Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:18 | #

Is this a collection of previously published essays? If so, any idea how many have been translated and published in either The Occidental Quarterly or Chronicles?

More generally, can de Benoist any longer be considered an Occidentalist or racialist?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:56 | #

Those are good questions, Leon.  But we will have to wait for Soren’s review to find out the answers.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:45 | #

Incidentally, GW, if you should happen to obtain a pdf version of this book, I would be willing to take a stab at a review as well. I do wonder how many of the chapters of this book I might already have as previously published and translated articles in the aforementioned piublications.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:29 | #

Thanks for the offer, Leo.  But I’ve put Soren in touch with the publisher, so the call is answered.  There’s unlikely to be a PDF in English for a considerable time, I would have thought.  Even speciality publishers have to pay their way.

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:04 | #

“I’ve put Soren in touch with the publisher, so the call is answered.”

I hope his book reviews aren’t as painfully embarrassing as his speeches.

LORD HAVE MERCY!!!

Note: To skip the intro, advance to the 2:00 minute mark

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:39 | #

Irrespective of your opinion of Soren’s delivery, Thorn, he’s got more guts than most of us ... and something to say.  Delivery can always improve.  Guts and intellect are native.

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:27 | #

Guts and intellect are native.

Yes, but common sense should fit in there somewhere too, don’t cha think?

High intellect and guts are about as useless as teats on a boar unless they’re channeled in the right direction. Smart people/winners set realistic goals and take practical steps in order to reach those goals.

GW, if attracting the masses of whites to “White Nationalism” is your goal, then I ask you: Would it not behoove you to attach yourself to attractive, articulate, and most of all, POPULAR men and women such as Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen et al rather than abstruse social misfits? Choosing the latter wouldn’t be a very smart thing to do, would it?

Or if you REALLY want to make a difference, become a titan of industry - a White Preservationist Billionaire. Use your money and power to sabotage the global capitalists’ agenda. After all, it is the actions of those global capitalists and power hungry politicians that are causing the fate of the white-race to hang in the balance. Conversely, those same global capitalists and pols can put a halt to the genocide of whites if they so choose.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:00 | #

Or if you REALLY want to make a difference, become a titan of industry - a White Preservationist Billionaire. (Thorn)

I would be willing to do this. Could you explain how I should go about it?

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:44 | #

Or if you REALLY want to make a difference, become a titan of industry - a White Preservationist Billionaire. (Thorn)

I would be willing to do this. Could you explain how I should go about it?

Of course I was saying that with tongue in cheek, Leo.

But if you really want to know to how to go about becoming a billionaire, I suggest you do it the old fashioned way: steal it.

BTW, Leo, what do you think about my assertion that it’s the global capitalists that are the main force behind causing the race-replacement of whites? In other words: gaining power and wealth is what intoxicates these evil bastards. To them, the extinction of the white-race is a mere byproduct of their addiction to power and wealth. Whatever evil act or acts it takes to gain or hold onto power, they’ll engage in it. (Did you notice I didn’t blame it all on the Jooooze?)

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 01:23 | #

Thorn,

High intellect isn’t channelled.  It channels (its own creativity).  It has a unique value.  It, not activism, makes the world.  When you, as an activist-inclined nationalist, think you think the thoughts of better minds.  That is how the world is.  Were it not so, there would be no guide but the barbarian.

Criticism is expected.  When I interviewed Soren for the radio project I was critical of what I saw as his perfectly native tendency to veil his thinking and thereby reduce his effect, for which I received a very snappy refutation, as I recall.  No problem.  But you are attacking him for not being somebody else, and that is definitely unfair.

I understand that it is frustrating for many people to encounter endless talk but never any action.  You want action.  You think Wilders and Marine are doing something.  But neither would be in the places they are in today ideationally without the prior thought of better minds.  At least be aware of the fact and, if you can, treat them with respect.

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 01:39 | #

There once was a troll named Thorn
Who heaped deconstructionist scorn
He challenged the fist
of iron and wished
for his wish to be granted by Søren

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 02:57 | #

”...But you are attacking him for not being somebody else, and that is definitely unfair. “

True enough, GW. Your point is well taken.

——

Thorn is no Internet troll
Imparting the truth is his goal
We all must resist
the Kenyan born fist,
of Obama the corporatist mole.

Posted by Anonymous on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 05:43 | #

In times proto-revolutionary
With opinions moving favorably
As the bases were covered
The question that hovered
Was that of Machiavelli

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:33 | #

Thorn is apparently attempting to put in harness creative intelligences which he feels have the tendency to shade into eccentricity and thus diminish their utility.  This he does with juvenile barbs as contrasted with Leon Haller’s at times borderline bullying.  These tacks if not coupled with the ability to win intellectually in making counterpoints will fall on deaf ears.  So far, neither Thorn nor Haller have demonstrated that ability.  So they are not listened to.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:43 | #

Of course I was saying that with tongue in cheek, Leo. (Thorn)

As was I.

BTW, Leo, what do you think about my assertion that it’s the global capitalists that are the main force behind causing the race-replacement of whites? In other words: gaining power and wealth is what intoxicates these evil bastards. To them, the extinction of the white-race is a mere byproduct of their addiction to power and wealth. Whatever evil act or acts it takes to gain or hold onto power, they’ll engage in it. (Did you notice I didn’t blame it all on the Jooooze?) (Thorn)

That is a very deep discussion. Disentangling and then ranking by relative effect the forces promoting white extinction is a useful but complex exercise. Global capitalists are certainly contributing factors to the West’s demise. But are they the main ones?

What you are really broaching is an old and probably irresolvable historical debate: which is the greater motor of change - ideas, basic human motivations like desire for wealth and power, or exogenous influences like climate, population trends and technological advances? The correct answer of course is that the primary agent of change can vary between issues, as well as over time wrt the same issue.

Considering your assertion, we must inquire into the mechanism involved. I will assume the (racial) amorality of present Western elites, particularly non-Jewish ones (as I believe those are the objects of your condemnation). Many men throughout history, including Occidental history, have sought power and wealth to the exclusion of other concerns. At different points in the past, those single-minded drives collectively led, epiphenomenally, to an enormous expansion of the territory under white racial control, which later resulted in, or at least allowed for, massive growth in white numbers.

Most men at most times seek nothing more than to better themselves and their immediate families, friends and allies. The white men who swarmed out across the globe after 1492 were not doing so consciously to advance white genetic interests, or even, for the most part, mere national interests. They were motivated by greed for gold, spices and trade routes, as were the nobility and merchants who initially backed them. But the byproducts of their spirit of acquisitiveness were huge, sustained and accelerating increases in white power (EGI).

How is it then that the putatively same self-interested motives obtaining today lead to such enormous losses of white EGI? Clearly, the answer must be systemic failure; that is, the “system” that exists today, in contrast to that which existed in centuries past, is so constructed or formed that harming white EGI results in enormous individual benefits, while not harming (let alone supporting or merely rhetorically defending) white EGI leads to enormous individual losses (very much including loss of individual GI).

We must next inquire into how such a counterintuitive (from an evolutionary standpoint) system ever could have arisen. This again could be a huge discussion. We would have to comprehensively examine the “state of the world” during the last period before the new anti-white-EGI system became hegemonic (that is, before whites started to be professionally rewarded for racial disloyalty or indifference), and then identify what is different about the world after the new hegemony. One obvious difference: a huge increase in both the wealth and especially moral standing (in the minds of whites) of Jewry, the combination of which has led to such disproportionate Jewish influence in Western nations, in turn leading to diminishment of white EGI as that influence was used to promote racial integration, nonwhite immigration, “free” trade, feminism, sexual deviance, dysgenic welfarism, inutile public expenditures, and enervating critiques of white cultures, traditions, folkways, and national histories.

An even bigger transformation, however, I think, was in the realm of ideas. Somehow the Left convinced a large number of whites, especially influential ones, that special affective attachments above the level of family and below that of humanity were morally suspect. The Left would like to banish national patriotism, but has not yet wholly succeeded (though anti-national projects like the EU may yet render old-fashioned patriotisms archaic or quaintly irrelevant). They have of course wildly succeeded with their “anti-(white)-racism”. [Why banishing white racism has proven to be so much easier than getting rid of nonwhite racisms is yet another huge area requiring investigation and analysis.]

My writing is getting away from itself. I recognize that global capitalism is not helpful to white survival, and that the leading international businessmen, if white, are almost all race traitors. I want to know why that is so. Is the reason structural, systemic or ideological? Are white global capitalists racially disloyal or indifferent because of structure - they make more money by being so; system - simply going about their business(es) without giving consideration to racial effects (good or bad) leads to bad racial effects; or ideology - they either hate white EGI (Jewry) or think that supporting white EGI is immoral?

Some capitalists have structural reasons for hurting white EGI. The clearest examples in the US are agribusiness, construction and franchise restaurants. All benefit greatly from employing Mexican labor (esp if illegal). I don’t think the average contractor is thinking about how his hiring of illegal aliens is hurting white EGI. He doesn’t care! He just knows that doing so helps his profits.

Other capitalists have systemic reasons. It is the interest (and fiduciary duty) of the chairmen of pharmaceutical companies to market their products as widely as possible. Doing so, however, often increases life expectancy among nonwhites, thus hurting white EGI (as, eg, when surplus Third World populations press for admission to Western lands).

Finally, I have no doubt that many global capitalists, like whites more broadly, simply think WN concern for racial preservation is immoral. That view is incorrect and even incoherent, but people’s beliefs, even when false, are empirical facts, and must be subjected to the same sort of serious scrutiny as ‘harder’ issues like IQ or hormones or demographic density, etc. 

All philosophy can basically be boiled down to three questions:

1. What is real? (ontology)

2. What can be known? (epistemology)

3. What is right (or, what should we do)? (ethics)

I think understanding the structural or systemic forces leading to white decline, let alone situating them within a scientistic or ‘biologistic’ schema (a popular approach at MR), is less important than critiquing the ethical misgivings about race and racism that have made whites so racially impotent. I keep stressing over and over that seeing the racial dilemma as an inevitable clash of genomes, or mapping out all the social or anthropological implications of EGI, is less helpful than working towards a definitive ethical justification for white preservation (I mean the physically coercive prerequisites for that preservation).

Our race is dying out finally not because of mechanisms (immigration due to desires for cheap labor; falling white fertility due to feminism and female careerism; increasing miscegenation reducing gene pool size) but because too many conservative whites (forget the race-liberals, who are mostly innately psychologically defective, and not just intellectually confused) think acting racially to preserve our race is immoral (and in the US at least, that further means “unChristian”).

I’ve done a fair bit of political PR and campaign work in my time, overwhelmingly among Republicans, and I am right. Again and again I have tried to introduce mere race realism (crime rates, IQ, liberal nonwhite voting patterns as justification for preventing nonwhite immigration) into conservative venues, or among Republicans. The reactions I’ve received, not least being banned from many genuinely conservative websites (Chronicles, First Things, the old takimag)(forget neocon places), suggest an incredible level of brainwashing among all segments of our people. And if we are not going to make nationalist inroads among conservatives, who will be our future power base - progressives?! 

Between persuading our people of the value and morality of their racial survival, and then actually implementing the measures needed to ensure that survival in the teeth of ferocious, physical/military resistance from nonwhites, we really have our work cut out for us.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:51 | #

Captainchaos:

I should have thought you would have favored my response to you on another thread:

Posted by Captainchaos on January 27, 2011, 10:09 AM | #

And what has become of England?  “Enslaved” to the Tory-Labour-UKIP-Jewish hydra and race-replaced and mongrelized to boot.  It was none of it worth it.

Posted by Leon Haller on January 27, 2011, 12:18 PM | #

Captainchaos:

To what of mine do your broadsides refer? I certainly agree that the US was manipulated into WW2, and that both we and the West would have been far better served by our staying out completely. Would that have resulted in a Nazi-dominated England? Not necessarily. The historiographical consensus today is that Hitler’s true intention had always been to destroy Soviet Bolshevism, and expand Germania into the east. He at least did not relish war with his ‘cousins’ across the Channel (unlike the vainglorious Churchill, who was actually very sound on many questions - Bolshevism, race, Empire, even eugenics; there is debate about his true feelings towards the Jews, however - but in the crux decided that being personally defiant and a world-historical personage was more important to him than suing for peace and saving the Empire, as well as many British lives and much property and infrastructure).

But even a Nazi-dominated Britain would, in the long run, have worked out better for the British people. The Nazi yoke would have been especially light (indeed, it would had to have been, given how stretched were their resources on the Eastern Front; this precarious state would have continued for a long time even had the Red (Rape) Army been defeated), and a strong sense of race would have been instilled in the young generation. It is doubtful that The (Judeo?-)Sixties ever would have come to Britain, and even if Nazi control had gradually evolved and loosened (as I believe it would have), British racial and ethnic self-confidence would have been such as to reject dark-skinned migrants out of hand.

I’m not a Nazi as a matter of political philosophy. But even from my traditionalist conservative perspective (one I share with Buchanan, though with more of an empiricist, and especially scientific racialist, bent), it is now undeniable that a Nazi-dominated Europe, even if not my ideal, would have been better for the cause of Western Man than the Allied victory which sealed our doom.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:05 | #

To what of mine do your broadsides refer?

Oh, that.  I was using your comment as a pretext to take a potshot at the English for all the shit they’ve talked about “Krauts”.  (Because I’m half Kraut.)  I can agree that in significant ways NS is morally pretty “fucked up”, for want of a better and less profane description.  Just couldn’t let the Kraut-bashing slide, is all.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:09 | #

Posted by Thorn on January 28, 2011, 04:04 PM | #

Note: To skip the intro, advance to the 2:00 minute mark

Thorn:

Thank you for posting this link to Mr. Renner’s speech. Most enlightening to me, on several levels.

First, I would not have expected the extremely taciturn (at MR) Renner to look or sound as he does. I would have expected a quiet, somewhat impish Dane or other European. I never suspected Renner was American.

Second, that Renner is American and yet has, with some degree of snark, spoken in dismissive tones of my own comments at MR, is suggestive of just how little grip on political reality many here at MR actually have. If Renner showed up to speak (as I have many times) to a gathering of conservative Republicans (presumably our allies, at least pragmatically) looking as he does, and making the arguments he made in London, he would set the racial cause back among the group addressed a generation or more. Even former Grand Wizard David Duke long ago embraced the “All-American” look! Can’t Renner shave and wear a suit?

My parents and some other family members are racialists - against civil rights, against immigration, no fans of Jewish media. If they are not MR’s and Renner’s base, who the hell is?! But they would be aghast at Renner, his image and his content. Strangeness or eccentricity should not be confused with brilliance (a mistake leftists make constantly).

Third, I don’t altogether disagree with the substance of Renner’s speech. It reminds me of my own thoughts and worries about ‘conflict’ vs ‘consensus’ political theories. Christian thought down the ages (to some extent, libertarian, too, though the emphasis here is on the ‘cooperation’ seen to be inherent in the market order) has emphasized the latter, but I am more drawn, both by inclination and study, to the former. My task, in part, will be to integrate the best of both traditions (if possible, as I believe it is).

Fourth, did Heraclitus speak of “war” or “strife”? I write from memory here (not even a wikipeak, though perhaps I should), but I thought he spoke of strife as the central principle of all things (thus against stationary models of existence, emphasis on constant change, “never step twice in same river”), but not in any teleological sense (even in the limited teleology of the Darwinians - that forms grow more complex over time). Matter changes, but I was not aware of any imputation of improvement.

Fifth, I did very much like Renner’s critique at the end of those who decry discourses of war when offered by our people, while ensuring that their own kinsmen live in accordance with such discourses. And more: that their decrial of our discourse of war is a form of war by them against us. Very good.

Sixth, and lastly, clearly Renner (and MR, by virtue of its endorsement of his speech), is aiming to develop a revolutionary racial nationalism (by ‘revolutionary’ I mean intellectually so, though undoubtedly the Molotovs will start flying presently), a new philosophy largely rejecting and bypassing the ethical and religious inheritance of the past. This is in marked contrast to my own conservative or reactionary racialism, in which I seek to recover the past, which includes honesty about race, including sociobiology.

It is ever more clear why so many of my posts are met with such stony silence.

We are allies in the foundational issue of preventing white extinction. Beyond that, I suspect that (true) conservatives (which finally I am, despite having been repeatedly disparaged as a neo-Nazi, and banned from posting on every conservative site I’m familiar with) and (MR-style) radical nationalists have little in common. After the racial revolution (we must hope) to restore all-white polities, we will all go our separate ways politically.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:33 | #

Posted by Captainchaos on January 29, 2011, 12:33 PM | #

Thorn is apparently attempting to put in harness creative intelligences which he feels have the tendency to shade into eccentricity and thus diminish their utility.  This he does with juvenile barbs as contrasted with Leon Haller’s at times borderline bullying.  These tacks if not coupled with the ability to win intellectually in making counterpoints will fall on deaf ears.  So far, neither Thorn nor Haller have demonstrated that ability.  So they are not listened to.

Me, the bully? hehehe! Try the bullied! Of course, being a racialist, my skin is thick, and I can give more than whatever I get.

As for not being listened to, perhaps. But I speak with sincerity when I say, I have been solicited to write for every nationalist/racialist print publication in the English speaking world (there are only a handful, I know, but the statement is true), including a couple now defunct, as well as many racialist and anti-immigrationist websites. I turn them down because my core theoretical position is not yet fully formed (I do routinely offer to do book reviews, but am strangely rejected for the most part). I have also received many unsolicited emails praising my work (how they get my e-address is always annoying).

As for debate, if anyone here wanted to challenge me formally I would gladly rise to the occasion. I would lose, but only because my situating (and limiting) racialism within a Christian worldview already has the narrow-minded majority in these parts prejudiced against me. A neutral judge, say a Stanford professor, would almost certainly look upon my (haha) “intellectual ability” more favorably.

I only criticize those (morally) deserving of criticism. Well-meaning, sincere, respectful, but silly souls are never criticized by me. Would you really like me to start tearing things up here? It would not be pretty (might also be too time consuming). I prefer espousing my own views, or keeping things impersonal.

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:36 | #

“...  This he does with juvenile barbs as contrasted with Leon Haller’s at times borderline bullying.  These tacks if not coupled with the ability to win intellectually in making counterpoints will fall on deaf ears.  So far, neither Thorn nor Haller have demonstrated that ability.  So they are not listened to.”

Well, CC, had I not asked a good question, we wouldn’t have benefit of reading Mr. Haller’s excellent, insightful, well informed answer.  Actually, for that reason only, things worked out for the best on this particular thread - barbs and juvenility notwithstanding.

Leon,

I’m in accord with most everything you’ve said. It’s all very thought provoking to be sure. Anyway, before I add my two cents worth, I’m going to sit back and mull over your perspectives for awhile.