|
|
|
Pastor Manning again In this recently posted video Pastor Manning speaks about the nature of the African as no one outside of WN will. At times his frankness and his frustration are almost unbearable. One cannot help but feel sympathy for the man. His solution to the serial destructiveness of his own people, unsurprisingly, is to class it as an Original Sin from which only faith in the Almighty can deliver them. But sociobiology is not Original Sin. The conjunction of male assertiveness, impulsivity, poor moral apprehension, and a poor capacity to calculate the consequences of personal choices must have been producers of fitness in the Sub-Saharan evolutionary context. They were producers of human suffering too, of course. But Nature contains no aversion to suffering, human or otherwise. So in diaspore, in the context of other peoples existence, these characteristics remain producers of human suffering, and that suffering is not exclusively African. One or two of the commenters in the thread to the video have picked up on the fact that:
As Europeans it isn’t our responsibility to exemplify the civilised for Africans to imitate or to suppress African nature in perpetuity and minimise thereby the costs to us in lost lives, lost genetic interests, and in hard cash. It is our responsibility to protect our own. Thanks to Hugh for mailing me the link. Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:23 | # Haven’t watched the video yet, though I saw some of this guy’s outstanding rants in the past. Two comments re the commentary above: 1) Absent robust eugenics, carried out over several generations, I’d imagine, a Negro mass return to their historic Christian faith certainly is the only solution to the moral regeneration of their race - and it is a real solution. Blacks in the American past have always had high rates of criminality. I recall once reading a judicial opinion from the New Jersey Supreme Court circa 1848, complaining that Negroes, who were alleged to make up less than 2% of the state population, were responsible for more than half the crimes. Some things never change ... On the other hand, the types of crimes being committed were not remotely like the savagery we have to deal with. And the overall black crime rate well into the mid-twentieth century was a fraction of what it is today. There are many reasons for the explosion of Negroid criminality, nearly all of them having something to do with left-liberalism. But there was a time when blacks were better behaved, and at that time Christianity was a far more influential force in their lives than at present. Christian ‘rebirth’ has improved the behavior of countless men over the centuries, and it should be actively encouraged among blacks (the larger society should also require sterilization of criminals, routine hangings, restoration of gun rights, surgically implantable contraceptives for welfare recipients, etc). 2) While I obviously agree with the notion that whites bear no responsibility for, or to have to tolerate, the moral inferiority of blacks, I find it curious that an evolutionary atheist (and worse - a possible denier of human free will) would even bother with words like “responsibility” in the first place. Even many (OK, some) Christians recognize that evolution is seemingly blind to human moral constructs. In nature red in tooth and claw there is no morality, and thus from a naturalistic vantage, notions like “responsibility”, “depravity”, “what ought to be done”, etc, are all unintelligible. This is the Achilles heel of all atheists who make any sort of public recommendations. Without God, nothing matters to me but me. I might behave well (there we go again, ineluctably smuggling old Christian moral language back into allegedly desacralized reality) towards my family or friends, but that is only because I am a social as well as selfish being, and my life is better with family and friends. But that is not really morality, the essence of which is sacrifice of one’s desires or interests to benefit another, especially when there is no expectation of future reciprocity (it is thus less admirable for the single man to rescue the drowning supermodel than the plain Jane, for the latter action is presumably the more disinterested). As I’ve argued here previously, the problem atheist racialists face is that they want to rouse men to make sacrifices (which fighting for our race at this time certainly entails), but can give no real reason for doing so. Discussing EGI in such a context is worse than ludicrous. What matters to me is my GI, and even that is already dangerously close to anthropomorphism. In a cosmos without extrinsic meaning, all that matters for individuals in fact is pursuit of pleasure, and avoidance of pain. Of course, seeing our race disrespected, dispossessed, and headed to extinction does cause psychic pain for some, and fighting back through racialist activism can be a source of personal satisfaction. But that pain/pleasure, cost/benefit analysis will not get rational men to make the kind of personal sacrifices that will be necessary really to save our race, anymore than it would be sufficient to get volunteers in wartime. Men make sacrifices when they believe in a morally ordered cosmos, in which human actions are eternally meaningful. Without that belief, men who sacrifice are less moral than merely confused. 3
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:02 | # We all need to interact with the mainstream, as well as among ourselves in semi-private chat rooms like MR. I found the YouTube original, and posted this comment: “Please, people, isn’t it obvious? As Larry Auster puts it, Blacks + Liberalism = Barbarism. Blacks cannot govern themselves or others because of their low ethics (low IQ doesn’t help, either). The evil that liberals have done is to persuade blacks that they are just as good as whites, thus making them angry when their race never seems to meet white expectations. What would be best for blacks is if they were essentially reduced to having no say in the governing structures of their own lives - while also being subject to harsh criminal punishments if they get out of line. Then blacks can basically just work within their own spheres of competence, and otherwise enjoy lives free of larger responsibilities. Let the white man make the broader decisions for society. Let blacks have personal and economic, but again, not political, freedoms. They really would be happier as a race in the long run (though of course very few would admit it, perhaps even to themselves - but then women won’t admit they prefer male control, either, but, as long as it’s not abusive, they do).” This is uncharacteristically soft of me, I know. But sometimes it’s best to tone it down slightly in purely public venues. 4
Posted by danielj on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 16:11 | # 2) While I obviously agree with the notion that whites bear no responsibility for, or to have to tolerate, the moral inferiority of blacks We bought them and brought them here. They are our problem whether with disagree with the idea that we are culpable or not. 5
Posted by Hail on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:18 | # Pastor James D. Manning is today’s Marcus Garvey. Garvey founded the Negro Improvement Association (goal: racial separatism), the irreconcilable enemy of the Jewish-led NAACP (goal: “integration”, sponge-off whites forever). Manning, too, is a a Black racial-nationalist who wants genuine improvement of the Black race, and loathes the “preach integration, blame whites, sponge off whites” attitudes of the “W.E.B.-Dubois” and “Jesse-Jackson” blacks. (The vast majority of today’s blacks). Why Manning opposes B.H.Obama:
6
Posted by Jeremy on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:09 | # “We bought them and brought them here. They are our problem whether with disagree with the idea that we are culpable or not.” Is it my imagination or is danielj a plant? My understanding is that it was not whites who started the slave trade nor did they profit most from it. The latter group was disproportionately Jewish. I wonder what his motive for blurring this issue is, and what he has to gain from suggesting that the actions of blacks are somehow our problem (read: our responsibility, read: something we have to bear in perpetuity)? I can think of one way of dealing with the black problem. Can you guess what it is? 7
Posted by danielj on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:40 | # Yes Jews were disproportionately involved. They were disproportionately involved in setting up the Confederacy too. They were disproportionately involved in the disastrous civil rights movement too. That doesn’t change the facts. Should we only hang Jewish bankers come the revolution? My position is black nationalism for blacks. I don’t think it fair to deport them from the continent against their will. I suppose it is kindness and weakness on my part. The plant accusation is ridiculous. I’ve been banned from Alt Right for being too extreme and chastised in other venues for not being extreme enough in my defense. I’m a constellation of positions revolving around a central locus that includes my Presbyterian faith and my racial nationalism for America. Who the fuck are you anyway Jeremy? I’ve been here since almost the beginning and never seen your name. 8
Posted by PM on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:15 | # Daniel, when you say whites in America have responsibility for blacks, what does this mean in practice? I mean, parents have responsibility for their children, but society acknowledges this fact by allowing parents a huge degree of control over their lives, even over the very formation of their beliefs and values. Can whites have a responsibility for blacks without having a concomitant power over them to compel them to live lives which would have to be essentially unnatural for them? Isn’t that basically white supremacy, and isn’t that what they kicked against? Also, can everyone on this site stop accusing everyone else of being a crypto-Jew or whatever? It’s getting like the end of Resevoir Dogs where all the characters are pointing guns at each other…it’s a bit silly. I really like Pastor Manning. He is hated by his people for telling them what they need to hear but don’t want to hear, and he does it because he cares deeply about his race. You can hear it in the anguished pleading for his people to face the truth. I found the footage quite moving, I guess he is someone a WN type can relate too. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:59 | # Leon,
I think that’s true. I don’t know to what extent Africans carry faith genes, however. It is clear that faith is heavily predominant in the Arab, Turkic and South Asian populations, and less predominant in Western Europeans, and less predominant again in East Asians.
You would be making a mistake to presume that faith decides whether men can process the nature of things other than through thought alone. And why do you ascribe free will to a cultural artifact? If there is something more to the cultural artifact than itself, what is the relation of the artifact to this something? Do they exist together? In the same state of consciousness?
No, morality is in Nature in the same sense that adaptive/maladaptive choices are in Nature - and there, incidentally, is the extent of the free will of cultural artifacts, aka human personalty, aka Leon.
The only reason for self-sacrifice is love. Why do you think it unique to faithists?
A man who is self-estranged might think so. But then such a man might think anything, including that his personal concerns are important.
“The cosmos” is a big place. I can tell you that all life on this little rock is, and contains in its being the will to be and nothing else. This is the will - the drive inherent to evolution - to defeat time/entropy now, and again now, always now. Because Nature’s trick is to give phenotype to time/entropy but to hold genotype in the moment, we tend, as phenotypes, to process her being as onwardness and as purposive, and as movement, and therefore we attach the meaning of “good” to its success and “evil” to its failure, and we strive, quite justifiably, for the good. This is an optical illusion based on our position, like thinking the cosmos revolves around the earth. But nonetheless, for us the good exists and we call it moral. In truth, it is behaviourally adaptive. God is an idea in the mind of men whose genes for faith are expressed. Men who seek to understand what is real may or may not be so disposed. It is no disadvantage if they are not. But for those who will never seek the real, and whose life will always be lived as one of the cultural artifacts, faith is doubtless an assistance, just as prejudice is, and even racism (in the true sense of the word). All are behaviourally adaptive. 10
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:38 | # Jeremy - whats with the unhelpful plant accusations? Dan has been here for years, you turned up 5 minutes ago. Enough said. 11
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:57 | #
Many seedy/marginal trades are disproportionately Jewish thanks to the proclivities of their tribe. The Jewish involvement in the slave trade was no exception to this rule. But to say that whites were not involved in the slave trade or did not profit from it is floridly over-the-top. Spain was ruled by white Christians - not philosemitic ones at that - and Jews did not have the ability to start or monopolize entire trades, they could only latch on to ones which already enjoyed state sanction. It is important to remain historically accurate if we want to attract people to racialist causes. Honesty is the best policy. It does no good to deny the white role in slavery, we can’t change history and anyway we do not bear collective responsibility for what some whites did 500 years ago no matter what liberals say. 12
Posted by john on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:24 | # So one-heaven is up and running. Things are changing fast. Just listened to episode 12, interesting. 13
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:57 | # Daniel, when you say whites in America have responsibility for blacks, what does this mean in practice? I mean that we owe our best effort to guarantee the success of a Negro state somewhere within the boundary of a future, carved up America. We can’t just round them up and dump them in the middle of Arkansas. They need some sort of river or coastal access, a modicum of infrastructure and perhaps some white help with maintenance in the beginning of the project. I believe we are responsible for this because of the nature of our intertwined histories. I do not mean responsible in the sense you describe. I have no problem with giving them a hand up, but I do not want to lord it over them, administer their state or alternate between hand-outs and necessary repression of vice. I truly wish them the best. 14
Posted by Jeremy on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:28 | # My position is black nationalism for blacks. I don’t think it fair to deport them from the continent against their will. I suppose it is kindness and weakness on my part. I’m a constellation of positions revolving around a central locus that includes my Presbyterian faith and my racial nationalism for America. danielj/Lurker, I hope Guessedworker will forgive my language in this post (if not, I trust him to snip the relevant parts, not ban me or censor the post in its entirety). I certainly am new here, but: The length of time you have been posting here and the relevance of what you have to say for the survival of white people can be independent of one another. It is logically possible to be new here yet post good sense; it is also possible that you could have been here for ages with a track record of talking shit with a forked-tongue. The survival of whites is the sine qua non of politics now. Other aspects of politics do not matter if there are no whites around. I couldn’t give a toss what sort of schools wogs have if we are gone, for example. Looking at your comment about deportation from the USA being unfair, I can imagine you wearing the blue tie of a British Tory and saying that “the immigrant population are here now, and we have to work with them as it is their country as much as it is ours blah blah blah”. These people would be saying these traitorous things until whites become a despised and spat-upon minority in their ancestral homeland. America is a slightly different case because whites were not the aborginal population there but what it boils down to is whether whites can have a patch of this planet where they are free from interference by other ethnic groups (especially Jews). Interestingly, where whites are the aboriginal population they are not treated as fairly as they are expected to treat the aborginal populations that they have come into contact with (i.e. Cape coons, Abo’s and Red Injuns). It never works the other way with the race lobbyists of the Marxist left. They hate whites with a vengeance because of Auschwitz and there is no changing their mind. If I was a white American I wouldn’t piss around because believe me, if the wogs are left anywhere on the same continent as you they will always find ways of spilling over any borders you set up. If you have any sense you will put deep water and other natural features between you and them to protect you from the great demographic-mud slide. What whites face is an existential struggle - a kind of evolutionary test - and if we pass it we live on; if we fail we die. It is that simple. There are no certificates or medals, instead there are great grandchildren. You have no business polluting or confusing this debate with bleeding heart bullshit about being fair to the hideous wogs in our midst who have nowhere else to go (sniffle) - except for Africa where they fucking well belong and where they would be if it weren’t for the Jews. I really don’t care what kind of political philosophy they adopt once they are out of my living space and I can’t understand why you care. Your faux-racial nationalism means nothing if you leave the engine of the enemy’s cultural killing machine intact. This is why I am suspicious of you. How do you act if it is true that survival for your race is incompatible with the needs of shitty/needy brown people? You could argue that this kind of ‘do the right thing by others’ thinking is what led us into this God-awful mess in the first place. I am not one to attack Christianity for the sake of it - and I do not want to get into one of those silly Nietzsche vs. God arguments - but if there is any hint people are even thinking of using Chritianity as a weapon to guilt trip whites and deny the realities of race, they can just fuck off. I can be a Christian in all-white country thanks, you wanker. 15
Posted by Jeremy on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:29 | # I must say it is really refreshing to be able to say what I think and to be able to call a c**t a c**t. 16
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:22 | # There’s no point. This is probably true. They are niggers after all. However, African Americans have a significant amount of white admixture. Perhaps there is a chance. There never has been and never will be a successful modern negro country. I agree as far as my knowledge goes. I have friends and relatives who’ve gone to Africa to help develop the agricultural infrastructure there, and they’ve all said the same thing: within a year of you leaving, they’ve destroyed all the equipment and it’s as if you were never there. My old Reverend did a stint as a missionary over there somewhere. In his finer and slightly less-than-sober moments, he would essentially admit as much. And even if there was some chance for success, haven’t they received enough already? How many billions, or trillions of dollars have been transferred to them? I’m not saying we need to give anything to them. Yes they have received much and taken much. The most merciful thing would be to send them back to Africa with a small amount of wealth that would permit them some temporary high standard of living there. But none of them - not Nas, not DMX, not the guys from Dead Prez or any other rappers capitalizing on some “back to Africa” shit - are going to leave voluntarily. I’m a Nazi. I’ve said as much many, many, times. I do not know, however, if I have the stomach or moral justification under my schemata of values to start rounding them up. I could, without hesitation, organize a lynch mob for someone who deserved it by committing crimes that warranted the punishment but I couldn’t just start clubbing people and putting them on ships. How ironic that we should find ourselves in a situation where blacks would refuse to make the Atlantic passage back home. The length of time you have been posting here and the relevance of what you have to say for the survival of white people can be independent of one another. You suggested I was my plant and I suggested that my lengthy record of relevant commentary says otherwise. The link to my blog in the sidebar performs the same function. Maybe you should take up your complaint with the webmaster? The survival of whites is the sine qua non of politics now. You might wish that but it doesn’t make it so. Nobody cares about the survival of whites except a small circle of people on the internet. Almost nobody will even acknowledge that the white race is confronted with an existential crisis so it hardly follows that white survival is the sine qua non of anybody’s politics except for a few thousand, keyboard warriors like us. Politics, my boy, is the art of the possible and being a tiny, highly outnumbered and recessive pool of DNA - even with nukes - should cause one to do a lot of reflection on what is possible. Everybody here is committed to the survival of whites. We have some different ideas about how and in what context white survival will occur but nobody, nobody here is making the argument for our extinction explicitly or implicit and unintentionally. I can imagine you wearing the blue tie of a British Tory and saying that “the immigrant population are here now, and we have to work with them as it is their country as much as it is ours blah blah blah”. American blacks are not immigrants. They have been here as long as we have. I have no idea how long Jamaicans have been in England and I don’t care. Those are your niggers. America is a slightly different case because whites were not the aborginal population there but what it boils down to is whether whites can have a patch of this planet where they are free from interference by other ethnic groups (especially Jews). Thanks. Even though we’ve all said this a thousand times, it is nice to have a passionate come-lately say it too. Maybe you won’t consider my position on American Jewry extreme enough, but here it goes anyway. I say a set of laws modeled after the Nuremberg Laws which includes divestiture and confiscation of all financial instrumentation owned by Jews, restriction from the professions (medicine, law, finance, etc) and a small financial incentive to move to Israel ought to do the trick. If I was a white American I wouldn’t piss around because believe me, if the wogs are left anywhere on the same continent as you they will always find ways of spilling over any borders you set up. Yerp. If you build it, they will come. There are no certificates or medals, instead there are great grandchildren. Are you married? Do you have any kids? If you do, then we can talk about it. If not, shut the fuck up and defer to your betters in that regard. I really don’t care what kind of political philosophy they adopt once they are out of my living space and I can’t understand why you care. Because, besides being a white man, I’m a human being too. Millions of people suffering greatly tends to draw me to reflection on the problem of evil, theodicies, the amelioration of suffering, genuine moral progress, etc. I think if you had any kids, you’d understand. Your faux-racial nationalism means nothing if you leave the engine of the enemy’s cultural killing machine in tact. This is why I am suspicious of you. You can be as suspicious as the day is long but you just look plain silly. There are no agents of the ADL posting here. We are a non-entity. A collective nil. Nobody gives a shit about our corner of cyberspace. How do you act if it is true that survival for your race is incompatible with the needs of shitty/needy brown people? That isn’t the case though. The world is not black and white. There are infinite shades of gray and failure to make this distinctions is moral infantilism. You could argue that this kind of ‘do the right thing by others’ thinking is what led us into this God-awful mess in the first place. Maybe in the case of India and Britain. They had a benevolent and affectionate disposition for their niggers in India. Still, you are oversimplifying the issue. You want neat categories where they simply don’t exist and some simple metric and tool of analysis for judging decline where it doesn’t exist either. You sound like you have your head on straight. Hopefully, we can reach some sort of understanding. 17
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:27 | # You suggested I was my plant *a* plant nobody here is making the argument for our extinction explicitly or implicit and unintentionally. or *implicitly* and unintentionally There are infinite shades of gray and failure to make this distinctions *these* distinctions 18
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:47 | # Honesty is the best policy. It does no good to deny the white role in slavery, we can’t change history and anyway we do not bear collective responsibility for what some whites did 500 years ago no matter what liberals say. If we are not collectively responsible for what whites did some time ago, how can blacks and Jews be held collectively responsible for what they do now? Sauce for the goose my friend. 19
Posted by Alexander Baron on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:59 | # I’ve seen this bloke before; he is unquestionably sincere but I’d be more sympathetic if he didn’t take this birther nonsense seriously, and if he called Obama Mr President instead of, well, a word I would reserve for Mike Tyson and his ilk. Can’t fault him on the Japanese though, they are certainly far superior to the blacks, and in some ways superior to us. 20
Posted by Jeremy on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:14 | # However, African Americans have a significant amount of white admixture. Perhaps there is a chance. What exactly are you saying here? A chance of what? Making our enemies even more intelligent so they can exterminate us more skilfully? Breed in with them? Fuck off. They aren’t going to get any smarter and even if they did that would make them an even bigger threat. They are niggers. I’m a Nazi. I’ve said as much many, many, times. I do not know, however, if I have the stomach or moral justification under my schemata of values to start rounding them up. As I said, why are you introducing moral concerns into a matter of survival. If you are squeamish then draw the curtains. You sound like a fucking Jew. 21
Posted by Jeremy on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:21 | # If your previous posts are anything like the ones I have seen then they were all shite anyway and I wasn’t missing much. You talk like you are a plant and I have explained why. I will do so again. The interesting thing is the bit of my post that you did not really answer. You tried to deflect it but I think the key issue is that, as I said, you have no business polluting or confusing this debate with bleeding heart bullshit about being fair to the hideous wogs in our midst. You said little in your response that made sense about that question so why do you introduce moral dimensions to a question of survival? That is the sort of thing Jews want us to do. You will forgive me but I do not agree with you that the current racial position is not a black-white/zero-sum game for whites in a country as crowded and as small as England. Our loss is the coloured man’s gain and that is not an oversimplification or ‘moral infantilism’. This truth is borne out regularly in the competition for housing and jobs market. Resources are scarce and what is given by our leaders to the wogs is taken from the mouths of whites and from over their heads. It is not a win-win situation. Outsourcing jobs to wog countries, insourcing competition to drive wages down, making competiton for the basics of life unbearably great is not a ‘grey’ matter. It has a very black-white effect on the white birth rate which – unlike the wog birth rate – is unsubsidised and unsupported by welfare benefits, except for the less fit members of the white population. No amount of Jesuitical horseshit can change that. Your comment about ‘neat’ categories shades of grey is pure apologetics for the ongoing crime against humanity that is white dispossession. Fuck off.
That may be the case now, but you could have said that in the early 1920s. Times were good then and people were not racially conscious then, but look at what happened in the next decade. You are describing the present status quo and accepting it as a given when your historic mission would be to change the environment in which we live. You seem to be discounting the possibility of an awakening when you could be using your considerable talents to work for one. Further clues to your true persuasion are given when you talk about numbers. This is defeatism, another hallmark of the plant. We may be outnumbered but then who isn’t? Which ethnic group does make up a majority of the world’s population? Answer: none. When we retake control of our society we can use new techniques to rapidly produce more white people. Who knows how quickly this could be done if we work on eugenics and artificial gestation? We could find ways of reproducing faster than a Chink on speed if we put our minds to it. Such is my faith in the brilliance of the white Western people. American blacks are not immigrants. They have been here as long as we have. So fucking what? They are a threat that needs to be neutralised and then eliminated. You are happy to force Jews out (this is excellent) but you have a blind spot for ape men. Why? Even though we’ve all said this a thousand times, it is nice to have a passionate come-lately say it too. There you go again Mr. ‘I have a distinguished track record of talking shite’. Whether I am married or not, father or not, is irrelevant. I would be interested to hear what Guessedworker thinks of you, but you do sound like a fucking Jew to me. If Majorityrights is a ‘collective nil’ then why are you bothering to post here? Don’t let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. 22
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:26 | # What exactly are you saying here? A chance of what? A successful state. Read. Breathe. Type. They aren’t going to get any smarter and even if they did that would make them an even bigger threat Their percentage of white admixture almost statistically guarantees that they are smarter than most Africans. Wouldn’t you agree with that? Mulattoes and quadroons are generally superior to pure blacks right? They are niggers. Who is denying that? They’re American niggers though. As I said, why are you introducing moral concerns into a matter of survival. There is no adiaphoratic retreat. Morality is always there. My religion prevents me from ignoring that simple fact. The universe isn’t legislative but there is certainly order there and simply nature alone, if you listen, will tell you that. It will tell you that the burning, half-psychotic hatred you are giving vent is a violation of the natural order; the same natural order that demands racial nationalism. If you are squeamish then draw the curtains. You sound like a fucking Jew. I just told you the extent of my “squeamishness” so I’m not sure what you are getting at. You sound like a crazy person. 23
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:45 | # You will forgive me but I do not agree with you that the current racial position is not a black-white/zero-sum game for whites in a country as crowded and as small as England. I do forgive you. It seems to be a valid conclusion drawn from the premises that you accept as true. Have you been in an airplane over England Jeremy? Have you seen Ireland from the sky? It is mostly a vast expanse of nothingness. This is not to deny that the country is “overcrowded” in some sense. The whole world is overcrowded in that sense. We agree that competition is stiff. I understand your pain. I work at a very high paying job and all of my coworkers are Mexicans. Almost none of them are capable. One of the white guys in the yard can handle the work of five of the Mexicans. It drives me insane. I did not say survival wasn’t a zero-sum game. I simply said that morality is a concern of mine. Our loss is the coloured man’s gain and that is not an oversimplification or ‘moral infantilism’. This truth is borne out regularly in the competition for housing and jobs market. This is undoubtedly true. Your comment about ‘neat’ categories shades of grey is pure apologetics for the ongoing crime against humanity that is white dispossession. Bollocks J. Pure bollocks. That may be the case now, but you could have said that in the early 1920s. Times were good then In America, that was thanks in part to a giant inflationary period. We all know what happens when the party is over. You are describing the present status quo and accepting it as a given when your historic mission would be to change the environment in which we live. I’m accepting the present status quo as the given situation. I’ve made my peace with it. You seem to be discounting the possibility of an awakening when you could be using your considerable talents to work for one. It may or may not happen. I’m naturally inclined to the dark view and so I hope to raise up a family of custodians - keepers of the European spirit. All I can do is try, take care of my family and raise them properly. There is no army to join Jeremy. Therefore, I say with many others, pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. Which ethnic group does make up a majority of the world’s population? The non-European groups considered as a whole. When we retake control of our society we can use new techniques to rapidly produce more white people. I’m not sure we need to do that. America was a nice place at 200 million. Crowded is crowded and although it would be less miserable if it was crowded with whites, miserable it will still be. So fucking what? They are a threat that needs to be neutralised and then eliminated. You are happy to force Jews out (this is excellent) but you have a blind spot for ape men. Why? You might want to rephrase that. You have laws in your country that criminalize such speech. I’m not sure why. Blacks in Oakland were the people that disabused me of the notion that “we are all the same” so I can’t figure it. Shared culture I guess. Oh yeah. That and the fact that I’m not a monster that wants to eliminate everyone. Whether I am married or not, father or not, is irrelevant. No. It most certainly is not irrelevant. Do your part and don’t waste your considerable talent bloviating at your allies on the internet. Man up and have some white babies. If Majorityrights is a ‘collective nil’ then why are you bothering to post here? Don’t let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. Because it is “our” space. It is what we do. It is a little retreat from madness. 24
Posted by Jeremy on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:53 | # A successful state. Dream on. Leave the thinking to others. They’re American niggers though. That sounds to me like you subscribe to a civic view of nationalism. There is no adiaphoratic retreat. Morality is always there. My religion prevents me from ignoring that simple fact. The universe isn’t legislative but there is certainly order there and simply nature alone, if you listen, will tell you that. It will tell you that the burning, half-psychotic hatred you are giving vent is a violation of the natural order; the same natural order that demands racial nationalism. I do not seek to deny the existence of wogs. I seek to deny their presence in my land. There is a difference. Their presence here harms whites. If that is against your natural order then you can fuck off. I just told you the extent of my “squeamishness” so I’m not sure what you are getting at. You sound like a crazy person. And you sound like you are more concerned with the welfare of wogs than whites. 25
Posted by Jeremy on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:11 | # “I do forgive you. It seems to be a valid conclusion drawn from the premises that you accept as true.” Thanks but this does not rebut my points about housing and jobs. “Have you been in an airplane over England Jeremy? Have you seen Ireland from the sky? It is mostly a vast expanse of nothingness. This is not to deny that the country is “overcrowded” in some sense. The whole world is overcrowded in that sense. We agree that competition is stiff. I understand your pain. I work at a very high paying job and all of my coworkers are Mexicans. Almost none of them are capable. One of the white guys in the yard can handle the work of five of the Mexicans. It drives me insane.” You Jesuitical shit. We are dependent enough on food imports without concreting over more of it and ruining even more of our birthright. “I did not say survival wasn’t a zero-sum game. I simply said that morality is a concern of mine.” So you do accept that the gain of the wogs in our land is our loss? Well that is a start. Now take the next step and stop introducing moral concerns into a question of survival. If you believe it is ‘undoubtedly true’ why burden yourself with worries that the wogs would not think about for one second? “Bollocks J. Pure bollocks.” Fuck of you slimey cunt. “I’m accepting the present status quo as the given situation. I’ve made my peace with it.” Do me a favour and go and commit suicide now. You are taking up valuable space that could be used by a real white man. You cunt.
Not yet there isn’t. Give the pot time to come to the boil. The wogs will see it does. “The non-European groups considered as a whole.” Why are you assuming they are a monolithic anti-white bloc? Even if they were - which they are not - all it means that we have to automate warfare more skilfully. “I’m not sure we need to do that. America was a nice place at 200 million. Crowded is crowded and although it would be less miserable if it was crowded with whites, miserable it will still be.” Oh, I thought numbers were a problem. Make your fucking mind up you two-faced shit. “You might want to rephrase that. You have laws in your country that criminalize such speech. I’m not sure why. Blacks in Oakland were the people that disabused me of the notion that “we are all the same” so I can’t figure it. Shared culture I guess. Oh yeah. That and the fact that I’m not a monster that wants to eliminate everyone.” Now we see the real you. First, I do not want to elimante non-whites. I just want them out of my living space. Their presence is incompatible with my survival. Saying that does not mean I am a monster. Second, by talking about hate speech you really give your game away. Hate speech is a game invented by the Jews for their benefit to oppress whites and con them out of their birthright and existence. Why are you so concerned about playing the game by their rules? Surely, changing the rules is what we are here for? Earlier you said that nobody else comes here - ADL types etc. - now you are warning me about hate speech laws. You wouldn’t like to guess who the grass would be that will draw the attention of outside agencies to what I have said, would you? You have a strange set of concerns for a true nationalist. The law. Sheesh.
Whether I have or not is not something I would discuss with a plant like you. Obviously the more white babies the better. You do exclude Jew from your definition of white, right? “Because it is “our” space. It is what we do. It is a little retreat from madness.” There is no we. There is something fishy about you, danielj. 26
Posted by danielj on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:23 | # Jeremy, You used the words “neutralize” and “eliminate” and I’m just working with the accepted definition of the terms. I’m pretty sure Webster’s and the OED are in agreement. I’m asking you to respect those particular laws for the sake of my friend Guessedworker who will politely request of you the same when he sees the thread. I’ll address the rest of this absolute madness after tea. 27
Posted by Jeremy on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:37 | # Guessedworker can speak for himself. I am referring to deportation, not mass murder for the sake of it. You are a hysterical exaggerator, danielj. I await your latest droppings after you have been refreshed. I look forward to being put straight on why exclusive living space for whites is impossible to attain, monster-like behaviour, immoral, or some other nonsensical bullshit like that. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:43 | # Jeremy, It would please me to see you behave as a friend among friends, and as someone who finds in friendship no requirement for hurtful and, frankly, illegal language. You would not use it with with your grandparents or your boss or customers or whatever. Please accord the same consideration to the folks of all races who come here to read or to comment. I have known Daniel for a long time, have met his family, and have complete faith in his integrity as a racially-aware white man. Daniel is one of several MR commenters who place faith in God at the centre of their thought. Faithless people like me are entitled to explain our worldview to them, but we are not entitled to abuse them, or anybody else. That said, I agree with much of what you say, and I know your anger to be righteous. You are welcome. 29
Posted by Jeremy on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:05 | # Guessedworker, Ok. Point taken about Daniel. I am slightly confused as to which language you think is illegal. I am not advocating mass murder or violence. Are you referring to the epithets I have used? 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:23 | # Jeremy, we have two house rules. Commenters must be civil and must offer something of substance. It’s how we discriminate. 31
Posted by Jeremy on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:37 | # Guessedworker, I will bear that in mind and be civil but by God does it annoy me when people impute a moral dimension to a question of survival. I am sure that at least one point in the past my ancestors played dirty just to survive. Who am I to judge them and what they went through to ensure I could live? Similarly our descendants will not give a toss what we do to survive as long as we do it. Further aggravation is guaranteed if the Chrisitain religion is dragged into matters. I do not recall Christ saying ‘allow your homeland to be taken over by people who despise me’. There is a time and a place for Christianity and allowing it to be used to tie one hand behind our backs is not masochistic, it is plain suicide. My view of atheism is that they could at least accept that if white people want to believe fairy stories then at least they should be the fairy stories of our ancestors not someone else’s. Can you just be clear what you mean about illegal language? If words like wogs and niggers are a problem then I will desist. 32
Posted by danielj on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:01 | # Dream on. Leave the thinking to others. I was merely suggesting to Dasein that European admixture may have created an avenue for a successful black state. I’m not dreaming. I don’t think there is some unactualized potential within the black race for European levels of achievement that is suppressed or lying dormant. That sounds to me like you subscribe to a civic view of nationalism. I do no such thing. “Civic” nationalism is an oxymoron. Were I given command over the composition of the polity, and had I the power to do so, I would deny citizenship to any aliens living amongst us. African Americans are just that though. Africans that immigrate to America (or England) are an entirely different animal and I refuse to eliminate what is, to me, a very clear distinction in the interest of simplifying my world view. I can navigate the troubled seas we all sail without such reductionism. I do not seek to deny the existence of wogs. I seek to deny their presence in my land. There is a difference. Their presence here harms whites. If that is against your natural order then you can fuck off. Would that we could just snap our fingers Jeremy and make all our problems disappear. If only I could heal the world with a song. Jeremy, the very same natural order that seems to imply (while not directly legislating it) racial nationalism as prescriptive, demands of me that I not burn down the forest to clear it of bandits. Culture is not some trapping, some fine prison of linens that I must shred and shed to play the part of the Übermensch. However, in the end Jeremy, I am a motherfucker. If it truly comes down to it, I will not hesitate to eat my fellow man but I make no pretense at relishing the opportunity and, in the end, I am a man and no lion. It will not be natural or excusable behavior. And you sound like you are more concerned with the welfare of wogs than whites. I would suggest that it appears that way to you because of your perspective but, from where I’m standing, the view is different. I am concerned with the manner in which European man comports himself; with the ways and means that he uses to extricate himself from his current predicament. I’m concerned with his soul and that he not lose it whilst attempting to save his flesh. So you do accept that the gain of the wogs in our land is our loss? It isn’t that simple. I could, utilizing terminology that you might employ yourself in other contexts, make the argument that the wog invasion currently underway - the Operation Overlord being conducted from the Maghreb and the construction of the London Caliphate via Heathrow courtesy of the English welfare state - is simply nature-whatever she may be-subjecting the English to accelerated selection pressure and that your childlessness is merely an indication that you are, simply, unfit. I won’t do that. I will suggest that the weapon you’ve picked up is double-edged, unsheathable and guardless so that even handling it is dangerous. Materialism, of the red-in-tooth-and-claw variety is an unruly and fickle beast. Caveat emptor. Well that is a start. Now take the next step and stop introducing moral concerns into a question of survival. Morality is all or nothing, just like survival. If you believe it is ‘undoubtedly true’ why burden yourself with worries that the wogs would not think about for one second? Because I am not a wog. I am a European and we have standards. We are supreme and we should act like it. Why are you assuming they are a monolithic anti-white bloc? Even if they were - which they are not - all it means that we have to automate warfare more skilfully. They don’t have to be monolithic under your (or my) understanding of international relations. The fact that they have interests that vary from our own is enough and they are, therefore, functionally an anti-white bloc should it come to that. I prefer less automation. If we are going to kill, it should be personal. Obviously, that is just the romantic in me though. Oh, I thought numbers were a problem. Make your fucking mind up you two-faced shit. You drop context like snitches drop dimes. Yes. Numbers are a problem but perhaps an analogy will help you see the context in which they are so. If I’m in a bar and I want to start a fight, I ensure that I’m not outnumbered. When I’m in a bar and I want to buy a round, I ensure that I have adequate resources to do so by determining the size of the company I’m keeping. Their presence is incompatible with my survival. That is not true. You do exclude Jew from your definition of white, right? White = Descendant of European Christian I would exclude Gypos and Jews from that definition. Russians included but they have their own sphere of influence and problems. I’m grateful they serve as a buffer between us and the Mongols. There is something fishy about you, danielj. Ok buddy. I’m non-anonymous and open about my racialism in the real world too. 33
Posted by PM on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:04 | # Personally Daniel, I cannot see a great ‘moral’ difference between giving American blacks an area of America, and sending them back to Africa. Surely Africa is wherever blacks are, and by putting them together in one part of America without whites you are, in effect, sending them back to Africa. You say that your Christian conscience would not allow you to forcefully round them up and stick them on a boat, but blacks in this scenario would not be fighting to stay on the sacred soil of America—blacks would be fighting to STAY AROUND WHITES. Our relationship with them is parasitic, they need us, deep down they know this, which means that deep down they understand what you do not want to accept—that an orderly, civilised, black run society in North America is not possible. The only difference I can see is that you are keeping them close so you can keep helping them when things inevitably get fucked-up. If you really had faith in the possible ability of American blacks to maintain civilisation, then why wouldn’t you send them to Africa, cut the apron strings and let them get on with it—heck, maybe those quadroons and octoroons, being whiter, would actually be an overall net benefit to all of their brothers and sisters on the continent of Africa? After all, Obama has to be a good 50% better than Jacob Zuma. I remember reading an article recently at AltRight about Sierra Leone, a country where rebels/militia/whatever were commiting atrocities, (cutting off limbs of children and other such African delights) for the simple reason that they wanted whites to come to their country and provide them with money and U.N jobs—effectively emotional blackmail using their own children as bait. They know the white man’s weakness all right. If blacks in Africa are willing to go to these lengths to get the white man’s attention and help, can you imagine what the Black Americans would behave like, knowing that CNN and Fox news were just a few hours away, and knowing that white Americans just over the border, people such as yourself, felt a sense of responsibility towards them? What would you do if they started committing the most repugnant atrocities against each other and demanded the intervention/help of white America—which they most certainly would? I don’t know…I understand your motivations behind this idea are kind-hearted but I just can’t see it working. The best solution I can think of is offering the Brazilian government loads of money to take them, and paying the Mexicans handsomely to guard their Southern border with the kind of vigilence America should be guarding it’s own Southern border. But I’m sure this plan has as many faults. 34
Posted by danielj on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:33 | # White = Descendant of European Christian Christendom 35
Posted by Rollory on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:05 | # Vaguely related, and not-so-bad doggerel: http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/03/24/poor-sportsmanship/ 36
Posted by Rollory on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:07 | # That author also writes at http://unamusementpark.wordpress.com/ 37
Posted by danielj on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:53 | # Personally Daniel, I cannot see a great ‘moral’ difference between giving American blacks an area of America, and sending them back to Africa. So you think it is ok to just carve up Africa and divvy it up as we please? Africa doesn’t belong to Americans. Perhaps the Great Mother will willingly take some willing expatriates back. Still, there is no institutional framework to accept the broader, hip-hop listening, English speaking, black public in Africa. It isn’t pragmatic and is therefore bound to lead to chaos and is immoral by its violation of common sense and sound judgment. Surely Africa is wherever blacks are, and by putting them together in one part of America without whites you are, in effect, sending them back to Africa. You aren’t acknowledging the importance of culture. You yourself know the black man on an intimate level. He even served as some sort of vessel for projection in your formative years. They are already, de facto, physically segregated by economics and free choice. But, they are still almost inextricably intertwined with us in a broader cultural context. We just need to be more vigorous and a reconstituted, de jure, Jim Crow would be an excellent first step toward actual racial nationalism on American soil. You say that your Christian conscience would not allow you to forcefully round them up and stick them on a boat, but blacks in this scenario would not be fighting to stay on the sacred soil of America—blacks would be fighting to STAY AROUND WHITES. My Christian conscience and simple inward decency would be debilitating. Just because blacks don’t understand the sacredness of the soil they live on, doesn’t mean we are entitled to ride roughshod over the principle. Our relationship with them is parasitic, they need us, deep down they know this, which means that deep down they understand what you do not want to accept—that an orderly, civilised, black run society in North America is not possible. Not by European standards. Not without a massive increase in police presence and other extremely repressive measures. I remember reading an article recently at AltRight about Sierra Leone, a country where rebels/militia/whatever were commiting atrocities, (cutting off limbs of children and other such African delights) for the simple reason that they wanted whites to come to their country and provide them with money and U.N jobs—effectively emotional blackmail using their own children as bait. I remember reading the same article. The correct theological terminology would be offering their children up to Moloch. They know the white man’s weakness all right. Again, we shouldn’t mistake kindness for weakness. It is condescension on my part, generally, when I engage blacks and it is consciously that. It is most definitely condescension and pity that is driving the macropolitical, institutional condescension by whites in modern America as well. It takes inner strength to pity. The best solution I can think of is offering the Brazilian government loads of money to take them, and paying the Mexicans handsomely to guard their Southern border with the kind of vigilence America should be guarding it’s own Southern border. But I’m sure this plan has as many faults. Not a bad idea. 38
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:43 | #
Of course, quite so, wouldnt disagree with the truth of that statement in a general sense. But to get specific, Dan has been posting here for a long time and always in good faith. The length of time he has been posting, the cumulative effect of all those comments lead me to believe he is a stand up guy. If he is some sort of plant/troll/agent provocateur he has spent an inordinate amount of time building up a plausible persona only to throw it away on this one thread.
And, yes, all true again, nothing to disagree with there generally speaking. But Dan hasnt been talking shit with a forked tongue. And I think Im allowed to raise at least a quizzical eyebrow when someone with no track record here comes along laying down the law regarding the one true way and denouncing someone else who has been a sound character for years. You didnt engage Dan in a particularly civil manner, you just attacked. Perhaps if you had spent some time reading other things he has written? Im sure as GW says yours is righteous anger but its hardly helpful attacking our own. There is a vast, target rich environment out there… 39
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:43 | # Frost and Clark call it empathy, but, naturally, I’ll support Darwin’s (and Smith’s) choice of word; sympathy. It’s a subtle but important difference. If Nature is no stranger to suffering, then human nature, theoretically will evolve a response to that environmental factor because it is adaptive. And that trait is sympathy. Sympathy is expensive and only really affordable in a high trust society. And a high trust society is the foundation for individualism. SSA have no sympathy, even for their own in crisis, because they have no trust. NE Asian societies trust within the realm of their extended families. This allows sympathy to extend to their own but also accounts for the fact that the Japanese were able to ritualistically sacrifice and cannibalize Allied servicemen in WWII. The Anglo-Saxon, being the highest trust society, is able to extend his sympathy not just to his own, but men of foreign nations, men of all races and finally, all sentient beings. 41
Posted by danielj on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:37 | # The Anglo-Saxon, being the highest trust society, is able to extend his sympathy not just to his own, but men of foreign nations, men of all races and finally, all sentient beings.
42
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:28 | # My philosophy is- it’s easier to get into this mess than out. Those agreeing to be sterilized could stay and be subsidized- those refusing must go home to Africa. 43
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:46 | #
Jesus H. Christ, Jeremy, I don’t think I’ve seen such a prize rant here since GW went off on an Irish patriot for saying “Fuck England”. (But on the other hand, one puzzles to think what message the RAF intended to send to Germans but “Burn in hell you fucking Krauts”.) Btw, what is your take on National Socialism? 44
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:17 | #
Frame your preferred epithets with quotes (e.g., “wog”, “nigger”, “sandnigger”, “spic”, “gook”, “subhuman trash” - for educational purposes only, mind you). You know, as if to say that is what you would say if you were a Nazi or something. I take it you are not a Nazi, though. That would be a very bad thing, especially for an Englishman. 45
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:48 | #
Yes and no. English moralists feel the rush of self-righteousness both when they are condemning the alleged genocidalism of Germans during WWII and whilst insisting they would adopt genocidalist methods to save the English people from mass mongrelization. So it’s a bit more subtle and a tad more hypocritical than you might imagine. (“You Krauts are not morally fit to rule yourselves. Don’t you worry, we’ll take care of that for you. We’ve had plenty of practice, what with the Irish and all.”) 46
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:44 | # Desmond, That is a synposis for a necessary and potentially extremely useful post. Any time you feel like developing it into a full, referenced article I will publish it with pleasure. I would certainly like to see it explicated in full and placed in the context of the nationalist vision of society we still, as a movement, have not adequately rationalised. Please think about writing it up. 47
Posted by danielj on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:39 | # That is a synposis for a necessary and potentially extremely useful post. What is? That the Anglo-Saxon is the most trustworthy man on the planet? 48
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:57 | # Daniel, Not Anglo-Saxon necessarily, though Desmond makes that point and if he can demonstrate he is right, fine. If the trust element is equally applicable to northern Europeans or all Europeans, that’s equally useful to me and, actually, more in keeping with an analysis which deals, for the most part, at the macro level in respect to East (or North-East) Asians and Africans. For me, it has to do with something Bill picked up on that I’d written elsewhere and which is about the kind of action on society we want our ideas to have, ie, to express our nature in so far as that is possible, and to shape our social organisation and relations accordingly. 49
Posted by Wexler on Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:38 | # Enjoyed this thread. danielj, your responses to Jeremy have been excellent. I like how you incorporate his grief. As in, a sympathetic or empathetic framework is not incompatible with our position. Mr Guessedworker, i liked your summation at 11:59. I have tried to grok to philosophy at times, but found it abstruse; you said a lot there. **** To contribute something. What i would bring up, and this in feeling with what danielj might have been empathizing with, is that White People do have a moral obligation to others. Robert Pirsig’s thoughts on the nature of evolving forms are what i have in mind. People, in the broad sense (“the human race”), are evolving socially and intellectually. Perhaps the battle is between those who get that point, and those who do not. Perhaps people are not evolving along those lines? 50
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:34 | #
Who do you suspect would be the first to fuck over his co-ethnics, a randomly selected Englishman or a randomly selected Japanese? Answer that question, and you will have your answer, at least by the standard of ethnic loyalty. 51
Posted by PM on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:39 | # One factor that whites have in their favour when it comes to bonding and trust is the scrutability of their features. I have heard the reasons put forth as to why we have pale skin, but I have wondered if there was also an advantage in having pale skin because in tight-knit groups the ability to see someone blushing would help show their shame, or embarrassment, or other similair states, which may in certain circumstances defuse arguments or demonstrate genuine contrition and so forth, making it easier to trust or have genuine conciliation. 52
Posted by Dsmond Jones on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:46 | # Firstly, no one said the Anglo-Saxon was the most trustworthy man on the planet, however, such an interpretation is not surprising considering its source, a Sicilian miscegenator who holds views antithetical to Nordic survival. Placing any credence in the views of this individual is like taking religious direction from Jim Jones. Secondly, ethnic nepotism does exist naturally, so it depends what is meant by fucking over ones co-ethnics. The Chinese do it in a display of potent nepotism. 90% of the billionaires in China are related to a member of the government. In Korea they don’t adopt Korean orphans fearing the spoilage it may bring to the family blood line. Thus if there is so-called ethnic nepotism in Japan, and not just a concern for extended family, then it is a product of manipulation. The original point was, however, that a high trust society, (i.e one that is dependent upon rule of law) and “non-kinship based forms of reciprocity” is highly individualistic (i.e not dependent upon family or individual violence to resolve disputes) is much more sympathetic to the other/the stranger. In addition, a society dependent upon rule of law and non-kinship based reciprocity is much less violent because they trust their interests will be served, possibly foolishly, within a legal system that is much less corrupt because of a lesser reliance upon nepotism. Guessedworker, thanks for the opportunity but it’s really not worth the effort. 53
Posted by danielj on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:16 | # He isn’t the must trustworthy man on the planet but he builds the must trustin societies? Did I interpret that unreasonably? You’re a real peach Desmond. I never pegged you for a dissimulator though. It seems that on the understanding of the myopically English that only the English are victims and I’m the biggest threat to your survival because I’ve got fractional amounts of Sicilian blood in me and I’m married to an extremely distant cousin of yours. You’re screwed on tight. Much love brother. 54
Posted by danielj on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:11 | # This libel needs to stop. I challenge anyone to name a view I hold that is antithetical to the survival of the Nordic people. 55
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:27 | # Desmond, just at the point we feel our psyches crack due to the multiple commitments we sense bear down upon our duties to the survival to our people is just where we need to redouble our efforts. Just what is so unbearably unstateable and ineffable in what has gone before, and what shall go on, that our Northern European people shall not live and should not live on this continent unto the generations? If it is your passion that something will be lost if our people do not live then speak it formally in all the ways that you are capable of but I am not at present. 56
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:05 | # What is the appeal of Manning? I’ve heard of him since around 2004 or 2006, I think. Seen him referenced everywhere from here to Stormfront and VNN, and still I don’t get it. Jeremy, Danilej has been around for a while and his comments and opinions are familiar to plenty of people on Our Side of the struggle. Sometimes conversations at sites like this don’t really begin or end on one thread, but continue from one into another -going on for years. Ideas are thrown back and forth that way and opinions and arguments are refined. As for alternate name for non-Whites, I’d recommend referring to them as orcs. But really, Danielj, the problem with your assertion is that it assumes we are, or can be, in complete control of, well, everything. It’s similar to the social engineers who thought they could alter the forces of nature to produce a “better society”. We are, personally and collectively, in a fight for life. We can certainly reason and contemplate, but only as a luxury. Our former understandings/reason/philosophy will, to an extent, inform our judgments when the moment is upon us, but at that point we can act and we can react, but not much else. So if the moment presents itself, we have to act and take it. And if we had the opportunity, that moment, to remove all of the hostile orcs from our presence, we had better take it. As for the moral aspect of it, not every action is a decision and thus carries a moral weight. Survival is an instinct, for example. ... 57
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:37 | # I like Daniels proposition of allowing blacks to have their own nation within the boundaries of the 48 contiguous states. If blacks and whites could agree to that it’d be great! But that solution isn’t good enough for the more radical amongst us? They want complete geographical separation such as an Ocean between us? Well, I agree! I think that’d be a better solution than even Daniel’s! However, lets not lose track of reality here. At this point in time, we’ve yet to be successful in awakening the majority within the American or Europe’s white population to their dispossession. Hence, we need to take the process of racial separation one step at a time. First step is to awaken our people (this is where we’re at now). Second, we persuade them to work for their own race’s interests such as, for example, electing leaders whom will authorize policies that will halt ALL non-white immigration and enact laws that will end forced racial integration thus allowing whites-only neighborhoods and businesses etc. Once that is accomplished—and that’s a mighty task indeed—then we can entertain ideas about continental separation of the races. Skipping steps sabotages the whole effort. Let’s not make the mistake of letting impatience divide us or get the best of our better nature. 58
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:44 | #
I think there’s a moral debt - for people who believe in that sort of thing - to those who are directly descended from slaves, but not to others. Whether that debt is paid and if paid where it is paid is up to debate.
They need their worst 20% cut out over multiple generations. Black society is impossible because the worst 20% drag it down. Non-blacks have the same kinds of worst people but only about 5%.
Agree. Without the eugenic action then religion is the second best option for controlling their worst 20%. The exact same argument applies to the left side of the White bell-curve, or at least the lowest 30% or so just to a lesser degree.
Actually the opposite in a way. If high-trust societies create arbitrary moralities, arbitrary Gods to follow, based on debate and common assent and those Gods can be changed over time or on a whim then the people who are like that might be very trustworthy at one point in time and the opposite the next i.e before and after the switch to being anti-slavery. There may well have been many arab slave traders who felt English traders were the most trustworthy before the switch who were then bewildered at being hanged by the same people 6 months later. Another example would be manifest destiny one moment and anti-imperialism the next. The advantage of a morality based on common assent is that it can evolve to adapt to fit the situation while at the same time retaining the psychological advantage that comes from believing you are doing the right thing - like a more adaptive version of hypocrisy. The huge downside is if an alien and hostile group takes over the means of producing that common assent they can create a suicidal morality. (Also i don’t think it’s an Anglo-Saxon thing i think it’s White thing but it will exist in reverse proportion to proximity to non-White populations because of admixture. I think the success of NS in Germany is an example of this process - creating a new national morality by common assent.) 59
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 02:04 | # http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2009/02/21/bringin-democracy-to-the-middle-east/ Why is this American soldier pissed at these Iraqis? Kinship vs. non-kinship based reciprocity. America is founded on English common law. English common law is based upon non-kinship based reciprocity. In other words it creates a nation of strangers. If that structure is removed, protection can only be guaranteed by extended families, like a mafia, which is the Iraqi experience. It is unlikely the concept of non-kinship based reciprocity will arise anytime soon in Iraq. Hence, the frustration. 60
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 04:54 | # @Desmond That clip is such a perfect example. “Because you have no backbone.” It’s not lack of backbone it’s a completely (and genetically based) different view of the world. White common assent morality or Logos or whatever you want to call it is the greatest White achilles heel but also the greatest potential strength because it allows for infinitely scalable group co-operation. You could have a thousand white planets in a thousand solar systems all co-operating on a single goal if they were all accepting of the same common assent whereas Arabs find it hard to co-operate beyond their extended family / clan / tribe. And it’s genetic in my view. Horus’ Green Goddess. (This is separate from IQ imo.) 61
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 09:48 | #
You should consider formulating something more ambitious like a well reasoned and researched manifesto arguing in favor of what Wintermute disparagingly refers to as “Anglo-Saxonism”. Who, precisely, are ethnically-genetically “Anglo-Saxon”? Why, and in what ways, is it in the self-interest of individual Anglo-Saxons to pursue an endogamous nationalism? What political form is best suited to the nature of the Anglo-Saxon? Would it be necessary to curtail the emphasis put on the pursuit of self-interest traditionally observed in “Anglo-Saxonism” in order to prevent group genetic dissolution - that is, to ensure endogamy? Why, I submit, it would be “worth the effort” is that once done, if it was any good, you could just post the link and say “Read this, motherfuckers!” to those that would gainsay Anglo-Saxonism uber alles. 62
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 10:35 | # In this context it is nothing to do with “Anglo-Saxonism”. I don’t really care about thosse who “gainsay” Anglo-Saxonism. The interest is in the biological conundrum that Wandrin outlines so perspicaciously.
How is it possible that a particular group can evolve such a tendency that embraces both infinite potential and infinite calamity? Either infinitely scalable group co-operation is adaptive or it is not. How can it be both? 63
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 11:01 | #
The same question could be asked regarding Jews. The answer is not a great cosmic mystery. With all the infinite rolls of the genetic dice a high reward/high risk survival strategy will almost certainly come into being eventually. It works…until it doesn’t. That the Jews have not (at least yet) been dealt their Final comeuppance is certainly to have defied the odds. 64
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 11:30 | #
With evolutionary adaptedness context is All. If the range of group cooperation is indeed “infinitely scalable” it would seem a mode of group cooperation designed to create a context which is optimal for the continuity of the group in question would be by definition attainable. Or, to put it another way, to create a context that is optimal for the continuity of the chosen mode of group cooperation would certainly and by definition be attainable. Figuring that out, and then spelling it out, in an Anglo-Saxon Manifesto, would be a monumental achievement indeed. 65
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 12:16 | #
The best context would seem to be a bit of land which is the sole possession of the group, excluding all outgroup members, who are citizens of a State which is permanently defined and delineated by a framework of Law that is immutable save by revolution. For those with State power to act against the immutable Law would be a treasonous act. For those without State power to attempt to overthrow the State so as to dispense with the immutable Law would be a treasonous act. According to the immutable Law, no outgroup members would legally be allowed within the State’s sovereign territory; this leaves open the possibility of territorial expansion, and hence the extension of the State’s territorial sovereignty which according to the immutable Law would require the expulsion of outgroup members from that addition to the State’s territorial sovereignty. 66
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 12:34 | # If someone can come up with a better bedrock formulation I challenge them to do it. 67
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:41 | #
As the Captain says, context. It was adaptive until it wasn’t, like an adaptive trait developed in a wet environment that became maladaptive when the climate changed and the water level dropped e.g gills. The question is was this tendency fatally flawed and just waiting to randomly bump into the right fatal context or did it contain the ability to adapt. I think it did because always implicit in the Logos is that it leads to the common good so if a trial Logos is adapted and it doesn’t lead to the common good then eventually it is rejected and replaced with a new one. (This is in effect what happened after WWII. The old Logos was thought to lead to world wars and mass slaughter which were self-evidently not in the the common good. The anti-nationalist reaction - which i think was probably a natural reaction - was then manipulated by Jews to turn into the more general form of anti-whitism aka anti-racism.) The stealthily imposed PC Logos doesn’t lead to the common good either but the feedback loop (media) has been deliberately blocked and that is preventing any change. However my own view is the ultras of this way of being aren’t Anglo-Saxons but Scandinavians. It’s why they were both the most PC and why i think they will be the first to break out of it despite the attempted media road block. 68
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 00:40 | #
But that portends extinction, doesn’t it? If you’re lactose tolerant and then suddenly (although ecological change, 95% of the time, is gradual, like natural selection) lactose intolerance provides a reproductive differential it is impossible to alter the original adaptive trait. Extinction is then just a matter of time. In addition, if it is a tendency, a habit, if you will, it suggests it may be acquired, in a Lamarckian fashion. It is a memetic. This meme or logos may replicate with flaws and thereby be “rejected and replaced with a new one.” As well, if it can be manipulated, over a very short period, i.e. a war, it gives greater credence to the belief it is not biological. However, if it is a meme or Logos that is acquired through manipulation, then why are other groups/races immune to this manipulation? Again it leads back to sympathy. Is it not reasonable to believe, that a highly civilized, high trust group, with high levels of sympathy, broadened by a media feed-back loop, and a discourse which forced sexuality and then inevitably racial traits into the feed-back loop, is more susceptible to such efforts? In other words it is sympathy that is the weakness. Yet it was an advanced level of sympathy that propelled the ascent of the group and it was an advanced level of sympathy that Darwin declared was injurious to the race but which most be endured because to do otherwise would debase our most noble quality. What conclusion can be drawn? The meme attaches no value to the survival of its host, only its own survival. But, if other races are immune to the meme/Logos (like orthodox Jews, whose resistance is astounding and whose birthrate is astonishing) then surely the meme will face extinction. The meme is only effective for highly sympathetic groups. The meme may be a reproductively differential only for a few. In order to replace the meme in highly sympathetic groups it most evoke higher levels of sympathy. 69
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 02:13 | #
If it was actually a physical thing then yes but i think this trait has a self-correcting mechanism.
Yes, hence my comments about Oxytocin (whether or not that is the actual hormone involved). I think sympathy / empathy is the key. Although i don’t think it’s neccessarily a weakness because i think sympathy is what leads to the concept of the common good which is what allows the large scale co-operation which ends up being beneficial for everybody. The self-correcting mechanism in my view is in what the “common good” is. It’s at least partly the balance of sympathy i.e the solution which reduces injustice to a minimum. With a media and education system portraying white injustice and violence towards non-white but censoring the reverse then the balance of sympathy is skewed to self-destruction. If the reality was portrayed then the balance of sympathy would correct. The feedback loop that makes sympathy adaptive has been blocked. It’s the blocking of the feedback loop that makes it maladaptive imo. We have an infection. 70
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 04:53 | # The problem is that sympathy is not founded upon common good. How does it serve the common good of the English, for example, if they are sympathetic toward African refugees entering their homeland? Sympathy is empathy with a permanent regard for the other. Donations from the US ran to some 60 million after the disaster in Japan. At the same point in time, post disaster donations to Haiti exceed 200 plus million. Why? The suffering was more readily apparent? The US has a long time commitment to sympathy for blacks? If it is Oxytocin, which is also apparently connected to female bonding for both child and mate, then it suggests that it is adaptive and thus arose because of a reproductive differential. Or possibly it is as JB theorized in his GOD Hypothesis that mutualisms or symbiotic relationships breakdown and become parasitic.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_genetic_omnidominance_hypothesis/ Also here:
http://www.sachslab.com/resources/2006 Sachs&Simms;.pdf 71
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:22 | #
Context. When this trait was first developed it did. I think it leads to the concept of the common good because of the balance of sympathy and the concept of the common good leads to more efficient group co-operation. The question is who is included in the “common” part of common good.
It doesn’t. The context changed. Some unknown group arranged for a ship load of West Indians to be brought to London and the definition of common was extended to include them. If you read the cabinet papers from the time they thought it would cause problems but didn’t know what to do about it because it hadn’t happened before. If the problems that followed had been reported accurately people would have reacted and developed a definition of common that excluded diversity. Sympathy *was* a strength in one context. It *became* a weakness in a changed context. It does, in my opinion at least, have a self-correcting mechanism but that mechanism needs accurate feedback on the consequences of actions and that feedback is being blocked. nb Chechar’s blog has a lot that i think is related to this about how Incas treated women and chldren, also Australian aboriginals. 72
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 01:46 | # We’ll have to disagree. Sympathy arose not in a fashion to further the common good but in response to individual suffering. Thus “Nature contains no aversion to suffering, human or otherwise.” However human nature does if it produces a fitness benefit. The benefit accrues to the individual in the way of a reproductive differential. If you will, those with the greater levels of oxytocin have more offspring who survive to have more offspring. My position is closer to JB’s. It is self-interest that brought the slaves to the US South. The outcome of that process was an almost perfect mutuality. Both the white and black populations, between the end of the slave trade and the war grew enormously. The lament of the abolitionists was borne of sympathy; treating humans like cattle was morally unsustainable (whether they actually were treated like livestock is debatable, however, that was the impression). Once sympathy worked to end the mutualism that was Southern slavery, it turned parasitic. Without sympathy, the host society maintains a defensive mechanism. Arenda Poland is another example. Jews were encouraged to migrate to Poland. It served the interest of the Polish nobility. It provided a mutual benefit, however, pogroms by the serfs ended the relationship because their was no sympathy for Jews. Ditto Russia. However, after WWII, enormous sympathy arose. It had the effect of overriding the defensive mechanism that stops the transition from a mutuality to a parasitic relationship. 73
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 05:38 | # Much of this alleged “sympathy” is merely a competition for moralistic status points with co-ethnics that comes at no great cost to the “sympathizer”. In fact, co-ethnics are sacrificed and scapegoated so that the illusion of this largely cost-free “sympathetic” moral superiority can be maintained. Of course, that this is quintessentially English should come as no surprise to anyone. 74
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:14 | # @Desmond
Agreed, hence my comments about women and children. I misunderstood one of your earlier comments. I think survival of offspring was the initial reason for it to evolve as you say. However once it has evolved it is there in the blood in variable quantities and can apply beyond the children especially for those who were born with a lot of it. The question is how might a society which includes substantial numbers of people with some kin+ sympathy evolve differently to one that didn’t? Especially if the proportion of people like that increases over time? If sympathy is evoked by suffering and injustice then those with kin+ sympathy would seek to minimize suffering and injustice (or hide it) to minimize their own discomfort and that would lead the society in a certain direction over time. This doesn’t require that everyone has kin+ sympathy only that some have a lot and a lot have some. I think it leads to the concept of the common good (as minimizing suffering and injustice) and agreement by common assent on what the principles of the common good should be i.e the principles underlying the actual law, allows for better group co-operation. I’m calling these principles the Logos of the society. The Logos itself can be anything, NS, Monarchy, Democracy, Theocracy, Anarchy etc and can be abandoned or change over time especially if it obviously doesn’t serve the common good or no longer serves the common good. The word “obviously” there obviously requires some truthful feedback mechanism i.e media. All a bit academic but practically i think it leads to the individual principles of the Logos needing to be and the principles of the PC Logos can be undermined on those lines. However i also think it gives an insight into “White guilt” for want of a better word. I think this is actually the balance of sympathy and operates like a scales. By distorting reality the education system and media keep the balance of sympathy permanently weighted against whites and towards non-whites and the kin+ population blindly follow the balance of sympathy like they’re hypnotized. If we can change the balance of sympathy then the whole herd will move. For example i think the balance of sympathy towards black people would turn negative after six months of truthful media reporting (partly because of the extreme lack of sympathy and casual sadism of black criminals). However the speed of the effect would only be because the media are currently a trusted source. I think the way to change the balance of sympathy in this area so White people start defending themselves properly requires two steps: 1. Demolish the moral authority of the media over the double standards they use when reporting inter-racial crime so they are no longer a trusted source.
I see your point however i think the only *long-term* solution for people with a lot of kin+ sympathy is to not rely on trying to create or recreate mutuality but either breed it out, create for themselves a Logos which permanently justifies geographical exclusion and only long distance charity, or breed it into everyone else. “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White(R) Children” 75
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:21 | #
Let us hope that the highly anticipated Anglo-Saxon Manifesto will contain no such obvious contradictions. If sympathy for the Other is permanent then it cannot also be inflated as if from nothing via social conditioning in the course of history. In one century niggers are enslaved by the English (not much “sympathy” their, no?) and in another the latter hand their daughters over to the former with glee. So what gives? It would seem it is a matter of stressing latent potentialities - which get stressed, and thus expressed to a given degree, is neither “permanent” nor inevitable. 76
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:39 | #
How do you make people who are more idealistic (Logos led) than ethno-centric, more ethno-centric? You make ethno-centricity into an idea. NS directed kin+ sympathy (i.e sympathy beyond extended family) towards the German Volk as a whole and made an ideal out of ethno-centricity which ideal-led people could then adopt. Once the NS Logos was adopted there would have been some Germans who adopted it merely as a competition for moralistic status points at no great cost to themselves. (Although in reality i think adapting to the current Logos regardless of personal beliefs is usually more to do with material benefits like cushy government jobs). German co-ethnics who didn’t accept the new Logos were sacrificed and scapegoated even by those who also didn’t privately accept it themselves. Of course that both this moral status-seeking and pretense at moral status-seeking for material benefit would be a corollary of any society based on conforming to a Logos should come as no surprise to anyone. 77
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:48 | #
should have been
78
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 07:08 | # Actually i think i am jumbling two separate things together. I think there’s the universal morality (Logos) aspect stemming from evolving to be more individualistic and less centred on extended kin. Separate to that is the sympathy aspect stemming from reducing child mortality. 79
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 07:25 | #
The ones some of you English call “Krauts” are both more idealistic and collectivistic-ethnocentric than the English. The English, as contrasted with Germans, are not so much idealistic as they are moralistic (read: more interested in personal status and shekels that the appearance of moral superiority affords them insofar as these come at the expense of the interests of the ethny).
I’m sure. But it is a matter of degree. I’m willing to bet there were proportionally fewer Germans doing as you say than there would have been Englishmen doing as such in a similar context.
Some Germans denounced innocent co-ethnics to the Gestapo for material gain and/or personal grievances. The Gestapo took pains to weed out true accusations from false - although, of course, not infallibly. I’m looking forward to that Anglo-Saxon Manifesto. 80
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 08:57 | #
Are they now. That doesn’t change the point. The idealistic element of the population can be made more ethno-centric by turning ethno-centricity into an idea - which is what NS did in my view. They created a Logos out of ethno-centricity. The ethno-centrics would follow the new Logos automatically, the idealists would follow out of ideals and the rest would scrabble around looking for personal gain as always.
I’m willing to bet the proportions would be more or less identical for all NW Europeans in the same context.
No idea what that means. 81
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:46 | #
It’s an Idea, er, Logos, whose time has come. Sociobiology, economics, idealized history, optimal political form, a coming together of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora in all the ways that implies - Australia, Canada and New Zealand brought back into the fold and looking towards the Mother Country. I don’t know, too many of the English have a tin-ear for this sort of thing. But, for a moment, pretend that you were a Kraut, and Think Big. 82
Posted by Robert Ley on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:42 | #
83
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:22 | #
Oh that. If race is real and it matters then you don’t need to do that. You just need to find the right snow-covered mountain, climb to the top, and then start a teeny little snowball rolling away downhill. Then you sit and watch. 84
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:50 | #
It’s not inflated from nothing. Sympathy is inflated by awareness of suffering. 85
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:28 | #
It’s called evolution. In one century the “English” were improvident, violent, impulsive, and leisure loving. A few centuries later they were thrifty, prudent, and hard working. What happened? Obviously not all the English were improvident and violent. Those with the traits of prudence and thrift also existed. However, some ecological change favored the prudent with a reproductive differential and for the most part they replaced the improvident and impulsive in English society. Every Englishman was not a slaveholder. And antipathy for slavery was seen at least as early as the Spanish Catholic priest de la Casas who pushed for an end to slavery and ill-treatment of the indigenes because of the suffering imposed upon them by the Spanish colonials. The Spanish condemned the indigene to a brutal treatment because of their penchant for acts of ritualistic sacrifice and cannibalism of, among others, their own children. Even that, however, did not dissuade the School of Salamanca from responding sympathetically to their suffering. 86
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:16 | # Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1772, though these numbered only in the tens of thousands and were mostly domestic servants. These slaves were not co-ethnics and experienced far less grueling work conditions than young British children put to work for long hours in factories, textiles and mines. It was not until decades later that laws limiting the number of hours children could work were passed in Britain. Why?
Post a comment:
Next entry: A white nationalism for non-whites and liberals, maybe
|
|
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 danielj on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 02:59 | #
But sociobiology is not Original Sin.
Oh but it is on my understanding of Scripture! I like to read total depravity as the genetic and spiritual curse pronounced upon man at the fall and the subsequent and varied extents of moral depravity that have sprung up at the population level as the result of direct curse by God (in the case of the Hamitic race) and adaption in others.
The conjunction of male assertiveness, impulsivity, poor moral apprehension, and a poor capacity to calculate the consequences of personal choices must have been producers of fitness in the Sub-Saharan evolutionary context.
How? It doesn’t make any sense.