else, though I stopped short of founding a “cultural” club, which I regret. It is a cosmopolitan wasteland out there… It can be tough meeting people with similar attachments and professional interests. 89
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:16 | #
There is a heritable “civic quotient” (CQ) that people have as well, not as easily measurable by tests but observable in individuals and societies. The best of our people combine high-IQ and high-CQ, the sort of people that drove the Sci-Rev and Enlightenment were of this sort. Modern politicians range across the board on IQ but are universally left of the bell curve on CQ. That little model right there already tells a huge story about the changes in white society from 1600s-1700s until now. Minorities like Mexicans and Negroes are not only compromised in terms of intelligence but also in terms of building a civil society. Look at Mexico and Africa for proof: Run-down, corrupt, might-makes-right shitholes. Whites have astounding group CQ by comparison but as multiculturalism/Judaeo-Marxism has shown us, the innate civility of whites can become poison if misused. 90
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:19 | # The genius of the modern political elite is hiding ambition and self-interest in high handed “for the good of society” rhetoric and prerogative. This way they appear to be upholding society while they enrich themselves. Hypocrisy pays, especially in a democracy. 91
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:39 | # Frank,
I am more interested in competition, on my terms, than in making inroads among parasites. In any case they would not be persuaded to join us until the hard part was over, because the easy money obtained from practicing judeo-economics is too good even during recession cycles. Yes, we need to work hard for our children and they must do the same. ——————
Although I can’t say with certainty, I believe IQ is more evenly distributed among the white population than racialism’ “cognitive elite” would have us believe. The Americans among this group are typically former Republicans with mid-high middle-class backgrounds in sales, law, and academics - professions emphasizing verbal over abstract IQ. Jews, too, tend toward verbalism. Naturally, verbal types tend toward propaganda. We all do what we do best. Try Googling “intentional community.” Do the same for “renewable (or alternative) energy.” Try “aquaculture,” “diy,” “country living,” “country life,” and “survival” - to name just a few. There is a market for the ideas I propose and it isn’t comprised of stupid people. 92
Posted by Frank on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:12 | # Yea, making inroads into parasites isn’t as important, but it is a potent way of recruiting and meeting useful, like-minded people. And any microcommunity could gain from the use of the more powerful and high income people in an area. I’m wary of the verbal/abstract divide somewhat because I fear this can be exaggerated and misunderstood. In this increasingly technological society too propaganda is increasingly valuable. As a race, our strength is obviously in the abstract. 93
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:32 | #
The best immediate qualifier is to accept only kin and long-term friends. Verifiable, past behavioral patterns would be necessary to qualify additional candidates for probational entry into the community (marriage, for example) or join/collaborate with another community as part of a greater socioeconomic network. 95
Posted by Revolution Harry on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:50 | # On a recent comment exchange on a left leaning blog someone posted the comment ‘so you think all English people are white’. Today, in the Mail on Sunday, sports columnist Patrick Collins berates Andrew Brons of the BNP for stating that (Dame) Kelly Holmes is only part British (she has a Jamaican father). This got me thinking. I came to the conclusion a while ago that what we need in this country is an organisation dedicated to representing the voice of those English (England is bearing the brunt of immigration is in the most need of defense) who question the wisdom of multiculturism and mass immigration. It should reflect as wide a range of views as possible including those of you here. Not only could it speak up for the interests of the ethnic English but also be a source of relevant information. What I’d like to know is what would be the criteria for eligibility to join the group? Would Kelly Holmes qualify? If not then neither do many others who think of themselves as English but have a Scots or Welsh parent. It’s obvious that were the organisation to be successful it would come under intense scrutiny including its admissions policy. My idea is that for all those who say there is no such thing as ‘the English’ or that our views don’t matter, well here we are and this is what we think. I’ve traced one side of my family back to the early 1700’s in a small village in Shropshire. My mother’s maiden name is Lloyd (though both her parents were born in England) so there is almost certainly some Welsh blood in me somewhere. Any thoughts. PS My initial thoughts on a name for the organisation is the ‘English Community’. The thing needs to be set up with all the expected criticisms anticipated and prepared for. The idea of an English community who have all the rights afforded by the UN declaration on indigenous peoples is easily defended. 96
Posted by Frank on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:19 | # I like the idea, but as for myself I’m only a small part English. I suggest allowing in those Europeans of part English blood and those Celts who’ve fully integrated into English society, provided each of these identifies as “English”. Those who are not any part English or who are part something totally alien should be viewed as alien. However of course you’ll be hit with child pictures of some mulatto who’s half English and really likes Cricket and the English flag… It’s really a weakness to attempt to explicitly define what “English” is I suspect. Instead, perhaps go at it by praising how English you are (your generations etc.) In this manner you establish a hierarchy of people who are differentiated by how English they are, each envious of the one above. Even now the NS are criticised for their solid definition of who is a German. 97
Posted by Frank on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:22 | # I don’t live in England nor do I have any connection to English society, nor is my ancestry recently from the island. So, though I’m somewhat loyal to that nation, I certainly shouldn’t be seen as English. 98
Posted by Q on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:02 | #
DON"T FALL FOR HIS TRICKS! GT aka Euroman aka Geno Type is acually Clayton Bigsby. 99
Posted by GenoType on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:18 | # The following guidelines are more practical than widespread DNA testing. From the Pace Amendment, Art. of Amend. XXVII § 1: “No person shall be a citizen of the United States unless he is a non-Hispanic white of the European race, in whom there is no ascertainable trace of Negro blood, nor more than one-eighth Mongolian, Asian, Asia Minor, Middle Eastern, Semitic, Near Eastern, American Indian, Malay or other non-European or non-white blood, provided that Hispanic whites, defined as anyone with an Hispanic ancestor, may be citizens if, in addition to meeting the aforesaid ascertainable trace and percentage tests, they are in appearance indistinguishable from Americans whose ancestral home is the British Isles or Northwestern Europe. Only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States.” ——- An operational definition of race: “Let us assume the chronology currently favored by anthropologists and molecular biologists (Stringer and Andrews 1988; Stringer 1990; Gibbons 1995; Horai et al. 1995; Aiello 1993 more cautiously; also see Cavalli-Sforza, monozzi, and Piazza 1993), according to which man evolved in Africa, branched off into Europe 110,000+ years ago, and branched off from there into Asia about 70,000 years later. The branches have interbred in historical time, Africa’s isolation having ended two millennia ago. So, letting 25 years mark a single generation, a “Negroid” may be defined as anyone whose ancestors 40 to 4400 generations removed were born in sub-Saharan Africa. “Mongoloid” and “Caucasoid” are defined similarly, with Asia and Europe in place of Africa. Because comparisons of blood group frequencies in the white, African, and conventionally identified American black populations indicate a white admixture of about 25% in the blacks in the American North and 10% in blacks in the American South, an “American Negroid” can be defined as anyone 75% or more of whose ancestors 40 to 4400 generations removed were born in sub-Saharan Africa. These definitions can be adapted to “polygenic” theories of human origins. If blacks, whites, and Asians evolved separately over (say) the last million years, a Negroid is anyone (75% or more of) whose ancestors 40 or more generations removed, with no upper bound, were born in Africa, and likewise for Mongoloids and Caucasoids. “Defining race by place of ancestry, although covering most humans, omits certain mixtures, such as Melanesians. Also, counting 75% African ancestry as Negroid will tend to understate any Negroid/Caucasoid genetic differences. Still, the fact that it is recognized as appropriate for American blacks to call themselves”African-Americans,” or to call the dominant culture “European” shows that most people have the geographical conception of race in mind.” Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean, by Michael Levin, pg. 20. 101
Posted by Q on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:33 | #
Maguire is smart. He bolted. 102
Posted by Bill on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:28 | # BNP faces legal threat over membership policies This is the way they’re going to do it. Legislation is to be the means of denying the British people the means to defend their right to exist. I have just listened to the BBC 1.00 O’clock news. This news, (presented by a female presenter) was delivered in an almost apologetic restrained manner (or perhaps it’s just me) the text containing ‘maybe’ and ‘could be. All sounding rather vague but menacing at the same time. Introduction of this possibility (prosecution) is strange timing indeed, it is possible of course it is because of the electoral success of the ‘BNP Two’, but maybe there’s some other reason afoot. The media have been making much noise this year forecasting that this summer is to be a summer of discontent, civil unrest and riots etc. This rhetoric has puzzled me, making me think what do they know that we don’t. The answer could be here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/23/bnp-membership-policies-legal-threat Or am I being paranoid? Post a comment:
Next entry: Get Back Verse Contest
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:58 | #
Frightening. Where is this going? The left-wing are whipping up a storm of hate that, IMO at least, is bound to produce quite violent results.
For whites, I think, there is a passionate, quasi-religious aspect to this reaction that I used to see amongst the respectable, middle-class white people attending Holy Trinity Brompton Church. Outwardly sane people overcome with emotion and ideological zeal.
The anti-BNP hysteria is a sign of weakness. The cracks are starting to appear. Perhaps in an increasingly fractured society, whites somehow sense the growing isolation and balkanization brought on by the multi-cult, and therefore desperately wave the ‘anti-BNP’ banner as a way to establish commonalities or points of agreement with the diverse groups around them.
The only thing these people have in common now, one might argue, is their ‘anti-fascist’ beliefs.