Posted by danielj on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:19 | #

Not only do you make a good point GW….

But, doesn’t anyone realize that just diffusing massive amounts of capital into an economy doesn’t do anything?

Think about the case of a modern economy and a central reserve bank.

All it does is cause inflation.

Also, there is a running joke about wealthy Mexicans. One is always supposed to apply a variant to the joke, that is, gold hubcaps, diamond belt buckles, ruby cuff links, ad nausea.

I can’t imagine what a bunch of Africans would do with the money if it was given directly to them and we already know what happens when corrupt African governments get large sums of money.

Posted by PF on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:54 | #

If I were a nihilist, and believed nothing worth accomplishing with money, I would do like Egil Skallagrimson did at the end of his saga:

He took all his gold and silver coins in a big chest up to the top of a big hill, and gathering all the people together, threw the coinage up in the air and let the people fight for it. Or at least he said in his will this was what was to be done with his money.

Hunter’s money will buy some food (temporary, poorly distributed), some farming equipment (neglected, “stolen” either en route or after arrival), some bureaucratic fummeling time (pointless), and at the end a few luxury cars and shipments of expensive European liquors for the special few who are able to chew the most off the end of it. The “big man” who will be driven around in these cars with his friends and will drink these liquors, will wear a golden chain, an open-chest silk shirt, and finer shoes than anyone writing on this board. The children he has with the woman he takes from his tribe may be sent to U.S. schools with some of this money. He will use this money to dine in absolutely first rate European-standard restaurants, eating deliberately ostentatious dishes to make painfully visible his excess: they will eat Lobster, for example.

Thats what reading a few articles makes me think of the African elite. As people who cannot control themselves, their difficulties grow in proportion to their capacity to fulfill their own wants, the realization of this stands behind the phrase, populized by American rappers: “Mo money mo problems!”

Posted by danielj on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:09 | #

I can’t imagine what a bunch of Africans would do with the money if it was given directly to them and we already know what happens when corrupt African governments get large sums of money.

Now that I think about it. We aren’t any better…

Our politicians wear Armani, (most hypocritically) smoke cuban cigars and drink French wine, fuck lady-boys on expensive Thailand vacations, buy compounds in the some of the whitest New England states far from the consequences of their immigration and integration bills, drink and drive (whilst hopped up on anti-depressants) throw up on foreign emmisaries becuase they are abusing Halcyion while denying us the rest of us the right to grow a little bit of pot or smoke a little opium at the expense of the poor white man to benefit of the big pharma.

Posted by Tyre on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:55 | #

One thing which can be done right now—that no one is doing—is to set up a website which does journalism. The skills certainly exist in the community. You have plenty of web savvy people who know how to write and use photoshop and youtube. The idea is to do citizen journalism, with original reporting. Have the readers from all over take camerahone pictures and videos of blacks and the like behaving badly, such that the observed behavior can not be dismissed as a figment of a racist imagination. A good model here is the Korean citizen journalism site, ohmynews.

Posted by furius on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:26 | #

Africa’s population will soon start shrinking rapidly no matter how much money white fools like Hunter and Gates throw at it. For that matter, this sort of vain stupidity in times of abundance may soon be a thing of the past:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article2080497.ece

Posted by Megapode on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:13 | #

William Rees-Mogg must be the biggest, most pompous overrated journalistic fool in Christendom.
For the record, he ‘predicted’ 35 years ago that we’ll be freezing our nuts off in a ‘New Ice Age’ due anytime now.

Posted by Proofreader on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:31 | #

If he cared about his own people, he would donate his fortune to the BNP! (I’m not sure it’s legal, though). What does he owe to the Africans, anyway?

Posted by furius on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:42 | #

William Rees-Mogg must be the biggest, most pompous overrated journalistic fool in Christendom.
For the record, he ‘predicted’ 35 years ago that we’ll be freezing our nuts off in a ‘New Ice Age’ due anytime now.

The prediction is not his:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/07/10/cnoil110.xml

Posted by loolaa on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:00 | #

Mogg’s association with the inestimable Marc Faber is one point in his favour. For those who haven’t read it, Faber’s exposé of the ethnic-interests behind the financial system is a must read.

Irreparable Cracks in the Financial System

Posted by danielj on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:34 | #

Why doesn’t Faber just drop the ‘J’ bomb?

Half of America won’t understand anything he is saying anyway, but perhaps if he made it provocative they would be stimulated long enough to study the issue.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:34 | #

“I don’t want to burden my kids with great wealth.  Warren Buffett said that he would leave his kids enough that they can do something but not so much that they will do nothing.”  (—from the log entry)

Buffett, trying to come across as a good liberal with a social conscience, has said for years he’s going to leave his kids only a tiny fraction of his fortune and use the rest to set up foundations (or whatever harebrained leftism he has in mind).  He’s just saying this for show:  don’t forget, if he’s worth 40 billion and gives away 99%, leaving his kids what’s was left (he has a few daughters I think), his kids inherit four hundred million dollars.  So yes, he very much plans on seeing to it his heirs are ... “comfortable,” shall we say?  Yes ... comfortable ....

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:39 | #

And any foundation Buffett sets up is absolutely guaranteed to be extreme-radical leftist in orientation.  Boy, that’s all we need, a Ford-Foundation clone with a forty-billion-dollar endowment ...

Posted by Kurt9 on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:04 | #

$2 billion in 10 years?

How about SENS?

http://www.sens.org

Posted by Joe on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:45 | #

At some point, if we’re actually going to have a successful white revolution, we are going to have to take the money out of the hands of our race traitor elite and give it to ourselves.

Posted by wintermute on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:54 | #

At some point, if we’re actually going to have a successful white revolution, we are going to have to take the money out of the hands of our race traitor elite and give it to ourselves.

This is too bloodthirsty, even for my tastes.

Here is my counterproposal: we form a task force that takes them utterly by surprise by - wait for it - asking them for the money. I’m telling you, they’ll never see this coming.

I’m not saying it will be easy: we’ll need suits for a start, then maybe a nice haircut. Good shoes are also a must.

Then our task force - just like the evil competition does - complies a list of old and/or rich people, approaches them, asks - politely! - for some of their time, makes our case openly and honestly, and then passes the plate around.

At the end of the day, we tally up our results.

I see little point in cursing - or harming - our ‘race traitors’ if we haven’t at least bothered to tell them what’s going on first.

If I seem a little sympathetic to the other side, it’s because I was a cheerful race traitor once - a libertarian, the worst kind - and if Kevin MacDonald hadn’t written his book, the first thing I would have heard of the decline of our race was when the fascist street thugs came to my door to ‘take’ my money. Now, if they bothered to explain things to me first, then I would have - as we all now know - pledged my life to the cause. I don’t see why the radical “tell people what’s actually happening” plan shouldn’t work as well with others as it did with me. I mean, sure, I sometimes fancy that I’m the last person on earth who can think straight, but deep down, I don’t really believe that.

I know it sounds radical, but before we go to plan B, we need to actually talk to people and make an honest effort to convince them of our point of view. Because, you know, at this point, armed revolution amounts to a few thousand of “us” and 300 million of “them”. (These are American numbers. I don’t know the metric equivalents)

Regarding the larger topic of Foundation money and the ultra wealthy, there are some things you should know.

First of all, if you’re really rich, you actually have to hire a staff - a rather expensive staff - to research and interview charities, artists, foundations, and so forth, and then pass along a report to the ultra wealthy person and then help them decide how much to give and to whom. I know it sounds ridiculous, but this is a very difficult and expensive and time consuming process and ultra wealthy people spend a lot of time and money disposing of their vast fortunes.

Secondly,non profit foundations are very definitely the Adversary; they go in the same class with Judah and the Round Table groups, namely Madame DeFarge’s list.

If you’d like an inventory of all their innumerable horrors, consult Heather MacDonald’s magisterial article, “The Billions of Dollars that Made Things Worse”: http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_4_a1.html

A lot of missed opportunities come from WN’s exclusive pursuit of dirt poor sociopaths, the COD crowd (short for “Cast of Deliverance”). It’s not impossible, using the Occidental Quarterly, AmRen, Vdare, and a few selected titles, to bring your average person around. In fact, an awful lot of people want to be able to say what they think about racial matters but are too afraid . . . your sales pitch may be all the permission they need.

I do foresee, though, a parting of the ways between WN as has existeted heretofore and What Comes Next. It’s college students and the Middle Classes or nothing at all. And as the MC and college students don’t want to interact with yokels or sociopaths, 90% of the current movement is worse than useless to us . . . in order to be attractive to the people who we need to win this thing, the >110 IQ crowd is going to have to self segregate, publicly renounce and foreswear the visibly angry and the unphotogenic, and aggressively recruit among the middle and upper classes, whose own self-image makes it impossible for them to interact with COD types.

And, after we’ve gone round hat in hand to the old and/or wealthy, the first cash outlay needs to be a PR firm, with all that entails: demographics, focus groups, buzz words, “on message” and all the rest. This is the reality of mass society.

On the plus side, these firms have worked hard to make the world’s most loathesome regimes look loveable to congressmen and journalists, who, frankly, often take the bait. Marketing research, think tank, outreach - not grumbling and New Left fantasies of armed insurrection. That may come someday, but too much time dreaming about the harvest and no seed will get planted.

As I’ve said many times, we have everything to learn from the history of gays and animal rights activists in the United States. PETA types are still actively loathed and ridiculed, and yet they move from strength to strength - as we must, too. The average American both loathes animal activists and laughs at them - but also buys “cruelty free” cosmetics and fake fur. It’s possible to be despised and to still lead, sheerly by force of will.

PETA is especially relevant since they have achieved everything they have achieved in total defiance of Jews, who, as a people, don’t much care for animals. Not only is PETA not favored by the press - at all - they are ridiculed more often than we are. And they’re fearless - they’ve been harping on the treatment of farm animals as morally equivalent to the Holocaust, complete with graphic illustrations (“to chickens, all humans are Nazis”) and outrageous public statements, my favorite being ones that minimize the holocaust in favor of chickens: “Only six million Jews died in the holocaust, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year alone.”

It should also be noted that gays fought an uphill battle against the press from the fifties to the early eighties. Jews don’t like gays (though they are happy to use them, like blacks, as a vanguard). Norman Podhoretz once said that, if he could press a button and “wipe them all out” he would - which evoked hilarious ire from Gore Vidal. The New York Times was, frankly, bullied into talking about AIDS against its most earnest wishes; evidently the Sulzbergers shared Podhoretz’ antigay animus to some degree.

Of course, now it’s all different; and I would imagine for some of you reading this that you’d find it hard to believe that the press was ever hostile to gays - if you’re really skeptical or curious, I’ll be happy to provide a reading list of the pitched battles of the early eighties in NYC - though Jews finally accepted them as a vanguard minority, they did so unwillingly.

And PETA? Still hated, but somehow, improbably, pushing public opinion relentlessly towards their corner. They’re not afraid to talk about Kosher and Halal slaughter or to publicly represent the Holocaust as being a smaller infraction than factory farming. And yet . . . over the past thirty years, opinion has moved towards their position and not away from it, while they are still roundly mocked. A neat trick, no?

A lot of what we think of as reality is made by talk. We should improve our talk, make more of it, and direct it to people who matter.

Posted by furius on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:29 | #

<i>don’t like gays (though they are happy to use them, like blacks, as a vanguard).<i>

I disagree. Secular Jews are among the most pro-gay people in America. Half the homosexuals I know are Jews (ok, I live close to NY). It is the religious Jews who dislike gays but they are not unusual for religious people anywhere. Religious Christians dislike gays too, even more so. 

I agree with your sentiment about attracting the high IQ crowd. If you can get 100 high IQ people (those in the 130+ range) to be committed to our cause, it is better than “converting” 10,000 people with an IQ of 100. No serious political movement can succeed without intelligent people. Heck, even the Nazis were led by a whole generation of German intellectuals who laid the groundwork for their political movement. 

But the honest fact is that our success is dependant on chance. We are not going to succeed in a continuing era of limitless prosperity. Prosperous people do not revolt against the establishment no matter what their demographic future. I think the energy crisis will create an opportunity for people with the right ideas to succeed. But to do this, they will need to have laid the groundwork before the crisis happens. Time is running out. The crisis will be upon us in the not too distant future.

Posted by Joe on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:37 | #

Okay, after we ask them for their money, we take it.  The point is, when we ask, we have to already be in a position where people have reason to believe that there just might be consequences to saying no.  You’d be insane to think that at any point before that, any one of them might say yes.  There is no chance that these people are going to come around to our way of thinking in their life times. 

I think a good model for what I’m talking about is what the elites did in the wake of black rioting in the 60’s.

Posted by Joe on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:50 | #

“I agree with your sentiment about attracting the high IQ crowd. If you can get 100 high IQ people (those in the 130+ range) to be committed to our cause, it is better than “converting” 10,000 people with an IQ of 100. No serious political movement can succeed without intelligent people. Heck, even the Nazis were led by a whole generation of German intellectuals who laid the groundwork for their political movement.”

Okay, but they gained a mass following through street violence.  The intellectuals came on board after that.  Masculinity matters.  Leaders aren’t the men with the highest IQ’s. 

On an unrelated note, that Heather McDonald is a slippery neocon type.  She doesn’t consider the sponsorship of Gunnar Myrdal’s lies radicalism?  We have to draw a clear line between white nationalism and everything else.  No one who doesn’t want to reach back into time and lynch whoever was responsible for “An America Dilemma” is a friend of ours.

Posted by RunningouttaGas on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:41 | #

Looks like the industry is finally facing up to the terrible truth:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2790960.ece

What will this do to immigration and politics?

Posted by Kurt9 on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:12 | #

Thinking about oil and gas? Try this out for size.

http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/index.html

Posted by JB on Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:26 | #

the white couples I see with adopted chinese kids are always upper middle class people, with nice houses and new cars. It’s like they feel guilty about something. Self-destructive altruism, the morality of suicide

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:27 | #

JB, partly they’re striving to solidify their well-to-do image among their peers.  There’s an idea out there that it’s upper-class to be unconcerned about race and lower-class to notice race.  In a sense, adoption of non-white kids is viewed by these mental-midget Euros as a status symbol.  Of course there’s more to it than that, but that’s a factor.  “Conspicuous consumption” in general, having an adopted child who’s Negro or Oriental, having a kid, if they’re college age, in an Ivy League university, and so on, are some of the things that advertise, in their minds, their upper-classness.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:49 | #

”So how would you spend $2 billion over, say, 10 years?

While everyone’s working out details of an anwer to that, here‘s a great way to spend only $39.95 over, say, the next ten days ($24.95 in paperback).

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:58 | #

I’d put $10,230,000 into the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge:  $10K for the next 1% improvement, doubling each time there is another 1% improvement.  Another 9% improvement would have profound epistemological consequences forcing funding authorities to see that this truly is the the lowest risk, fastest route to real AI.  (It would produce the equivalent of a pedantic “artificial infant” of around 2 or 3 years of age saying very interesting but not yet profoundly earth-shattering things.)

The downside risk for the corrupt authorities, of course, is that the resulting AI will start saying politically incorrect truths with complete citations and logically constructed arguments—and do so orders of magnitude faster than an army of Harvard PhD’s backed by Hollywood propaganda machines can obfuscate the truth.

If alerted to the danger, corrupt capital and political authorities would probably figure out a way to stop further funding and I’d have to spend almost all the rest of the money subverting their systems so that real AI researchers could get funding via something like an expanded Hutter Prize—say the Large Text Compression Benchmark (1G corpus rather than 100M corpus—with far fewer limits)—and that would probably require the rest of the money.

If, however, there were some non-corrupt money out there capable of genuine philanthropy—then I could get on with more other more urgent activities involving the conversion to a generalized economic rent tax with citizen’s dividend.  If necessary, I’d strike a deal with the Chinese government to lease some substantial portion of the Tarim Basin for 100 years in exchange for a “hands off” free zone for my people.  At this point I think the Chinese government is more trustworthy than any Western government—so I’m not sure an oceanic settlement would be safe from US government rent-seekers.