|
|
|
Some early thoughts about Cameron’s veto Well, I didn’t expect it. Like most people, I think, I had David Cameron down as electable Mr Bland, a wax-work dummy from Madame Tussauds carefully placed in the leadership of the Conservative Party to follow the internationalist, neoliberal script. And perhaps he would have done so, turning his back on national interest as every other British Prime Minister has, finally, over the last thirty-five years. But, it seems, Sarko and his mandarins, possessed as they are of a vision for Europe on a Napoleonic scale and a horrible suspicion that Anglo-Saxon skulduggery is undermining it, made it impossible for him, wearing the colours of Arch-Defender of Financial Services, to sign on fiscal Europe’s bottom line. Now we have a situation where seventeen eurozone states and nine EU member but non-eurozone states are going to make lovebird sounds to another, while totally ignoring the will of their respective peoples. One other state is, as they say, “isolated”, though it is a rather smug and relieved isolation at the moment. If Cameron calls a snap election now, or if the LibDems collapse the coalition (which they can’t, of course), he would scoot home. Even with all the austerity. But ... what does it all mean from a nationalist perspective? Has anything changed for us? Well, two things for starters. First, the definition of a Eurosceptic has been expanded. Cameron’s veto has made the beast mainstream. Meanwhile, the ante has been vertiginously upped for supporters of joining the Euro. The old argument about being at “the heart of Europe” to protect our interests is defunct – we are not going to be at the heart of Europe ever again. Now Europhiles have to argue that agreeing to German oversight of UK taxation and spending policy and practise would be in the national interest. Cameron’s veto will have an immediate effect on UKIP and on British nationalism, forcing a focus on the perfect nonsense of belonging to a club of 27 which 26 have left, and the half-life Britain will now increasingly inherit as the 26 develop their union. The argument for independence therefore becomes one of re-definition and regularisation. It has lost much of its power. Second, notwithstanding our signature to the existing EU treaties (including Lisbon which effectively abolishes the nation state) the intergovernmental process of de-sovereignisation has come to a screeching halt for Britain. The sole remaining interests for the British government in the EU are the preservation of (i) the Single Market and (ii) the unregulated status of the City of London. The project has now become a neoliberal one, not an internationalist one, and that will require a more nuanced critique from nationalists. In this respect globalisation presents a particular challenge. It continues to exercise its baleful influence upon us and to be fully supported by the political mainstream. But it is nebulous, and the power of corporations does not pack the same punch as a political target as the power of Brussels. A lot has changed today. We do not yet know how all the pieces will fall finally. But nationalism didn’t make much impact when the ideological times were good. They just got tougher, and I am none too confident that we can rise to the challenge. Comments:2
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:15 | # Following on from above, it is obvious that Britain, America, and the EU have left democracy behind, which to me is all very confusing. End of history, consensus politics, left and right no more, neoliberalism, globalism, NWO, where are the irreconcilable internal contradictions. Cultural Marxism in bed with neoliberalism? Where is the EU in the grand scheme of things? Does the City trump the EU? Britain’s unacknowledged rulers (Oligarchy Watch Part 1) http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david-beetham/britains-unacknowledged-rulers-oligarchy-watch-part-1 Britain’s unacknowledged rulers (Oligarchy Watch Part 1)
The Red team and the Blue team come and go, but the BBC never goes away. 3
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:33 | # I’m not a big fan of Cameron, but in this instance he played a blinder. Basically the EU is fucked. 4
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:10 | # Lest we forget, the Tories were the original europhile party. Labour was the eurosceptic party.Although the leadershio caste was pro-Euro (the schism that led to the SDP was prompted over withdrawal from the EEC, it was the red-line they wouldn’t cross at any price, the schism led to the 1983 Thatcher vicyory that cahnged Briatin forver and the death of socialist Labour).In 1983 Michael Foot’s Labour Party vowed to pull us out.Ironically the Tory Party and the Tory dominated press of that time (notably the shitcunts at the Daily Mail), tore Labour to pieces over this - and conned many mugs. With the rise of UKIP and the Bill Csh and the eurosceptics proven right over the absurdity of the Euro a gradual sea change has seeped over the Tories, and by and large they are now a eurosceptic party.The old cadre of europhile ‘H’ men (Hur, Howe and Heseltine), have largely been purged and th eurosceptics hold sway. 5
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:45 | #
What exactly does this mean? What would you have Britain do wrt globalisation? What can it do, esp in the new pseudo-austerity (I would like to see real austerity, in UK and US)? I say good for Cameron. I liked what he stressed in an interview I saw: staying out of the euro (not a tough call anymore); UK’s independence on setting borders policy; and treating “Europe” more as a common market, and not as a political integrationist project. My respect for him, not previously high, has increased a bit.
Utter rot, of course - though if one graciously exempts the only decent PM postwar, the woman who saved Britain from Labour installed communism, depressingly true. Incidentally, in the interview I saw, Cameron appears more intelligent than I had hitherto given him credit for being. Cameron is no Enoch or even Thatcher, but you are still damn lucky to have him, as against the alternatives. Push to get UK out of EU; encourage sovereignty for Scotland (and Wales - maybe Ulster would then demand it, too?); and then England just might have a chance to elect some nationalists, and save itself. I think if I were English, I would be an English ethnonationalist and secessionist (and WN, too, of course). Along with Tory capitalist, and Christian traditionalist of course. 6
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:41 | #
So the council meeting is there to give direction, the formal treaty amendment come some time after when the headlines are a faint memory. With LibDems in the coalition and the need to bring in civil servants there is some way to go yet. This will strengthen DC’s position with his backbenchers (and with the patriotic segment of the country) at a time that sees a coalition-party crisis looming over the nuclear ‘referendum’ issue. Perhaps that is the intent of the headlines pre any treaty change. As with past treaties these things are released publicly only days before a decision on them is taken and with the Conservatives now able to defend themselves to their constituents and if required to the country during a referendum campaign. It’s interesting that David Cameron appears to be willing to mark out some ‘red lines’ when it comes to the City of London. Our other industries such as manufacturing, fishing and farming were less well served by his predecessors. Nor were their burdens transferred to the taxpayers. 7
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:58 | # The media and politics. Politicians of all stripes along with the media are today’s Sophists. Haven’t they always? Cameron is no exception, when he says that he is looking after British interests, what does he actually mean? I’m of a generation that on hearing such a pledge automatically assume he means I am included, what a joke! Britishness to our sophists could (and does) mean anything to all people. Brown, when casting around for an encapsulation of what it is to be British was obviously referring to a multicultural Britain. Cameron I suspect in this instance is referring to British interests as those of the banksters and financiers and their ilk. I’m certain that most ordinary folk upon hearing Cameron’s solemn pledge for concern for British interests think he means white British interest, ie the majority of this country. Poor deluded fools. To our elites, despite Britain being a nation consisting of a huge majority of 50 million white souls, tells us white Britain no longer exists, in fact the BBC tells us so every time they show us a non white face. Britain is now an established tolerant multicultural nation - and nobody bats an eye. Several years ago, I saw Paul Mason on BBC television talking his audience (me) through a graph depicting the future population of Britain and the role that immigration was to play in ramping up the population by millions. If I remember rightly he mentioned a figure of seven million migrants entering Britain in near ensuing years. I was aghast at this presentation and its implications but nowhere did I see any comment anywhere, zilch, zero. And this was fully 7 or 8 years ago. Around about that time the same information was being leaked and discussed on tabloid blogs, again no real concern was expressed. One can only surmise that Cameron’s concern for British interest is indeed those of the City, but I wonder how many out there know this, and that Cameron couldn’t give a **** for ordinary white folk. I’ve always thought it must be difficult for the BBC (Television) when formulating their news bulletins, it must for the most time be a delicate balancing act, as unlike the tabloid press television has got little wiggle room in the allotted time space. Which begs the question who are they talking to? Is it the liberal elite, the intelligentsia, or Kev’n Sally? The discerning know to whom is being addressed but the average viewer hasn’t a clue, unless they are being specifically targeted for education purposes or being reprimanded for being obese, drinking too much, smoking too much etc. The Sophist media is playing a huge-huge part in our destruction. 8
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 12:38 | # Bill, agreed. The unquestionable starting point is that those who reach high elected office do not serve the public they serve other interests. I believe in David Cameron’s patriotic spirit as much as I believed in Peter Mandelson’s when he was parading Fitz the bulldog before the 1997 Labour election victory. So is the purpose of this piece of political manipulation just a defence of international finance or is it (also) a defence of the status quo in the run up to a possible referendum?Another of DC’s cast iron promises and one that he would find harder to avoid keeping. I tend to the latter view at present. 9
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:43 | # I’m sure Cameron is just another pseudo-conservative, but what precisely do you expect him to do? Supposing he were a secret Powellite - how would he proceed? make a big stink about immigration, perhaps? Not being British, I’m not sure where people are ideologically. The Economist reported that a third of Brits polled during last summer’s wildings thought the police should use live ammunition to quell the looters. That seems to be a good sign. On the other hand, how widespread is support for Emma West? How many persons now see Britain as a multicultural country? In America it is a huge majority (that sees America that way) - even among whites. My point is to wonder to what extent Cameron could simply come out as Enoch Powell (not that Powell was perfect on nationalist issues, either) and survive in office for very long. How much nationalist sentiment is there? Is it fair to castigate Cameron because he maintains a low nationalist profile - esp insofar as there are other issues besides racial ones that he must attend to, and nationalist concerns don’t seem to be uppermost among even Tories? The fair test is whether he moves things deliberately in a bad direction. GW Bush actively supported mass nonwhite immigration, and tried repeatedly to shove an amnesty for illegals down people’s throats. Those actions disqualify him from being honored for any of his positive accomplishments (which were very few -like the tax cuts). Has Cameron done things to worsen white EGI in the UK? 10
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 14:34 | # Leon, firstly everything about the man suggests he is a creature of interests other than the majority British population. His background, including his and his wife’s Jewish roots (see Wiki); his choice of residing in Notting Hill before ascending to No. 10; his rise under Michael Howard; his pre-election promises balanced against his post-election actions; the period when the coalition was being formed when many articles discussed the gleeful ejection of Conservative policy and their encouraging the Liberal Democrats to go further than they thought possible; his constant pronouncements. Take a look at this article on immigration as you mention EGI. As a Conservative, like Major and Thatcher before him he does have to carry the more traditional backbenchers with him and the more conservative supporter within the population. Hence the flying the flag occasionally. One example being his attacking multiculturalism after the last election, then doing nothing after the headlines had been forgotten. He does seem to have some Eurosceptic background too, but of a mild kind that has come to be referred to as being Europlastic. It is true what you say regarding the rise of a politician who actually intended to advance the interests of the native population. The MSM, academe, major political parties, Civil Service, quai-government organisationss and so forth would be hysterically opposed. Therefore a clear mandate would need to be gained from the domestic population to overcome that and some clever positioning would be required. As with the debates in other threads recently (on the practicality of repatriation) it would be necessary to take a Fabian or Bonhoeffer approach. First they came for the.. 11
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:05 | # http://www.economist.com/node/21541388
12
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:20 | # DT article is horrifying:
These numbers may proportionally worse than in US. I have long advocated a single-issue anti-immigration party for UK. Could Cameron just stand up and say END ALL IMMIGRATION - and survive in Parliament? 13
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:29 | # I do however think only violent revolution will now be sufficient to save most of Europe (or else fascist takeovers - but that would amount to the same thing; I mean that Europe may not be salvageable through democratic means, properly passed legislation, etc). The purpose of nationalists and their parties is to prepare the groundwork for this: first, by trying to delay or lessen the continuing immigration invasions; and second, by providing the public justifications or national ‘mythologies’ necessary as intellectual ‘conditioning’ so the native populations come to accept the need for violent patriotic measures of national salvation (something which at present is not remotely the case). 14
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:44 | #
By implication, Austrian School economics is good. I don’t want to keep reminding you that you should either chose between justifying the most basic claim of the Austrian School for starters before promoting Austrian economics here or refrain from doing so. Haller, don’t try my patience. A choice will be made for you if you don’t heed. As you know, the essential claim of the Austrian School’s that government issuance and control of money causes the financial problems such as the ongoing economic crisis. An Austrian School proponent must therefore start with proving that the government has indeed been issuing and controlling money for the period leading to the economic crisis. Your activity here is seen for what it is. Regarding your latest, when the chief issue’s the economic crisis, and this is being discussed, you promote “economic solutions” that favor the bankers, and digress by bringing in other topics, deflecting the attention to immigration in your comments, the “DT article is horrifying” [@12] and others. This is an illustration why the community to which the international bankers predominantly belong has so earnestly promoted immigration and other things: when their swindling’s taking a heavy toll, they’re busy deflecting attention from the real causes to other issues. 15
Posted by Foundation on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:06 | # Liberal Heresy @ 9.34 ‘Leon, firstly everything about the man suggests he is a creature of interests other than the majority British population.’ Whatever Cameron’s latest moves signify, in which he pretends to be ‘vetoing’ an EU Treaty, when he is doing no such thing, you have to bear in mind who he is. His mother is a Levita, which means Cameron is a Jew with a right of return to Israel. The Levita family created The Standard Bank, and has huge wealth based on the banks’ position. Why would he of all people try to stop the process towards One World Government by banking elites, of which he is a part, and which placed him into position? The Euro is designed to collapse at some point, causing a major financial crisis, to which the bankers will offer a lifeboat on condition they are appointed as the one world government with minimal democratic accountability. Mario Monti, the new PM of Italy is the Chairman of the European Trilateral Commission. Lucas Papademos, the new Greek PM is also a member of the Trilateral Commission. The pattern of new world government, created out of financial turmoil, is already emerging. Cameron is only a step on the ladder towards the elimination of democracy, and the formation of totalitarian structures. Once Britain’s debts are allowed to be noticed by the world’s bankers and the same pressures that are being brought to bear on the PIIGS, start being applied in the UK, which gauleiter will be appointed as our imposed governor to represent the interests of the bankers? Demise of the Euro: Part of a Long-term Plan for a Global “Super-currency” controlled by the Banksters Efforts by European leaders to shoe-horn a range of diverse countries into a rigid financial cage are doomed to fail. But that’s all part of a long-term plan for a global super-currency which can only bring more hardship to ordinary working people. A question that more and more people are asking nowadays is, “What on Earth were the Europeans thinking when they agreed to have just one currency for all of Europe?” In Greek mythology, Procrustes was the son of Poseidon, God of the deep blue seas. He built an iron bed of a size that suited him, and then forced everybody who passed by his abode to lie on it. If the passerby was shorter than his bed, then Procrustes would stretch him, breaking bones, tendons and sinews until the victim fitted; if he was taller, then Procrustes would chop off feet and limbs until the victim was the “right” size… This ancient story of “one size fits all” seems to have made its 21st Century comeback when Europeans were coaxed into imposing upon themselves an oxymoron; a blatant and conceptual contradiction they call “the euro”. This common supranational currency invented by the French and Germans, boycotted by the UK, ignored by the Swiss, managed by the Germans and accepted by the rest of Europe in blissful ignorance, has finally dropped its mask to reveal its ugly face: an impossible mechanism that only serves the elite bankers but not the working people. It masked gross contradictions as large, far-reaching and varied as the relative sizes, strengths, profiles, styles, histories, econometrics, labor policies, pension plans, industries, and human and natural resources of the 17 Eurozone nations, ranging from Germany and France at one end of the scale, to Greece, Portugal and Ireland at the other. As we said in a recent article, the euro carries an expiry date; perhaps the eurocrats who were its midwives a decade ago expected that it would live a little longer, maybe even come of age… But they certainly knew that, sooner or later, the euro would die; that it was meant to die. Because the euro is not an end in itself, but rather a transition, a bridge, an experiment in supranational currency earmarked for replacement by a far more ambitious and powerful global currency issued by a global central bank, controlled by a cabal of global private bankers, obeying a New World Order blueprint emanating from a private Global Power Elite. The problem today is that what impacted Europe as a financial ripple effect in 2008 has now grown into a veritable financial tsunami threatening to swamp the whole euro system… And more big trouble lies ahead! In fact, today’s euro-troubles are nothing more than one of many variations of sovereignty-troubles. Because when a country’s leaders irresponsibly cede a part or all of its sovereignty – whether monetary, political, financial, economic, judicial or military – it had better take a really good look at what it is doing and what the implications are for the medium and long term. Ceding national sovereignty means that somebody else, somewhere else, will be taking decisions based on other people’s interests. Now, as long as everyone’s interests coincide, then we are OK. But as soon as the different parties’ interests diverge, then you are confronted with a power struggle. And power struggles have one simple thing in common: the more powerful win; the weaker lose. Now, we have a huge power struggle inside the eurozone. Who do you think will win? Who will impose new policies – Germany or Greece? France or Portugal? Britain or Spain? Germany or Italy? And that is just on the public scene. You also need to look at the more subtle, less media-highlighted private scene, which is where the real global power decisions are made. Will the new Italian PM, Mario Monti, cater for the needs of the Italian people or for the mega-bankers’ lodge sitting on the powerful Trilateral Commission of which he himself is European chairman? The same question goes for Greek president Lucas Papademos, also a Trilateral member. The same question goes for all the governments of the EU member states where the real power brokers are the major bankers, industrialists and media moguls sitting on the Trilateral, Bilderberg, World Economic Forum and Chatham House think-tanks and private lobbies. Global elites will do everything to keep the euro on its transitional path towards a global currency that will eventually replace both the euro and the US dollar. This entails engineering the controlled collapse of both currencies, whilst preparing the yellow brick road for a “Global Dollar” or some such new oxymoron. The US dollar will be easy to collapse: all that is needed is for the mainstream media to yell, “The dollar is hyper-inflated!!” and the Naked Emperor Dollar will fall swiftly. The euro, in turn, will simply break up as its member nations revert to the old days of pesetas, lire, francs, escudos and drachmas… Is the time ripe for that? Maybe not… yet. So, no doubt we will still see more “emergency treatment,” more “financial chemotherapy” to “bail out the euro” just as we’ve seen them “bail out the banks,” even though most banks and the Oxymoron Euro cannot be salvaged but just kept artificially alive, like the “Living Dead…” So, here’s a question for Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Irish, even the French and Germans: will you accept the invitation by your Procrustean Leaders in Brussels to lie down on their bed? Adrian Salbuchi (Global Research) 16
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 18:31 | # Here’s the Daily Bell again. They seem to be taking a more that a keen interest in David Cameron and his rejection of the EU.
Cameron is first and foremost a Globalist hired to seamlessly carry the globalist torch forever forward, as was Blair, as was Brown and who knows how many more besides. Cameron, like Blair came from nowhere, an unscripted speech in the Tory party leadership contest was seized upon, (like ‘I agree with Nick’ televised party leadership debate) by the media and the rest we all know is living history. Dave is Prime Minister in a media manufactured coalition government being chaperoned by no other than ‘I agree with Nick’. Next thing is, Rupert Murdoch gives Dave a ring to see if said Dave is a safe pair of hands on immigration. Well, waddya know? The Daily Bell gives much prominence to the Internet revolution for the elites setbacks, I’m not sure what to think on that one. There is no evidence out there that ordinary people have a clue as to what’s going down, and there is very little evidence they even take any interest of what is going on in their daily outside lives, other than the pursuit of pleasure that is. There was always going to be a time when the elite’s machinations would have to break surface and become in your face visible, and it was mass immigration that obliged and provided (to the suspicious mind) that something was definitely afoot. No longer able to hoodwink the blogosphere the elites are having to tread carefully, we here know all about that, but out there, beyond the Internet bubble there are millions going about their daily lives in complete ignorance. I see I’ve lapsed into familiar territory again so I’ll wrap it up in time for tea. Before I go, anybody out there got anything on the Daily Bell? 17
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 18:38 | # Oops! Another senior moment. The Daily Bell here. See 01 31 PM just above. http://www.thedailybell.com/3336/Anthony-Wile-500-Year-Old-Global-Roll-Up-Founders 18
Posted by Helvena on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:44 | # If a plebiscite is held I vote to band Haller. Let him take his *genius* elsewhere and screw up some other site. His white zion sounds like little Israel to me, economics and all…now thanks. 19
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:53 | #
Relax Helvena. Leon got the band long ago. 20
Posted by Helvena on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:54 | # It’s funny that Adrian Salbuchi left out the Goldman Sachs connection of Monti. (Mario) Monti was an international adviser to Goldman Sachs from 2005 until his nomination to lead the Italian government. According to the bank, his mission was to provide advice “on European business and major public policy initiatives worldwide”. As such, he was a “door opener” with a brief to defend Goldman’s interest in the corridors of power in Europe. http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/1177241-our-friends-goldman-sachs 22
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:52 | #
Alas, but no man can serve two masters, and even the most insatiable Jew will grow weary under constant fellation. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 23:51 | # This is unfair. All who come here have the right to contribute, regardless of their Weltanschauung. We, who find ourselves silenced so often, should be the first to grant others the right to speak. Leon should be challenged on his Austrian economism and Catholic conservatism, and on nothing of a personal nature. 24
Posted by dc on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:06 | # I’m not so sure GW. Haller’s crap is invariably self-promoting disruption. Helvena has it spot on, albeit with horrible syntax. 25
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:33 | # I recall the same type attempt was made to get Fred Scrooby baned from MR. Now the same thing is happening to Leon Haller? Haller and Scrooby are/were two of the best commenters to ever post comments here. Yet Helvena wants to ban him? Ban? Do they even make that stuff anymore? Anyway, we all know Helvena uses Secret. Strong enough for a man, yet made for a woman. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:37 | # Leon’s problem is that so few people engage as he would wish in the thrust of his arguments. Very gamely, he keeps on coming back to say the same things but no one finds sufficient relevance in them to excite the old grey matter. As it happens, I’ve just had a conversation on a libertarian blog about the Austrian matter. Part of that was with Sean Gabb who chided my critique of Jewish libertarianism and upheld von Mises’ “propositions in Human Action” as fundamental to understanding the life of Man. I replied:
It is perfectly possible to explain the weaknesses of Austrian economism once one shifts from consideration of economic organisation to what it is, actually, to be human - not what Jewish thought says it is, obviously. I regret that Sean saw a red light, and stood back for another hopeful libbo to wade in. 27
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 01:14 | # Interesting that I have been banned for racism from so many other sites, variously conservative, Christian and libertarian. I tell the truth about race, and persons can’t handle it. There is something wrong with whites, seemingly of all backgrounds and persuasions. On the other hand, it’s interesting that here a faction (invariably composed of the less intelligent, if not deeply mentally disturbed), also wants to see me banned, perhaps because I’m insufficiently anti-Semitic (though a Zionist would surely disagree), or because I think persons should criticize economic structures or social trends from a position of actual understanding, as opposed to ideology. To those who wish me banned, who admittedly aren’t very bright, even to the extent of attending to and grasping what I actually say, I have to ask, why. Nothing you say will alter anything I have to say, but I ask in an anthropological spirit. I’m curious about the type of person led to WN (esp in Britain, as they seem to dislike me more than others, with exceptions like NSM Jimmy Marr and money crank JRichards). Anyone with the slightest psychic ties to the ideological mainstream would regard my racial traditionalism (or “biological Occidentalism”, as I think of it) as raging racism. Many of my comments are far more extreme than those of the majority of those wishing to ban me. It’s all very strange. I think the answer was inadvertently stated by GW. UK Nationalists seem to dislike the free market (which has not generally been something I’ve noticed at the race-realist conferences I’ve attended in the US; Jared Taylor has called himself an economic libertarian in person to me) - which then gets translated into hostility towards even those of us who insist on the truths of economics. Ditto for Christianity. I never realized the deep undercurrent of hostility among nationalists towards the historic faith. This is interesting as some leading nationalists, such as Enoch Powell and David Duke, have publicly professed themselves Christians (others, like Revilo Oliver, were atheists and anti-Christians). In the US, Christian conservatives are far more likely to be anti-immigration and miscegenation than those calling themselves secular. All very strange. Anyway, little Ms. Helvena, I’m not so sure a plebiscite voting to ban me would run to your favor. After all, I’m one of the minority who has something to say, and who can say it properly, unlike so many of the ‘lessers’ like yourself. Generally, a proper person for banning would be one who attacks others personally, while contributing nothing intellectually. Sounds familiar? 28
Posted by Helvena on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 01:29 | # “We, who find ourselves silenced so often, should be the first to grant others the right to speak.” - the exact same argument used in the State to let all and sundry in; we the second sons and landless of Europe can not deny the same to those of other countries. I don’t buy it State side either. It would be one thing if you could have an intelligent discussion with Haller and J Richards tried to but Leon just keeps coming back with the same old nonsense until people just get bored and leave. I’ll tell you my secret Thorn, I use my nose to tell BS, I don’t need to taste it. 29
Posted by Izhmash on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 03:19 | # Expect civil unrest and civil war breaking out in periphery nations. And Rossiya will help the people of those nations in need of assistance! 30
Posted by danielj on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 04:01 | # I don’t want Haller banned but there isn’t enough room for both of us so someone please email me when he goes back to where he came from. 31
Posted by dc on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 04:04 | # Unverifiable claims to knowledge are not very interesting, but I will venture this much in annotating the latest from braggart Leon Haller. In my youth I tested triple sigma and have spent my life in the university. I approach 70 years earnestly trying to become less of a fool than I am and spend most of my time reading.
32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 04:05 | #
Von Mises believes, then ,that,
Thus there is no unconcious ‘mind’ that is not instinctive. Yet it appears that humans may be influenced w/o being conscious of being influenced. However, may humans, in your opinion, be self-willed and decisive unconsciously? In other words a particular individual or race of individuals may very in the nature of their absence or unconscious influences. Sailer writes;
As Darwin wrote…“Verily the faults of the fathers, corporeal & bodily, are visited upon the children.— “ 33
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 06:10 | # To be perfectly honest the issues I have with Mr. Haller is that he appears profoundly dull and hard of thinking, along with being intellectually dishonest/unserious. I know when bog-standard ‘boiler plate’ Republican/libertarian nonsense is being regurgitated – it is tedious and pointless to engage with such material. A supercilious Hayekian right-liberal that happens to be a country-club Republican with racist tendencies is not really an intellectually serious person. Why discuss complex topics in a substantive way when no honest or serious exchange can seemingly occur? For example, I’m still waiting for the issue of ‘methodological individualism’ in the social sciences to be addressed (recall Mr. Haller’s unconvincing suggestion that his favoured form of economic ‘thought’ makes no normative assumption at all; nor has any implicit biases which shape its findings). But methodological individualism is not a ‘neutral’ starting point at all for understanding the complex relationships between the parts and the whole in the ontology of the social - in fact it is little more than mereological nihilism as ‘social’ model. And let’s not even start on the concept of cultural, social and physical externalities generated by ‘free-markets’ nor ‘the tragedy of the commons’ etc. Obviously such ideas are only embraced by ‘commies’ etc., to unfairly critique the American way (which is the envy of world; “they hate us for our freedom” etc., - hear me yawn at such trite banality). By contrast, of course Darwinian insights into the nature of social evolution reveals a complex state of affairs with both the forces of competition and cooperation being vital in any social formation. And by social this can range from the basis of multicellular life, the suppression of intra-genomic conflicts (e.g. fair meiosis), right through to the coordinated and collective actions of ‘social’ bacteria, along with more well-know examples of the social insects etc., and even the evolution of language. But no - mere biology has nothing to tell us about the nature of the social, nor about the relationship of the parts and the whole; rather human realities are best and totally understood from with an extreme subset of liberal theory (which is all Austrian economics is – a form of hyper-individualistic, liberally derived ideology - its pretension to be considered science are laughable). I would never be crude enough to say that biology tells us everything about the human condition, in all its subtle and small particulars, but I would venture it has something rather important to contribute to the general picture. And that reminds me of Mr. Haller’s recent pitifully poor pontification upon the philosophy of science. Yet his insight on that topic (along with so many others) is delivered in such a manner as to suggest anyone disagreeing with him must, ipso facto, be an ignorant dunce. And Mr. Haller wonders why he is not very popular. Look I’d like the discussion at MR to be thoughtful, civil and as rigorous as possible but it is very hard to move towards that goal with a consistently disruptive presence returning to the same old rhetorical tropes/themes. If debate is ultimately not honest then it is pointless. And for intellectual honesty one must always be open to the possibility (however remote) that one is wrong and that evidence against one’s position must be treated seriously if it is substantive. Of course that does not mean we do not have starting assumptions etc., but they must be recognised as such (and even then our assumptions themselves can be examined for robustness, coherence etc.). If not then we are dealing with ideologues – nothing, in principle, could change their mind. After all is this not one of the most infuriating aspects of liberal theory and those that promote and develop it – that no evidence can ever count against it? Liberal intellectuals take, at best, half-truths about the human condition and create a entire self-contained world-view which mistakes itself for the totality of human possibilities, thus distorting our own self-understanding and rendering liberal theory (to its own satisfaction) curiously ‘immune’ to contrary evidence/experience/arguments. To give another example of self-contained ‘ideology’ we can think of Catholic theology – internally coherent (to its own satisfaction) yet build upon foundations that are, at least, highly questionable. As I have said before the difference between the African witch-doctor on some aspect of Voodoo and the Jesuit (on say transubstantiation) is one of rhetorical sophistication, but both are ultimately involved in ‘magical thinking’ rather than an open, evidence-driven dialogue that seeks to track the truth about the world. Personally I do not find such ‘ideological’ conversational partners (of whatever ideology variety) to be worth the investment (opportunity costs and all that jazz), unless they have really astonishingly interesting things to say. And again it seems the idea that economic ‘theory’ is riddled with such distorting and implicit normative prescriptions for our self-understand of the nature and scope of the social and inter-personal interactions is a much, much too subtle idea for some people here. All these people ultimately say is “we need more free-markets” no matter what the topic is and no matter what the evidence suggests – the market was “never ‘free’ enough” to work as expected in theory (could that suggest the theory is not 100% correct – no of course not, don’t be silly!). Really we are dealing with a species of theology in this regard. A perspective upon the world can illuminate but it can also profoundly distort what we perceive. Now I know GW has basically said “play the ball, not the man” but it’s difficult when one has consistently been labelled “trash” and an “ignorant fool” etc., by Mr. Haller (and I can find those comments if you wish – Mr. Haller did start the dynamic of the ‘personal’ insult). Add to that various factoids about the persona as presented on MR – apparently a non-Euro girlfriend, going into late middle-age but childless, MBA graduate (anyone that thinks the banalities offered up on an MBA constitute material of any genuine intellectual value, ipso facto, provides evidence of nugatory analytical abilities and poor critical thinking), an enjoyment of lots of Jewish ‘friends’ and so on and I do wonder, at times, if we are not being subtly ‘trolled’ and collectively mocked. Then further add to that mix the offensive terminology of ‘White Zion’ (indeed how very ‘chosen people’!). I have no desire nor interest in discussing such a ‘project’ (which strikes me as deeply inorganic, impractical, utopian, muddle-headed, strategically doomed to failure and frankly nothing more than a lot of hot air). I am a European and Europe is my rightful home – nothing else is acceptable or desirable. If Euro-derived societies in the New World are ultimately unsustainable as Euro-populated political communities then so be it, but I for one would never give up Europe and all that it physically and culturally embodies. Perhaps Americans could find another outlet to discuss such fanciful schemes? GW runs this place as he sees fit and I am not one for bans etc., but perhaps some general guidelines do need to be established. 34
Posted by anon on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 06:37 | # The Eurozone (rightly) blame Wall St. and the City of London as the prime cause of the economic crisis and they have been making threatening noises. Cameron represents the interests of the City of London so was forced to use the veto to try and protect it. He won’t be able to protect it longterm while inside the EU though so it seems the UK is now on the exit ramp. This might be good for nationalism in the UK if it was on its own but its part of the growing tectonic shift lining up enemies against the banksters. Russia, China, India, Brazil and now the eurozone are beginning to line up on one side and bankster driven globalisation is dying. That’s good for nationalists generally but the engines of globalization were/are in Wall St. and the City so the countries attached to the locust nests are going to end up with the whole world against them. Given the bankster’s control of the media that might turn out with nationalists in UK/USA being pointed at the wrong enemies again. C’est la vie. Hopefully the Chinese are working on plans to use their huge pile of dollars to break the Wall St. and London banks. If they could bring down those banks then most of the bankster power is gone as they wouldn’t be able to buy politicians and media saturation - at least for a while - and that might be long enough to cut the mind-parasite out of its nests. 35
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:09 | #
Too bad you feel that way, Daniel, but, with lulls due to work and school issues, I’m not going anywhere until such time as I am banned. On that note, a tip of the hat to GW for being a gentleman in the face of pathetic louts who truly have nothing to say. Where is the evidence of any worthwhile contribution by the likes of aging idiot “dc”, or gynopropagandist “Helvena”? Show me a single intelligent, erudite comment from either of these utter fools. I will exempt Lister from the “idiot” category, though he is much less intelligent than he apparently thinks he is (I would love to read any non-scientific academic or journalistic article or book by this chap, if he has any available on the internet (or, for sale); note a superficial search finds nothing); certainly, vastly less knowledgeable, at least outside of his specific academic specialty, on which I can venture no opinion (and, Graham, throwing around ill-(or worse, self-) defined postmodernist or Continental verbiage doesn’t count for much with those of us taught to honor intellectual and lexical precision); and he is exemplary in deliberately misstating my positions, creating ‘straw men’ of them that he can more easily knock down than anything I have actually said. (Oh and GL, please note that the disrespectful back and forth began with you, not me - sometime early this year, I believe ... perhaps around the time I started discussing White Zion - a perfectly serious scenario, hardly unique to me, whether you agree with it or not. I am invariably fair minded and courteous to those who behave similarly towards me.) Incidentally, I did not discover MR on my own. I rarely scroll through the WN blogosphere in my free time, and I have never been big on commenting on WN sites. I find it more useful to ‘spread the word’ on non-nationalist rightist-oriented sites, and I prefer that type of intellectual sparring. A large number of persons (sadly, virtually none of whom any longer seems to write here at MR, with the possible exceptions of Captainchaos and Guessedworker himself (though I cannot recall precisely if they encouraged my visiting MR, so I may be wrong)) invited me to come here and contribute - which was certainly before the appearance of Lister and JRichards, and perhaps others. After getting banned at both takimag and Chronicles (among other places), I did start commenting at MR. Initially, and for some considerable time thereafter, my presence seemed to be mostly appreciated. [Note, too, that on a couple of occasions some years ago, GW asked if I should like to post formal pieces, instead of only extensive comments.] I have enjoyed this site, despite its very considerable deterioration in 2011, mainly because there used to be a wide number of intelligent (eg, among others, Notus Wind) and/or fun and interesting (eg, among others, Fred Scrooby) persons regularly contributing here. Most of these better sorts are now gone, or appear at best infrequently. Also, I like MR because GW edits with an appropriately light hand (as Soren Renner once stated), as well as, perhaps of greatest importance to me, that posted comments appear instantly, and thus real conversations can occur. I also like the simple but effective layout. What I do find bewildering is why those who dislike my world-view don;t simply ignore my comments. There are regulars here who do wish to engage with me; why not leave matters at that? I suspect the answer is quite the same as it would be for more PC sites. Despite claims concerning my low IQ, lack of erudition, limited education (hehe hahaha)(Graham, what precisely is your education? make it up if you must, but do tell something - Eton/Harrow?, Oxbridge?, etc), and so forth, in reality there is a dim sense even among the self-satisfied morons that in fact my ideological positions are extremely powerful, or, at the very, very least, that they are attuned to the views of many persons throughout our Western societies, though especially in America (but not only America). My attempt to extract and unify the truths from, variously, Christianity, nationalism, sociobiology, Western history, free market economics, and modern politics, precisely because it is synthetic, represents something anathema to ideological purists (sorry, Graham, but I am in fact far less ideological than you are, though you have proved yourself repeatedly incapable of recognizing that fact; part of your ideology is unthinking dismissal of Christianity - which is understandable, if regrettable - as well as the possibility that the great economists, especially Mises, actually have some things to teach you - which is even more contemptible, as there is no supernaturalism - only relentless logic - in Mises). Christians don;t want their “brotherhood of manism” challenged by Darwinian truths. Libertarian fetishists of the allegedly ontologically autonomous, rights-bearing individual - something I have NEVER NEVER NEVER claimed to uphold, here or elsewhere, so be a fairminded chap and stop attributing that view to me - don;t want to face ecological or tribalist challenges; and WNs don’t want to hear an historically literate person calling attention to the cold fact that The Jews are not primarily responsible for all the white race’s problems, or the entirety (or even majority) of current structures and power relations; or that God exists, and thus that white racial options for survival have moral limits; or even (and this I’ve only ever experienced among MR-WNs) that free markets work better in enhancing economic prosperity than any other form of economic organization, and that this superiority is part of the very nature of reality. As someone who is genuinely openminded, and is always seeking out the method and moral justifications for white/Western preservation, I find such closed-mindedness extremely tiresome. But I will continue to struggle on, until my views are the majority (or until, as Pat Buchanan likes to say, “the Lord Himself calls me home”). 36
Posted by danielj on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:53 | # that free markets work better in enhancing economic prosperity than any other form of economic organization Even if that is true. What of it? It just doesn’t matter Leon. There are more important things. Freedom is generally a problem. It almost always degenerates into license and barbarism. Good bye all. I’m gonna start working on my own website. The company is supposed to take all the overtime away next year so I should have plenty of free time. 37
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:41 | #
Not if you have to struggle to meet basic needs - one of which, at least for me, is having a comfortable level of savings or investment such that I don’t have to live day to day in a state of anxiety re the future. I don’t like living in a world where the wealth I accumulate through hard and fair work is always at the mercy of whatever socialistic parasites happen to get elected, or, in the case of the Federal Reserve and its current inflationist thievery, appointed, or else at the mercy of violent or greedy savages and aliens I never wanted to be integrated with, or have imported into my country. A reasonable degree of security of wealth and property was one of the supreme achievements of Western, and especially, Anglo-Saxon civilization, as well as sources of its prosperity and ultimately racial/civilizational power, and it must be defended at all costs - against nationalist ignoramuses as well as greedy leftists. 38
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42 | # danielj, Good luck however with your website. What will its focus be? And what kinds of respondents are you hoping to attract? 39
Posted by danielj on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:53 | # Not if you have to struggle to meet basic needs - one of which, at least for me, is having a comfortable level of savings or investment such that I don’t have to live day to day in a state of anxiety re the future. That’s what children are for Leon. Investing in children is the most wise thing you can do. And it isn’t just about the generational compact but about the love and affection as well. I don’t like living in a world where the wealth I accumulate through hard and fair work is always at the mercy of whatever socialistic parasites happen to get elected, or, in the case of the Federal Reserve and its current inflationist thievery, appointed, or else at the mercy of violent or greedy savages and aliens I never wanted to be integrated with, or have imported into my country. Socialism is cooperation. It works in plenty of countries. It doesn’t work in America. Believe me. I feel your pain. I’ve made 210 grand this year and I’ve seen a shitload of it going to feed and clothe all the little beaners down the street. A reasonable degree of security of wealth and property was one of the supreme achievements of Western, and especially, Anglo-Saxon civilization, as well as sources of its prosperity and ultimately racial/civilizational power, and it must be defended at all costs - against nationalist ignoramuses as well as greedy leftists. It was built on the backs of the poor. It was built by avaricious assholes. It was built by slave labor. Most of us are descended from those slaves. Don’t get me wrong. There is generally nothing virtuous about the poor and lack of wealth doesn’t make one a saint but extending the civilizational standard downward is important. Lord Milner and his Kindergarten were correct on that point. I don’t like watching my brothers and sisters suffer in poverty and ignorance. I don’t just shrug my shoulders and say “I got mine so fuck em!” Good luck however with your website. What will its focus be? And what kinds of respondents are you hoping to attract? Art and fashion, viciously and aggressively counter-semitic, exalting middle-brow culture, critique of the hipster subculture, a bewailing of the co-opting of punk rock by Jews and coroporate culture, dissection and analyzing of the punk movement/lyrics, anti-capitalist, promotion of “third way economics”, pro-fascist, reviews of the operas I go to, movie reviews, etc. I’m hoping to syndicate Wintermute and have original contributions by him. We are also thinking about doing some radio. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:28 | # Desmond,
Our ordinary psychological estate is a bit like living in a sound-chamber in which the dominant noise is some 1990’s Acid House loop. It may be playing at slower and slower speed and higher and higher volume, drenching and intoxicating the mind, obliterating all notions of independence from it, making us slaves to we know not what. Or it may be playing at normal speed and a more respectful volume, allowing one to think a little, at least. It’s just a matter of time and accident which. If at some point during the latter phase the idea forms in one’s head to search for the door, and an image of “door” forms in one’s imagination, one focusses upon it, the door is identified, the handle is turned, the crack of light appears ... if at this point one peers outside and steps through, the noise of the room and the room itself immediately withdraws. Now there is only the sound of the wind and of Nature. But the possibility for the self and for expression of the self (ie, in “human action”) is also there, and only there.
No question - we have limits. But the really interesting element in this is the role of attention or focus in generating self-consciousness and freedom, which is the freedom to be before it is the freedom to express (act). If you happen to buy any of this sort of thinking, of course. The thread of that conversation with the libbos, which I am not that pleased with, is here: http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/more-thoughts-on-emma-west/#comment-40883 41
Posted by Mr Voight on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:53 | # After getting banned at both takimag and Chronicles What did you get banned for at takimag? You must’ve posted something pretty far out to get banned at the same place that Jim Goad and the Vice Mag guy write. 42
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:20 | # danielj, I’m not opposed to children, obviously. I’d like to have a couple. But not everyone is lucky in love, especially in the “Bluest” areas (LA and SF) of blue-state CA. I’ve dated many women, but none were ever adequate in intellect, personality, character or politics for me to want to commit for life to them. I’m willing to troll lower on physical appearance, too, if that is what it takes to find a decent person (though, of course, I’m not going to sacrifice hotness for second rate minds or personalities or, worst of all ... PC liberal politics). Where in LA are all the nice, respectful, white, Catholic (or at least secular non-Jewish), intelligent, conservative, non-money grubbing women? If they be legion, why do I never come across any specimens? “Judge not” and all that. From the facts that I’m over 40 (hardly “late middle age”, Graham - does that mean GW or Jimmy Marr are old geezers? ... with white men routinely, healthily living into their 80s-90s now, 50 is the “new 40” anyway ...), unmarried, and childless, really nothing much can be fairly inferred. My hatred of socialism is deep and ancestral. Best not to go there with me. (Of course, this does not mean I oppose sacrifices for the common good. But such should be for that which is truly common - like national defense, or environmental preservation - and not a smokescreen for egalitarian leveling, which is the essence of socialism.) I’d like to see some stuff by this legendary Wintermute, whom I’ve never read. I hope you smoke him out, and get him writing (assuming he’s not insufferable like the seemingly departed James Bowery, or the late NeoNietzsche, or a cranky one-note like JRichards). As for me, what I said above notwithstanding, my commenting here is getting scarcer, and will continue to be so. I’m much busier now than in the recent past, and have to adjust my time accordingly. But I will not let louts silence me, so expect occasional “game” appearances ... 43
Posted by Helvena on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:28 | # “I’m hoping to syndicate Wintermute and have original contributions by him. We are also thinking about doing some radio.” - Great! Please let my know when you’re up and running. Hopefully it will be very soon. 45
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:49 | # Re: Mr. Haller and his ‘greedy leftists’. Well, well, well..Mr. Haller with profound insights like that you really are spoiling us ‘lowlifes’. So only leftists are greedy eh? Are you sure? I thought it might be one of those human traits that actually is universal and the question is one of how to cultivate appropriate mechanism and cultural values to reign in the excesses of greed. Silly stupid me, on second thoughts you are right. No-one at Goldman Sachs et al., is greedy let alone voraciously so. No they are titans of virtue and modesty - a model of restraint for the rest of us. They embody the very best of humanity. They are poster children for being not greedy in fact. Really we know Mr. Haller is in his ideological fantasy la-la land when only ‘leftists’ are greedy. And you dare to lecture others on how ‘ignorant’ they are? Also as a Catholic don’t you have some issues with greed and gluttony? Unless your a very radical Vatican II type I would have thought such behaviours are at least still somewhat frowned upon in Catholic circles. But again I am ignorant of these complex theological matters. Oh wait your are also a wannabe Gordon Gekko - or perhaps more apposite a wannabe Patrick Bateman…isn’t greed good? Any honest capitalist worth his salt must agree that greed is a force for good yes? What precisely is cognitive dissonance again? 46
Posted by danielj on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:13 | # Where in LA are all the nice, respectful, white, Catholic (or at least secular non-Jewish), intelligent, conservative, non-money grubbing women? Why are you in LA? I think that is the real question. My hatred of socialism is deep and ancestral. Best not to go there with me. I’m a socialist and my socialism isn’t a smokescreen for leveling. In fact, my socialism will actually cost me. I’m above the middle and won’t benefit from any “leveling” that might occur. I wouldn’t characterize a social safety net as leveling Leon. I’d like to see some stuff by this legendary Wintermute http://thewisdomofwintermute.blogspot.com/ I hope you smoke him out, and get him writing It’s all in the works. I hope you smoke him out, and get him writing (assuming he’s not insufferable like the seemingly departed James Bowery, or the late NeoNietzsche, or a cranky one-note like JRichards). We sometimes notice what is exaggerated in others because we know it in ourselves. Sublimated self-hatred. “I’m hoping to syndicate Wintermute and have original contributions by him. We are also thinking about doing some radio.” - Great! Please let my know when you’re up and running. Hopefully it will be very soon. You won’t miss it. I’m sure GW will cross post all of the material. I’m not sure the radio stuff will be liked by too many here. It will be unserious, cultural, joke-filled stuff that only tangentially touches on explicitly White Nationalist material. It will be more like seeing pop-culture thru WN lenses. 47
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:33 | #
Did I say only leftists are greedy? Is that how you interpret a reference to ‘leftist greed’ in the context of a condemnation of socialism? Not much for logic, are you? And yes, there is something quite a bit more morally repulsive in those who would use state power to loot the justly acquired property of others, than in persons who do not so utilize state coercion, but merely have an inordinate fondness for wealth. And that view perfectly accords with Catholic traditionalist thinking. As Aquinas recognized, and Augustine before him, the State may not do what is forbidden to the individual. Publicly organized theft is rightly condemned alongside the private mugger. (I grant you that a lot of Catholics, as well as other Christians, are deeply confused on these matters.) Of course, the implication that the Goldman people are not leftists shows factual (as against the more usual interpretive) ignorance. Seemed to have hit a nerve with Lister, though, what? Telling, yes? 48
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:34 | # btw, wasn’t this ‘genius’ Wintermute outed as an FBI informant or something? 49
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:57 | # I was looking for something I wrote, so I googled myself. Here is something I wrote in October (actually, not only had I forgotten this, I post so many comments so quickly in so many places, I still don’t remember writing this - though I completely agree with all points):
Now look at the far-leftist (and totally inapposite) responses I get: Posted by: Mulligan | 10/27/2011 at 12:01 AM Horrary, we’re saved. PS Do us 90% get to wear medieval sack clothe? Will work houses have cold running water, or is that being too soft on the unworthy? Posted by: raintonite | 10/27/2011 at 03:26 AM
There is nothing so infuriating and bizarre as racists who are not rightists (except rightists who are not racists).
50
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:20 | # GW, Objectivist and “Austrian” arguments are not about truth. They are about preserving power; i.e., the money power. Proponents are comprised of propagandists and dupes. The latter can be persuaded. The former cannot be persuaded. For this a bullet, in “Austrian” terms, has greater marginal utility. Since the Internet is not the venue for a bullet, please consider implementing some/most of the following rules/guidelines as the next best thing: Note: By default, this software collects IP numbers. That portion of the software has been disabled, visitors to the site now have an IP number of 0.0.0.0. This was done as a precaution against the police states that are prevalent throughout Europe (Austria, Germany, France etc.). By default, we do not make ‘Private Messages’ (PM) available to new registrants. Q: You registered, received a welcome email, but didn’t receive an activation email in 1-2 days! A: To minimize work for the Moderators, we delete registrants whose usernames are meaningless, like ‘none123’ etc. Most of these are spammers. If you don’t receive an email indicating activation, please contact us (mail_to at codoh dot info). Rules/Guidelines · The Moderator retains the right to reject a username if he considers it offensive, obscene, or deliberately distracting. · No namecalling, threats, or personnal attacks; period. · As The CODOH Revisionist Forum forbids any threats or personnal attacks against others, we will not tolerate links to sites which do enage in such behaviour. We’re about debate and only debate. · On topic posts only. The topic of the Forum is the subject generally referred to as ‘The Holocaust’. Debating it’s credibility, or lack of, is the reason that The CODOH Revisionist Forum exists. Associated subjects are bound to come up, be sure there is a tie-in, show the tie-in. Each thread represents a separate point, a post to a thread must be pertinent to that point. · Posts by new or infrequent participants will be spam checked by the Moderator before they appear on the Forum. They will not be censored for on topic opinions they present. · Keep your posts limited to one point. · Voluminous, lengthy, and redundant posts are not welcomed. · Posts which lack focus or specifics are not welcomed. · No ‘dodging’. When questioned or challenged on your statements, claims, or assertions, you must respond or leave the thread. · You will address the poster only by the name that he/she uses at the Forum. · Offenders will have their posts deleted, repeat offenders will be removed. · Reasons for deletions may or may not be stated. The Moderator will endeavor to notify the offender and the Forum in general, but not in every case; especially when it is obvious why the post was deleted. · Registrants who do not post within 30 days from date of registration are subject to deletion, they may re-register should they decide to post. These rules are subject to revision as warranted. Thank you, The CODOH Revisionist Forum Moderators
51
Posted by Helvena on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:32 | # I would like to make the point that information is neutral. What makes it dangerous is whose hands it’s in. So the scare tactic that someone is providing the FBI with information can work both ways, the information may be collected under one regime and used under another. Think about what happened to the Stasi informants. All those good Jews and Jew wannabees ids are being logged as well. 52
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:09 | # GT, I have no objection at all to not recording IP numbers, though whether that is possible to change with the EE software I’m not sure. JR may know. I am not interested in making registration rules. We have always been open not only to readers and commenters but to contributors who have something interesting to say. Over the last couple of years we have seen some CMS folk close pages from public view, and make participation a matter of private invitation. That, it seems to me, is deeply elitist and unhelpful, and a development that needs to be opposed elsewhere. In any case, aside from the spam, which we can deal with, there is no great rivening, no warring factions here. We can cope with the disagreements that we have. They are normal in politics. The greater difficulty is that of disappearing contributors. People forget what they came for, lose focus, lose interest, lose patience, develop other intentions, and so forth. We are, after all, something of a medium for breaking ideological ground (MR is unique among the higher readership blogs in this), and that’s a tough ask of anyone to keep going, year in, year out. However, original thinkers please note, the blog plainly needs an injection of new and suitably radical writing, and offers a uniquely free platform for same. The invitation is always there. 53
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:13 | #
In your view, then, is this the saga of Emma West?
At some point the idea formed in her head that this is not England and these people are not English and she lept into the light screaming…was it an unconscious state though? Did Emma stop to reflect upon her experience? Or was it an adaptive unconscious that made all the important decisions? It appears there was no conscious intent in her speakings, no mental deliberation and rehearsal of what to say, no contemplation on past conversations. It appears fundamentally as an abstracted vocalization. It appeared to be almost like 19th century cases of automatic writing whereby something meaningful is produced entirely by the unconscious, with the conscious self having no clue, in Emma’s case, of what she was about to say. There was no reflective action to the decision of vocalizing; it simply spilled out of her. In your opinion, was Emma self-willed and decisive unconsciously? it seems to be the only option. Her’s was not an instinctive/mechanical action nor a result of thought, in the sense of waking consciousness, thus we are left with the conclusion, it appears, she was acting decisively while not being conscious of it. 54
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:26 | # GW,
That is not what I’m suggesting.
Leaving single, unemployed, under-employed, pensioned, and other-funded personalities with perspectives shaped by the Regnery/CMS crowd in de facto control of the “nationalist” perspective at Majority Rights and elsewhere.
To a degree, yes. But MR is no longer “cutting-edge,” not even to the small degree it was in the past. It could be replaced. Doesn’t mean it will happen, but the opportunity is there for somebody with sufficient time and resources available. Look, I’m merely trying to help you out.
55
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:38 | # <h3>On the topic of banning Haller</h3> Here are some issues regarding possible banning of Haller. I.P. bans are useless as they’re circumvented by posting from a different I.P. Username bans are circumvented by using a different username. These aren’t the right approaches to get rid of someone as determined as Haller. At the same time, Haller can’t be merely ignored as he repeatedly insults others, keeps trying to derail from the main topic under discussion and repeats the same arguments over and over, without evidence, when verifiable arguments to the contrary are cited. The comments policy cited by Genotype
is most apt here. For instance, after my warning above, notice what Haller’s posted. He asserted that “free markets work better in enhancing economic prosperity than any other form of economic organization, and that this superiority is part of the very nature of reality.” Silver cited hard data refuting this contention a while back, and Haller ignored it. Haller even claims that “UK Nationalists seem to dislike the free market,” a useless digression. I’ve repeatedly told him that I prefer a free market, and repeatedly pointed out what free market means to me and what it means to him and the Austrian School, but Haller keeps ignoring it. Free market to me is that buyers and sellers are free to do business with each other and the government simply provides the utility for exchanging goods and services, which’s in the form of debt-free money, in which case trade is free and people are also free of debt. Free market for the bankers doesn’t include demand and supply as repeatedly documented by instances of people deprived (starving, freezing) in the midst of plenty because the medium to facilitate exchange, money issued by the bankers, was lacking, and this free market also means that bankers get to create money and determine its supply, which translates to the public increasingly drowning in debt and people’s money increasingly going toward servicing debt rather than satisfying wants and needs. Anyone can see which of these concepts of a free market truly describes a “free” market. I keep asking Haller to cite evidence for the most basic premise of the Austrian School if he wishes to promote it here, but he never does, and on top of it, he insults those who challenge his monetary policies. People like Haller have taken advantage of the lack of moderation and the absence of an explicit comments policy at MR. Over time, the downside has been some bloggers or commenters leaving MR in frustration. Haller doesn’t appear willing to change and he must be dealt with. Genotype gave a good example:
But at the same time, among websites in its genre, MR has allowed a high level of freedom of speech, which shouldn’t be restricted. How then does one deal with Haller? I’ve had enough of repeatedly asking him to behave. Recently it occurred to me, why not have a trash folder at MR and send Haller’s comments there? A trash bin solves many issues. It isn’t a ban, nor a restriction of free speech as the comments aren’t deleted and Haller’s been very generously dealt with [repeated requests, then repeated warnings] in spite of his being on private property where the administration can set its policies without justification and without apology. It allows the administration to continue to avoid moderating comments or setting up an explicit comments policy. Haller’s admirers wouldn’t have strong reasons to object as people will rummage through trash if they know it contains gems [pearls of Haller’s wisdom]. I figured I could make it better for Haller’s admirers. Instead of a trash bin, I could make a landfill, setting one location, “Hallertoses,” for Haller’s gems. His admirers can go straight to this location instead of having to sort through other trash. And Haller, to his delight, will have his gems in one place. Problem solved! The trash area or landfill already exists. It’s a matter of time before Haller’s comments end up there. Haller may try to circumvent the trashing by using a different name. No problem. A biting insect by any other name will remain the same creature, adding to our misery, subtracting our pleasure, dividing our attention and multiplying the number who exit MR for good. When Haller’s trashed, Hallertoses by newcomers will also be trashed. Keep it up Haller. I’d like to see you trashed… just waiting for the excuse, and I’m positive you won’t disappoint me. 56
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:40 | # Blazing a trail back to the cutting edge of racial preservation, paleo-artist John Gurche has created an artistic likeness of the earliest known forerunner of Austrian School economics, Karabo von Munkus 57
Posted by Guest Lurker on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:49 | # Haller wrote:
I apologize if it’s an inappropriate digression from the main topic of this thread, but I was wondering, didn’t you state Leon that you’re originally from Newport Beach? I realize that Orange County has taken quite a demographic hit the past couple of decades, but I thought Newport was still almost 90% white? I would think there would still be some attractive women with at least sound racial instincts there? From how you describe yourself, I’m somewhat in the same boat you’re in. I live in L.A., and I think it’s difficult for some to appreciate how difficult it is to form a lasting relationship with a viable partner who meshes with our world view. I’ve had a couple of particularly nasty breakups with women in the past because of them, with a deep feeling of alienation and isolation ensuing- to the point that they prompted me to take a hard look at myself and my views and reassess them. The shocking reactions I received couldn’t have been worse than if I’d told them I was a pedophile. It was jarring. I truly envy those among you who have found a life’s mate and have gotten over this hurdle more than words can express. No matter what I achieve in this life or how much money I make or how much of this world I will experience and see, I’ll consider my life to have been a dismal failure if I fail to create a loving and stable family and continue the line. Leon, I’ve actually been looking at duplexes and other multi-family properties in Newport right on the peninsula by the beach. It still seems like a predominantly white and wholesome area, or am I wrong? 58
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:15 | # @Jimmy Marr The Australopithecine ancestor of the Austrian School economist was a good find. Here’s the evolution of it into the Homo genus, Homo moolagrubbus. Note the transformation of the nose compared to the Australopithecine. Ongoing evolution’s transforming it into Homo parasitecus deceivous, whose visage is best left to an artists’s imagination. 59
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:30 | # Look I agree that Mr. Haller is disruptive (he certainly puts me off from commenting with more frequency). After all if all we have are outbursts along the line of ‘free-markets’ are the holy of all holies then we cannot have a serious discussion of the dynamics, sources and shape of liberal modernity (I would dub it hyper-liberalism). Liberalism is not simply something only done by gay activists and the like – it also has a right-facing side, rooted in the likes of Locke, Hayek and various libertarian ‘thinkers’ and so on. If criticism of right-facing liberalism is ‘off the table’ or always to be derailed by the obnoxious repeating of the usual clichés, ad infinitum, then I for one will not invest any time or thought in such a degraded dialogue. Radical thinking means exactly that – nothing is a no-go area or off limits because it upsets the half-baked ‘insights’ of Hayekian liberals that think they are conservatives. Let me give you an example of when the market is socially and culturally toxic. Pornography and human sexuality. Roger Scruton (that well known ‘socialist’) has written extensively on the long-term effects of pornography upon the family and our social relations. He thinks they are likely to be highly damaging. Scruton is also worried about the squandering of what is called ‘social capital’ in pursuit of a cultural world of short-term immediate self-gratification, in which ill-informed and utterly philistine wants trump every other form of human being in the world, and people think of themselves primarily as autonomous ‘free-floating’ consumers and nothing else. But our good free-marketeer and liberal cannot object to pornography (nor indeed to any other form of unpleasant consumerist ‘culture’). After all there is demand and therefore there is supply. The long-term cultural toxicity is of no consequence to those making money from such activity and why can’t individuals do as they please with their own time, money and genitals? Yet one of the great non-liberal pieces of wisdom is the sentiment of John Donne that no man is an island. There exists very few activities that do no have some sort of social consequence or effect upon the collective culture. Let’s return to the ‘pornification of society’. In the UK large mainstream corporations sell suggestive clothing for pre-school children (for small girls) along with apparel for the same age-group with sexually suggestive slogans. Now clearly someone must buy this offensive crap and hence it is being supplied by the market. So Mr. Haller, as a free-marketeer above all else, must glowingly approve of the free-market and market exchange at work. I however do not approve. The market in this case is wrong…the people buying and supplying such items are wrong. The customer is not always right. Why should I have to bring my daughters up in society in which sexual clothing for pre-school children is considered OK and can be bought in the high street? My oh my I must be some radical communist to object to idiots buying such things and greedy amoral corporations producing such cultural pollution for profit (just like Roger Scruton; he must also be a ‘leftist’). There is such a thing as society and its health must be protected from those that would seek to destroy or poison it for their own interests, be that they can make a quick buck or two from such activity or that they wish to partake of socially and culturally irresponsible ‘life-style’ experiments. And this brings us to a really non-liberal insight. Liberty (including the liberty to make money) is not the highest of all political goods – it is a secondary value. At times to protect the collective health of a political community there are occasions and circumstances in which the unequal exercise and distribution of rights is required. A libertarian minded crack-cocaine dealer might wish enjoy his ‘natural right’ to enter into market exchange and the joys of supply and demand with kids from my local school. How terribly coercive of the majority to deny his liberty to do so. Their objection to the wannabe drug dealer/entrepreneur must only be rooted in envy at his likely level of profits, yes Mr. Haller? 60
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:01 | #
In light of his adamant refusal to allow his photograph to be taken, we really don’t have any choice in this matter, but when I allow my imagination to conjure an image, it is often the snapshot of a group effort. 61
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:30 | # @Graham_Lister Your criticism of Haller’s [Austrian School] free market [@59] isn’t valid. Haller’s free market’s simply bankers getting to control commerce without the slightest bit of outside interference, not what one would think a free market is from a plain, literal interpretation of the term, which is what you’re criticizing. Banker control of commerce has the ultimate purpose of banker profit, not necessarily matching supply and demand. Bankers will gladly deprive people of necessities in the midst of a surplus if they can make more money in the process. As to your criticism of a plain, literal interpretation of the free market, specifically bringing in the issues of pornography and sexuality, no proponent of a free market, including myself, proposes that anything goes. Whether a particular item or service should be freely traded is a matter of debate, but a plain, literal interpretation of the free market should read minimal overall interference by a government [compatible with greater interference or prohibition in individual cases]. 62
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:39 | # Now, now, now Mr. Richards let’s have some consistency please. If money can be made from an activity why shouldn’t it? How dare anyone interfere with markets? Unless of course there are values and things more important than making a buck? If so who and how are such judgements to be made? After all as Mr. Haller has suggested only deeply ignorant people like myself dislike the outcomes produced by the liberally conceived, maximally unrestricted ‘free-market’. If via the actions of market exchange we learn that works of art such as “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano are more valuable than a boring still-life by Adriaen Coorte who but ignorant fools could disagree? The market in all its wisdom has spoken and Jeff Koons et al., represent ‘high art’. Equally Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” has sold 110 million copies but Hildur Gudnadottir has not been as succesful. But the market has valued them and market value is the only true and proper way to assess and rank such things. Only a stuffy and ignorant person would suggest that Jackson’s output is trash culture. Do not ever second guess the market - how arrogant to even try! Moreover as sovereign individuals that are ‘free-floating’ subjects in a ever expanding sea of wants and desires, the answers that the market produces in response cannot be thought of as objectively right or wrong – rather they simply are (brute reality in all its glory, yes?). And furthermore restrictions on markets make them less efficient and distort their workings, including moral, ethical and other forms of restrictions (unregulated markets in economic theory are always better than regulated ones, yes?). I’m sure Mr. Haller like all good free-marketeers would also object to the notion of collective interests, the public good etc., as being nothing more than fictions which serve the hidden and selfish interests of greedy ‘leftists’ and other knaves and fools (basically by getting their hands on Mr. Haller’s investment portfolio). People that operate in market based institutions such as Goldman Sachs traders in the futures market, credit default swaps etc., are really the only people that do work in the public interest as the famous ‘invisible hand’ delivers the goods. In a counter-intuitive way these ‘superficially’ enormously greedy and self-serving fellows are in fact the most public-spirited, altruistic types imaginable, yes? Just read “The Fable of the Bees” by Mandeville (don’t worry about silly things like the biology being wrong). Interestingly, the liberal (his own description) Hayek greatly approved of Mandeville’s fable. Hayek was obviously deluded in that he was a deep and true conservative that misunderstood himself to be a liberal, but right about everything else - beyond any doubt I’d say. Really people here say the most important thing is to preserve European civilisation but not if it might require some minor restriction on market operations or penny more in tax, yes? After all those latter things are far more evil prospects than non-existence right? Wow what a deep commitment to that core value – how radical the thinking through of the issues of liberal modernity! Ethnocentric community and well-being can at least be second in line within public policy priorities, behind the all-important limited government agenda and liberty in the marketplace – praise the Lord! Of course if the latter undermines the former that is just too bad and seemingly a far too outlandish thought to even be imaginable, yes? If only I could attend business school and also learn to ignore all of the inconvenient parts of Adam Smith! 63
Posted by Silver on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:12 | # Richards,
I’m not so sure about that. My point was that laissez-faire (to the degree it has ever existed) has not been as much more wealth-creating compared to mixed economies as Haller claims. (Any government interference totally kills growth is the attitude of libertarians. Their bluster is as bad as yours regarding frb “drowning” people in debt.) If laissez-faire produced growth of 5% annually while mixed economies were stuck on 1% or 2% then there would be an obvious case for it. But the historical record is much more ambiguous, and suggests to me that something other than the degree of economic freedom was responsible for the unprecedented growth that occurred from the latter 19th through (and especially) the 20th centuries. Lister, Another way to think about culturally degenerate practices is to say that the problem isn’t so much that they are permitted as it is that they are promoted. Homosexuals, for instance, have always been around without being the problem they are today. Idiotically, there have always been those would not even permit them to exist (though never successfully). Merely permitting them to exist (ie to go about their business unmolested) does not, however, require that anybody promote their behavior, their morals, their values or their lifestyles (as they are promoted today). (Sigh, “Homosexuals aren’t a monolithic group. They’re as much individuals as you or I!” some liberal dipshit can always be counted on to exclaim. That homosexuals as group see themselves as having group interests, which they work very hard to promote, is something that totally escapes the liberal dipshit, who prides himself on how much of reality he succeeds in closing his eyes to. “IQ doesn’t matter. I refuse to believe it matters. Intelligence doesn’t even exist. We’re all equally intelligent [even though intelligence doesn’t exist]. We all have the same potential to be intelligent [even though intelligence doesn’t exist].” You know the drill.) Haller,
I must say I’m jealous. I would have thought that if indignant calls to ban posters were going to be issued it’d be my name heading the list. Instead, they pick someone whose every utterance is dedicated to furthering the racial goals they themselves so ardently desire. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Given that our views differ so much about “what race means” I guess I should be cackling with delight at the prospect of your demise. But I’m not, because reason being displaced by unreason is never a pretty sight.
64
Posted by anon on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:21 | # @danielj
good luck with it. 65
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:55 | # @Silver You still have to defend fractional reserve banking where we’ve been having a discussion. Until you do so decisively, don’t claim that my argument that fractional reserve banking drowns people in debt’s egregious. A reality check will show that when money’s created as debt and the debtors have no way to create money, the debtors overall can’t pay off the debt and the debt burden must increase. @Graham_Lister What inconsistency? Haller’s been consistent in his implied definition of the market, which’s bankers controlling money and commerce. You’re the one mixing a plain, literal reading of the term with Haller-specific issues such as the activity of Goldman Sachs. Whereas you mock Goldman Sachs in terms of it working in the public interest and being public-spirited, altruistic types… Haller’s writings don’t allow for this kind of strawman. His argument’s that Wall Streeters are wealth creators, which doesn’t preclude a specific firm, such as Goldman Sachs, from acting maliciously. If it’s proven that a financial corporation has acted maliciously and against the public interest, nothing in Haller’s writings suggests that he would want this corporation to continue its business unmolested. Haller’s argument is that private entities being in control of money and commerce is in the best public interests, which doesn’t mean that all private entities necessarily act in the public interest. Haller doesn’t object to collective interests and the public good. He claims that these are served better when private entities control money and commerce. Whether the latter’s true is a matter of debate, but it can’t be mocked as opposition to the public good. As to your mockery of the plain, literal reading of a free market, which is what I’m talking about and in favor of, which in turn most certainly isn’t something Haller’s implying, the assignment of greater value to the “Piss Christ” as opposed to, say, a nature painting, isn’t an example of the free market at play. An anti-Christian minority with control of the mainstream media, not having arrived at this position because the people knowingly placed them there, didn’t show the public a “Piss Christ” and other art, asking for evaluations and then promoted the art that had higher ratings. This minority simply promoted the “Piss Christ” out of spite and malice. In general, had the market been truly free, postmodernist art would have a lower rating than classic-type art. Similarly, your example of Michael Jackson selling much more albums than a relatively obscure Icelander isn’t an example of the free market assigning intrinsic value/worthiness to the music. The market in this case isn’t concerned about intrinsic value at all, but extrinsic value, which is sales volume [of interest to those trying to make money off of the artist]. Secondly, again it isn’t the case that the public was equally exposed to both kinds of music and decided to side with Michael Jackson. The determinant was a balance between what the powerful minority in control wanted the public to be exposed to [not an instance of a free market] and what could potentially sell well [related to free choice [free market] by the consumer]. Just don’t confuse a plain, literal reading of “free market” with Haller’s [Austrian School] free market. 66
Posted by danielj on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:39 | # If laissez-faire produced growth of 5% annually while mixed economies were stuck on 1% or 2% then there would be an obvious case for it.
67
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:34 | # Dan - will this be using your current blog or a new entity? If its a new one I would want to link to it here. 68
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:40 | # The ‘for whom’ question seems always to missing somehow…a kinda curious omission. On the permit/promote issue. Well I think permission is a tacit endorsement and is tied up to an implicit promotion. After all in my real-world example of inappropriate clothing for children (and I don’t care even if millions of idiots did buy them happily it would still be unacceptable); what life-style and implicit values are being promoting to us all and slowly destroying our moral values/commitments by the ‘can do no wrong ever’ market? There are appetites satiated with feeding but some appetites are only amplified by their feeding. Of course the 1960s injunction to “do it if it feels good” raises and promotes the very notion of doing the counter-cultural thing. It’s a permission slip to embrace antinomianism by expanding the horizon of the possible/acceptable. Sadly many in the West now ‘think’ self-actualisation via some degenerate life-style represents the highest form of excellence in human possibilities. More banally, many think that owning an IPhone and other forms of crap makes then ‘an individual’. But who am I to question their wisdom? Michael Jackson really is the greatest musical performer of all time; the 110 million people that purchased the “Thriller” album cannot be wrong can they? How could the market possibly produce the wrong answer? Any other view would be terribly condescending. 69
Posted by daneilj on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 04:04 | # Lurker, It will be an entirely new entity. Most likely it will be http://www.tomorrowinvinland.com but it isn’t settled yet. I’ll let you know. There are appetites satiated with feeding but some appetites are only amplified by their feeding. The eye is not satisfied with seeing… 70
Posted by Silver on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:28 | # Lister, If anything is to change it will do so because people’s minds change, particularly the minds of those with the power to effect change. Focusing on promotion over permission makes it easier both for one’s own voice to be heard as well as easier to sideline interference from the hordes of indignant incompetents who benefit (or think they do) from (hyper) laxity. Of course, I’m not remotely interested in anything a feminist or a faggot says or thinks, so I’m not out to convince them of anything. The idea is to win back the neutrals whose minds have been warped. “What’s your problem? We’re not stopping you doing what you want, we just think these are better set of ideals for society.” That’s a lot easier to buy into than the idea that sexual immorality should be “stamped out.” Also, the market doesn’t decide everything. If those controlling the cultural levers thought as you did you’d see a great deal more promotion of conservative-type values and practices. In that case it’s fair to expect the market would tailor itself to those tastes, and not just for business reasons but because marketers are people too. It really bothers you that some people enjoy Michael Jackson, doesn’t it? Well, some people’s tastes will always be “less than ideal.” It’s probably a good idea to learn to live with that rather than set out to “save” everyone—a hopeless task that can only end in disappointment, or worse.
71
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:32 | # I understand the ‘invisible hand’ argument but I don’t think it is very robust (or rather it’s a weak and vague generalisation rather than some ‘iron-law’ of human affairs). However, I never suggested Goldman Sachs or indeed any Wall Street firm is involved in fraud or other forms of malfeasance. By acting in their maximally understood self-interest they ultimately are working for the common good, yes? Or have I misunderstood the ‘invisible hand’? And moreover as they are in the private market - give or take a few massive bailouts along the line - the masters of Wall Street and the City are virtue personified. As Mr. Haller has implied a nurse than works for say the NHS, or fire-fighter working for a local council are sadly (by being public-sector workers) both ultimately parasites upon society and a rather ruinous burden upon hard-working wealth creators and their fancy credit default swaps etc. I certainly know who society could afford to lose and let me tell you financial speculators are essential. But you know I’m not sure about the maximal selfishness idea…does it always work out for everyone? There is for example a process called meiosis - it a form of cell division which is pretty important in sexually reproducing organisms as it’s the mechanism by which haploid gametes are produced. So instead of two set of chromosomes these cells only have one set and the can combine to made a new organism (think sperm and eggs). Only there is a problem (no sorry ‘problem’ is only my ignorant description). There are what Dawkins dubbed ‘ultra-selfish’ genes. Guess what these naughty/clever genes get up to? They disrupt the process of meiosis and thus can over-represent themselves in the gamete (the sperm or egg cell) by having the chromosome they sit upon not ‘fairly divide’ but instead have two copies in the gametes (thus two copies of the clever ‘cheating’ gene). The only issue is that any offspring produced by such gametes normally are sterile and have awful genetic disorders with catastrophic fitness consequences for all the other genes within the genome. So a part - the ultra-selfish gene - gained a very short-term advantage but to the common ruination of the whole. Now without boring anyone there are adaptations which generally suppress the actions of ultra-selfish genes allowing for ‘fair meiosis’ (i.e. no over-representation of any particular gene in the gametes). Now let me be the first to condemn this collectivist nonsense about the interests of the aggregate whole sometimes overriding the interest of a part, but that is a widespread feature of biology - especially of Darwinian social evolution (collective/cooperative traits sometimes producing larger fitness benefits than the alternative competitive/selfish traits). Read W.D. Hamilton et al., if you don’t trust my ignorant mindset. And with regard to human affairs Aristotle did write some interesting things on the proper relationship between the parts and the whole in the context of what the polis is and how it maintains itself over time. But come on Aristotle is seriously out of date old shit right? And biology has nothing to say about the nature of things, right? I mean we have wonderfully modern intellects like Hayek and Rand and all those others to show us the way. Seriously people they cannot have possibly missed out anything of any importance in their thoughts, right? And frankly economic theory is so robust it shames the other lesser sciences. It’s not like you get a room with 10 economic thinkers for an afternoon and ask for their scientific predictions of economic events and end up with about a 100 contradictory predictions within three hours is it? I only wish biologists, chemists and physicists could be as robust in their work as economists are. And some economists are, truth be told, a bit grubby in that they examine real-world data etc. The really smart ones don’t have to - simple, elegant and clear theory along with brilliant spontaneous insights without any dependence upon an always a rather messy real-world is the royal road to truth. You know as a deeply ignorant person I simply don’t understand anything of any real significance. But the Jewish people are reputed to be very clever. I hear they are to declare in Israel a new national creed. Basically it will rightly condemn the coercive power and barbaric illusion of collective interests, identity and agency for the radical evil it is. 72
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:05 | # The point about Jackson was not about ‘saving’ anyone but to illustrate that by cold hard cash, freely spent he is number one. But no-one seriously believes that he represents some sort of human excellent. So 110 million people with bad taste exist; that’s ok I’m not proposing a music police. The more subtle point is that the market is not the measure of all things for any remotely civilised or intelligent person who is being honest. For an ‘conservative’ to maintain it is – well that is utterly bizarre. Some wants and desires, cultural interests etc., are superior to other alternatives. Unless one is a radical post-modernist Shakespeare and Dan Brown are not equally worthy cultural products but the marketplace does have Brown ahead in the game of $$$. Is he a better wordsmith? 73
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:43 | # @Lister
Just for the record: is it your contention that I have ever made the counterclaim (that the market is the measure of all worth)? I’d like to respond to all the outrages, but no time at the moment. [I hope and trust GW won’t let the jackals ban me until at least I have offered my apologia. ] 74
Posted by John on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:06 | # “Haller doesn’t object to collective interests and the public good. He claims that these are served better when private entities control money and commerce. Whether the latter’s true is a matter of debate, but it can’t be mocked as opposition to the public good. “ A free market in CPUs, i. e., private entities controlling CPU manufacture, would have to mean there are competing CPU manufacturers offering different CPUs and it’s up to consumers or builders which CPU they want to use. Can you properly say, “the market decides” if only a quasi-governmental Intel Corp were allowed to make CPUs? 75
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:33 | # That’s it. I was just writing a long comment, including a very lengthy paragraph answering Richards’ request for my justification for the Austrian theory of commodity money - and I lost it somehow. can the admin retrieve what I was just working on? I cant fucking beliebve this. what a ficking waste!! bye 76
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:00 | # Richards, Make you a deal. I am sick over what I just lost. Although I was writing quickly, I liked how it was coming together, dealing with you on money, Silver on Angus Madison, Graham a bit on his ludicrous misrepresentations. I have not the time to rewrite it. In fact, I really don’t have any time for blogging, and should not be doing it. I get sucked in too easily. I’m busier now than in the recent past. You mentioned a special (trash) file. Can you go through MR somehow (I mean do you have the program to do this automatically, not would you troll through back posts yourself), and make copies of all my past comments over several years, and put them in one Haller file, as you’ve threatened/promised? I could then easily copy all of them to my own computer. If you could/would do this, and leave the Haller file up for a while (I’m super busy now), I will cease commenting here at MR immediately (except I would like to offer a few observations directed to Silver and Lister, and perhaps to a couple of others). Mind you, I do not give my permission for my past comments to be removed from their present locations (GW, please do not allow this to happen). If you lack the means to do this, then please refrain from removing any of my comments, as I will scroll through past posts myself over the holidays, extracting and copying what I deem worthy of saving. I’m going to be involved with another website devoted to specifically American nationalist issues at some point in 2012, when the persons I know doing this finally get their site up. Blogging here for me is not leading to anything productive. It is simply a hobby, and I can no longer afford to engage in idle activities. 77
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:56 | # In the perhaps vain hope of nudging the discourse a little closer to its original course, I’d like to add my own thoughts on the matter of the Cameron veto. It seems to me to represent a classic instance of the right action being taken for the wrong reason, an earlier case in point being the decision by the former Labour regime to ban fox-hunting, not because it was cruel and barbaric, but rather as a means of getting one over on the Tory-voting shires. It doesn’t take much imagination to conceive of obvious examples when a British veto might have been deployed to greater and more lasting effect - the Maastricht Treaty, for example, which created the whole Euro mess in the first place, being just one such. But now Dave has spent all his ammo, and to what end? From what we understand one of the principal ‘non-negotiable’ demands flagged up in advance called for special protection for American banks operating out of the City of London. It’s small wonder that Merkozy were able to lay and spring such an effective ambush. So where from here? GW has raised the spectre of “...German oversight of UK taxation and spending policy and practise”, implying that this would be somehow worse than the alternative. I’m not sure that it is. 78
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:23 | #
My first reaction to this suggestion was that it might be easier just to change this site’s name at this point, but when I began to think of other names, I quickly realized that Majorityrights is the perfect name. “Leon” has produced the majority of verbiage appearing here, so in accordance with its name, this site rightfully belongs to him (whether or not he actually exists as a human being). The granting of posting privileges to anonymous cyber-entities in a virtual environment presents the same existential threat to websites as corporatization (creation of artificial persons) and open borders present to liberal democracies. 79
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:27 | # Leon - hopefully you will let us know the address of this new site when its online, so I can link to it. 80
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:34 | # Guest Lurker @ 57, Yeah, Newport’s still OK demographically. I grew up there. Parents are still there. Some richer Asians are starting to move in, mostly Orientals (though my dad has seen some kind of raghead - Sikh? - now living about a quarter mile from them, but he drives a big benz or something). Not like Irvine, where I have my cookie-cutter home, with my girlfriend but not me in it. She fits in better than I do I think (she’s half Asian). I hear ya re the women. Maybe I should have gotten married in the early 90s, but I was still too young (and had no interest in settling down then). That’s when a lot of the white girls I knew growing up got hitched (at least the stable and hot ones; the unstable and hot have been partying with me and old friends for two decades non-stop, some making desperation marriages over the past 5 years; I never paid attention to the non-hotties, except to be polite). The world has changed in recent decades. I mean our world, whiteyland. Sure, LA (and the whole Socal, according to my parents; Dad fought in the Pacific (not crazy about my seeing a part-Jap girl), stayed out here postwar) has been utterly overrun by race aliens and savages. I can truly imagine being a Boer. OC is very different from when I was a kid in the 70s, too (Newport’s gotta be among the last holdouts; I think Beverly is still pretty white (OK, Jewish - but no shortage of them in Newport, either)). But what has changed for me so noticeably (and leads me to White Zion musings) is the attitudes among whites themselves. I’ve always been the leading racialist among my friends. And yes, we had pre-PC crap shoved down our throats even in schools in the 70s (but not nearly to the extent today; I have friends with kids, and I am horrified at the sheer ubiquity of references to Martin Luther King, Jr, that pervades their worlds, schoolwork, etc - so what do the critics of White Zion think we’ll be saying in 20 or 30 years?). But among my friends, we were all, at least by today’s standards, racists. We did not think ghetto groids were cool (maybe in the 70s-early 80s some people liked Jimi Hendrix and OJ Simpson and Eddie Murphy, but that was really it), and we had total contempt for Asians and Mexicans. We certainly didn’t view them as “Americans”. Those were the years of the “preppies”, and that’s really my background. LA/OC were still cool in the early 80s, even if my dad correctly thought the place was becoming a shithole. Crime was exploding (since the 60s, but then we had the crack ‘epidemic’ in my time), but even so - and this is my point - whites, while not exactly racist, let alone WN, still thought of themselves as white, as not interchangeable with minorities. Even into the 80s, you might fuck a minority girl (only sluts or losers would date nonwhite guys; I recall a party in I think Huntington Beach (I was so wasted, because not driving) when I was home from boarding school over Christmas ‘83, in which two white chicks got into an actual bare-knuckles catfight because one had accused the other of having a “Chink” boyfriend ... you can’t make this shit up ... would be a perfect scene for a time capsule Hollywood teen flick ... can you imagine that happening today? I see white chicks publicly making out with their greasy chink boyfriends on my old Veteran Ave where I lived at one time), but only a loser would marry one. And I do not recall ever getting upbraided for my racism by other whites (that happened at my Ivy university later in the 80s, but never among my ‘homies’, including persons who just didn’t ever think about race systematically as we do). That’s all changed (except among my hardcore friends in the 40s crowd - and some of the general age group voted Obama! - something those same people would not have done in the 80s). Each 5 year younger white female cohort is noticeably more PC than its predecessor. I’ve been dating a long time, not to mention observing behavior, esp around race. White girls today are just much shittier human beings than they used to be (oh, and get my dad started!! we REALLY missed out on the good old days ...). Maybe not in less ‘advanced’ rural areas, but where we are, it’s Ground Zero of race degeneracy. What guys like you and me really need (I think increasingly throughout the whole urban US, not just LA) is a kind of organization/club centered around networking and socializing for our kind. I don’t necessarily mean WN (you can always go sieg heiling with Jimmy Marr’s crew), but something for non-PC whites, ordinarily conservative whites who may not be ‘haters’ or even ideologues, but who are racially normal as we would define it. People who want a place to be traditionally white - GW might say “to be ourselves” (though he would say it with far more obscure and obscurantist verbiage) - without having to genuflect before ‘diversity’. I once belonged to a social group like that, for quite a while actually, which was intentionally white, but not political. (I left when I got too old for it; it was for the 20s-/mid-30s crowd.) I have a vague idea for something like this, which will become more necessary as America continues its diversification, and whites their attendant social atomization. Anyway, all I’m saying is that the nuptial problems we face are worse than at any time probably in history (unless you were a gold miner in the late 19th cent. Yukon, though then it was just ratios, not attitudes). As against my dad’s day, we have to deal with poaching (white chicks hooking up with aliens), declining numbers of whites, feminism raising expectations (plus making girls independent), higher (minority caused) living costs putting a greater premium on wealthy men, to the detriment of the majority - and the crappy, nauseating PC attitudes of so many white girls themselves. Plus, the worst of all: I cannot prove this academically (at least, I have no research), but I have the distinct impression that white women just don’t have much respect for white men anymore. I have really noticed a change over the years (and I’m not my dad’s age!! I still look, feel and live young; my dad has lived through the collapse of America, as he puts it - never “white America” - just “America”). It’s like a white guy is ‘yesterday’s news’, not exciting, definitely not ‘hip’ (unless he’s a goofball faggot who is hip). Why have I dated so many nonwhites in recent years (or white foreign born)? Because I wanted to? Because my looks have declined? They have, but that’s not it. It’s because white women in urban areas are not psychologically attractive. They possess female looks, but not feminine virtues. And I find it hard to stomach PC shit from the mouth of an otherwise disrespectful, unappreciative, often celebrity-obsessed white cunt. At least my Iranian, my Russian, my (very secular) Hindu, my Brazilian - they thought it was The Shit to be dating a tall, confident, Nordic American man, with good clothes, car, etc. When do I get that from a 30-something white woman? They act like they’re favoring me by allowing me to drop bills on them, while talking about “Barack”, and how much they hated growing up in Middle America. It is not an easy thing, being even just a conservative (let alone WN), in LA - or, pretty soon, America.
81
Posted by Patton on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:18 | # Leon, I am in my early 20s and when I was in the equivalent of what Americans call ‘high school’, we were forced to watch a video about some vile American woman (some Sontag-like race traitor, though technically Sontag is not a race traitor being a Khazar, but you catch my drift) who had students from different races sit together and force them to recite that there is no difference between any of them. I recall she asked a White girl whether she saw any differences between herself and a Black fellow student. When she affirmed that she did and spontaneously pointed out physical differences (colour of skin and so on), she basically was yelled at and forced to deny there are any differences. Because of the woman’s aggressiveness, the girl was lead to tears. This is the sort of crap MLK has lead to, though I’m not sure this is what he had in mind. What I find just as nonsensical but perhaps far more moronic and revolting than MLK-worship, however, is Bob Marley-worship, Muhammad Ali-worship and Malcolm X-worship. I know plenty such people in the rural Flemish region where I grew up. To me, this is the epitome of self-hate and self-mockery. However, it would probably never have existed if it were not for the MLK-cult propagated by the Soviet Union’s useful idiots in the West worshipping Holy Equality. By the way, did I note that I was forced to watch this indoctrination video in religion classes? That is, in a supposedly Roman Catholic school. As for the Persians you mentioned, at least they have a sense of identity and a thousands of years old civilisation they can rightly be proud of. Most Persians I have encountered loathe the Semitic Arabs who largely destroyed their civilisation and they feel more connected to the West as they consider themselves Aryans, which is what the name ‘Iran’ derives from. It is also this very country, which has been a home to Jews for thousands of years, that the self-righteous Zionists are now trying to destroy and charging with anti-Semitism. The irony! But I’m sorry for getting off-topic. Requiescat in pace, Western civilisation. 82
Posted by CL on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:32 | # Haller, the ‘WN,’ is so wonderful all he can get is a mongrel slant for a shack-up, the latest in a chain of failed mud couplings. He’s perpetually ‘much too busy to post,’ yet he’s always got plenty of time to spout-off reams of absurd garbage. His shtick is one part disruption, one part Mata Hari. Newsflash: Real white men don’t have a problem getting white women. What about this cat can’t ya’ll figure out? He’s not the only one who fits the pattern, though he’s the most obvious. I’m sure they’re laughing at you down at the office. 83
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:04 | # I’m standing in the dock. I now deeply regret my thought-crimes. The ‘Mall of America’ (and similar magnificent spaces and the activities within them) truly represents the zenith of human excellence and the core foundation of Western civilisation. Within such a glorious space as the ‘Mall of America’ one can experience the wonders of the human condition more authentically and profoundly than anywhere else. I totally apologise for the offence and upset I may have caused by proposing, for even a second, anything other than this self-evident truth was conceivable. Only a knave would not give their body and soul to defend this most sacred and valued expression of Western achievement – the joy and virtue of market exchange in the splendid consumerist shopping arena. There is no greater meaning to life than the jouissance associated with the purchase of an iPhone and so on. So yes I’m changing my plea to guilty. 84
Posted by Patton on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:43 | # Mr Lister, given the recent Black Friday violence we’ve all heard about in the media, I sympathise with your critical attitude toward the modern-day ‘free’ market’s materialist consumerism even though I strongly support entrepreneurship as long as the principle is used to promote individual freedom, independence and industriousness that does not go at the expense of the national interest. However, I think what we are seeing now is caused by a moral failure rather than the market mechanism itself, though the latter may be enhancing it due to greedy profiteers preying on people’s weaknesses. 85
Posted by uh on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:41 | # Newsflash: Real white men don’t have a problem getting white women. THE MANOSPHERE SINGULARITY DISAGFREES WIITH YOU LOZLZOZOZZ yeeeeeeeeeeeuhhh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShO4QiTC6l0&feature=related guys i gotta tell ya 86
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:01 | #
And paradoxically has ample time to participate in other forums! I don’t think it is prudent to encourage a policy of “no personal attacks” in an environment devoid of any of the normal assurances that the participating entities are actually persons. It restricts responsive options to a substantive nature, and thereby opens the door of discourse framing to 6 million ghostwriters.
87
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:17 | #
Yeah. It’s a real head-trip. Be careful, Uh. 88
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:10 | # CL, The difference between us is that I prefer women who treat the eyes, not fat proles with, in your case I’m sure (assuming you have a female), a swastika tattoo. I can tell that Guest Lurker is legit, because what he says about the attitudes of the women in our area is correct. You, on the other hand, I can tell are nobody, and would be dismissed by everybody in my world, conservative and liberal. Just because women are PC, doesn’t mean they have time for white losers. In fact, just the opposite. Jimmy Marr, So I’m a composite of many different persons? Why then is my writing style so consistent? Uh, I don’t have a problem getting white women, either. It’s getting white women in my home area with the qualities of character I value that is a real problem, as should be evident from what I said. Perhaps you need to stop lolllzzzzzzloololllzzzz’ing, and trolling some faggot manosphere (?), and work on improving your reading comprehension. 89
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:15 | # Patton, Good comments. That is really disturbing re the video indoctrination - and in a Catholic school! Yes, the West is dying, but there is honor in soldiering on. Is there any improvement in nationalist attitudes among Flemish persons your age? I’ve read about the Vlaams Belang. Are they have an impact culturally? 90
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:36 | # @Haller I don’t need your permission to remove your previous comments from where they are. But at the same time I have no reason to do so. I don’t think anyone’s going to delete your comments. I don’t think I said I’ll put all your comments in one place. What I said was that if I get around to trashing your comments [if you continue to behave in ways you’ve been asked not to], then I’ll be moving your comments to a specific trash location in the landfill… this won’t be retroactive. Anyway, I like the deal you offered, and here’s a copy of your comments up to the comment where you made the request for them, in one file: http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/haller.zip The file was essentially obtained via an sql query, and I don’t have the time to present your comments in the manner they’re displayed on MR web pages [but whoever will be setting up the software for the website you keep talking about could do it]. Thus you’ll see BB code and html code like you do just before submitting comments, but the readability isn’t seriously affected, you can see the line breaks in the source code of the html file, and you can search using control+F (cmd+F on a Mac). Your missing comment’s nowhere at MR and I can’t help you here. You should make a habit of typing your comment in a word processor so you have a copy of it stored before submitting it as the browser could crash, the session may time out, etc. 91
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:42 | #
If there are competing CPU manufacturers and Intel produces better CPUs, thereby resulting in poor sales and eventual bankruptcy for other manufacturers, then one could end up with Intel as the only CPU maker and this would be an instance of the market making the decision. The reality’s been different. Intel’s dominance outside America regarding the x86 CPUs has had a lot to do with strong arm tactics forcing vendors to use Intel CPUs over AMDs. For many years AMD offered a better value for money and for two years it even held the performance crown, but AMD didn’t have the sales to show these figures, not because of market factors but because of illegal manipulation. Had the government intervened in this case to undermine the unscrupulous practices, it wouldn’t have been an intervention that interfered with the market, but a move that made the outcome more appropriately determined by the market… this assumes that the market’s seen in term of the plain, literal reading of the term; the bankers making money off of the unscrupulous practices would view the government intervention as undermining the market]. 92
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:46 | # @Graham_Lister The correct anthropomorphic term for your ultra-selfish genes is stupidly suicidal genes. What’s the point of killing or making sterile the being of whose genome you’re part if it’s the end of the line for you? The real life example that we’re dealing with is a different beast, the parasite, and it knows better than to kill the host. Parasite activity shouldn’t be confused with the free market. On the interests of the aggregate sometimes overriding the interests of a part, this isn’t an argument against the free market. If the aggregate’s a functional entity, then its parts will mostly be working for aggregate interests. When there’s a conflict, in many cases the injurious-to-the-aggregate activities will occur at a scale that’s small enough to not harm the aggregate in a significant manner, and the free market works well for both individual rights and collective interests here. In only cases where the conflict can potentially occur on a large scale or be especially injurious to the aggregate is there a need to emphasize the interests of the aggregate over the individual, and such examples aren’t incompatible with broad support for a free market since no one claims anything goes/is valid. You’ve continued with mocking examples of the free market that aren’t so. One of them was the dollar-value/sales- based success of Dan Brown vs. Shakespeare in contemporary society. First, this isn’t a judgment on intrinsic worth. Second, Shakespeare has persisted across centuries whereas it remains to be seen whether Dan Brown’s writings will. Third, Shakespeare wrote: The Merchant of Venice Now Mr. Graham_Lister, in your esteemed opinion, do you think that Jews and feminists are particularly enamored with this fellow to recommend or promote his works? In contrast, Dan Brown’s work displeases some Christians. So which of the two authors will be promoted by the parasitic community whose members constitute the majority of international bankers, the owners of the major publishing houses, the owners of the mainstream media, a disproportionate number of the feminist leadership and a great proportion of the leftists extremists in charge of school and college curricula? You’re not looking at market forces in this instance. On Michael Jackson, I’ve addressed the issue partly already, but since you keep bringing him up, have you seen the genres of music? There are so many, corresponding to different tastes. Some tastes happen to be more common, and I happen to like a lot of Michael Jackson’s songs. The market reports that different genres sell to different groups, and this isn’t a comparison of intrinsic value or worth (are apples better than oranges?). The market also reports that some music sells more than others. After extracting the influence of factors other than the free market, you’re left with differential appeal of individual music items, which’s at least a reflection of more vs. less common interests, but whether this reflects differential intrinsic worth or whether the concept even applies is a matter of debate on an individual basis. Just don’t come up with strawmen on the free market. 93
Posted by AnalogMan on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:33 | # I’ve been lurking around here for a while. Generally high quality of articles and comments. The comments contribute a large part of the character of a site. What I’m seeing here does not reflect well on this community. Leon Haller’s comments are always (as far as I can recall) polite, articulate and relevant. Some of you apparently don’t like what he has to say, so you want to “band” him. Really? dc, I’m disappointed in you. Your “annotation” of Leon’s comment was astonishing and quite silly. I haven’t read all the comments, it got tedious, but so far I think you’re the only one slinging around words like “moron” and “idiot”. Go and reread your critique, and resolve to work harder at your personal project. I hope that GW will stick to his guns and allow open comments. I have posted a couple of comments in the past in support of Leon, which did not get published. I can only guess at the reasons. Fair enough, it’s your site. But if you ban Leon Haller, or anybody else, for on-topic views respectfully expressed, this site will be the poorer for it. Same applies if this deplorable pile-on chases him away. Do you people really want to end up as an isolated, irrelevant clique of navel-gazers? 94
Posted by dc on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:09 | # ad AnalogMan I continue in my efforts to give Richards some ammunition and support, albeit with serious disagreements. I read GW and Helvena with careful respect. What, pray tell, are you good for? 95
Posted by John on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:52 | # J. Richards:
That might be true but I was getting at this with that analogy: if one is in favour of free markets, then should not free market principle apply to money as well, i. e., no legal tender laws but rather the buyer and seller should be free to agree to use whatever money they wish or one require one money or limit to two or more and the monly that best holds its value and/or has the least transaction costs (depending on the weight buyers and sellers give to these factors) will become market dominant and competitors be able to enter the market and offer something better than the current de facto choices. Something like what we have with CPUs I want Leon to answer that question. Are you in favour of a (government or private) monopoly in money or a free market where buyers and seller determine which money they want to use from amongst the choices available in the marketplace, as is done now with CPUs? 96
Posted by John on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:22 | # A sine qua non of the centralised control the world is going toward is a monopoly in money. The political implications of buyers and sellers being able to choose which money they’ll spend and accept are enormous. The answer to my question is a witch test for Leon Haller. If he is the shill I and many here think he is, then an non-dissimulating answer would have to be that he recoils in horror at the idea of a free market in money. 97
Posted by Thought Criminal on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:10 | # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073424/People-happiest-feel-like-belong-country.html Wow who would have known? 98
Posted by uh on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:39 | #
99
Posted by uh on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:08 | # Horribly off topic as always. Apologies. I don’t feel competent to discuss British politics, anyway. I was surprised and not surprised by the veto. I don’t sense there to be any benefit to nationalism therein.
The “pathologization” has indeed progressed so far. A woman will sooner pardon you for being a junkie or murderer than a nationalist. There is no pity for our kind and we might as well be what you name in their shallow MSM-conceived demonology. It has to do with their neurological obsession with group solidarity, ironically. Authority / legitimacy has decreed that “everyone”, “humankind” is the only valid “group”, so a man who introduces division into this mental falsehood is effectively assaulting woman at her hindbrain, precisely as though one had transgressed with a child. Again, not even murder quite offends them as principled or even visceral “brand loyalty”, as proven by the amorous letters Breivik is said to receive. How many do you suppose old Simon Sheppard has gotten for breaking the 11th Commandement (“Thou shalt not criticize woman”)? Murder is a purely negative thing; where nationalism and worse leave a psychological wake in the person of the victim (where “blacks and Jews” are the victim glyphs). This is why the mantra is dead right with its emphasis on being “a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews”. It is precisely the subconscious script that is set in motion whenever one breathes a word of brand loyalty. That mischling at Unamusement Park circumvents this by heavy doses of irony, probably the only way of reaching the lemmings at this point. For, as ironic as it is that white women have a reflexive forebrain hatred of our ideology (which is after all in their better interest) that is motivated by a hindbrain impulse that ought rather to serve precisely that, one can very successfully dodge this conscious ban of the out of control id monsters by simply appealing to another part of the hindbrain — by being a total cad about the ideology. Make it entertaining and they will love you for it. Unamused says somewhere,
You might, like ernste Bibelforscher Leon, despise Game, but it has the workings of the female mind pegged to a tack-board on full display. The sexually irresponsible women whom Game is designed to most efficiently seduce are the same women voting Democrat across the West. Sexual and racial irresponsibility are the same thing. But there is a tragic misunderstanding between the gamesters and white nationalists. Most gamesters (I hate “PUAs” and the thing has grown past that anyhow) look down on white nationalism as impertinence, and obviously game-killing, while white nationalists, well-known for their white knighting altruistic punishment (*cough*SOREN*ahem*), despise game as immoral, and isn’t Roissy a Jew? Yet they are all just white men attempting to think and act in their own interests against the same enemies!
If you listen to the evo-biologists, it will have been a failure, tout court. An alternative might be found in funneling some of that money into the right hands where resistance that resorts to more than words might have some stirring effect. Bring some organisation to the affairs of our comrades, if you dig my consul. 100
Posted by Patton on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:17 | # @ Leon:
It should be surprising but unfortunately it is all too logical given that the Catholic Church in Belgium is generally extremely liberal and really not much better than the modern-day Church of England or various Lutheran churches. If it weren’t for the Vatican and local clergy and members had their way, it might actually be much worse. Ironically, I think the child abuse scandals in the local Church are a reflection of the general state of moral and doctrinal corruption in which the Church finds itself. Perhaps it won’t come as a surprise if I tell you I am Orthodox. Having said that, however, I should also add that there is no such thing as truly private education in Belgium. The State governs the curricula and mainly thanks to the Liberal and Socialist masons that govern this country, we are force-fed into accepting same-sex and other perversions, including in religion classes, which are rather like New Age Freudian Pseudo-Psychology classes, really. With regard to nationalism among people my age in Flanders, well, there is no easy answer. I would say that, yes, there is an increase in Flemish nationalism mainly due to the rise of a new right-wing Flemish nationalist party and rival to the VB, which is called N-VA. I believe it’s been discussed on this site before, though I might be mistaken. In any case, this party is really rather a civic nationalist party which aims at greater autonomy or independence for Flanders (which I whole-heartedly support) but wishes to achieve this by ‘evaporating’ Belgium into a federal European state. In other words, they are pro-EU, though not without criticism of its current policies. Immigration is okay to them, they just want stricter rules. A positive aspect about this party is their generally anti-Israeli attitudes, though this is true of most of the political spectrum in Belgium, the sole exception being none other than - brace yourself - the ‘Far Right’ Vlaams Belang. Now, the VB is slowly being turned into a negligible and obsolete party because its highly popular competitor N-VA has adopted much of the same anti-Walloon, anti-Socialist, pro-Flemish, pro-business rhetoric but in a more ‘palatable’ way. The ‘extreme’ anti-immigration (aka ‘xenophobic’) stance of the VB does not appeal to most people. However, in areas plagued by crime committed by immigrants, the VB still has much support, especially from small business owners and working class people, many of which formerly voted Socialist out of, well, ‘tradition’ (i.e. the lie that only Socialists are pro-working-class). The trouble is that the VB has given in to the neoconservative discourse in identifying Islam as the number 1 problem our country is facing, aka ‘Islamisation’. In so doing, they have adopted a pro-Israel stance and are now an all-out Zionist political party, with the head of the party having visited Israeli colonies. In that regard, they resemble Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands more than anything else. And we all know Wilders’ background. It is also similar to the way the FN (National Front) in France increasingly targets Islam, though unlike the FN, the VB is often blatantly pro-US Republican, pro-Tea Party, and not as strongly opposed to globalism as the FN is. Let’s face it - globalism is that satanic spirit trying to disband nations by mass immigration. Not Islam. THis is what most people fail to see. If there were not that many Muslims, we wouldn’t have a problem. And it’s not like Negroes or even many Eastern Europeans and Gypsies are much better. None of them belong in our country, or at least not in huge numbers. Blaming Islam is Zionist deception, and most people are buying it in one way or another. The reason is simple. Most people will claim they oppose Islam rather than immigrants themselves because it is not a race and Islam would mean the end of modern-day Western decadence. It is precisely this decadence that most people are afraid to lose. This is why blaming Islam as the VB and others do is a diversion from the truth. It is not going to solve our demographic problems and is certainly not going to restore the religious fabric of the West before it was turned into the subverted entity it is. In other words, while anti-Islam and even anti-immigrant feelings do certainly exist (I know of people who call themselves ‘racists’), the underlying causes remain unidentified and people want to fight the symptoms rather than the disease. I still vote VB because it is the ultimate ‘Up Yours’ statement and the only party that defends the traditional family values I believe in and opposes sexual perversions. It is pro-small business, opposed to the European Union, very tough on crime and immigration, and certainly far more ethnocentric than any other so-called ‘Right’-wing party. I will never be a card-carrying member, though. I might have once I was still a Brussels Journal-type of conservative, but I’m just too cynical about politics. I also don’t think any label really fits me. I am a traditionalist, a White preservationist, and an anti-globalist with Fascist tendencies and sympathies. Find me a way to fit all that into one… Sorry for making this so long and perhaps turning it into a rant. I still hope I have answered your question. 101
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:22 | #
This isn’t possible as there’s no comment moderation here and no automated filter checking the body of a comment prior to accepting it. @John I get your point… good question for Haller. 102
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:29 | #
This is totally congruent with my own experience, but there is no need to make a joke of it. I affiliate with open National Socialists and racial activists of various sorts, and I’m continuously amazed at the way women go after these guys. They will literally line up for good looking, charismatic White racialists. All this whining about racialism being an impediment to romance is just rationalization in my opinion. It reminds me of the strategies employed by unattractive women who rationalize the absence of male interest by defensively setting unrealistic standards for prospective suitors. I suspect the problem closet racialists have is that they hide their beliefs, just like they hide their real names on blogs. Women have nothing against racialists. They just rightfully disdain cowards.
103
Posted by uh on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:50 | #
Ouch. Equating racialists with fat girls. Not a kindly gesture, my friend. Well look, we know there is a section of racialists who hold unrealistic expectations of how women must already conform to their worldview or to some silly, superannuated chivalrous ideal. But in the main it’s just white men who can’t make average women understand that “Demokratie bringen uns den Volkstod”. I don’t wish to have to argue the existence of hundreds of thousands of pretty white girls who like all sorts of normal white things — camping, healthy food, documentaries, children, books, sunny days at the park — but who react defensively at the merest suggestion of brand loyalty. This is usually where a white nationalist says, “Well you have to bring them around.” But the majority does not enjoy the resources to commit the time and effort to bringing a woman along an experience curve. Such effort is reserved for children. With a woman it happens of its own momentum or does not. For most it does not. Of course there is some rationalization; men have a hamster too, it just isn’t in perpetual overdrive like women’s hamster. It can, usually with little resistance, be made to stop in its tracks and rationally account for itself. A lot of the Spearhead / In Mala Fide stuff in particular goes a bit far in reducing the entirety of the female demographic to dating site queens and fickle college sluts. And yet white women are undeniably less given to our politics and react vehemently if such are stated plainly. I tread dangerous territory here, having been banned for “misogyny” (lozlzoozz) not long ago, but the inciting comment of that affair speaks to this — this is why you see far fewer women among nationalist gatherings and generally of a low genetic quality. Imagine a pretty 20-something blond hipster, or hell, a German hottie at some university playing volleyball between classes. Now put yourself in her shoes. The order of the day is inclusion, not exclusion. As a girl you have a lot of empathy for everything that breathes, so naturally, you prefer to include. Now along comes a guy who has things going for him, you go out (not that girls “go out” anymore, and actually reject men who propose it), you see him for a while, then one night in bed or wherever, he says that he isn’t so sure immigration has been good for us as a people. “As a people” ... umm ... and the barrier cobbled together from women’s innate empathy and political ideology goes up. Don’t kid yourself or get lost in tough love criticism, Jimmy. This is how it goes in most cases. Unless my experience is completely unique, a few of you will have gone through it too. Guest Lurker just gave us a pointed example, and I doubt he’s any sort of slouch. Leon has solved the problem by going for a slant. For the rest of us ... we become the stranger, the foreigner, the alien. This is by design. It is exactly the effect that YKW intended to produce. It is the hidden logic of German antifa girls toting signs like: “Keine Sex mit Nazis” and “Wir <3 Volkstod”. The fact is that the “beta majority” cannot compete for the skirts anymore. Some quantity of them find their way to racialism, rendering themselves still more unlovable. So right, it isn’t racialism does it, but it really does compound the problem. The sexual marketplace not only places no value on brand loyalty, it actively punishes those offering it. Hence the need to sweeten the deal with some other value like caddish humor, or whatever.
True — they disdain cowards. They love a forthright type. Usually that forthright type is close to or surpassing six feet tall, has some disposable income, and has passed through life on a cloud of positive experience and self-assertion. One must applaud him on his way and not be a man of ressentiment. Yet this isn’t the majority. You know that. You know most men are in the dumps, their blood full of cortisol, their attitude anxious, as perpetually uncertain as their dim prospects. For every one of you who own property and has a wife, there are ten of us who have not and likely never will. You will have to excuse us if we walk into society with our guard up, forgetting to be dashing and of good cheer, i.e. a court jester to amuse women. Such attitude isn’t the psychological profile of the majority being displaced from what little racial belonging they ever knew. And anyhow, women trade in men for much less than racialism — it’s a rare, and probably very suboptimal, woman who will tag along for the social ostracism incurred by open racialism. Sorry if this tosses the timid into confusion. Hypergamy and the supporting welfare state mean they don’t “have to settle”. I don’t know — there may be mateable chicks friendly to brand loyalty in English slums and Oregon trailer parks — I’ve never been to such places. As it is the majority do not live there and have to consort with those we are dealt by the environment. Actually I’d much rather be in Orange County than elsewhere given the number of “Aryan” scenesters out there. I repeat: “Normal” white girls want nothing to do with racialism. Being a cad (or “good looking, charismatic”) can go some way to overcoming resistance, but it offers only the short-term prospect of sexual satisfaction, not mating prospects.
105
Posted by uh on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:04 | # One last point. The next step in this line of reasoning —
— is the “profound” pseudo-psychological observation that racialists “must not really want” normal relations with women. For, as the secular religious never tire of reminding one, “If you want something bad[ly] enough, you’ll do anything to get it!” And here one remembers that mating among white humans in 2011 is an extremely dodgy affair that most often fails or amounts to a woefully raw deal for the male. This isn’t the 1950s, man. Women “aren’t into” normal anymore. If this were not so, there would be no debate and the scene would be littered with successful, positive, pro-white couples of the stamp imagined into existence by Farnham O’Reilly in his schmaltzy series of editorials at OccObs. Instead we see hordes of successful brown couples, with the white couples in goody-goody enclaves like Livonia and the Pac NW. Meanwhile the majority fucking stagnates in negritude and desperation and loneliness. But “come home” says that shlub Covington — if you have enough money! 106
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:12 | #
Neither do “normal” white men. When it comes to the “abnormals,” the difference between men and women is more “abnormals” among men just as fewer women are interested in politics in general. Why do you keep saying that you were banned for misogyny? There was a commenter here, Fred Scrooby, whose misogyny was so extreme [e.g., women shouldn’t have the right to vote, giving women the right to vote has a lot to do with the West’s predicament] that it was difficult to believe that he really endorsed it; it appeared that he was trying to discredit MR. Yet no one banned him. So why would anyone ban you for misogyny? 107
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:22 | # I think we basically understand each other, Uh. I don’t disagree with anything you have written, but you and I both know that attractive men will get women regardless of their political persuasions. We also know that success is a powerful attractant. My point is that, I have seen successful White activists knock women off their feet. Unfortunately, this fact is little practical import, because most of us have very little success in our racialist pursuits. Nevertheless, if a prospective racial advocate makes a public display of his sentiments, there will be a thousandfold increase in the probabilities of him meeting a women who is appreciative of similar aesthetics. This strategy does not involve finding the right women. It involves broadcasting a particular aspect of your personality, so that many women become aware of that aspect and one or more may seek you out on that basis, so due to female self-selection, your racialism acts as an inducement rather an impediment in bed. Its a long shot, but I’ve seen it work. As a racialist strategy, it harnesses sexual energy to our cause. It’s also dangerous, which is aphrodisiacal. 108
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:44 | # In reviewing my last comment I realize that I was mistaken in the use of the term “racialist”. In my opinion, racialist views are not sexy in and of themselves because most races are legitimately seen as being at a competitive disadvantage to Whites. For my proposed strategy to work, the opponent being attacked must be seen as having more power than the activist, therefore the ideal target is Jewry. The power of Jews in America, especially in Miami, should be so obvious as to be unavoidable by now. Speak out against it, and get laid! Its only after people reach the stage of recognizing that racial violence from the lower races is being fomented against innocent Whites by Jewish treachery that racialism, per se, becomes sexy. 109
Posted by Thought Criminal on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:59 | # Well sorry if this seems somewhat snide but Miss Average isn’t interested in politics as such, let alone the type of politics that many here endorse. Of course if one is talking about a long-term relationship and children then some common values and interests will help sustain the partnership but such things need not encompass specific political positions as such. Very few people are political with a capital P. I don’t really discuss politics with my wife but do we have many overlapping and complimentary interests along with a shared core of broadly defined common values and similar educational levels. Unless one is compelled to sit at the dinner table every night screaming about the “Niggers and Jews” a la chez Linder I can’t really see what the issue is. Do you want a wife and companion or a political fellow-traveller that happens to be female? But it does helps being someone approaching normal, i.e. not a Neo-Nazi, nor an oddball libertarian, nor a wannabe Nietzschean superman etc. I guess some women love a dangerous ‘bad boy’ but probably not the majority, especially if children will be on the agenda at some point. 110
Posted by danielj on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:01 | # There was a commenter here, Fred Scrooby, whose misogyny was so extreme [e.g., women shouldn’t have the right to vote, giving women the right to vote has a lot to do with the West’s predicament] that it was difficult to believe that he really endorsed it; it appeared that he was trying to discredit MR. My misogyny is a lot more extreme than Fred’s and I think less of women than even the “game” guys. The empowerment of women is the death of civilization. Culture is male. I certainly believe all of what you attribute to Fred and worse. I hope nobody thinks I’m trying to discredit (what little credit is left) MR. 111
Posted by Patton on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:04 | # To me, my racialist views are really about defending traditional Western society and to represent the best we have. I strive to be virtuous and gentlemanly in dealing with others, including non-Whites. In fact, when confronted with non-Whites, especially those who are not immigrants but visitors (etc) to Europe, I try to be an ambassador of the West. I openly criticise the modern West while defending true Western civilisation and the best we have to offer by trying to be a living testimony to that - not so much out of a feeling of superiority over others, but so as to instil respect in others. I think the same can be applied to women. It is difficult, however, because at times you feel extremely angry over what is happening and like ‘uh’ said, you basically don’t always feel like being that charming guy towards some attractive woman when you are likely to be wasting your time - again. Sometimes the strategy works in that women do appreciate a good moral character and strong convictions, but anger can ruin everything. Whatever you do, the trick is not to erupt in angry tirades or use ethnic slurs and the likes in front of women. Even those that dislike foreigners themselves tend to be put off by this. Hiding your true convictions, however, is never a good idea, especially not if you want an honest and lasting relationship. It’s all easier said than done, though. As long as you don’t bring up commitment and child-rearing, it’s all good. Even the most ‘racist’ and conservative girls don’t care about children and if they do they want maybe one and that’s it. Given the feminist and pseudo-pornographic role models women have these days, they will appreciate your gentlemanliness as long as you’re the one who’s paying and holding the door. In return, you can expect them to spend your money on one of their shopping binges and sipping expensive cocktails during Ladies’ Nights. I’m broad-brushing, I’m sure, but this is what I have seen from my experience and much observation. 112
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:45 | # @Danielj Scrooby’s manner of presentation of what he alleged to be his views on women was directed toward discrediting MR. Yours isn’t, even if your beliefs are worse than the Scroob’s stated beliefs. On the topic of whose empowerment leads to the death of civilization, I hope that you eventually realize that the enemy’s spelt J-E-W-S, not W-O-M-E-N. Ever heard of make love not war? Replace this with make love to women, wage war against Jews. 113
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:43 | # Make love to women. Make war against Jews. God, I love this guy! But, if you want to start off with warm and fuzzy approach, instead of attacking Jews directly, get involved in publicizing the Palestinian Holocaust. Jews will automatically undertake their traditional forms of kikecanery against you. If you can’t get laid under these circumstances, you’re hopeless. 114
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:54 | # Too bad this church isn’t in Miami. It’d be a good place to get started with your Palestinian advocacy. Plus, you’d have a high probability of meeting Leon Haller among the ushers (if that’s not him on stage). 116
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:20 | # J Richards, Silver, Scrooby, and Haller (uh, too) are amongst—but not limited too— the best commenters that have the grit to post their comments here. Many appreciate that! Hence, knock off your BS about threatening to ban them. 117
Posted by uh on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:34 | # Jimmy, Miami’s saturation with Jews is recognized by all in routinely glib fashion. Jews have rolled their eyes to me at the Jewish presence. The Hispanics don’t seem eager to avoid criticism of them. But this is all anecdotal and useless in affecting a horizontal merger with the female race. The only thing that really works is, of course, loads of money. Or drugs — women love drugs. This is the only way to explain the popularity of the drug dealers I see with the local talent. I once told a reformed morphine addict that if I had my way, dealers would all be shot; she was quick to say no, leave the dealers alone, they’re just trying to make a living ... it’s the girls who go for it that ought to be shot. Must admit the notion had its appeal, but of course it is the source and not the target that is to blame. Already uh is plotting his escape from MIA. It is intolerable. As I said to a friend in e-mail, Miami would be a formidable stress test of any white nationalist’s mentality. If you can make it here without falling apart, as I have, you are the toughest specimen under the sun. Of course it is made all the worse (for me) for not having social habits to begin with. If I were a party-goer I’m sure it would be somewhat easier, but not by much. Being thrust upon my own company so completely, yet without privacy or recourse to nature, lacking even the sound of my own speech echoed in my neighbors, living here has encouraged a deeply depressive narcissism that prevents me from cultivating an objectivity that I’d like to bring to topics you lot seem to discuss so free of emotional disturbance. This is exactly what happens to expats who don’t make friends with other expats, for example at weekly expat clubs. Yet even that is easier, for abroad one is classifiably the foreigner — the experience here is being surrounded by hordes of unmannerly aliens who may mince their way through our language, but of course share nothing else with one. I am actually leaving out altogether the galling, unbearable class stratification; a bunch of sweaty, shallow, pseudo-glitterati browns obsessed with “laifstyeel”. My feeling toward unchecked wealth before was merely a bemused alienation, shading into a theoretical opposition, coming from an affinity for the Gospel and Marxist literature; now it is purely explosive. I intend to devote as much brainpower as I can muster to reading through the ongoing economic discussions here. They may have value, they may not. I’m a dunce anyway. In the end I believe enemies of the people must be ___ and their works ___. A line is drawn and defended or it is blurred and crossed. Hunter Wallace was right to write off South Florida as a complete loss. Many sectors can be red-inked this way, but perhaps none so thickly as this one.
Yes. But it’s a slim thing on which to hang the reproductive success of “the race”. I mean, we all have to make this choice from out of the dualistic chaos of our emotions. Some days we feel like nietzschean elitists who smugly remind ourselves that reproductive disparity is hard but the way of nature, and must be borne. Some days we remember who we are and feel a great agonizing sympathy for our own kind, which is, after all, to sympathize with just what one is. For me there is no final choice; I’ll vacillate between these two modes my whole life, I suppose because I’m neither a man of the people nor an elite, really. Just an observer caught between the two perspectives. Someone like Greg Johnson has made the choice because his finances and position enable him to keep up the facade of elitist. But it isn’t a real “choice”, of course, because everything exists and one can only pose as an evaluator of What Is Best. I have always been torn between this duality — sympathy for the plight of the many, acknowledgement that resources are limited and the result is endless strife, even at the cost of honoring our affiliations. Consider all the rural whites, good old English and Celtic stock, who were lured to California by quite literal promises of easy pickings — of course the news of work spread like prairie fire among the multitude and many more showed up to work than could be accommodated, owing to the dust and nascent monocropping, so they suffered. The landowners and overseers of necessity hardened their hearts against them, people of their own blood, to safeguard their responsibilities. It is easy to retroject our obsession with race and charge them with disloyalty, but of course they had no idea, the Okies were invaders like Mexicans are, which really disproves racialism as a viable ideology. Anyhow, one of the affiliations to suffer is the oldest of all — man and woman. I know enough from the eggheads to be mostly convinced that modern humans are descended from more than twice as many females as males. Polygamy was and is a fact; today the lever is hypergamy. Yet of course there were “bubbles” in which the lower males were able to secure loyal if homely mates. That was good. An illiterate toothless sharecropper could score a wife and have a little scrubby family like this one. Think any Amurrcan woman would for that today? Of course not, you will think; it isn’t necessary. And yet it is necessary to survive in numbers great enough to match the aliens. Pure ecological competence. Sacrifice precious “standards” and carry on the race, or become a minority. Women will be the last to do this, if the decision is ever forced. They will suck up to the state all the harder as conditions decline, precisely as they are doing now. It’s tricky because “women” is not the semantic category that “Jews” is; they are not a limited ideological or ethnic group, but half the damned species, and for this reason are an ever bigger threat to the race if not properly controlled. Control the women, or the women control you. There is only valence and grace periods in which valence seems to have given way to a happy medium; there is no “complementarity” nor, of course, “equality”. But women are the most uniform believers in equality, not before the law, but in essence — and this single entrenched meme is the most implacable foe of “exclusivist” thinking. You suppose Orthodox Jewish women believe it, ever sacrifice a fleeting moment to contemplating the matter? Of course not: they’re much too busy breeding and inculcating their tribal narrative. This is critical. White nationalists are almost totally blind to it, and like all denialists, they go ape-shit if you talk about it. How dare you criticize our sinless white goddesses, rah, rah! women are our loyal helpmeets in the war against Judah!!! — Ah, the same strident notes of denial. If you want pathetic rationalization, there it is. Ignoring the two hundred pound white elephant girl in the room and castigating your brethren for having the nerve to offer a dissenting view. Truth is that this problem goes deeper than Judah. It goes to the heart of what ails the entire world — runaway urbanization. Too much technology. Too many people. Too much “choice”. The whole affair would have to be scaled back, at this point, to get them under back under reasonable control, but of course technology cannot be reversed ... and there we are: damned by our own ~*FAUSTIAN SPIRIT*~. Yes yes, Jewish feminists and their abettor did their part in exacerbating the rift, but goddamn it, FEMINISM CAME FROM THE ENGLISH UPPER CLASS and women were granted suffrage in America without Jewish agitation. Enfranchisement is not originally Jewish; it is Anglo-American. When you enfranchise an inferior, you sign up your own competitor for the spoils of civilization. Urbanization forces this issue by aggravating proximity; the closer people are, the more present and undeniable their grievances. White women today are absolutely the products of enfranchisement and entitlement. To say a girl has an “entitlement complex” is a much deeper thing than an insult; it is a sociological category. Just as we are all here thanks to fiat-calories from industrial agriculture and medical care from technology, all in our own way suffragettes, women are a higher exponent of this process by the state’s wholesale selling out of the white male underclass for Cheap Chalupas, the massively hostile caste of single moms, kaffir worship in a hundred guises, abortion on demand, etc. We read on blogs such as this sentiments like, “Our governments have betrayed us.” That’s a tad elementary for MR, ok, but you know what I mean. It must be understood that feminist entitlements come under that charge. White women have enlisted on the side of the state. Nothing but the most grinding poverty can pry them from “empowerment” narrative, “women’s health care”, and single mom bennies. All of this emanates from the state. If the state if hostile to us, what does that tell you about women? Again: Women are not “the enemy” as Jews are. The Jews are a discrete group within, a subcategory of humanity. Women are a category of humanity itself. This makes the problem both graver than Jews and more difficult to convey to the other category — men, who may be married and enjoy familial sentiments, may be unattached and internalized white-knighting attitudes, or just regular dudes who think it sounds absurd to say women are this and that. Yet something has happened. Something is broken — and shall remain broken unless and until civilization itself comes to a catastrophic end. Women are all mobbed up in the very social conditions of our dispossession as an extended phenotype; there is just no way around that fact other than blind denial and altruistic punishment. The psychology of pampered western women is not what sustains peoples. It is certainly not what rebuilds a people. And if their love and willingness to have a future with white men depends on being “attractive and charismatic”, or a fat bank account, or just the right road bike and playlist, well fuck me, it sure SOUNDS like their preferences are misaligned and inimical to our worldview. At the very least it must be classed as a real existential threat if it is keeping white birthrates below what are required to avoid going under. Apologists for Israel go on and on about their fictitious “existential threat” and we cannot bring ourselves to admit to each other that white women entitled by the state and modern culture to keep their reproductive value locked up often enough their lives long, then assaulting everyone with whiny accusations in the press that they were misunderstood and couldn’t find “a good man”. Bullocks! They are oversocialized — and the solution is not WN articles extolling their vanishing value, but GREAT POVERTY AND SUFFERING. The MINUTE society takes away her bennies and her Mac, the white woman will change her tune. She won’t stand around long cursing “all these BOYS” for not giving her just what she wants “and DESERVES”; she’ll run for cover with we less attractive, short, impecunious, unlucky types. Just as they always do. Read first-hand accounts of life in the Balkans during the Yugoslav Wars or in Grozny under Russian bombardment. The daughters of the women who were lucky to eat one straight meal a day, usually thin soup, and not piss it out in their bedrooms are today flocking to “education centers” — learning the internet and of the wonderful rights-filled world beyond their backwater. Urbanization and technology = feminism = disconnect from the race.
But understand that with this you are only reinforcing another mechanism of the problem — not mere female selection but hypergamy, the tendency not merely to withhold sexual access and reproductive rights from males who don’t make adequate display or lose in contests, but to withdraw it later from those once rewarded. Those able to broadcast great personality are too few to matter even if we accept harems as a means to restock white numbers, which they aren’t given niche competition with those still reproducing fast enough to ensure demographic saturation before their rates stabilize owing to assimilation to living standards. I may be very wrong about this, but I don’t think women who contract to share one’s bed on the strength of the nether-tingle produced by displaying a “dangerous” ideology are the stuff of wives and mothers. May be very wrong here. Ugh, sorry to sound adversarial — I’m such a one-track beast that I fall into a mode and plow right through with it. I agree that we don’t really disagree, etc. Just alerting you to a train of thought that seems, in my view, to abet the problem. I don’t go on about this even at Roissy for example; that being the raison d’etre for such blogs. But even he is aware of this dilemma. At bottom he acknowledges that women must be controlled to be useful to the nation; otherwise they are a drain. And at this point the old voice wells up, telling me to quit all the blather, they will pass from the scene as they deserve ...
118
Posted by danielj on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:37 | # On the topic of whose empowerment leads to the death of civilization, I hope that you eventually realize that the enemy’s spelt J-E-W-S, not W-O-M-E-N. Ever heard of make love not war? Replace this with make love to women, wage war against Jews. I say love the vagina and hate the brain it is attached to. You are right though. The liberation of the Jew meant the unleashing of the ferocious side of cunts. The woman is a wedge the same way the nigger is. 119
Posted by Thought Criminal on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:01 | # @Jimmy Of course one can say that one believes in justice for the Palestinian people and thus signal you’re a caring person. Equally I believe in justice for the European peoples (is being deprived of one’s place within your ancestral homelands not an injustice?). There need be nothing reactionary or ‘right-wing’ about preserving the particular politico-cultural collective institutions we call nations. Nationalism as a political force has many meanings and forms. As for your video link it’s nice to see proud and loyal Americans that care more about the fate of Israel than their own country but within the religious marketplace the customer at the Mega-church is never wrong (as is true in any other marketplace). Jimmy do you know if Catholics can also be ‘Christian Zionists’ or is it only a Protestant thing? What about the weirdos that speak gibberish..what are they called Hallerites?...no wait Pentecostals. Yet another fine example of contemporary popular American religiosity that no-one could possibly object to. In fact one should celebrate such profound phenomena as Glossolalia (even if it looks to the uneducated eye as being but a hair’s breadth away from a typical Vodou ceremony). Now where can I pick up a copy of the ‘Left Behind’ novels - again a wonderful example of the best of Western civilisation. Because no matter how debased or stupid it may be religion, in whatever form, is ipso facto a good thing. Any other sentiment is getting into dangerous ‘thought-crime’ territory. 120
Posted by GenoType on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:06 | #
In terms of free speech MR is second only to VNN, probably the most worthless WN forum on the Internet. But even the mighty Linder has rules, slaps an ostrich pic on the nuttiest of nutball posts, and sends the nutters to a ‘tard corral.
Haller’ a SoCal yuppie. A special folder called “Hallertoses” would be an enormous boost to his ego. Simply call your special folder, “Trash.” Also, relocate the spam attacks this site periodically receives from anti-White sources to the Trash as well. Post a warning about clicking the hyperlinks in the Trash folder.
121
Posted by uh on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:10 | #
Fair points. It is certainly a mistake to mix political ideology with familial considerations, but that’s the paradigm forced by enfranchisement of women. In the old days of course the two could be kept rigidly separate, like science and domestic faith. This neat bourgeois idyll is dead. Women are politicized whether we will or no. They are running around the agora screeching about this and that. Even if you, in lordly fashion, seek not to confuse her with ideas above her understanding, she will watch TV or read a blog one day and bring it up. Or it will just arise from environmental conditions. You will have to stop short on the road one day because some officious kaffir is shlepping across it whilst holding up his pants. Then what do you say? “Oh dear, look at this inconsiderate fellow; well let’s let him pass and be on our way.” — Do I speak only for myself when I say that my first impulse is to lean out the window and let off some steam with a choice epithet? how much indignity and insult will I have to swallow before I develop a cancer somewhere uncomfortable? If she’s a fellow-traveler in my car, she had better be a fellow-traveler in spirit or she won’t last long, and good riddance to her. Christ, even Guessedworker has bigger balls than that. Remember his train story?
I don’t disagree with you. Breeding and cleaning up are Miss Average’s true concerns, not what goes on past the household, much less the village fence. But again: she is implicated anyhow. She is a political factor. A host of factors — greater need for state services; inclination to empathy; grossly uneven divorce laws; decades of entitlement and feminist prompting, that is, a tradition of vociferous rebellion against womahood — amount to her siding with the state every time. Her endorsement is crucial. Her continual withholding thereof is our doom as a race. Agh, I have more to say (lozlozz) but this bagel shop is closing, thanks to Thorn for the compliment and the general climate of approval — much appreciated. Whitepower and goodnight. 122
Posted by danielj on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:15 | # Uh my friend. You’re needling the thing. On point nigga. Already uh is plotting his escape from MIA. I’ve got a spare room man. Although it isn’t much better here… 123
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:27 | #
I hear that voice as well. Perhaps the best we can do is keep our eyes wide open as it unfolds. You’re doing a good job of documenting it, just as I was beginning to despair over our efforts’ sufficiency. I can see the issues you mention more easily in the marriages of my children, than in my own, but the precursors are clear even there. I went to a City Council meeting last night to discuss the future of the Occupy Eugene camp and it became very clear to me that our female Mayor and Councilwomen are completely incapable of reckoning effectively with the challenge. They seemed to me, to be occupiers themselves. Even they, implicitly admit that they are waiting for disaster. They could clear the camp now, but that would be the municipal equivalent of Operation Barbarossa, so here we sit waiting for the other shoe to drop. 124
Posted by Thought Criminal on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:22 | # Well a couple of points my wife (along with most people) isn’t really interested in big P politics. I have many, many books on political philosophy etc. She did half-read my copy of “The Holocaust Industry” Why not? I’m not embarrassed to own that book but she didn’t bother with book on the Israel lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. And I’d be amazed to see her pick up my copy of Isaiah Berlin’s collected essays on liberty (they are so boring and dry in style I can’t believe I did). Not because the ideas are above her station, or some such nonsense, it’s simply not one of her interests. As for finding a partner, starting a family (the biggest contribution anyone can make really) don’t let the best be the enemy of the good. No marriage or relationship is perfect in every possible way. Knowing the difference between what to compromise on (and how to do so gracefully) and what not to compromise on is important. Pragmatism of tactics in pursuit of strategic goals can work wonders. And honestly, no I have never experienced the ‘need’ to scream racial epithets. Even if one did do American’s not have polite manners in their everyday lives anymore? Hypocrisy and repression are not always forces for bad in society. I don’t really go around in a state of all-consuming hate on a day to day basis. I’m more ‘out of sorrow than anger’ guy most of the time. And focusing upon the individual in the street is a misdirection – I’m displeased with the enablers of that situation not the individual people for whom in their own self-interest it makes rational sense to come to the West (extend your imaginative sympathies and ask if you had the chance to escape a third-world hell-hole would you turn it down?). Having said that if I see large groups of ethnic minorities out and about I will, on the basis of the precautionary principle, try to avoid them but that is also true of home-grown yobs and yobettes too. 125
Posted by anon on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:49 | # @Dan Dare
The EU is breaking up as a consequence of the ongoing banking crisis. This will dissipate some of the institutional anti-nationalism that resulted from the world wars. The continental political class will become overtly hostile to Britain and America because of Wall St. and the City. So, a mixed bag: good for nationalists in Europe, neutral outside Europe, mixed bad/good in Britain, with a risk of external hostility pushing patriots in America and Wall St. to side with the banksters. 126
Posted by AnalogMan on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:40 | # dc @94: What expectations did you have for me to disappoint? I considered you an intelligent man. “Leon Haller’s comments are always (as far as I can recall) polite, articulate and relevant. “ Entirely possible. I don’t read this blog every day. I could miss a lot. That’s just my recollection. Haller is the only one here who throws about personal abuse. Refer your previous comment, to which I responded. You don’t consider that personal abuse? What, pray tell, are you good for? Consider me your conscience. To keep you honest. JRichards @ 101: This isn’t possible as there’s no comment moderation here and no automated filter checking the body of a comment prior to accepting it. Very strange, since both comments that mysteriously disappeared were in response to Leon Haller, and both were on the subject of White Zion. I assumed there was an editorial policy against encouraging him on that subject. Must be just coincidence. Maybe this is how superstitions get started. 127
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:52 | # Suffragettes on parade.
So what, it’s not one and the same. Wallace makes the same mistake in trying to link 1866 to 1965. The WKKK supported enfranchisement. Mary ‘Slasher’ Richardson went on to join the British Union of Fascist in 1934. Sanger views on sterilzation of blacks and immigrants are long recognized. Enfranchisement and racialism were not mutually exclusive. The belief that “The white race is the cancer of human history” finds its origins in the Frankfurt school not the National Gallery in London. 128
Posted by Patton on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:25 | #
I don’t know if you have ever seen Insider but this film (based on the life of Jeffrey Wigand) gives a very good idea of how screwed up and selfish most women really are these days. Here you have a guy who’s sacrificing almost everything he has for the greater good of society in exposing the tobacco industry. His own life and that of his family is at risk. However, he at least enjoys protection and though he’s lost his marvellous home given to him by the corporation he used to work for, he’s managed to find a nice and more humble home for his family to live in. When he hears CBS isn’t going to air his interview, his life falls apart since it seems he’s given up all for nothing. At that point, just when he needs support more than ever, his wife files for divorce and abandons him, taking the children with her. ’ I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad’, my butt. I may be cynical but I’m beginning to wonder this is even possible today. It seems to me that there’s a much higher chance your friends will stay loyal to you in bad times. Even children are not enough to keep people from divorcing. White nationalists should support much tougher divorce laws. Here is a good article explaining why.
Good point. While Judah promotes Feminism and Khazars are behind much of the pornography industry we are surrounded by today, it shouldn’t be forgotten that there is no race apart from Whites that so readily sells their souls to big cash by engaging in the porn industry, the only exception being the Japanese, perhaps. I have been in the Czech Republic for a while and though many people are ‘racist’ by Western European standards, they appear proud of the fact that their ‘beautiful’ women are among the most popular in the x-rated industry. In addition, birthrates are falling in much of this part of Europe, too. If women in my country were as beautiful, they say, more of them would be in the porn business, as well. Is that the attitude of pro-Whites? I find this to be an utter lack of self-respect. It may be the ‘macho’ thing to say but it is uncivilised and befitting only of beasts. We have no basis to claim to be the ‘best’ among races and lock down on Negroes if we condone this. No self-respecting party that seeks to preserve the best of Western civilisation should fall for the ‘Islam is opposed to this so we will support it’ kind of thinking, which is all too common these days. To give up our quest for higher truth and virtue in the face of adversity is to commit suicide. 129
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:51 | #
The truth of this statement is dependent on the assumption that suicide is unvirtuous and that’s a value judgement. I can accept suicide as a valid alternative, but I feel a strong urge to resist unconscious participation in racial suicide (submission to genocide) when it seems to be occurring without consciousness or its commission. In a way, collective suicide (submission to genocide) seems like a fitting end to a Christian civilization, does it not? If the whole point of our savior’s life was to die, what greater destiny might we imagine for ourselves? Many of us will deny that we are Christians, but that doesn’t negate the fact that many of our forebears were. It seems to me that some of us are waking up the fact that we are well advanced along the path to Calvary. What were our ancestors thinking when they set us upon this path? Were they stupid? If so, how’d we get so smart all of a sudden? 130
Posted by Patton on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:27 | # Jimmy Marr, you’re forgetting that by His death, the Saviour conquered death. I think your idea of collective suicide is more befitting of Islam, which seems to think that killing innocent infidels and committing suicide in the action is going to get you into paradise. Christian martyrdom is the exact opposite. It is fight for what you believe is worth dying in defence of life, and being killed in doing so by another man’s hands, but not by taking your own life. That takes courage, conviction and hope. Suicide shows a lack of respect for the gift of life, and is the epitome of an egoist mindset. To live is to struggle. 131
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:05 | # @Thorn I’ve never threatened to ban Silver, Scrooby or Haller. The Haller problem’s either taken care of or will be without a ban. The Scrooby problem’s apparently a historical one. I wanted to embarrass him into leaving MR by showing how someone with apparent Jew-ass cancer, to borrow Martin Lindstedt’s term, mellowed when more serious Jewish crimes were brought up, chickened out when the most serious ones were mentioned, and when it came to the money issue, defended fractional reserve banking. But my first major attempt was crude and a failure. A subtle approach would’ve worked, and that was my intent but I got sidetracked and took a hiatus. When I came back the Scroob was gone. If he’s gone for good, then good riddance! It was never about banning Haller or Scrooby, and I don’t see how you brought Silver or Uh into the equation. 132
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:12 | # @Danielj If you love the vagina and hate the brain attached to it, you’ve got reasons to appreciate the typical brain that goes with a penis in a similar manner, too. Let’s see why. A comparison of the minds of men and women has been the subject of extensive investigations. What happens when you analyze all the data? You observe that male and female minds are mostly similar. Here’s the peer-reviewed published study where the data are documented: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16173891 Here’s a pdf of the study for your verification: http://majorityrights.com/uploads/Hyde-2005.pdf Notice two things in the pdf: the data and the interpretation. I can tell you upfront that the author’s interpretation’s largely useless, but the data are what count, and they show an overall pattern of gender similarity. Where differences exist, they tend to be mostly small. When the differences are moderate or large, the instances are few: motor control, interest in people vs. things, sexual attitudes and aggression toward strangers. It’s clear that some of these differences give the advantage, on average, to women when it comes to racialist issues. An example’s sexual attitudes, where white men are much more willing to have sex with non-whites than white women. Another example’s the relative preference for jobs requiring interaction with people, where women are more likely to find objectionable working with people they can’t relate to (cultural and racial aliens). And some differences aren’t advantages or disadvantages by themselves, such as propensity for aggression toward strangers as this may be fruitful if the collateral damage’s low or disastrous if the collateral damage’s considerable. Now, unlike Scrooby, I know you’re not malicious, open to examining hard data and willing to reconsider your views. So know this. The liberation of the Jew didn’t translate to the unleashing of the ferocious side of cunts; it translated to more men viewing women as cunts and more women viewing men as dicks. Lovemaking’s turned into a screwing of each other, and men and women attempt to screw each other in different ways without awareness that one’s being screwed by Jews, who are using distraction to deflect attention from what they’re doing… hauling the loot to the bank. Follow the idea in Desmond Jones’ comment @127. Feminism from the mid-20th century onward has been an implementation of the 100% kosher Frankfurt School approach, having little to do with the Anglo women’s rights movement for enfranchisement, educational rights and other rights. 133
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:38 | #
This has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-white or with self-respect. There are many more Nigerians and Chinese than Czechs, and considering how many Nigerian and Chinese women work as prostitutes, surely there’d be lots of Nigerian and Chinese porn stars if there were enough of a demand for them, but a much smaller Czech population beats them to it. It has to do with what the world finds more attractive, and is a compliment to Czech beauty, especially considering that few among an already small population are willing to act in pornographic shoots and that the top-tier [in looks] doesn’t act in pornography. It boils down to a compliment to Czech beauty, and if many Czechs find it pleasing, it doesn’t mean they condone pornography or derive pride from participation in pornography. 134
Posted by Andrew Neather on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:15 | # Patton, Oh and one final word about Emma West and a few other ‘racist train rant’ videoes doing the rounds of YouTube.All feature women (‘the gentler sex’), strangely enough.I love the one of the Penelope Keith lookalike and soundalike on the tube moaning at some poor russian dupe (‘get yourself an English girlfriend!’). 135
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:38 | #
Christianity was spread by the sword in most parts of Europe. It’s not like there was a choice and rational thinking was involved among many converts. Patton @130 You’ve got Islam all wrong. Infidels aren’t innocent and suicide’s forbidden in Islam. What you’re calling suicide in Islam is actually martyrdom, the same martyrdom that you praise in Christianity. Don’t be misled by the propaganda you encounter in the mainstream media. The typical “Muslim suicide bomber” is an act orchestrated by Jews that’s blamed on Muslims. Here’s the truth behind the car bombs allegedly detonated by Muslims: http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/crater.avi BTW, via his crucifixion, Christ didn’t conquer death, he saved humanity. @Genotype Nice to know MR isn’t the most worthless in its genre. I don’t think we’ll ever have VNN beat. Hallertoses would be a location within the trash area, and it doen’t matter if Haller would appreciate all his postings in one place because they’d be out of the way and not distract others. The spam that MR gets isn’t supposed to be relocated to the trash bin as that’ll only encourage the spammers to get link juice out of spamming MR. Spam should be deleted. Reducing the spam problem involves either inconveniencing the commenter or making the website hosting service provider complain about excessive resource usage. Websites try to avoid both problems by using external spam filtering services, but I’d be the last person to use this solution as it compromises the privacy of commenters, causes occasional deletion as a result of false positives, and subjects submitted comments to targeted deletion by malicious operators instructed to flag MR comments. So manual deletion of spam it’ll have to be till the point that it gets out of control, forcing the adoption of different anti-spam measures. 136
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:58 | # @JR Wouldn’t a more advanced Captcha type system rid the site of much of the spam? 137
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:41 | # @Liberal heresy The captcha used by MR was cracked by spammers years ago. But the problem with a better captcha is that if it’s harder for bots to crack, it’s also harder for commenters to get right, and it becomes frustrating when you have to enter captchas twice or more before you get it right. Just imagine how bad it is for readers who can’t see and would like to submit a comment but their screen readers can’t read the captcha. Captchas also assume that the spamming’s by bots, but the majority of spamming here involves human input. MR’s current captcha system blocks bots operated by unsophisticated spammers, and unless the traffic grows so much that more sophisticated spammers target MR often, I don’t see the value of a harder captcha, but I’ll look into some options. @Andrew Neather
Western man doesn’t need to control women. Women are our equal partners in life.
Most Czech women aren’t whoring around, and whoredom’s generally highly objectionable to women. Women tend to use their sexuality to negotiate better terms with men. The rarer women make access to sex, the better the terms of negotiation for them. Whores devalue women by making sex more easily accessible, which’s why the majority of women dislike whores or women who easily give it away, and don’t want to whore around. Get your facts straight. Rest assured, “gynocracy” doesn’t want vulnerable girls groomed for prostitution by Muslim gangs. This grooming’s disproportionately by lower class and more crime-prone immigrants, looking to exploit the petty opportunities that come their way. These immigrants were let in in the hope that the troubles they cause would occupy and distract the natives while the real, high-profile thieves go about their business undisturbed. I think you know which community these high-profile people usually belong to.
Some mental illnesses are more common in men, others more common in women. If Emma West suffers from mental illnesses, one of them may be antisocial personality disorder, which’s more common in men. 138
Posted by Patton on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:24 | # @ J Richards
They may call it martyrdom but it is still different from Christian martyrdom in nature. Islamic martyrdom is distinct from Christian martyrdom. You do not train people how to handle explosives and commit suicide attacks and call them martyrs. Martyrs are people who are involuntarily killed by their adversaries. It may be in the context of military action but for the most part, Christian martyrs were not some type of trained Muhajideen, and I will add that I certainly do not see the Crusaders or Knights Templar Mr Breivik is so obsessed about, as martyrs and defenders of the faith. I’ve had a strong interest in Islam for many years. I began as a brainwashed Islamophobic Israel-worshipping neocon but I had a gradual ‘awakening’ and no longer am Islamophobic. I realise the Jews are behind much of the fear-mongering regarding so-called ‘Islamisation’. However, that surely doesn’t mean I can no longer criticise Islam in its own right without being accused of buying into Zionist propaganda? Having said that, I read the essay about the Norwegian on this website a couple of weeks ago and found it highly interesting. With regard to Christ, there’s no opposition between what you’ve said and what I have said earlier. Christ conquered death by His death (and the resurrection following that event). In doing so He defeated death, which is a result of man’s sinfulness, and delivered man from his bondage to it. In that sense, you could say He saved humanity. Anyway, I’m not a theologian so I have to be careful with my wording but at least I tried. Cheers. 139
Posted by Patton on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:41 | # @ J Richards:
I see your point but I find prostitution and pornography to be two entirely things. Both are reprehensible but the latter I find much worse because there is a nihilist and destructive agenda and ideology behind pornography which is generally lacking in prostitution. The oldest profession in the world will always continue to exist, I’m afraid, but pornography is a relatively recent phenomenon, certainly at the scale it is now. I believe our societies are gradually being ‘pornographised’. While many women may not like pornography, you can’t say it has any effect. Men are affected by it, so women indirectly are, too. Just look at modern-day fashion, for crying out loud, or the sexed-up video clips that millions of young girls watch on MTV and the whores and downright trash like Rihanna and Kardashian that constitute their role models these days. Can you imagine young mothers having their babies sport the Playboy logo on their chests? I’ve seen it all too often. I have yet to hear of such abominations in Muslim or non-Western countries, frankly. Non-white countries have their double standards and sexual violence, to be sure, but frankly the light-heartedness with which men AND women these days talk about pornography points at a serious moral problem in our societies. Hedonism is rampant in the West and it is by all means leading to our downfall. While I’m not without sin, I believe in a battling the passions and striving for virtue. It is a struggle but it is one that leads to civilisation and ultimately, if you believe in it, salvation. 140
Posted by Patton on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:45 | # Make that ‘two entirely different things’. Sorry for any typos or oddities. Computers screens make me kind of dyslectic sometimes. 141
Posted by uh on Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:51 | #
142
Posted by uh on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:24 | # J Richards, I maintain Soren turned me out. He’s done it before. Threatened by some of my ideas. Who isn’t? lol @ “gut-sick guido with jew ass-cancer”. Why is that one phrase so memorable?
This is just absurd. White nationalism is a sausage-fest from base to tip. This is perfectly natural; men dare, women take cover. As Svigor said in an older thread, “[women] are about as politically enterprising as Bantus.” Otherwise the stuckment would be full of women. It isn’t.
You confuse racialism (your term above) and philandering. You also leave out of account the runaway popularity, at least in the US, of interracial pornography on the web — overwhelmingly black male / white female. The number of white girls in the pay of Miami pornographers to bang kaffirs alone would equal the number of white men banging Asian girls on the Left Coast. For that matter, I’ve lived long in rural East Coast dystopias, and have seen more than black-on-white than I care to recall. Didn’t see so much in Portland, for example.
You are completely out of touch with average white women — who “would like to be” and become social workers, inner-city teachers, nurses, and caretakers of the very worst elements of society: black delinquents, drunks, junkies, the extremely autistic, etc. They may admit it is objectionable; but they do it anyway. I’ve met more of these than any other sort. It isn’t their fault of course. Without stable, exclusive white community, they’re big misapplied oxytocin machines. I would emphasize big if we’re discussing American women. White women also adopt more “minority” children than non-white women adopt whites. Not by much, as inter-racial adoption isn’t common, but it is the predictably greater incidence (high trust): The most recent estimate of transracial adoption was performed in 1987 by the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). The findings revealed that only 8% of all adoptions include parents and children of different races. An estimated 15% of the 36,000 adoptions of foster children in FY 1998 were transracial or transcultural adoptions. (US DHHS, 2000)
What you do here is take this axiom — women are more empathic by nature — and just twist it to suit your preference: they’re so empathetic they won’t go near kaffirs. But that’s pure bullshit. Everyone here will agree with me. Everyone here will have encountered dozens of women who plunge right into the thick of kaffirdom to “help”. Employment statistics will support this observation. Also, if you have time, look around dating sites — they really are solid studies of modern anti-womanhood. Count how many “want to help” and “love dogs”.
I know you are addressing Daniel, but I’ll nose in anyhow. You are going out of your way here to minimize the neurological differences of man and woman, in the same fashion, and from roughly the same motive, that race-denialists minimize the “very small genetic difference between races”. Our similarity is greater than our difference, they say; and if the numbers alone mattered, they would be right. But of course we can agree, as others have done here before combating this same weaponized logical error, that it’s precisely those few(er) alleles that make the entire difference — precisely as apes and humans are 96-98% similar (I don’t know the current estimate from Chimp Genome Project), therefore clearly, it’s that 2-4% percentile difference that is crucial, as evolutionary biologists themselves admit, and of course conveniently leave out in discussing race. Now I don’t know exactly why you do this. You have an odd perspective — what I would like to call “wrongly right”. You are anti-Jew, but in crackpot fashion. You are pro-white, but to the point of sounding like a denialist when it’s time to shield white women from criticism. At the risk of minimizing you personally it’s the sort of thing I remember from the few minutes I could focus my attention on Stormfront. Understand, I don’t impute to you the subversive intent that you have done to others; only describing what I see. You overinterpret things like mad. White nationalists often do this. They want the world to fit precisely to their mental model, so they connect the dots too forcefully in semanticis.
Then you reject the notion, advanced by scholars no less than Kevin MacDonald, E. Michael Jones and a clutch of smart Juden whose names aren’t coming to me, that Jewish enfranchisement in Europe led to the ugly phenomenon of the red Jewess? I believe K Mac in particular dwells on this in TCoC. This wasn’t ferocious? have you ever met a radical Jewess? As for men viewing women blah blah blah, humans have always shagged, it wasn’t always holy matrimony and missionary — indeed that was the exception if one take the long view. Ever read Ibn Battuta’s account of the charming public habits of the Kievan Rus on market day? how about Tacitus’ of the Germanii? ever read any Balzac or Zola’s Comédie humaine? Not everyone in the world was as uptight as the Anglos and Krauts. Base venery is a human constant. Patriarchy is a social construct (vide the excellent article cited by Patton, above)—which is why it must be defended unto the death. You haven’t touched the formula I offered above, you have only talked around it with some moralistic stuff. urbanism / technology = proximity = compromise = loss of patrimony
All you mean to do here is shield women from any blame and place it entirely upon Jewish shoulders. I hate to be a defender of yidden, but it ain’t so. Enfranchisement of inferiors results from urban crowding, proximity, and social compromise to ease frictions. Entitlement results from the confluence of entrenched chivalric code, the deliberate sabotage of male priority (here blame Jewish feminists in particular, but primarily women in the labor force), resultant state wealth transfer, and narcissistic technology — hence Steve Jobs is known in the manosphere as the greatest cock-blocker in history. Your version is far too simple, as it must be owing to your unique passion for Single Jewish Cause theory. It is so easy to sit back and appeal to someone to reconsider their position. I won’t be so presumptuous of you. But there’s a lot to prove that Jews didn’t “do feminism” as you believe they “did 9/11”. Try to understand that this isn’t even a matter of feminism in isolation, a kind of just-so-story of who is responsible for what (fallacy of discreet causative agency) but a larger problem of modern civilization in which too many are enfranchised and thereby entitled to the spoils of production. As surely as plantation negroes absorbed an Anglo worldview (ownership, rights, language, morals, religion) merely by cohabiting with them, it was inevitable that feminism — that is to say: women demanding a greater share in legitimacy — would occur in republican or urban situations.
SUSAN SONTAG DID NOT STUDY AT THE INSTITUT FUER SOZIALFORSCHUNG. SHE STUDIED UNDER WHITE AMERICAN PROFESSORS, including Richard McKeon, one of my favorite semantic philosophers. Hate to be a dick about it, but you and Desmond have no idea what you’re talking about here. You’re just slamming two different things together and calling them one because they happen to both come from Jews and work against white society, just as my gut-sick guido maestro believes “political correctness comes from Trotsky”. Shit scholarship, if you dare call it that. Utterly specious morphological relationship. “Frankfurt School” as it exists in WN demonology is a conceptual black hole sucking everything they don’t like into it. YOU EVER MARTIN JAY, BRO? EVER READ SONTAG? Or do you, like Haller re Marx, feel you don’t “need to bother” with that “Jewish rubbish”? It might clarify your view of how things happened. One thing that didn’t happen: Susan Sontag had absolutely nothing to do with the IfS — not personally and not ideologically. All they have in common is both came of Ashkenazi Jews. There is no “Frankfurt School approach” in Sontag’s writings, whose ire for whitey grew out of her experience as a world journalist (no different from that beloved defender of Europe, Oriana Fallaci). I’d like to think that if I could go back in time to a Vietnam besieged by self-righteous Yankees, I’d have the moral sense to find it absurd, too, just as a I find the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan absurd. I might even call it, if not the white race itself, cancerous. American militarism has certainly spread like a cancer, and it certainly doesn’t benefit the originating body. Or does it—perhaps we need Hallertosis to remind us of why it was so necessary for America to take on the DRV ... “CONTAINTMENT”, right? Can’t let Communism spread. So let’s spread fire everywhere and sacrifice thousands of American men. Brilliant. As for this alleged break separating Anglo feminism and Jewish feminism — whatever you like. The precedent was there. The point is that feminism was not the spawn of Jewish agitators, but of modernity itself, and it goes back to the very revolutionary ideals enthroned in 1792. Ever heard of the Corsican Republic? Feminism. Socialism. Humanism. All invented by Europeans coming to grips with the problems of agriculture and civilization.
143
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:26 | #
My intent is not to single you out for criticism. My main point is censorship or banning people because some disagree with their POV is repugnant in my opinion (not accusing you of that, I’m just speaking in general). JR, I even wincned with disapointment when people were complaining about you when you returned to MR and started posting entries. I recall people were calling MR a joke and couldn’t beleive GW would allow you to post entries. I couldn’t disagree with your critics more. I find your work thought provoking to say the least. That same sentiment goes for guys like Constantine et al. I don’t agree with all of what he says, but I do give the man credit for putting himself out there. Banning people for just cause is legit. But IMHO, censorship for convenience sake is very ugly because I beleive it is rooted in intellectual cowardness. Anyway, carry on big guy….. 144
Posted by uh on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:54 | # By the way Richards, And to repeat: Small differences are everything morphologically given what is known of redundant DNA and so on. Let me ask you — are you married? and if you are not, do you wish to be? I am serious here. It bears upon your ability to judge this matter. 145
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:09 | # For those sharing my literacy level, DVR = Democratic Republic of Vietnam (aka North Vietnam). 146
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:20 | # Re spam. I dont think MR suffers a huge amount, no more than a few hits a day. As long as we keep on top of the deletion its managable at the moment. 147
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:05 | # In returning to my earlier comment about the possible consistency between our ostensible cooperation with our existential demise and our religious history I was trying to move into a position whereby I can explore the possibility of dropping my moral outrage, and moving on to a non-judgemental approach. I’m reminded of terms I’ve seen used to describe the typical secession of psychological stages an individual goes through when he begins to realize he is dying. I believe the first stage is denial, followed by anger, followed by acceptance. I think I’ve spent the last couple of years emerging from the denial phase and experiencing a good deal of anger and frustration at my inability arouse other White people from the denial phase. It’s quite normal I suppose, and I’ve tended to experience my mission as that of attempting to save the White race. But what if the White race doesn’t want to be saved? What if it, or part of it, or its enemies want it to die? From what vantage point can I judge the morality of this? It may seem kind of sad that I’m seeing things in this way, but I think it may also be liberating and offer some advantages. As the moral outrage subsides, I may feel more comfortable discussing the phenomenological aspects with people who I would otherwise consider my enemies on account of the moral attachment I have to White extinction. I almost think I could have turned to the Negro couple behind me in the line at the post office this morning and politely asked, apropos of nothing, “how do you feel about White extinction?” with the same aplomb that I might once have felt when remarking on the weather. This could be something of a game changer for me. Has anyone else here experienced anything like this? Am I becoming a race traitor now, or what the heck is going on? 148
Posted by danielj on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:50 | # This could be something of a game changer for me. Has anyone else here experienced anything like this? Am I becoming a race traitor now, or what the heck is going on? It’s hard to maintain the level of emotional intensity you were operating at for very long. I myself realized at some point that mother nature is the greatest fascist of all and that she will correct. This is so comforting that I don’t stress about it anymore. I’m sort of like a racial-Calvinist. We are predestined to rise again. 149
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:35 | #
Fortunately, I’m easily entertained by videos such as this one of Uh, being interviewed by Axis Sally for citizenship in NW Republic 150
Posted by daniel on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:20 | # Speaking of that, I’m on my way to Florida tomorrow night to meet the legendary Uh. Maybe I’ll record an interview. 151
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:35 | #
http://books.google.ca/books?id=HnOiOEVa308C&q=marcuse#v=snippet&q=marcuse&f=false 152
Posted by uh on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:23 | #
That may be the single most beautiful line I’ve seen on this website. I would add that the human project, as it exists today, is a massive, tottering exercise in denial of that, and the great question of this millennium shall be whether the herd is clever enough to adjust to ever greater complexity, or will at last succumb thereto. 153
Posted by uh on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:06 | #
Look, Desmond, this is a simple thing to grasp. What you and J Richards prefer to believe is that Susan Sontag’s animus toward goyim comes directly from contact (however tangential) with the IfS. This is actually to imply that an Ashkenazi background is insufficient cause of such animus — which makes nonsense of Kevin MacDonald’s work, to name just one. Either a highly literate New York Jew in the post-feminist age is capable of becoming anti-white on her own, by virtue of her race and background, or she isn’t and requires a fleeting link with Marcuse to have become hostile to the gentile host. You are at pains to demonstrate a 1:1 relationship of these elements, IfS/Critical Theory and Susan Sontag’s anti-white bias. But reality isn’t so simple, just as Trotsky did not “invent political correctness”. This is ad hoc or “just-so” fallacy. Read about it. It ascribes to discrete agency what is best described in social totality. This relates to the axiom “correlation is not causation”. I urge you to read up on that also. These are cognitive biases at work in how people order complex events beyond their native scope. We all do it. I am probably as guilty as you even in this thread. But as far as Sontag, all I can do is reiterate that she didn’t need to live with Marcuse to be an urbane New York Jewess with all the predisposition to goyenhass that that brings with it. I am certain, however, that living with Herbert Marcuse had its influence. I am not so certain that Repressive Tolerance, the essay, as prescient of current attitudes as it was, can be held directly responsible for generating those attitudes. To wit:
It isn’t as though such a dictum is necessary for this mindset to arise among the people. Understand that point: Just as Trotsky did not invent “racism”, but used the word a few times, and did not invent “political correctness”, which phrase he never used, Marcuse did not invent or call into being liberal intolerance — that is rather the perfectly natural result of empowered ideology. The grand irony is that the Tolerant are the most intolerant of all, as they must be to keep their heels on our necks; and this is merely to say that Tolerance is a symbolic proxy for the will to power among former subordinates and white male abettors who now control us. This is at root a power process, not a dialectical one. Discourse may be war but laws, police forces, and group pressures are the agents of warfare. Discourse is merely figurative war. With a single law disadvantaging white men on the books, all the anti-white discourse in the MSM and public opinion only to serve the adjust people to the institutional bias. Their discourse won a long time ago. All we are doing, all we can do, is rear-guard action and sniping from the bushes. In essence all political rhetoric, all dialectic is proxy for the power process. There was a study out recently that “discovered” that argument / debate is more for the purpose of establishing precedence than objective ordering of facts. In plain, people argue to argue. For me that is all it amounts to — using complex symbols in a proxy war of nerves for the legitimacy awarded by the state and public mirroring; this is what Lacan called the Symbolic Order. The state having become Christian and republican, it was inevitable that more and more of its subjects would be brought in from the cold under the warm blanket of “rights”. Jews would not have been emancipated with Haskalah and social contact with the upper classes. Intermarriage did more for Jewish emancipation than money. Miscegeny is blackmail. Emancipation and enfranchisement are betrayal of white men, the only competent actors of their own culture — as we see in 2011 when culture has passed into the hands of the endlessly vengeful other. Women are implicated precisely because they had to be enfranchised. The psychology of enfranchisement breeds deep social resentment that was capitalized upon by Jewish agitators, among women no less than kaffirs. 154
Posted by uh on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:42 | #
You’re a good writer, Jimmy. I enjoy your style — smooth, exact, deep, no frills or waffling. And of course you are witty as hell when you are not speaking plainly. As to that feeling, it means we don’t share the same superego as our fellow citizens, if I may resort to freudian speech. Had you actually asked them that, I strongly doubt they would have been shocked; I bet they would have looked at each other, and the man might have said, “Iono if dey goin essTINC’ ... ” without a trace of discomfort or rancor. Mostly because they’re so far below our level of enculturation such terms aren’t as invested with meaning as for us. (This is actually a profound lesson for whites: niggas don’t care so much about shit. Neither should we.) If I am right, you would have met them on approximately equal ground, whereas with oversocialized whites of course your question would have stirred up great anxiety. The locus of the taboo is not in Jimmy Marr or the negro couple. It is not “your fault”. You are a race traitor — precisely for not sharing the neurosis of your kind, the malign superego installed by the New Discipline. For clarity’s sake let me quote the Wiki on the Superego:
Freud was way ahead of his time. There are exact analogies in modern neuroscience. We know “where” this “conscience” is located in the brain (anterior prefontal cortex > inhibitions). Or look at it from Ev Psych perspective — you correctly sense that there is no real reward in following group inhibitions, which anyhow you have not internalized or succeeded in extirpating. There is no reciprocal altruism for you, so to you, the question above is not loaded. It is a mere sensory fact of your extended consciousness which you would like to point out to another mammal in your vicinity. And congratulations: negroes wouldn’t crucify you nearly as readily as our own. Clinically, of course, they would tear you apart as being “undersocialized”, “sociopathic”, “presenting loss of affect”, blah blah blah, which really is Modern High Yiddish for “insufficiently subjugated by the Narrative”. 155
Posted by uh on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:53 | #
By the way, at the airport, look for a deranged bedouin Johnny Appleseed — tis I. 156
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:58 | # Great stuff uh. Its my insane task in life to keep pointing out the Narrative to people around me. Most of them not conscious of it. To be aware of it is half the battle. 157
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:33 | #
Not at all. It’s simply your inference from the Sontag quote. The position is much simpler and that is “Discourse systematically forms the objects of which it speaks.” 158
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:09 | # <h3>Reply to Uh, Part 1 of 3</h3> Søren has a sense of humor. I don’t see why he’d ban you. Maybe the person who banned you can explain. On whether serious morphological differences in body and cognition exist between men and women, the answer’s depends. The difference is stark when it comes to genitals, not so stark otherwise. And if cognitive differences are stark, which ones are they and where’s the documentation? We’re discussing the mind here. Which “serious” mind differences have been documented? Whether I’m married [the answer’s yes] doesn’t bear on my ability to judge the matter. You’ve called civilization as a whole a male production and said that females don’t produce culture. The fact is that most men haven’t made a significant contribution to civilization or culture and neither have most women. Only among the very small minority that has made significant contributions do we find a preponderance of men, which doesn’t mean a stark contrast between men and women on average. It’s like this… Just because a man came up with the Bessel function, it doesn’t necessarily mean a stark contrast between the math ability of men and women because the majority of both sexes don’t have a clue what this is, forget about coming up with it on their own [to come up with this function, you’d have to solve the Bessel differential equation]. And the contrast has been examined and found to be small on average. You’ve accused me of minimizing the neurological differences between men and women. I’m not talking about neurology but the mind, and I’ve presented the differences as they are, with documentation, whereas you’re resorting to anecdotes and extremes. The analogy to genetic differences compared to apes doesn’t apply. Genes are discrete entities, and a 2% difference, whereas sounding small, applied to billions of base pairs of DNA translates to tens of millions of base pair differences that can have strikingly different outcomes on gene expression depending on where they occur. In contrast, when it comes to the mind, the variables we’re dealing with are often continuously distributed, in many cases with normal distributions. When you compare the distributions of mental attributes, you don’t observe moderate or large average differences between men and women for the most part. When you say “men dare, women take cover,” the reality’s that most members of both sexes take cover. Among the rare few who dare, you find more men than women, and this can’t undermine average differences between men and women on some counts that make women better on racialist matters. 159
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:14 | # <h3>Reply to Uh, Part 2 of 3</h3> I’m not confusing racialism with philandering. The fact is that the difference in sexual attitudes between the sexes, which’s one of the rare differences between the sexes that has a moderate to large magnitude, makes white men more of a liability than white women when it comes to sex with non-whites. Your examples of the interracial relationships you’ve seen or the alleged runaway popularity of interracial pornography are anecdotal and undoubtedly grotesquely exaggerated considering that Miami has to be one of porn centers in the U.S. And of all interracial relationships, the one you focus on is black men with white women. Why is this? Because everyone can see that when it comes to sexual relationships with other non-white races, you see more white men than white women involved. Only with blacks, with whom whites are least likely to be sexually involved with, is the pattern reversed, and this isn’t difficult to explain. Ever seen the white women involved with blacks? Most of them are obese, or very unattractive, or mentally ill, or addicted to crack or other drugs, the kind of women most white men and to a lesser extent other non-black men don’t want to touch, but black men are happy to pursue them because… just look at black women.
Let’s see… Miami-Dade county has a population of 2.5 million, of which 15.4% are white. This gives 385,000 whites of which around half are female, which gives around 193,000 white females. Those less than 18 or older than 65 are about 36% of the population, which leaves around 123,000 white women in the 18-65 range that could potentially be involved in pornography. Porn stars have to be at least 18 and most would be less than 30, and the older ones would usually not exceed 40. Rule out obese women for the most part and most women as they’d refuse to take part in pornographic shoots. So you’re not looking at more than a few thousand white female porn stars in the Miami-Dade region willing to have sex with blacks on camera. Your example is nothing but anecdotal B.S. On top of it, it focuses on extremes: women willing to have sex with blacks on camera. In addition, it’s a safe bet that many of these women aren’t real-life BCLs but do it for the money. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it turned out that when many of them started out they declined interracial pornography and signed up for it only when the casting calls became fewer and they needed the money. Your example of the average white woman wanting to work with black delinquents in inner cities or do other sorts of social work with the worst of society is anecdotal and B.S. Most white women know better than to venture in inner cities and try to mingle with blacks. And women who want to be teachers don’t necessarily want to be teachers for disabled children. If you’re telling me that the average white woman’s attracted to teaching, nursing or caretaking professions and specifically wants to work with non-white druggies/drunks/delinquents then I’d again say B.S. If white women are more likely to prefer professions where they interact with people, then they’d naturally, on average, prefer to work with people with whom they can have some meaningful interaction, and this doesn’t include violent or addicted blacks. You try to refute the average by pointing to the extremes. One of your examples is interracial adoption. A very small proportion of white women adopt children of other races, which doesn’t refute the average preference for white kids. Adoption costs money and white women are more likely to have disposable income, which, in part, translates to more white women adopting non-whites than non-whites adopting whites. In addition, local children available for adoption are often physically or mentally damaged, the kind of children adoptive parents usually don’t want to invest in, sometimes necessitating a trip abroad for adoption, which will usually be to a predominantly non-white nation. You’ve accused me of taking the axiom that women are more empathic by nature and twisting it to say that “they’re so empathetic they won’t go near kaffirs,” and call it B.S. I agree this is B.S. as it makes no sense, and I never argued it. The point is about the entire women’s group, not the extremes. When it comes to the extremes, just as you’ll find women immersing themselves in the midst of kaffirdom to help the kaffirs, you’ll also find women wanting to sterilize the kaffirs (e.g., Margaret Sanger and associates). But what about the distribution of preference over all women? Again, if women are more likely to prefer environments where they can interact with people, on average they’d want environments where meaningful interactions are possible, and often this will require things such as a common language, a common culture,... same race. I haven’t rejected the notion “that Jewish enfranchisement in Europe led to the ugly phenomenon of the red Jewess.” I was responding to Danielj on the unleashing of “the ferocious side of cunts,” whereby he meant women, not specifically Jewish women. 160
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:25 | # <h3>Reply to Uh, Part 3 of 3</h3>
Surprise, surprise, your description of patriarchy as a social construct… just how a feminist would describe it. Patriarchy’s a natural order that needs no defense. This isn’t because men are better suited to lead but because among the few suited to lead, men are overrepresented… the average man isn’t any more leadership material than the average woman. On whether I’m trying to shield women from any blame, this isn’t true. People of both sexes create troubles for others, not necessarily of the same nature. But in judenrein, would women have disproportionately caused societal decline that would’ve prompted the creation of MR for instance? I’ve no reason to believe so.
Is this why the blacks were enfranchised in the south following the civil war or was it to humiliate the southerners while the [disproportionately Jewish] carpetbaggers went around raking the loot?
You substantiate by bringing in enfranchisement, but neither Desmond nor I have claimed that this was a Jewish phenomenon. The claim’s that feminism from the mid-twentieth century onward has little to do with the first generation, and is a kosher phenomenon, being an implementation of the Frankfurt School approach. You’ve mocked this idea by stating that Susan Sontag didn’t study at the Frankfurt School. This is false criticism as she didn’t have to be enrolled in this school. The Frankfurt School was quickly identified as a subversive Jewish movement by the National Socialists and the School ended up in New York, no longer literally called the same name. What it developed into is formally known as post-structuralism or postmodernism in academia, particularly sociological circles, and cultural Marxism in conservative circles. Desmond Jones and I have mentioned it as the Frankfurt School [philosophy/approach] because the term more accurately describes formal origins and thus the people responsible for it. You’ve even stated:
False! The Frankfurt School is a formal application of Talmudic philosophy [or, simply, Jewish nature] to modern circumstances, specifically appearing at a time when victory in Russia had come after considerable efforts by Jews. It took Jews more than a century following the French Revolution to overthrow the royalty in Russia and acquire control over her finances. There had to be a better way, and this was to be developed as a social engineering approach at the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt. Had Sontag been born centuries earlier, chances are that she would’ve hated non-Jews in a similar manner because this is how most Jews are. This is why your contention that “There is no “Frankfurt School approach” in Sontag’s writings” is falsified when you realize that this approach didn’t just abruptly appear with the Frankfurt School but was an application/adaptation of pre-existing Talmudic philosophy, and that when Sontag was active, the Frankfurt School had already formally implemented its social engineering program, which Sontag would’ve been naturally exposed to living as a Jew running into academic circles in New York, and as per Jones’ citation, which you’ve failed to work around, Sontag moved in circles populated by prominent Frankfurt School personalities. You’ve attempted to argue that Sontag’s hatred of whites stemmed from things such as Vietnam. She was intelligent and well educated. Had she looked into why the Americans were fighting in Vietnam, she would’ve noted that communism was just a smokescreen and the real reason was opium, making it clear that the government was ultimately controlled by criminals. You can read up on all the evidence here: http://www.jfkmontreal.com/jfkpage.htm [an entire book online] The situation is analogous to the war in Afghanistan. The excuse was a false flag operation known as 9/11: http://www.majorityrights.com/911.who The fictitious entity America’s fighting against is Al-Qaeda. The actual reason for the Afghan war is opium for Jewish drug lords: http://globheu.blogspot.com/2006/09/ch-19-jrm-in-afghanistan.html So Sontag, like the typical Jew, blames whites for things that they’re not responsible for, which’s a formal social engineering approach in the Frankfurt School way. Had the white man prevailed, there wouldn’t have been a Vietnam war or a cold war with the former Soviet Union, but the white man who stood in the way, JFK, was assassinated by Jews [read details at the jkfmontreal website]. And you focus on Sontag only. There were many others around the mid-twentieth century. A classic example was Betty Friedan, a Jew using a phony Anglicized last name who hid her long-standing communist acitivism and claimed to be an ordinary suburban housewife who just happened to have an awakening! These subversive liars who ended up defining feminism aren’t the same as the first generation Anglo feminists who wanted the right to vote and the right to an education. The Anglos were after fundamental rights; the Jews were looking into subversion [pitting women against men] under the guise of rights. 161
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:03 | # JR, Nahum Goldmann ... and who is the high priest today? Anyhow, can you check your mail, please. 162
Posted by uh on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:28 | # Shall do my best to respond. I don’t know what you’re drinking, Richards, but I’d like some. Will have to be brief as my head is killing me just now.
Let me refer again to Freud: “Anatomy is destiny.”
Read Roissy sometime; he consistently posts the latest research, and it all says much the same thing. Ignore everything but the links if you like. There’s so much documentation I can’t even begin to school you. Even mainstream sources, as you observed originally, publicize such research — and you just brush it off as lies or misinterpretation. In fact the dam is breaking and some truth about cognitive disparity, at least between men and women, is seeping through the cracks. Unfortunately I can’t possibly avoid concluding that you interpret this otherwise from some idiosyncratic motive unknown to me, but disastrous for correctly perceiving the watershed event that has occurred in popular psychology. You must have some inkling that discussion of cognitive differences between the sexes has been held rigorously taboo until the breakthroughs of neuroscience and ev-psych?
I’d say orientation to things versus orientation to people is pretty damn serious when they’re able to vote and level political opinions in the press. I don’t know how you perceive otherwise. As far as I can tell you are so committed to your own ideology that you can’t tolerate the existence of some very thorough and frankly highly repetitious psych research establishing cognitive differences. I don’t say this to provoke you at all. We have to remember that we aren’t voicing our ideas in a void; they arise in part from our own personalities. Probably we’re recreating in miniature a central failure in the public debate over cognitive differences: some are eager to play it down, some to play it up, others — usually those doing the research or the primary sources — just to put it out there. I mean, if I had the time and patience, I could bury you in PDF abstracts. You have offered one, and that speculative. All I have the time to do is refer you to Roissy who specialized in such material. I hope you are not too good to read his blog or something, like others here.
Sure. I am forever defending we proles from inclusion in the “dizzying heights” of “Western kulchur”. Yet the point is that men, a few here, or many over time, put it all together. I’m pretty sure that although one or two men designed your house, a few more financed it, a whole bunch built it, wired it, painted it, and so on. This is a social effort of white men. Not white women. In Papua some remote tribe raises huts in a communal effort. Among the Amish the men do the lifting. Cognitive difference arises from sexual dimorphism; the Amish are more observably dimorphic than the Papuans. That’s all I want to say about this.
What it means is division of labor. A stark one. And that means a division of mental labor. I could express it in a hundred different ways and have. Women flake; men stake. There, that’s cute.
Whatever bro. I look at standardized tests and find the same preponderance of males in technical subjects (and whatever in the others, probably weighted to females; yet this is where men exceed in minority) as whites enjoy over blacks in general. Or take the autism spectrum — a male failing. You can’t deny this. And of course you’ll be familiar with the incidence of high cognitive function in some autistic. The social is impaired, the abstract is augmented. Women eusocial, men hypersocial. Another cute one.
One whole speculative PDF paper. I won’t ask that you provide more, because frankly, this is a loaded game we’re playing. If mind isn’t neurological differences, then I don’t even know what we’re talking about, up is down, my balls are ovaries, etc.
The few who dare ... like the tens-of-thousands in the armed forces? the millions and millions historically? I don’t believe they all took cover. Obviously you don’t want simply to admit that men do more than women in society. All right. Women do just as much as men. There we are. As for women being better “on racialist matters”, you’re living on a different planet. If women were racialists, they’d be here talking about it. And that much they ought to be able to do, for of course they do well on verbal tests and such rubbish. Yet they haven’t graced us with their presence at MR in, gosh, how bloody long? So they’re, what, implicit racialists? Well by that token so are Chinese and Jewish women. So what? Yes, we know, people largely prefer their own kind. It’s one of the recurring embarrassments of sociology and the press.
If the social model were one of males invading a space with a vast sex disparity (e.g. Spaniards in the New World or catastrophes like the 4:1 ratio left by the Guerra del Paraguay). That is, if we were the colonizers and not the colonized. As the colonized, our women are the liability. Hence the alarming obsession with grooming in Britain, gang rape in Sweden, black-on-white miscegenation in poor parts of America, etc. You have been to a Wal-Mart before, right? You can call it merely anecdotal if you like, but I’ve been to perhaps three-dozen Wal-Marts in my time, and with the exception of those in Arkansas and Mexico City, let me tell you — Dysgenistan. Never seen a single white male-Asian female couple though. Didn’t see much of it on the Left Coast, as said. This isn’t selective perception, either; as a racist I am hyper-aware of miscegenites in my vicinity and keep an informal tally of the patterns wherever I go. Well, if my experience is nothing, so be it. But what if others have experienced the same thing? I invite others to chime in. Let’s be democrats for once, as a gag. State where you live, your age, whether you’re a shut-in or fully functional member of society, and say whether you have seen, and do see, more black male-white female couplings than anything else. Better, let’s frame it to your advantage, Rich — whether or not you see more x (e.g. the famous white male-Asian female) couplings than black male-white female.
That’s the point. There’s a lot of it, and there’s a lot more black-on-white than anything else. And of course the number one viewers are white men. Strangely ... those white men are not viewing as much Asian porn. I hear there’s a growing niche market for lovers of Samoan-on-French though.
It happens, man. Often and almost everywhere. White women target black men because they offer the attitude that has been shamed and punished out of white men, who weren’t thugs to begin with. Thug-love is a response to the ghettoization of America, which we will agree was wrought by Juden. I think it just kinda pains you to think of it in those terms. I will admit that I have seen plenty of white male-Filippina, especially, of course, among the military and around military installations. But Filippinos being a true minority, you’d have to reach quite far to equate this with the danger of white females going over to black males, which is a widely known phenomenon here and on every other white nationalist blog. Are we all delusional, bud?
With whom white males are least likely to be involved. There are widely available statistics showing this. Remember a few years ago there was a brief “movement” of black women meeting to discuss why they ought to date white men? how about Kanazawa being fired from PsychToday for purporting to prove that black women were the least desirable specimens? Black females, you see. The evidence is piling up — you don’t want to believe that white women go coo-coo for cocoa puffs. It’s a difficult thing, I know. But you can’t make it go away by calling everything I say “B.S.” I’ve opened the floor to others, anyhow, for some peer review of my perceptions of this matter. Let’s hear it, fellas. You ever seen a white girl hanging on the arm of a buck negro?
But this isn’t the same thing — they are still white women succumbing to black men. It is also anecdotal, so look, either anecdotes are valid or they aren’t. If they are, I wonder if you’ve ever been to the District of Congo, or to New York City ... where you will see some fine broads doing the same starry-eyed dance around Sambo as the wasted old white trash and fatties in the ghettos. By that token, what if I were to tell you that an increase in black male-white female cross pollination may be directly related to the increase of obesity among Americans and in particular American women? what if obesity is playing right into the hands of kaffirs greedy for some white girl-flesh, any of it?
... that’s a lot of white girls getting nailed by gondies on camera, bro. However you look at it. What if we then compound this with pornography produced throughout southern CA? And mind this is only what’s marketed on the internet. If you’ve ever seen this stuff, you’ll have noted their familiarity with the race of the male star .... though the script calls for it to be their “first time”, lolz. I just evince this as an example, an emblem if you will, of what’s going on in America, which you have somehow brought yourself to deny. Though here you admit “a few thousand white females” do take pay to degrade themselves on camera for an internet audience. And these aren’t obese, mentally ill, drug-addicted slags either, I promise you. These are 18 year olds hopping to South Beach from FIU for some quick cash to fund their “lifestyle”.
Well, again, you are minimizing — and by that I mean you keep offering excuses for white women. They aren’t different, they’re the same; they didn’t want to do that, but they needed the money; they don’t breed with kaffirs — they just don’t!!! — and those who do, well they’re junkies, and anyway there are so many more white men fecundating Filippinas that white men are to blame for miscegeny .... It’s a backward picture, my friend, and you are a first-class white knight. 163
Posted by uh on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:28 | # 2.
Have just one thing to say. http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/hs1/figure6.htm Someone is going into those magnet schools to be pinned against the blackboard when they ask for homework — and we all know there are far more female teachers than male ... Oh well. You say it’s “anecdotal B.S.” I must have made up that pie graph.
It’s just one of the “career paths” they imagine “makes them a better person”, or “fulfills” them. I promise you, white women grossly predominate in caretakers of the mentally disabled. I’ve dated like half a dozen and avoided fifty more. Haven’t you? I mean, women work with idiots. Isn’t that axiomatic by now? When I was in Braunau and checked out the Fuehrer’s Geburthaus, which was then at least a daycare center for idiots, guess who staffed the place? You guessed it ... SAMOAN MEN.
I am not telling you that, and it’s a transparent strawman. Some desire to work with “disadvantaged youth” or “disabled youth”, some “just want to help” — indeed, they quickly find themselves with a cretinous lot and sometimes suffer greatly by it. I dated, ok ok I slept with, this chick who had to quit an assistant teaching gig in some city because she was assaulted by “youth”. This is a representative anecdote. You alone, I promise you, believe women don’t actively seek out these jobs or land in them from stupid idealism.
Christ man, THAT IS WHITE NATIONALISM 101. If you went onto the most elementary site, say NatVan, and implied that white women aren’t blind to Narrative reprogramming that has them consorting more with blacks than is good for them, you’d be called an anti yourself!
These aren’t “extremes”. These are slices of life from a demographic perspective. It would be “extreme” to assert that “white men are more of a liability than white women”, then ignore lots of circumstantial evidence brought to bear against it.
To be honest I forgot why I even mentioned it. Oh yes — to show that white women, more than any other adopting party, elects a non-white child (though seldom a kaffir). I don’t know how this can be construed as “extreme” being by definition rare. But it does go toward proving that white women, being of a race exhibiting high trust characteristics, and of a sex clinically proven to be higher in “Agreeableness” characteristics, have a preponderant tendency to seek out and contract with those of other races in a bid to compromise with a forced multiracial society.
This is deliberately skewing the matter. Of those able to afford adoption, more white women adopt non-white children than any other configuration. You are quite eager to deny this fact. I think I know why, but I’m not going to turn this into total ad hominem.
As far as I can see you conflated (biochemical predisposition to) empathy and the measurable tendency to associated more with one’s kind, i.e. as above claiming that if women are more likely to enter careers in social work, then they would prefer meaningful interaction among their own than among dangerous demographics; but this is precisely contrary freely available professional statistics and a very great abundance of evidence from women themselves, which you may research at your leisure. Mixing variables to achieve a desired effect is not valid meta-analysis, I’m afraid.
Women in social work are not “extreme”. They are the norm in an economy dominated by the tertiary sector. They’re not exactly lighting up the hard sciences, so they have to go somewhere, but you deny there is any average cognitive difference thus performance disparity — so fuck me! I don’t know what to tell you brah.
Er ... isn’t she DEAD? Do point me to modern day kaffir sterilizers. And no, NGOs — largely staffed by women — handing out condoms to kaffirs at their source do not count as Sangerites. They do not agitate for better health care and sex ed because they don’t like kaffirs. They do the same in Tajikistan, Urugay and the United States, all ‘white’ nations. You’re reaching WAY the fuck too far here.
Yea man. Blacks speak English and share some kulchur widdus. But you’ve made all this up — though I do hate to be so blunt with you. No hard feelings I hope. More later ... if you’re lucky.
164
Posted by anon on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 03:40 | # Women’s behavior, as men’s, has an innate biological element and an external cultural element and we are living in a culture created by people who want our genocide. Some quick examples: I could find thousands more. Up to the 60s the West had a pro-natal and pro-cohesion culture. Since then we’ve been progressively more culturally poisoned with an anti-natal and anti-cohesion culture as an act of stealth warfare. That has to be taken into account. ### The more endogamous a human group the more likely they are to be solely focused on their extended family and the least susceptible to external cultural influences (if they conflict). The more exogamous a group the less solely focused they are on their extended family and therefore the more susceptible to external cultural influences they will be. This is what we see in reality. The poisonous cultural influence has had the most effect on the more outbred northern europeans and a lesser (or maybe just slower) but still powerful effect on more endogamous southern europeans and those orientals in industrialized countries. What i do think is true is women on average are more empathic than men for evolutionary reasons and therefore cultural pressure that works on empathy will effect women more. Also, again for evolutionary reasons***, i think women are more susceptible to cultural pressure than men on average - you can see it in things like fashion - so the cultural poison effects them more. Both of these are good and neccessary things in the context of a healthy culture. It’s only in the context of a deliberately poisoned culture that they become bad. (***Instinctive female mating preferences were set in the hunter-gatherer phase and tied to what made a good hunter-gatherer. From the onset of male-required farming, women’s mating choices were mostly made for them by their extended family so the selection pressure to change their mating preferences to the traits that made for a good farmer were heavily diluted or non-existent. So you have females with an instinctive preferences for hunger-gatherer traits married off to the family’s choice of a good farmer. If you combine that with very serious survival and reproductive penalties for adultery you get a selection pressure for various traits one of which would be susceptibility to conform to the dominant culture.) These female traits aren’t bad in themselves. In a healthy pro-natal and pro-cohesion culture they are useful and neccessary. The poisonous culture and the people poisoning it are the problem. 165
Posted by Guest Lurker on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 05:10 | #
Since Uh requested anecdotal evidence, for myself living in L.A., the dominant interracial pairing I see is bm/wf, with wm/asian female a strong second. And the notion that all white women going for blacks are dogs is coming from a place of denial and wishful thinking. This might have been the case in the past, but I’m flabbergasted by the aesthetic quality of white women I sometimes see with mudskins. I was recently in Germany on vacation, and it’s much worse there than even here in L.A. In Germany, they’re actually breeding with the groids to a much greater extent. Groids are cockily strutting around with their white wives and pushing a baby carriage with the mulatto offspring in it. Here in soCal, white girls are merely “dating” the non-whites and sowing their deviant oats, until they can find themselves an economically feasible white beta chump whom they can trot out in front of mommy to show how they made good. This probably explains why statistics are somewhat askew in ascribing greater interracial proclivities among white males. What those stats are probably conveying are marriages. Yet it’s been my observation that white females engage in much more interracial philandering, mainly with negroes, before marriage. And yes, the white knighting among WN is embarrassing. I have to conclude that either such men were fortunate enough to live in small nearly all white towns where they married their high school sweethearts and never had to experience the dose of reality some of us get who live in the bigger cities, or they’re merely inexperienced virginal Parsifals. I do believe white women are racial, though. Racial, as in seeing themselves, white women, as an entitled socio-political class or mafia. Granted, you would think white women would view the demographic shift as a threat to their futures. However, for the time being, they’ve been great beneficiaries of it. White women surely must intuit that they’re at the top of the food chain of female sexual desirability. Hence, multi-racialism works in their favor, because now they’ve got the opportunity to pit white men in sexual competition against non-white males for sexual and reproductive rights. Their stock goes up immeasurably in a multi-racial environment. Outside of maybe Jews, it’s hard to imagine any other group who has benefited more from this ongoing anti-white genocidal system, as counter-intuitive as it might seem. BTW, what happened to Haller? I hope he didn’t let himself get run off by a few snide comments. Sure, he could be verbose and annoying at times, but no more so than any number of other posters on this or similar sites. I’m more wary of those claiming ideological purity and willing to hurl epithets of “crypto” or “controlled opposition” at the drop of a hat than I am of a Haller. 166
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:36 | # <h3>Second reply to Uh, Part 1 of 3</h3>
This was your response to the one instance of stark difference between men and women, which’s genital morphology, but the destiny pertaining to genitals isn’t the destiny that applies to the mind. So I ask you to cite documentation of stark cognitive differences between men and women. You reply in 140 words about so much documentation that you don’t even know where to begin, and, of course, have zero citations. Great job! Roissy talks like you or makes sense about a very small specialty. Where’s the documentation of hard data collected and analyzed in a systematic manner? You claim to be able to bury me with pdf abstracts, but fail to cite a single one. Just citing one would take far less time than what it took you to reply to my 3-part comment. You even accuse me of citing a speculative pdf. What I cited is an analysis of hundreds of published studies that you can verify for yourself. This is the hard data that counts. I personally ignore the author’s interpretation which’s where any speculation rests. You can do whatever you want with the author’s speculation, but you can’t dismiss the hard data as speculation. On what “serious” mind differences have been documented, you cited the people vs.things orientation, taking it out of the list that I gave you, and then tied it to the ability to vote and level political opinion in the press, as if there’s a strong relationship between the two. On top of this, you don’t consider that there’s neither free press nor representative elections in most Western nations as the Jews have ownership of the mainstream press and plenty of wealth to have the majority vote for one among a group of candidates the’ve brought up. There’s simply no way the people-things dimension has anything to do with Western decline as male and female occupational choices resulting from this dimension are of a complementary nature. You’ve tried to sidestep very few men contributing to civilization by bringing in a house. Two designed it, some financed it, a whole bunch built it and some painted it, calling this a social effort of white men. You’re mixing brains with brawn [not the topic of discussion]. You’re ignoring that the crucial factor is the engineering and the processing of raw materials into building materials as the labor could’ve been provided by cave men but the materials and engineering didn’t exist and the labor could’ve also been provided by women but women disproportionately did other work. What is crucial to civilization has been the product of very few men, and the masses of male laborers can’t claim credit for it. So it remains that the masses of men and women can make no claims to creating civilization or culture. And the division of labor is of a complementary nature and not implicated in societal decline in any way. What is implicated in societal decline is the fact the people who financed the house counterfeited the money behind the loan, demand the principal sum and interest, sell the debt obligation to naive investors, gamble on whether the debt can be paid off, etc. Parasitism is implicated in societal decline, not women. You’ve attempted to sidestep small mental ability differences on average by referring to the preponderance of males among technical subjects and autism, which is partly about extremes and partly about the people-things dimension, which isn’t a mental ability dimension. What the people-things dimension shows is that even if you match men and women on mental ability, you still observe women preferentially choosing professions or lines of study involving interaction with people.
Neurology is primarily concerned with anatomy—nerves, neurons, glial cells, nervous system—and lower level functioning, usually not higher order functioning such as the mind unless the mind’s malfunctioning is clearly related to lower level structures. You counter the “rare few who dare” by mentioning tens of thousands in the armed forces and millions historically. Millions out of billions isn’t common. More importantly, in the modern military, it generally doesn’t take daring as how brave does one have to be to pull a trigger from a safe distance? You don’t necessarily have to work at the frontlines of battle, and even if you’re a soldier meant for firefights, there’s a chance that you may not be deployed. When there’s been a draft, daring doesn’t apply as there wasn’t much of a choice. In the past, it wasn’t usually daring either. You had the choice of either fighting or having your guts spilled, your women defiled and your children taken prisoners. And the men wouldn’t need to defend if some other men didn’t attack in the first place. So if a problem’s created by some men and solved by other men, this leaves men with zero credit compared to women. 167
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:53 | # <h3>Second reply to Uh, Part 2 of 3</h3>
I said women are better than men on some racialist matters, not racialist matters, period.
This is about sexual activity. And your examples are? Grooming in Britain, gang rape in Sweden, black-on-white miscegenation in poor parts of America. Rape and grooming [to be raped and later raped] aren’t voluntary activities on the part of the females. So on these counts you fail to argue that white women are more likely to have sex with non-whites or miscegenate than white men. Your only example involves voluntary black-on-white miscegenation, the only type of miscegenation that bucks the preponderance of white males among those having sex with non-whites. I’ve already addressed this. Most of the white women involved in such cases aren’t a liability as white men never wanted them or regretted having them. The removal of their lineage from the white gene pool benefits whites as the obese, prone-to-drug-addiction, and mentally ill voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool. Why so many references to Wal-Mart? Since you’ve clearly shown that you don’t have an interest in the bigger picture and base your arguments on what you observe, maybe you’re lower class and can’t seem to focus beyond the black-white miscegenation you observe because of the particular lower class settings that you live in. I’ve seen plenty of miscegenation examples, but I wouldn’t base my analysis on my observations alone as data on interracial marriages/dating preferences and mixed-race children are available and show a preponderance of white males except in the case of actual relations with blacks.
Great job! You’ve just stated that a lot of white men have an erotic interest in bestiality. So much for your credibility!
Apparently you’ve watched a lot of it and seem to enjoy it, too. You can’t be doing anything apart from wasting our time at MR with useless distractions.
The vast majority of white women wouldn’t touch a negro. So any inferences drawn are about the small minority who do, and among these most are drug addicts, mentally disturbed or bad looking. The drug addicts would need thugs to supply them with the drugs… no surprise here. If the mentally ill are attracted to thugs, what does one expect… they’re mentally ill. If the mentally disturbed make poor decisions and end up with a thug, again no surprise. If an obese one ends up with a thug, what did she expect ending up with a man from a race that produces thugs galore? That leaves a very small number who end up with black thugs without being mentally ill, drug addicted or unattractive, which has no implications for white women and means nothing. If it were legal to show pictures or videos of women having sex with dogs, I’m positive you’d find plenty of examples featuring white women and dogs, but what would it imply about white women? Nothing.
Fine-looking mudsharks aren’t necessarily mentally healthy or free of drug addiction. So this doesn’t refute that these women likely belong to one of the categories of undesirable women who end up with blacks. And again, I’m sure you’d observe some fine-looking broads romantically involved with dogs, too, if this kind of activity were legal, and it wouldn’t mean anything.
Also white women, especially when you consider white women who have a choice in men of different races as opposed to those whom only black men would be willing to be involved with.
Telling is useless. If you can make a case for it, then it’s something. It isn’t just the women getting fatter, the men are getting fatter, too, and have to compromise their standards. So it isn’t that fatter white women are being left out in droves by a secular trend in obesity. And I’m positive that there are fat straight white women who have enough sense or dignity to prefer their fingers or perhaps dildos to coal burning if they have a difficult time finding a man.
Apparently, the young adult white women who take pay to degrade themselves by being filmed while having sex with black men are mentally healthy and drug free! The ones who are mentally healthy and drug free must need money really badly, in which case this isn’t an example of their being BCLs. I’ve also made no admission of thousands of women. The figure was a very generous upper-bound estimate based on an analysis of your exaggerated claims, and you call it “a lot of white girls getting nailed by gondies on camera, bro,” whereas the the reference population of young adult white women in America alone is in the tens of millions, which must be considered as Miami is likely to attract wannabe pornstars from all over America and even abroad. 168
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:01 | # <h3>Second reply to Uh, Part 3 of 3</h3> Your response to my claim that most white women know better than to venture in inner cities and try to mingle with blacks is a pie diagram. I give you an A for effort as you made an attempt to cite some sort of systematic data. But the attempt fails. The data are about high school physics teachers by race. There’s no information on sex or location-specific information. Looking at the data, I suppose it’s very believable that there’s no shortage of white female high school physics teachers in inner city black schools. Let me guess how it goes there… White female teacher: Tyrone, would you be kind enough to tell the class what the second law of thermodynamics is?
so you acknowledge that it’s only some who do, and then have a nonsense claim about my position. My position is that it’s some who do and that this isn’t a liability for racialist matters as it’s only some.
Of course they’re extremes as they describe the behavior of a very small minority which you’re using to extrapolate to the majority, using it to claim “a preponderant tendency to seek out and contract with those of other races”!
...an assertion I’ve never made. My assertion’s about some counts only.
Cite the data.
Makes no sense. Higher order brain functioning goes way beyond biochemistry… electrical activity, neural networks… but this is almost a digression as the statement has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
No. I acknowledge cognitive differences if documented, be they small, moderate or large, and acknowledge associated performance disparities. You’re the one who doesn’t look at the data but focus on anecdotes, extremes/outliers.
Common grounds? Ebonics, FUBUs, hip-hop, rap, rap sheet, KFC… 169
Posted by Silver on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:49 | # Lentini,
Yes. In their view, race is wrong therefore e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g is wrong. You’re fairly susceptible yourself, I note.
You might think so, but it’s hard to say. Race is hard to talk about with the openness done here. Many people believe that some things are best left unsaid. I’m sure there are many more men with racial feelings who prefer to keep them to themselves than there are men talking about them, and it’s reasonable to expect that that effect would be even more pronounced in women (especially for you, given the importance you attach to sexual differences), so this mitigates women’s absence somewhat.
Understand this: the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data.’ A surfeit of anecdotes all relating the same observation can of course jolt us, but it should be used to spur more meaningful investigation, not to draw premature conclusions. In this case, all that is required is the straightforward collection of data. That said, sure, I’ve seen white girls with niggers, even tucked away in this little corner of the world in which I never even laid eyes on a nigger (irl) until I was sixteen. (I was in an electronics store purchasing a graphing calculator when this nigger popped in to ask for directions. I remember my friend and I laughing at his reply to the question of whether he played basketball. “Naw man, I’za boxer. Dat be a man’s sport!”) I saw a very good-looking white girl with a nigger once in a very, very (“oppressively,” hehe) Anglo part of town a few years ago. I can remember the stretch of road but I can’t recall whether I was driving or on foot. There this was a beautiful blonde girl walking up the street with her arms lovingly draped all over this feral wofuna (wo.rthless fu.cking n.igger a.nimal) straight from the wilds of Africa, as though she were defiantly “presenting” it to the world. I felt a tremendous urge to say something to the visibly stirred Anglo onlookers seated outside the cafes and restaurants situated along the strip but I bit my tongue (I think, lol). It’s interesting that I was so upset by the sight, since I don’t consider Anglos “my race” at all (historically, very few ever did; nowadays, well, necessity is the mother of invention). Perhaps it’s because it was such an obvious corruption of…I really don’t quite how to put it… insert whatever fascistic interpretation you feel appropriate—this is one of the few occasions I’ll unreservedly agree. Contrast that to my reaction to the best looking girl in my school (who really was very good looking, she went on to do FHM or Ralph or something shoots) and her Lebanese boyfriend. The boyfriend was rather dark (“tanned,” “olive-y,” rather than “brown”) but looked caucasoidal enough he could easily pass himself off as some southern european or another. He was a very good-looking kid himself, and he also went on to do professional modelling. In this case, I saw very little inappropriate about the pairing. My concern was for him. He was a fairly good friend of mine and my worry was that he was falling in love with her and I wanted to warn him that any girl who would date so far outside her ethnicity can’t seriously be considered good family material. (I was right. After him, she went on to screw god knows how many guys.) But again, anecdotes and impressions really shouldn’t decide anything. You need data.
Not BS, but I don’t know why you chose a pie chart of high school physics teachers to demonstrate the preponderance of females in the teaching profession. I’d agree it’s true that women tend to be nurturers and carers to a greater extent than men. But I think it’s also true that men are more capable of working with people they don’t like (their “enemies”) in order to get a job accomplished—and occasionally finding they really don’t dislike the other guy/group as much as they thought. Women tend to find it harder to set aside feelings and cooperate with those they don’t like (often preferring to subtly sabotage), so I would agree with Richards on this point. These are just impression’s I’ve gotten over my short life; one day I’ll have to pore over the data, so it’d be quite helpful if you could bring yourself to link some shit. Jimmy Marr,
So I’ll pick you up at, say, seven o’clock, shall I?
You’re missing “bargaining” and “depression” between “anger” and “acceptance.” I’d say you’re at the bargaining stage. Bargaining can take many different forms. “Race-deniers” are bargainers rather than “deniers.” They don’t actually deny that race matters. They know it does (or at least strongly suspect that it does) but they don’t want it to matter, so they go for all manner of general reality-denial, like communism (which will “fix” people) or post-modernism (which denies sense data or one’s ability to make proper sense of it). In their view, if there’s one thing that can be reliably considered to exist, it’s “suffering,” and our objective should be to end or diminish it. If any form of “reality” gets in the way of diminishing suffering, we can just pretend it isn’t there. In your case, you’re a racialist, so you’ve too much sense to waste your time with diversions like communism or po-mo. For a racialist, bargaining takes a different form. Perhaps it’s possible, the racialist tells himself, that these “other people” aren’t quite as bad I had originally thought. And you know, the more he thinks about it the more the bargaining racialist feels that he really doesn’t mind that these other people are around; he just wants his kind to always be around as well. That’s just my impression of the others, and hardly need be the case for all, so it’ll be interesting to see just what form the bargaining you engage in takes. Eventually, reality cannot help but rear its ugly head, so to the extent that bargaining has not been based on reality many bargainers sink into depression, which is the next stage for you, Mr. Marr, should your bargaining appear fruitless. In this stage, life seems pointless and hopeless. The world and the people inhabiting it are growing ever uglier, stupider, courser, and relentlessly, inexorably, mercilessly ever less white. Rather than babble on, here are a couple of choice tunes that I think capture the essence of this state of mind (especially so, I would wager, for those already experiencing that state to a degree). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0M1qC9uy7A The lyrics relate to love but can be easily “adapted” (parts of them) to refer to race. For me, these tunes, glib or tawdry though some may call them, successfully evoke feelings of regret and loss about outcomes that it was, to some degree, in our power to alter had we but been aware of what we stood to lose at the time certain fateful decisions were made. I’ve linked to those songs in the expectation that some will relate to the mood I was describing as “depression.” My own feelings, however, are better captured by this song (the chorus mostly, but also the song as a whole). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiYdFbH4nNw Race is a living thing, a given thing (and the white race, a giving thing—a “pliant giant”), and, I’m convinced, a terrible thing to lose. But if I can have anything to do with it, it won’t be lost.
170
Posted by Silver on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:27 | # Marr,
In my opinion, you’re a bargainer, but if you really are as post-depressive as you sound here it’s possible you’ve reached the ultimate stage of “acceptance.” Acceptance—true, honest-to-goodness acceptance—can be a cheery affair (if you “accept” it wholeheartedly, then why waste a second being upset over it?), and you don’t sound so very cheery, so I have my doubts. Anyway, maybe a better question to ask would be, “How do you feel about ‘Racial Reform’?” I don’t think I’d bother putting that question to a nig (though one should “never say never”), but it’s very much the casual sort of question that one could throw out there and expect to stimulate discussion. “Hmm, these people claim ‘Whites are people, too, you know.’ Sounds crazy, I know, but I guess, yeah, they are people, too. And they’re concerned about their group’s existence, and counsel others to be concerned about their group existence, too. Why? Well, it’s not ‘cos they’re ‘evil supremacists.’ They don’t seem to be interested in attacking or hurting or ruling over others. They just believe a group-centric life is a better way to live. And they point out that taking group-centrism seriously requires changes at the level of policy as well as at the level of private mental orientation. That sounds like a lot, but it merits thinking about, doesn’t it?” Obviously that has nothing on five-million-man armies and “vertical expulsion,” but at least it can get people talking—among themselves, as well as with those they wish to part ways with.
171
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11 | #
One example: when primed by being put in a frame of mind receptive to a mating opportunity in men the usual tendency to loss aversion is reversed (i.e., men are then more averse to the loss of an opportunity to acquire something than the loss of something they already possess) whereas this is not the case with women - on average, that is. That said, your attempt here to effect a conciliation between the sexes as against the Jewish effort to cleave that connection in its more refined aspects is certainly admirable. If every able man does his part we just may yet glimpse with mortal eyes the sunlit uplands promised us by English Conservatism; or so one given to teleology would have it. Let me guess, you’re of predominantly British ancestry, ain’t ya, Richards? 172
Posted by SFWN on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:14 | # I love this site. Brilliant stuff, guys, just brilliant! Richards/UH, Silver, Marr, GuestLurker, Patton, Haller, danielj, Lister, etc. I love this back and forth. I have a question for Uh, Richards, Silver, Guest Lurker, others on the interracial front. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I, my mother, my (older, married to a white guy) sister, my best friend, and even other friends notice a lot of well-dressed white women, some of them very attractive, dating Asian men. I mean your typical Chinese. It’s incredible, especially for my mom. None of us used to see this much even in the 90s. In SF, most white females under 40 walking down the street with a man will be with a nonwhite, while most white guys are either alone or with other white guys, or are obviously gay. What in the world is happening? You guys keep arguing about black/white, and I see that, too. It’s really bad when you see also well-attired white yuppie girls with total niggaz (not Obamas). Yes, you see this. It’s just incredible. But there aren’t too many blacks here, except for the African dump called Oakland, so it’s not too common overall. What is striking is the Asian attraction. I do not understand it at all. I think Haller and Uh and Guestlurker up above were right. White men in SF and most places like it are no longer respected by white females. Why they would respect boring Chinese I have no idea. The most nerdy, boring or ugly white guys are still better than Chinese! How low can you get! I feel like I’m in a lunatic asylum. Any Bay Area people write here? 173
Posted by SFWN on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:44 | # Here’s a good question. Will the white race exist in 100 years? I think so. But will it still exist in 200? I don’t think so. Others? I’m curious how others think the race will be saved, and whether it really will be in fact. 174
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:14 | #
Would you at least assent to the proposition that Susie was an ugly, kike dyke, Richards? 175
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:44 | #
LOL! Kudos to the crypto-Limey Richards on reading the riot act to Uh, and with such penache. 176
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:17 | #
No doubt, and like my race, I’m in a constant state of flux. Truth be told, my feelings in the post office line probably had more to do with the fact that had taken a nasal decongestant earlier that day. I was in the same line again today, with a massive hangover, and felt entirely different, partially because I could see through the window that a cop had parked across the street from my car, which was parked in a handicapped space displaying a questionable looking, out-of-state handicapped parking permit. I was not much relieved when he walked past my car, into the post office, and into the line behind me. I can tell you, I had no desire to ask him how he felt about White extinction as my hand stealthily confirmed the presence of my .38. Shit! Was it legal to be carrying it in the post office? What was that headline I had glanced at earlier about “Indefinite Detention”? What about the package I was there to receive. A bagpipe in a rifle case? Jesus Christ, help me. I’m a natural-born bargainer. 177
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:27 | #
Speculation: What really ticks Richards off about Linder is Linder’s being a Kraut and having the temerity to bash “Anglo Christianity”, as Linder calls it. “Anglo Christianity” is the apple of Richards’ eye, you see. I mean, Richards is seemingly willing to suspend his usually exacting standard of “hard data” being an indispensible qualifier of truth, merely relying on his “jewdar” in Linder’s case. Hmm, why so? 178
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:52 | #
GW has emailed Richards some guidelines for being GW’s kapo: “philosophy” required. LOL 179
Posted by Mr Voight on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:25 | #
The white race will exist in 200 years. Other races, I’m not so sure about. 180
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:33 | # By the way, Silver, I think I’ve probably got you beat when it comes to identifying existential bargaining’s all time greatest hit. 181
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:36 | # When it comes to the non-bargaining seasonal musical genre, my uncompromising favorite starts at 0:30 182
Posted by Kilmer on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:54 | #
Yes, the bigger cities are different. Here’s a recent story that’s obviously anecdotal and not the most representative sample, but that gives a flavor of some of the tendencies in contemporary big cities. http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/sanchez_hits_end_zone_twice_ODpuXFx74QcW5ji2Ju8hMI
183
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:17 | #
Although not from a small town, we were high school sweethearts, and having enjoyed the good fortune of each other’s mutual support has not blinded either of us to the vulnerabilities of women in modernity.
Photo courtesy of Portland Anti-Racist Action 184
Posted by Israel for the Jews, Sudan for the Sudanese on Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:26 | # “Israel for the Jews, Sudan for the Sudanese, infiltrators go home!” Tel Aviv Rally 11/12/11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfOHBYua4aU The Israeli newspaper Haaretz mysteriously removed from its website an article exposing atrocious Israeli racism against black people just hours after it was published.
185
Posted by uh on Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:19 | #
186
Posted by uh on Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:55 | #
Had a few up at once, used the wrong URL. Can’t much be bothered to offer data or proofs of what is axiomatic for everyone else not personally concerned to deny that misguided white women pander to non-whites. If it weren’t so there would be more rapport between racialists and your implicitly “racialist” white girls — which there isn’t, pointing to gross psychological disparity. They don’t want us. Their perceived interests lie among “assholes” and inferiors. At least in high-contact urban areas. I don’t what they’re doing in the Midwest. Praying and playing softball, I’m sure, the innocent lambs.
I would say natural selection attached importance to sexual difference. I, in my effusively clumsy manner, can only suggest that one not minimize an evolutionary division of labor ... for the sake of shielding white women from perceived calumny.
“vast majority” There’s more to it than classes. Social proximity is much bigger than that. Think of university dorms — what goes on there. These aren’t “mentally disturbed” young women; they’re just party animals adrift in a nihilistic trash culture. 187
Posted by SFWN on Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:36 | # SFWN, I lived in the Bay for two years. 574 Third by Giant’s Stadium. What a shithole. I had a great time though. I’m up in the Bay occasionally. 189
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:50 | # Straighten up, Danielj. I was worried that your visit with Uh would have deleterious effects on your young, impressionable, Christian mindset. Your posting, as Single Female White Nationalist, is doing nothing to allay those fears. I repeat. Stay strong. It’s time for you to pack up and get back home to L.A., where its safe for you. And, for God’s sake, don’t watch anymore of Uh’s videos! 190
Posted by danielj on Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:22 | # Believe me… Miami is far worse than L.A. and no place for our friend Uh. I propose we raise money to get him outta here It’s a helluva lot better idea than sending Andy Nowicki to Africa. And anyone that knows me knows LA is a less safe place with me there. 191
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:54 | #
Yeah. That sounds good, but I think the idea would have a better chance of attracting support if it had a proposed destination. I personally don’t have enough spare cash to get him past the cotton-pickin’ state of Alabama, where I suspect his prospects would be little improved. Suggest a plan, Dan. 192
Posted by danielj on Sat, 17 Dec 2011 22:56 | # We’ve cooked up a scheme. I’m going to do a very thorough write-up of the whole plan. 193
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:52 | #
Sounds good, but please don’t leave me with the unenviable task of lobbying J. Richards to get behind some nonsense about you and Uh having a brilliant new concept for a pornographic project that’s a sure winner if only you had a few hundred grand to get it rolling, okay? G.W. and Lister wouldn’t present any problems, but if Richards gets any kind of oppositional narrative going inside his head, he could be difficult to get turned around, if you know what I mean? I’ll keep my ears open for entrepreneurial ideas at a Volksfront get-together this evening. Does Uh, by any chance, have experience as a tattoo artist? 194
Posted by uh on Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:28 | #
I’ve picked tobacco, not cotton although I was near cotton country, but Mexicans do both. Warmest regards, Jimmy. Right now working on a job in Covington’s utopia. Once I have secured means, I shall go to work on that sharp-tongued slab of ice known as Axis Sally. I hear tell that chicks dig assholes, if you can believe that.
You would need a hammer to crack that nut. 195
Posted by uh on Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:32 | #
At least one diminutive Cuban ghetto rat agrees with me — anywhere you are is a less safe place with you there. By the way — whet your taste for doom with the oeuvre of NXSchell. 196
Posted by danielj on Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:43 | # Sounds good, but please don’t leave me with the unenviable task of lobbying J. Richards to get behind some nonsense about you and Uh having a brilliant new concept for a pornographic project that’s a sure winner if only you had a few hundred grand to get it rolling, okay? Have you and Uh been talking? Or are you psychic? We talked about starting a certification organization that ensures that pornography starring Eastern Europeans is filmed humanely, that the stars are paid properly and a guarantee to the consumer of said video that the persons involved were not part of international sex slavery rings (read: not enslaved to hook-nosed kikes). That’s just a dream though. The real plan is to eventually get Mr. Uh in the same apprenticeship program I went thru in New England. We’re going to have two crazed WN lineman running around the country causing electrical mayhem. We are going to need some money for airfare from the job he has lined up in Washington to fly to Boston about three different times. Once to take an aptitude test, once for an interview and a third time to actually move out and start work. I’m almost positive I can get him in and get him a place to stay for a while once he is out there. 197
Posted by anon on Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:40 | # On the female thing, there’s two aspects to the poisonous culture: The latter is simple. The culture shows them pictures of starving african children and censors pictures of violent anti-white racism towards white children in minority white schools. The culture talks about black children held back by white racism and censors the reality of IQ differences. Women (on average) are designed to have more empathy then men (for maternal reasons). The enemy uses its cultural dominance to get white women to self-harm via emotional, empathic manipulation not rational argument. If you want to reach women politically it’s more effective to use empathic arguments also, especially if they’re related to children. Couch it in terms of the victim not the perpetrator and use guilt i.e. x is happening because no-one is stopping it. 198
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:11 | #
The fact is that race mixing is still a behavior that is practiced by small total numbers, despite its high visibility in urban settings. Those who value race eventually will concede that some people are lost causes and move on. Anyway, those who engage in fringe practices do, in many cases, have some mental problems or, at least, social alienation. I understand that the managerial elite (for lack of a better term) is trying to make mixing less fringe and more mainstream, but there is a disconnect, as always, between what they try to accomplish with social engineering and what actually happens. Maybe it’s a bit harsh to call race mixing fringe behavior. There have never been, and never will be, empirical studies that link race mixing with mental/social abnormality. I guess, in my own case, I don’t view it as such either. But in the numerical sense, whites are implicitly racialist. The phenomenon of white flight shows this. No matter what beliefs one holds in public, whites still prefer to live among their own kind in the large majority of cases - race mixers are the exception, not the rule. In all honesty, I’ve never understood the fixation on race mixing. Total numbers of whites are in the hundreds of millions and interracial marriage is statistically a small phenomenon. Even allowing for the fact that much race mixing takes place outside of marriage, it is still a small phenomenon. So why worry about the exceptions who do it, especially when nothing can be done about it?
199
Posted by uh on Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:05 | # GREATcomment, anon. Here’s something from our Constantin:
200
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:34 | # Captainchaos @177 I’ve nothing against Krauts. Linder doesn’t look like a Kraut; a Guido is more like it. Whereas Linder’s appearance is a red flag, this isn’t the reason for my issues with him. I’ve already stated the reasons in the discussion on 9/11 (follow the external links to others who’ve stated their reservations about Linder, with documentation).
Misguided white women will do misguided things, but the question is what proportion are misguided and how it compares to the figure among men. Without hard data, your claims, especially since you have zero credibility [documented in my previous reply to you], are a useless digression. On the topic of whether there would be more rapport between the racialists [apparently men] and racialist women if it weren’t for what you claim about women, the answer’s not difficult. Women tend to be less into politics. So websites like MR will attract more men as a result of this factor alone, which has nothing to do with any rapport issues. But some women who may have racialist beliefs will be turned off by malicious individuals who naturally frequent such sites. Rapport isn’t easy to establish when there are lots of people sabotaging the attempt, yourself included as evident by now.
What a bunch of nonsense! No one’s raised this argument with respect to relocating oneself among non-whites; the “many” as a proportion needs to be documented; the mental illness thing was specifically with respect to sexual activity or miscegenation, and this wasn’t what the behavior was attributed to but many other contributing factors were referenced, including those having nothing to do with ugliness, drug addiction or mental illness.
I haven’t denied it; the issue didn’t come up.
Even in this sample of women, if you have data showing rampant interracial sex among white female college students, you’ve got something that can be discussed, but there’s no such thing and hence nothing to discuss. 201
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:02 | #
Interesting. I had “uh” pegged as a retired psychologist! Is he so young as to qualify as a Lineman apprentice? If so, I’m a bit shocked! FWIW, I cracked the whip on linemen from Local 17 for 20 years. Most were good ol’ boys. PS, Miami is one of my favorite cities. I spent allot of time there growing up there. Two blocks south of Flagler, six blocks east of Douglas Highway. Loved the Cubans!
202
Posted by anon on Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:13 | #
I think it’s a big deal but the key factor is the last point. What, at an individual level can be done about it? Spreading HBD ideas on IQ differences and reversion to the mean might help a little. Countering the empathy/guilt cultural priming might help - where i grew up blacks would always use guilt arguments on white girls i.e. you won’t go out with me cos you’re racist - so the more “racism” and “racist” are seen as simply anti-white tactics created to engineer white genocide the less likely they are to fall for it. At the end though the single biggest reason is simply the poorest white neighborhoods being overrun with non-whites and the remaining white population in those neighborhoods being turned into a minority. Girls in those environments have their choices constrained and the smaller the white percentage gets the less choice they have. The only solution to that is large-scale political change. So avoid thinking about it. Whenever it bugs you switch to a fantasy where we’ve won and are doing the same thing to the enemy - separate the males and females into two camps and breed them with the stupidest people on the planet over many, many generations until there is nothing left of their people as a people. Eye for an eye. 203
Posted by White Dating Habits on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:35 | # “Whites more than blacks, women more than men and old more than young participants stated a preference for a partner of the same race. The reluctance of whites to contact blacks was true even for those who claimed they were indifferent to race. More than 80 percent of the whites contacted whites and fewer than 5 percent of them contacted blacks, a disparity that held for young as well as for older participants.” So 15% go for some type of Asian, perhaps S American? Maybe the “whites” are a mixed bunch. 204
Posted by uh on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:00 | # White Dating Habits, Yea dude, I read Roissy — I know white girls don’t initiate correspondence with blacks. But what you have to understand is that profiles on dating sites are not real life; they are idealized presentations and the mechanism allows girls to choose precisely what she believes or feels at the moment to be the highest quality men: hypergamy. Also, it is mostly a pastime of the middle class; most dating websites cater to SWPLs and normal types. The ghetto girls, the drunken college girls, the pot-smoking average girls who mingle with black dudes at parties, which happens nearly everywhere blacks are found, don’t bother with dating sites. Most girls don’t have to; Roissy has advanced the theory, already sensed and often articulated by guys like me, that social networks and dating sites are now largely for the purpose of allowing females easy mass-echo chambers for their self-esteem. If you have a Facebook account, and have checked out the walls of the two or three marginally hot females you probably have in your friends, you’ll see what I mean — and if you didn’t already you’re just obtuse, anyhow. Dating sites are an internet vacuum, just like MajorityRights. It is not real life. In real life, where average people smoke pot, listen to indie records, “throw gang signs” and get drunk all the bloody time, kaffir-fucking happens. Maybe not in the rich neighborhoods around Daniel’s part of the country, but damned sure everyplace else. I never said that white girls, given the anonymous choice between white and black men, would not choose white men. Unfortunately they live in a world full of both and often make the lazy stupid decision to lie with savages. Often, too, they aren’t given any choice by the same. This is not “racialism”, it does not mean they are secretly “racialist” — it means they are secretly normal. In other words, the abnormal is more operative in real life situations than the normal. So much for the theory that no “normal” chicks go for savages. “LORD HUMONGOUS dominates his women — and they LOVE HIM for it.” “Every woman loves the boot of a fascist.” 205
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:23 | # @Uh So your response to hard data cited by WDH, specifically showing lower interest in non-whites among white females compared to white males, at a time when internet use is common among young adults in Western nations, is more baseless claims! Apparently, the large number of responses don’t reflect “real life,” but “real life” comprises of: ghetto girls, the drunken college girls, the pot-smoking average girls who mingle with black dudes at parties… average people smoke pot, listen to indie records, “throw gang signs” and get drunk all the bloody time, ... which is the apparent filth you live in and can’t see beyond. Still, there’s no data showing rampant miscegenation among white female drunk college girls or pot smokers.
More unsubstantiated nonsense. Spare us your claims as you’ve already lost all credibility on the matter. 206
Posted by uh on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:48 | #
Internet selection bias is not real life. Here are a few posts at Chateau Heartiste to acquaint you with men who have a firmer handle on reality: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/social-media-and-female-self-esteem/ Of course their high selectivity reflects their basic preference for white men. But it says nothing of their habits in real life, where one, knowing the idealism that comes with internet profiles and “dating”, would expect to find less rigorous selection. You must have missed how people join these sites and talk themselves up, usually ending with choosing “Average” or “Fit” under “Body Type” though the neocon butthex paymasters allzlzolz and thrieir fiiatcarbz have decreed them to be forever “A Few Extra Pounds” (+). Dunno what I’m fussing about anyhow. White women still marry white men, but they also initiate divorce overwhelmingly more often and benefit most handsomely from neoxon buthchhex raping fo menns in da courts of law. Next you will tell me this is all more “unsubstantiated B.S.” Please spare me the betatude.
Yes, I live in the real world, among ordinary people. Try being one sometime you officious sheltered bot.
You’re still loading that language. Never said “rampant”, though hey, I’ve been to college — and college parties — and watched waaaayyyy too much porno, but oops, I forgot to keep data “showing” it’s all true! Dang! Has it also escaped your lordly notice that Americans love to smoke cannabis?
My humongous shlong is a widely substantiated fact. Among fat girls at least. 207
Posted by uh on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:55 | # Roissy hates everything and everyone we hate: How long can the WN white knights here at MR deny the gamestreaming of their own ideas? Guess what, fellas — you are obsolete even in your “discourse is war”. The war has been won and it was done by game. You gonna play or you gonna flap ya fuckin’ lips?
again
and again
208
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:29 | # I confess I have not read all these exchanges. But, a q for Uh: How do you account for the exponential increase in {attractive white females + greasy, unbelievably ugly and not at all necessarily high-income Asian males}, at least in LA/OC and the Bay Area (I’ve stated previously what SFWN says somewhere above on this topic)? [Oh, and my “slant”, as some have referred to her, is more than half white, actually looks white until you get close (OK, she does dye her hair), is in her early 20s, and is pretty hot (ie, most of her buffoonish detractors here would not pass her up, I do assure you). Ever checked out Maggie Q, the half white/Asian actress? Any dude here who would not date her is a homo, big time. No, my girl is no Maggie Q, but she’s still fine, and actually less Asian looking; I thought MQ was wholly Asian.] BTW, the real intellectual in all this is not Roissy, who I think basically just tells people how to get laid (I’ve only seen references to him and quotes from him), but Roger Devlin, the TOQ writer. You should be quoting him instead. 209
Posted by danielj on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:58 | # So your response to hard data cited by WDH Oh yeahz! Hard data baby boy! Gimme that hard data! LORD HUMONGOUS DOESN’T ASK “WAS IT GOOD FOR YOU?!” OR “WHERE WERE YOU LAST NIGHT?” jooz: Where is your big hard data about white extinction white manzes?
Institutionalized resistance to encroachment-by-nigger is nonexistent. 210
Posted by danielj on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:03 | # [Oh, and my “slant”, as some have referred to her, is more than half white, actually looks white until you get close (OK, she does dye her hair), is in her early 20s, and is pretty hot (ie, most of her buffoonish detractors here would not pass her up, I do assure you). Ever checked out Maggie Q, the half white/Asian actress? Any dude here who would not date her is a homo, big time. No, my girl is no Maggie Q, but she’s still fine, and actually less Asian looking; I thought MQ was wholly Asian.] Let’s put her in the wobbly H Leon. Then you can move on to the principled stand Dabney was talkin boutz. In the meantime, untilz you can get over the slant’s slit… 211
Posted by uh on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:45 | #
If you mean pairings, I wouldn’t know where to begin, having never seen that in my life. That will sound weird to you, as you probably consider it familiar, and I won’t bother doubting your experience; our experience of these affairs is plenty relevant. Generally though my assertion holds: Average, sometimes above average, white women do succumb to non-whites in a high-contact multiracial environment. If white men out there are boinking Asian women as often as people say, it may come from being caught between those, blacks, and Mexicans. Simon Sheppard advanced a theory on the Heretical Press website, a long time ago, that European girls like to “tote” African boyfriends, who, at least then perhaps, were usually fundamentally different from our uppity antique farm equipment. So the idea, which is perfectly intuitive, is that these European girls are rubbing their embodied rebellion in their menfolk’s faces — a showy rejection of everything they are enjoined by liberal mores, feminist rhetoric, and trash media. Check this out: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/3/243.abstract?sid=8761fb17-9879-4973-aef3-f80de214de8e Object-display as what the PUAs call “DHV” (demonstrating higher value) is a well known phenomenon.
Agreed.
r u wrong
We have. They overlap. 212
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:15 | #
213
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:16 | # Uh, you call me “gullible” - surely the accidental punchline to a joke unwittingly told about yourself. You are in your late twenties and have not yet learned what it is fully to be man, and that fact does not speak well of you. You are now little more than an intuitively gifted cynic whose meager eloquence allows him to play notes soothing to himself, out-of-tune on the beta’s harp of necessarily broken strings. Your own perceived shortcomings dispose you to an inaccurately discolored and uglified perception of the world. We have been over this before and sadly apparently not much has changed. Or perhaps, and more fatalistically, it is only because you are not Nordic and can therefore never fully be masculine. (Okay, that latter mark was gratuitous and decidely beneath the belt, only I couldn’t resist. Apologies for that.) A strong man that is also a good man takes it upon himself to lift others up despite the lowly station those others may occupy now. And he can do no other. Perhaps Richards could have just said that, which is what he really meant to say anyway, although the wonkish drubbing he administered you was certainly entertaining. 214
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:51 | # Uh, But the women in my family are truly incredulous that any white woman would want to be with an Asian (presumably carnal relations occur). Indeed, my Eurasian girlfriend (and another all-Asian I once dated) would not date Asian men, period (maybe if there were no white guys around…). My point is that this new phenomenon flies in the face of all the Steve Sailer, evolutionary psychological stuff about big penises or muscles or whatever is taken for dominance. I actually do NOT think it’s any kind of a statement in general (specific cases could be different). Try this on. I think these white chicks are so thoroughly deracinated that they do not even notice race at all. They are the liberals’ lasting creation. They only see “the person”. Which to me is as scary and depressing as anything. 215
Posted by danielj on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:01 | # You are now little more than an intuitively gifted cynic Hmmm…. Pot paging kettle… 216
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:02 | #
Captainchaos’ tuff gai version of the feminists’ “man up”.
That’s pretty good. I like it. You are a good writer sometimes.
“yawn”
u r guwwibwe wike wichardz 217
Posted by anon on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:04 | #
Roissy is a Jew spreading conflict and division. The primary result of radical feminism on the one hand and the “Cosmopolitan” version of feminism on the other has been millions of white women having fewer children than they wanted or none at at all. Just as women start to realise this along comes a male version of feminism to continue the divide and rule. “Game” works on those girls who’ve been brainwashed by the anti-natal “Cosmopolitan” and “Sex in the City” element of a genocidally hostile culture into believing the best way to a longterm relationship is through trading casual sex. It says nothing about women other than how susceptible they are to cultural manipulation.
218
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:47 | #
Most of his readership are race-realists and white nationalists. So he seems to be having just the opposite effect, and I myself ... will take whatever tends to promote coherence among white men over anything. Roissy did not create conflict and division between white men and women. You have made that up — white knighting with the Richards bot and Captainchaos. White women don’t want racialism. They are not interested in the long-term prospects of their kind. White women are not innocent. This isn’t Little House On The fuckin’ Prairie. Don’t act as a shield for people who hate you. What they want are good genes and your money. You are expendable. 219
Posted by anon on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:54 | #
To expand a little more. At the base it’s all very simple. The point is to have healthy children who go on to have healthy children. The best way to do that for the average person is as part of a tribe on an exclusive terriotory with a cohesive, mutual aiding, pro-natal culture. It’s obviously practically more efficient to operate as part of a group plus at a genetic level it makes sense for that group to be related by blood because you’ll share more genes with them than outsiders. This is true for almost all the ethnic groups on the planet although with many different variations on the theme. The exceptions to that are: - Elites, through class-based assortative mating, can over many generations turn into what is effectively a separate ethnic group. I think this will have been true to a certain extent in almost all human tribes throughout history but it eventually self-corrects through revolution and civil war. - Some small tribes who developed an invasive and parasitic evolutionary strategy***. The standard version of this strategy just requires the group to have a very tight cohesive bond and be too numerically small to be obviously threatening. Gypsies are like this. However if part of the strength of the cohesive bond comes from an induced cultural belief that everyone outside the tribe hates them and wants them dead thaen it will put that tribe into a state of permanent war with outsiders. A tribe like this will enter the living space of a normal one and, among other things, automatically, instinctively and in many cases unconsciously try and replace the cohesive, mutual aiding, pro-natal host culture with a divided, conflicted, anti-natal one. In their head it is pre-emptive self-defense. Western culture is currently utterly dominated by a genocidally hostile Jewish elite based in Hollywood and New York. Nothing about female (or male) behavior is “normal” in this context. *** You can easily imagine how that parasitic strategy could have evolved. If a tribe is conquered and loses it’s exclusive terriotory to the extent that it becomes a minority then in most cases that tribe will end up being assimilated. If a tribe in that situation creates a strong enough anti-assimilationist culture to prevent assimilation then they will automatically take on a parasitic form unless and until it gets a homeland again after which it will take some number of generations to revert back to the standard form.
220
Posted by anon on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:16 | #
The ideal audience for divide and rule then.
Valid tactically maybe. I’m not 100% against game for that reason.
There’ll always a base level of conflict. Feminism made it a lot worse from the 70s onwards but the impact of feminism has started to wane. Then along comes Roissy.
Jews wage war by poisoning the host culture. “White Knight” is a good thing.
And if the dominant culture was like this
what would they want? My point is the culture has been poisoned. That needs to be taken into account. 221
Posted by danielj on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:22 | # Next we are going to be subjected to a lecture about how Tina Fey is actually a suberversively radical anti-feminist! We were one step away from the reinstitution of patriarchy until Roissy stepped on the scene! THe genie is out of the lamp… 222
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:27 | # Good breakdown — you remind me of Wandrin — two exceptions.
We’ll see if that holds true. It seems to me white people and the momentum of advanced technology have outsmarted such natural corrections. The closed-circuit surveillance camera, and the rapid-response police unit employing advanced weaponry, alone refute “revolution and civil war” in the West. At least be wise and do not hold your breath.
The Good Lord could erase Jews from the world tomorrow and we would not “self-correct”. We would still be living in big cities, still have narcissistic / alienating diversions, still have birth control technology, and still have enfranchised women and darkies — all of which amounts to the latter coming to compete with men for spoils, above all by using their own fairness protocols against them to extract wealth and legitimacy. Jews did not invent the rights of woman. They did not “do” slavery. They did not make Holland, England, Portugal and Spain great maritime and mercantile powers. They did not free the darkies. They did not invent gold-digging women, abortion, famine, the city, or agriculture. Women are not on our side. Only with great suffering would they find their way back to white men, and with a maximum of resentment and all the same expectations. It would take generations of the very deepest suffering — which is what? going without new shoes and fancy food for a while; perhaps a backyard dental extraction — to create a new crop of newly oriented white women. Given the constraints of urbanism and technological momentum, this will probably never happen without extreme ecological catastrophe. Just as Jews will never forget this or that ordeal brought on by their lousy behavior, women of one generation will never forget smart phones, the pill, Facebook, Camel Crush cigarettes, men-are-pigs, and the scent of a new car. Jews are not responsible for all of that. Not even for Facebook. 223
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:50 | # Ever gone without shoes for a week? It’s a lot of fun. One’s feet become as paws; and one learns to walk with eyes on the ground for glints of glass or metal and sharp rocks. This can be done in the snow with enough practice. At least, one can build a better tolerance for cold. Barefoot running is a minor fad in the world of white man hobbies. I’ve never seen a woman running barefoot. Ask a hundred white men if they could live without shoes for a week. Ask a hundred white women. If even fifty say they couldn’t, you’ve just located the source of what ails our kind well past the Jewish menace. Go further. Ask the men what they need to survive. Ask the women. OkCupid does this. Guess what they say? Phones, chapstick, a comfy bed, several pairs of shoes, and sex. Guess what men say? Often nothing — they are forced to confess that when it comes down to it, they think they could survive with next to nothing, that nothing is indispensable. This actually lowers their perceived value among women. Fun fact: there is no right answer for men. This is ironic idealism but also it isn’t. It reflects people’s level of socialization to the franchise. If the franchise bends but does not break, what hope is there of breaking the socialization that retards our legitimacy? Women out of the home, allowed to have opinions, a “voice”, will retard society no less than Jews degrade it. Being pro-natal is fine; but outlawing birth control implies removing their “freedom to choice”, so you have already come over to my way of thinking that women must be directly controlled, and not subsidized in wealth-extraction and cuckoldry by the state. But the state itself would have to be destroyed. Women do not care about us, or the race, or anything but “stuff”. The SWPLs are off baking gingerbread cookies and photographing everything with their expensive Nikon cameras; the ghetto girls are chain-smoking, watching the electric synagogue, leasing a new car they’re using some white soldier’s money to pay for, going to da kluuuub n drankin’; the bourgeoisie are .... well you know how they spend their money. Jewelry. Dildos. Insurance policies. Vacay. Braces for little Dakota and Hunter and Riley. Here is what we are supposed to care about. 224
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:20 | #
Look, you can’t prove that Roissy is a Jew. He is probably the James Wiedmann once interviewed as the creator of Roissy in some Canadian e-paper, later “exposed” by the Jewess Lady Rain on LiveJournal. Let us not pretend that this comes anywhere near proving with certainty that he is a Jew. In Montana I worked for a woman named Weidmann; she was 100% German and everything about her betokened it. German names most often end in -nn, while German-Jewish names most often end in -n. This isn’t made up. Research it. Most -nn German names are born by ethnic Germans. Roissy routinely makes sly remarks critical of Jews and allows all anti-Jew commentary. Meanwhile, “Unamused” over at Unamusement Park is in meltdown — the verbose mischling couldn’t stand all the Jew crit going on at his blog and is now just blocking any but the most circumspect quasi-criticism of his tribe. We know he is a Jew. We don’t know that Roissy is. Until you have something solid, all you have is the desire that he be Jewish to escape having to take him seriously.
What can I say? You don’t read enough mainstream slop. It never waned. Big ideas don’t just go away; they morph into something else. The feminist of 1990 is the born-again “housewife” of 2000, and by 2010 was wondering why the Uncle Sambo she voted for wasn’t delivering the rapture. This is still “feminism” — because it is a female doing anything but having children and caring for them. This is the result of technology, not Roissy.
Sure it is. But women aren’t good things. They hate men for being “good”. You need to read more social psychology, that’s all I can say. EVERYONE AGREES NOW that women are not satisfied by “nice guys” ... unless the culture is one that forces them to shut up about it and punishes them if they stray. By the way, the word knight means “boy, vassal” (German: Knecht, “slave”). Be slavish if you like, I’ll “distribute my sympathies” elsewhere.
Well if you could turn back the clock in every particular, then sure, they’d go for it. Until the National Socialists asserted the primacy of Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft (while simultaneously becoming more “Gesellschaft” by its militarization), those German MILFs were banging the black-haired Jew out in the cities; it was just this sight, notoriously frequent in the theater world, that led Wilhelm Marr to coin the very word “anti-Semitism” for his antipathy. The Jew did not invent the flapper and the strumpet. He did not invent the drama. The city did.
Of course. My point: it didn’t take place in a test tube — Jews did not create the environment in which they have thrived. They can determine its character up to a point, as done esp. after the 60s, but they didn’t invent the Western city — the factories, the tenements, the plague, manoralism, low consanguinity, etc. etc. etc. And if you undo the Jew, you’d still have to undo feminism. And if you undo feminism, though you may have a society running about as smoothly as Seattle or Zurich, you would still have low consanguinity, high trust, universalism — and a world of billions of dissatisfied darkies waiting to be enfranchised. Feminism emanates from white fairness protocols, which reflect whitey’s more open nature. Low consanguinity = open society. Go have a look at the commentary to the penultimate post at Roissy. If you didn’t know where you were reading, it could almost be a discussion here ... and in fact far more trenchant. Game lends itself very well to big systems theory. Nationalism ... not so much. 225
Posted by Randy Garver on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:23 | # uh:
Maybe you need to meet a better class of woman. And when you do, you’ll very likely discover that they have parents who invested more time, care, and resources in their daughters. The implication then being that to produce the ideal woman of tomorrow, you need better fathering today. This blog contains ream after ream of indictments against women but hardly a peep regarding the lousy dads that produced them, nor very much in the way of support and encouragement for those attempting to properly raise the next generation. 226
Posted by anon on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:42 | #
Judging by all the stupid blonde women and dumb crackers on her show i’d have to say she was the standard issue genocidal Jewish racist using the media to attack the people she considers to be her ethnic enemies. (Although in a way she partly is in that Jews will over time automatically become hostile to the host population’s culture even if it’s a genocidal one they themselves previously created. It’s built into their nature like being pro-Christian in China or India and anti-Christian in America.)
1) The consequences of patriarchy were known. The consequences of feminism were unknown back then but now the two can be compared. The tide in that regard is patently turning, if slowly. 2) Patriarchy evolved to suit biology. It had a rational basis but didn’t know it and thus had to rely on custom and tradition for arguments. A more conscious and biological version of patriarchy would work a lot better imo e.g. some women aren’t cut out for kinder kuche kirche and making it 100% creates rebels. A rational patriarchy would make exceptions for the Marie Curies so they didn’t buck and cause problems.
I’d say the opposite. What 9/11 actually showed if you step back and think about it is a few hundred electricians could take down America.
Disagree. What is happening in the West is entirely unnatural and can only be maintained with conscious and almost total cultural pressure. Simply put there are millions of post-menopausal white women who never had kids and now bitterly regret it. The culture is genocidal. Nothing is normal.
I think a healthy culture does it automatically.
Makes my point. You’re focused on some subset of the white population as the problem. The disease is the culture. The symptoms of the disease are a distraction. The culture and the source of that culture in media and education is the problem.
227
Posted by anon on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:32 | #
Only a Jew would come up with the phrase “sexual marketplace”. This isn’t simply anti-semitism, they’re wired up differently.
I take him seriously and a lot of what he says is solid psychology. His spin puts it all on female nature rather than on a mixture of culture and biology. That’s where i disagree.
Yeah but it’s total nonsense. Any genuine nice guy who is remotely masculine is snapped up almost instantly. Women are at their very worst in terms of viciousness towards each other when competing for genuine (and masculine) nice guys. masculine + nice > masculine + nasty > non-masculine What is true is the cultural definition of “nice male” was changed away from being masculine towards something that’s more like a nominally male form of girlfriend. Obviously women aren’t going to be attracted to that. But again, that is a product of the totally unnatural post-60s “Cosmopolitan” culture. If the choice is between being masculine and nasty or non-masculine then sure i’m in favor of young white men choosing the former but the reason you don’t see (masculine + nice) men out-competing (masculine + nasty) men for women at bars is because they only have one woman (and they already got the best ones).
Hypothetical: half the females are Cosmo girls and half are Kinder, Kuche girls. In the current culture the cosmo girls are out being hypergamous while the others are sat at home miserable, watching romcoms and getting fat on chocolate. In a healthy culture the cosmo girls are doing the same but the kinder, kuche girls are cooking for their husband and four kids. After a few generations you have 90% kinde kuche girls. Human culture is eugenics - or dysgenics.
Yes and understanding that nature would lead to a culture that compensates. Scientific inquiry is part of that open society nature. Ethnic differences started to be studied in the 1880s but was strangled at birth by the usual suspects. If that research hadn’t been blocked we might have been at the state of knowledge we are now back in the 1960s or 70s and as a result no 1965 immigration act or the mass immigration into Europe.
228
Posted by Patton on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:30 | # Uh, I find myself pretty much in agreement with you on the subject of women. J Richards may have a point when he says it’s subjective, but my own experiences and observations pretty much conform to your own. Most women (or should I say, girls) are lousy spoilt brats who’ve been brainwashed into thinking they need that college degree rather than rearing the children who are needed to ensure that there will be a next generation to uphold our nationhood and traditions. However, they only live for today. Carpe Diem and all that crap. They drink and smoke more than their own fathers do and if you ask any random girl about her hobbies it will be ‘shopping’. When the hell did it become normal to consider spending money a pastime? Oh, and did I mention partying? I honestly am not inclined to buy into the blame-the-Jews argument because I think that given certain conditions, women may well tend towards their present-day thirst for ‘independence’ (a code word for authority over men) and universal sluthood by nature. Women are far more chauvinistic than men ever will be. Men throughout European and Christian history have tended to have a sense of duty to provide for their families rather than regarding women as mere property as is the case in Talmudism and Muhammadanism. Europeans also developed extensive forms of courtesy, chivalry and gallantry towards women, with knights swearing to protect the dignity of ladies against those who spoke ill of the latter. Hardly any religion has such a devotion to a women (the Virgin Mary, etc) as traditional Christianity but since women sell their virginity to the highest bidder, they couldn’t care less about a virtuous role model, of course. However, there is a double standard. Most women demand to be treated equally but they won’t object to chivalry if it means you are the one who’s paying the bill. Never mind she has plenty of money of her own to spend on her nth pair of shoes and what not. They demand to be treated as princesses all while claiming they are equal to men. Wittingly or unwittingly, what they want is to rule over men. If racism is a code word for anti-White, equality/feminism are code words for anti-Male. Having said that, I find it odd that the same people who are quick to point out the biological differences between races would be the same to deny any substantial differences between men and women. If you allow me to quote my dear old friend Benny once more on the topic. He:
In other words: ‘<font size=“5”>Celebrate Inequality!</font> I am not a militarist but I profoundly believe only a state of total war will prove capable of reminding both men and women wherein lies the value of life - that is the family, not the individual. Burke called it the little platoon. Our attachment and loyalty and devotion to the family is one to be mirrored by the nation as a whole. Women and men play their own equally valuable roles in society but ought to do so in naturally unequal ways. That is the essence of a corporatist, organic society in which each plays his own role to keep the nation together. If one body part fails, all will fail. Death to the myth of equality. Death to hedonism and Jewish materialism. Saluto romano! 229
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:42 | #
You miss — but affirm — the point: it is woman’s class under the franchise that has removed her from our control. Better class means higher likelihood of hypergamous “boredom” and “dissatisfaction”. Only old women put race before dollars, and all nine of those can be found scattered across white nationalist blogs. One meets “better” women all the damned time. They’re all self-important queen bees, pampered finger-crooking memsahibs who want thug or lawyer genes and their trial run husband’s money to get them through the lean times, that is, having to shop at Pier One instead of Horchow. I won’t conspire to exalt women beyond the worth of their bodies. I want to cast them into the dust like the serpent-loving tarts they are. Perhaps then they will be grateful for all the sacrifices men have made to give them all this mass-produced illusion of “class”.
High-investment parenting is a fine thing. It ensures the existence of soft-skinned white lovelies who will grow up and marry Asian men with lots of money, thus ensuring that some at least half-white people will always exist. Hey, I love consolation prizes! Just ask all the fat girls I’ve slept with.
You mean my comments? I don’t see anyone else carrying the torch for patriarchy, except danielj. Don’t you find that just a LITTLE queer? all these white men arguing AGAINST the social system MOST in their interests?
Coming from the keeper of precious multiculti kewpie dolls and some income-hungry Asian wife, all I get from this is the far-off sound of a cracking whip. I am aware that bad/absent father = slut daughter. Who isn’t. You, Garver, are nothing. You are a tool in your own replacement. I knew a man in New York who has three sons, one gay, the other too busy for mating, the last a half-Asian infant in whom he plans to invest his entire patrimony. Including a refurbished (and very impressive) Victorian in the center of his small town he bought for millions borrowed from whatever military fund loans to vets. He’ll go in about ten years. Then his Vietnamese wife and half-caste “high investment” son will have a huge house to play in! He’ll have piano lessons too I’m sure. In fact they already have a piano. This is the Randy fucking Garver model of “Western” revitalization. At the center of this world is the dew-sipping half-caste lotus child playing some instrument invented and handcrafted by Italians. One day they’ll have a Hapa identity crisis: Do I marry an Asian or a white person? Oh noez!!! What a farce, man. And you feign sErIoUsNeSs.
Next generation of what?? Traitors to their kind! You can all go to hell. Preening mammonites. Click-clack, click-clack, click-clack, *tee hee* ! — we thought it was a boot stomping on our faces, turns out to be a whore in heels and rouge with a Facebook account and an IUD lodged up her death canal. 230
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:02 | # Patton, I appreciate the support. Sounds trite, but is true. Staggering how many men will consistently rush to woman’s defense despite every reason to withhold it, no less than goyish defenders of yidden. It takes a profound and possibly total divorce from the quotidian realities of the American street to imagine white women are “racialist” and anything but booze-swilling, chain-smoking, cat-collecting, carousel-riding harridans. People carry so much idealistic baggage around them it’s impossible to convince them to see past it. White nationalists believe in a fairy woman of pristine virtue who helps out around the house and exhibits endlessly loyalty. This is fiction, no less than their obsession with tirelessly “virtuous” Nordic supermen. Maybe they need to read Roosh’s accounts of his time in Iceland and the Nordic countries among their women. They’re so easy they can’t even be described as easy anymore, more like walking flesh mattresses choosing men at random for extremely casual sex. But we always knew that being a white nationalist means ignoring uglier aspects of the real world for the fascistic self-serving fantasies in one’s head. Just ask that faithful hound-dog of this solipsistic tendency, Captainchaos.
Of course! As does everyone’s experience. They all know it. They just don’t want to admit it. You think Captainchaos up in nowhere Michigan is unacquainted with the utter profligacy of white girls? LOL. It is a massive case of doublethink that allows them to show up here and challenge me on this point. They jes’ gotta believe in their sinless “normal” white memsahibs. As Vijay Prozak once knowingly asked, “Everyone thinks his mother didn’t put out sometimes.” Yet it’s they who will come before you and declare that YOU are insane, filthy, delusional, frustrated, blah blah blah blah, in a feat of cognitive dissonance that rivals the old Jew kicking you while he tells you to stop kicking him. Clinically this is pure denial strategy. The more a patient is in denial — the more you can count on them to find some external object or person to blame for whatever troubles them. Transference of blame. Blame lies with Roissy, with uh, with Jews, drugs — can’t be that our women have been too pampered for too long. It’s like they’ve never watched a spoiled child and his weak-willed parents. The children with the worst behavior ALWAYS have weak parents. WOMEN ARE LIKE BIG CHILDREN. Give in to their whims, they will bring you straight down until you at last lose patience and give them what they need: a square slap on the jaw. J Richards is as near a bot as a human can be. He may be a programmer or so used to the fluidity of his own rationalizations that he can’t tell the difference between his preferences and facts. I can. I am actually aware that I exaggerate. I am aware that the MUAs and MGTOWs exaggerate sometimes. Everyone does. We are motivated and our cogitations reflect our peculiar biases. Anyone not pre-armed with a deep need to exculpate pretty worthless young women will read his arguments and spot the blind-spots and contradictions. “Anecdotes” for example are not invalid (absurd to start!); but they reflect the “filth” in which I live, so they are valid for judging me, suddenly. Ok! wonderful! White women are perfect. Woohoo! hooray for the white knights stepping manfully over the bodies of we “divisive” gamers and our “Jew” pied piper to the glorious fucked-out drunken white pussy at the end of the rainbow!!! Hope you like BEER PONG lolzozozozozozoz !!
But to the extent that now the college degree, of any kind, is necessary to hold oneself higher in the franchise (which really translates to: ability to remove oneself from the company of non-whites and compete for products), white women cannot even escape the requirement, but because they’re pretty dumb at STEM jobs, “HR” and service jobs explode. They need to go somewhere after college.
Yea man. They never read the first two pages of the Bible. It’s a big book of Jewish fables, after all. No before “uh” and “Roissy” ever said that women’s appetites are kinda scary-wild and had to be held in check lest they ruin society. This is pure invention and “unsubstantiated B.S.” Caesar’s first wife wasn’t indiscreet by letting that lothario in drag into her chambers while Big C was away on manoeuvres. Nah. Women are blameless. If they err, it’s cuz dey on druuuugz. It’s like this. If you give a man in Burkina Faso the choice of staying in BF with his potatoes and pot-bellied women, in relatively good health, or flying to Denmark, drawing on the dole and the chance to whistle at forgiving white girls, even if it means he will later develop a certain morbid condition prevalent among inhabitants of our civilization, which will he choose? Similarly, because of Natural Polarity, there is an irreducible para-sexual datum of biological independence that asserts itself anytime a female organism is overtaken by a male organism; she resists because she exists as an independent being. There is no other explanation for it. It is a kink in the evolution of sexual dimorphism that was never ironed out and really cannot be. What this means socially is that women, when OFFERED CHOICES, will invariably PREFER TO HAVE CHOICES, however detrimental to themselves and society. I once saw a photo of a Nyasaland tribesman with horribly disfigured teeth. How could that be — a primitive in his own adaptive environment? Because every now & then a tribesman discovers a bee’s nest and plunders it for honey, going at it until he destroys his teeth. This is an example of supernormal stimulus. Commercialism and choice offer supernormal stimulus to consumers. “Civil liberties” are the products of the franchise. Once a “citizen” tastes the honey of this or that “right”, they will have reached a new psychic threshold which will not easily, certainly not rationally, allow any diminution thereof. Freedom is its own unfreedom. Women brought into the franchise expect and vote for that which weakens us as a kind, and only that. They want family only if it’s family subordinated to their preferences. They want family after a decade or more of aborting seed, preventing conception, and riding the cock carousel. This is the result of enfranchising women, of allowing them presence and luxury.
Right. The Virgin was for European poets and now is for Mexican men in prison. Sociobiology informs us that women want resources, not bloodless ideals. It took observing ants and bower birds to reach that truth. Two-thousand years worshiping This and That, and no white man until Darwin thought of observing animals. LOL.
In effect. The myth of equality reaches right into white nationalism, where it exists as idealized “complementarity”. Emphasis on idealized, because to white nationalists, there are no real men and women — only the idealized men and women who live in their heads. Put it in animal context. Let’s say there is a species of bug that has come to depend on the resources commanded by another species of bug to survive while offering some small advantage elsewhere. This mutualism exists well enough for thousands of years. Then something changes in the habitat, and both species explode — overusing the commons and creating a competitive environment. Suddenly, after thousands of years, the mutualism is thrown off and maybe the males of the provider species begin to hoard females, or the females of the other species begin to assert their greater numbers for access to scarcer resources. I’m making this up but shit like this happens among insects, birds, etc., and it’s happening to us right now. At some point urbanism had to suck women into the awareness that they ought to have legitimacy, a legal share in the spoils of civilization. And so it was. Owing to the rhetoric of Christianity and British Common Law, it took the form of “equality before the law” ... and now exists in the popular idiom as a codeword for state-enforced legitimacy. But of course this does not do away with the older, far older system of males deferring to and protecting females — it coexists therewith and creates a situation weighted against males and have now both to PROVIDE FOR and ACKNOWLEDGE AS EQUALS IN THE ORGANIC TASK OF RESOURCE PROVISIONING, these presumptuous and greedy little beasts who take no interest whatever in matters beyond their nests that have seen a dozen “partners” before age twenty-five. 231
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:21 | #
ISN’T THAT THE MOST INCREDIBLE SHIT YOU’VE SEEN SINCE THE LEFT BEGAN DENYING RACIAL DIFFERENCE??? I thought I was the only one to have been floored by this contradiction, and floor me it does. There are WNs who will tell you that blacks are really Homo erectus, but suggest that there exist biological differences between the sexes (the very plurality means nothing I guess!!) which result in mental differences, you’re dividing the bloody camp! making it up! there are no big differences between us! BUT THIS IS WHAT LESBIANS ARGUE IN THEIR ACADEMIC TOMES. lozlzoozozozz But I tell you, comrade, it is only the Richards bot I see pushing that idea so hard. He has a weird way. It’s like he needs that particular idea (that men and women are largely the same) to serve his over-arching Jew Everything theory machine. So suddenly, even though it is precisely those on the digital right proving brick by brick that men and women are quite different functionally, so fast that the post-feminist journo discourse-fixers have to do some fancy footwork to assimilate it (producing silly tropes like “Reviving Motherhood”; “Empowered Housewifery”; “Being Strong While Needing to Submit”), it becomes according to the Richards bot a tool of the left in cleaving white men from white women. A fun-house world, I tells ya, where anything these goys say goes. Ignore all that divorce women push. All the legal kidnapping enforced by the State. Ignore the cuckoldry and miscegeny in the college dorms and the interracial porn and half-castes in England. White women are normal. O - kaaayyy.
Saluto romano e buoni auguri! 232
Posted by Guest Lurker on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:59 | # Anon wrote: <blockquote>And if the dominant culture was like this
what would they want?</blockquot Obviously, they want what the jew has permitted them. Good luck putting that genie back in the bottle. When I read stories like the following, blaming the jews for everything does indeed start to wear thin. Any people that is as susceptible to conditioning to this degree absolutely deserves its fate. There is just something so fatally f***ked up about whites. Ask yourselves, regardless of the amount of propaganda, could an Asian, Arab, Turk, Mexican, or any other non-white male ever have been brainwashed by the jew or anyone else to take in a stray coon and let him run loose among his family to ultimately butcher them? 233
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:24 | #
I like to think their respective cultural training (and racial bearing) would last long enough that this would never happen. As it is, I can hear in my head the response of each race: Asian: Why white peopaw do thees to deyselves? Arab: Stupid farangi. Turk: LOLZOZOZ. Mexican: Puto negrito de mierda! Ay gringo, ¿eres tonto o qué??
234
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:02 | #
I’ll have to ask you to demonstrate that in any way possible. Anecdotes allowed as valid proof. I sense this is one of those fiat-turnings that WNs love to invoke — you know, like “people are waking up!” and “itz coming”. As I and at least some-thousands of authors and readers of manosphere blogs see it, feminism continues unabated in popular mores, in law, in the press: a mostly seamless propasphere in a media totality that can even accommodate competing ideologies.
As I mention above, this does not mean a return to patriarchy; what we see are feminist journalists and authors spinning the findings of the new psychology (genes, ev psych) as serving female “independence” i.e. narcissism. In other words to the extent that white women acknowledge publicly that they are technically dumber and their gashes gush for bad boys & babies, it must be adjusted to flatter women that they are still “free” and “empowered”, which of course they are under current marriage and sexual harassment law. The system that disadvantages whites and advantages blacks is the same that steals a father’s children and income from under his nose because wifey found a Mexican paramour who slaps her. It is not a return to patriarchy, not even close. It is the regnant feminist narrative assimilating counter-narrative truths about the captive audience. You are too idealistic.
The Bad Guys had that going for them, no? Leni Riefenstahl and other creative women of theirs who I am forgetting. Conscious and biological version of patriarchy — check!
Well, until those all die out, and unless the more vocal of them can be shut up forever, their works expunged, I don’t see how we will avoid their bitterness continuing to “go viral” among younger women ... out drinking, smoking, and riding the carousel, lest we forget. Feminism is not merely its exponents but above all its works. Only cultural critics understand that the profligacy of young white women today was the “liberation” ideology of feminists yesterday. Every contumacious young lady with pink hair and tattoos is a product of feminism + trash culture. What happens to them? do they “self-correct”? what if they’re just ugly or fat and use loud style as a masochistic bid for attention? will they grow up to be studious button-down oppressors of men or what? Just saying ... real life is a lot messier than you guys seem to realize.
Ok. It sounds good, but what of my assertion that urbanism and technology produce these freaks of nature? After all the revolutionary Jewish ethos is nothing more than shtetl mentality. Nietzsche wrote that every civilization produces such people; they are how a society excretes. Trouble of course is that our excreta have risen to the top and have made virtues of their vicious anti-values. Again: subtract the Jew and you still have the city that made him. Not saying it would be the Jewish Century all over again. I believe with Linder than there would be a good deal of self-correction in probably a short time. Yet the genie won’t go back in the bottle, if psychology tells us anything certain. You won’t convince any young woman of the rightness of giving up her Facebook account. And believe me, unless you level a gun at their face, they won’t — and that’s just one more enticement to hypergamy, bro. They cling to these things because it is the biggest and easiest possible gossip-circle. You would have to trim humanity back literally to small villages to turn this around. Now I would do that — at maximum cost if need be — but I’d be alone with a few other guys, most of them here and at Roissy, some over in Afghanistan and Yemen, in wanting to do so. 235
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:29 | #
It is a succinct name for a reproductive strategy that has been around since sexually dimorphic species made their appearance. And it can even be followed back to the first multicellular organisms ... any thing that competes with another thing for space and nourishment. I mean, do you deny that the relations denoted by “sexual marketplace” exist? you wouldn’t actually deny that there’s romance without finance, would you? or that some men and women are passed over for some others? Sounds like bartering to me. How about you, Patton? Guest Lurker? Captain? danielj? anyone care to tell me what to call a relationship based on mutual interest with payoffs of differing kind if not a “market”? I fail to see how this is “Jewish”. So far, you’ve advanced a tenuous ad hominem to insist, and not prove, that Roissy is a Jew. I will be chary because you’re a comrade: I believe in “J-dar” too — it is usually correct, and the few cases where it isn’t oughtn’t to take away from its predictive power. But this is one of those cases where it has failed. I’ve been there too. Didn’t you ever see KMac’s write-up of the notoriously disappeared Roissy post about Jews? Look it up, it’s on Occidental Observer. Sure doesn’t sound like a Jew from the preserved excerpts. In fact I fail to find anything in his writing or moderating that suggests the nebbish anxiety of “channeling an inner-Auster”. I don’t think you’ve found it either, but are grasping at something you don’t like because it seems to cheapen relations you have probably idealized.
Ok. I can’t deny there is some heavy spin. Fault of the profession. As I say though, unless the cities which attract all the babes from the country can be leveled, it’s a little more than culture and biology.
You may be right. I won’t disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
Well, it sounds good, but that isn’t the hand we’ve been dealt. It is what exists in certain people’s heads though, that’s for sure.
Agreed. But we have the Bad Guys to blame for taking racialism with them into the abyss. There was a good deal of resistance among Jews, Anglos and French before then, I admit, but the League of Nations, then the reaction to Deutschland Uber Alles 2.0, finished it off for good. Obviously this notion of racial differences and superiority could not be tolerated if it was associated with the German madmen. Also remember how much approval there was in Europe for Lincoln and the Northern cause. Europeans were liberty-crazed before the Germans. Abbé Gregoire was pushing “racial equality” and Jewish emancipation in the opening years of the nineteenth century, and was widely respected for his stance. At the same time even Blumenbach, the first real researcher of physical differences among races, couldn’t find any appreciable cognitive difference among Europeans and blacks! Well, maybe dass tru dawg if deys in a state-a-naycha, but eyyo, ah guess slav-uh-ree was a big maaahndfuck fo dey asses. 236
Posted by danielj on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:38 | # The breastfeedinz be hards! The facebookz is fun-&-eazy! jooz: LOLZZZLOLZZLOLZOLZIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 237
Posted by uh on Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:44 | #
Should be no romance without finance, obv.
Only a Jew would come up with the phrase “sexual marketplace”.
http://www.fodors.com/news/story_4117.html (brief description of the Italian passeggiata, also still around in Spain and very popular in Latin American towns built around the old central square — check out the novels of Perez y Galdos for charming descriptions of how it used to work; girls would usually be on balconies and might toss confetti or notes to suitors below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wodaabe (a subgroup of the widely dispersed Fulani people; read the section “Marriage”) http://www.zacariasgarciaphoto.com/galleries/imilchil/ http://www.damncoolpictures.com/2009/03/gypsy-brides-market-in-bulgaria.html (Roma bride market in Bulgaria; caution: uglyfest) So it would appear that sexual marketplaces exist anyhow. How is it “Jewish” to observe it? 238
Posted by Randy Garver on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 01:30 | # uh:
You’re assuming “class” only means socioeconomic class. Abstract the term to its generic meaning. Not every woman is the crass, abrasive, grasping trollop of your fevered imagination. uh:
Bollocks. Morals and values are instilled by parents as well as the environment, with the latter assuming primacy given an abdication of this responsibility by the former. I can see why you might gravitate towards this perspective, because it bespeaks of the powerlessness of individual agency, and correspondingly, the lack of accountability one has. Uh:
Lol. Here’s an example of two of your ongoing thematic conceits on display (I’ve counted three so far): idealization of mediocrity, and the embracement of modern western social pathologies as part of the new European ethnic identity. I get it. This is ultimately about accountability and the desire to avoid it. You’ve stated yourself that marriage is subject to market forces. And yet somehow, despite your goal of “white women for white men”, there’s no responsibility incumbent on anyone to produce or encourage that result. In that paradigm, women are agentless automata at the mercy of their hormones and the prevailing dysgenic groupthink, and it’s nobody’s fault if they’re not marriage-worthy. And men should be valued simply by their ethnicity, whether they’re milquetoast metros with a WC full of cosmeceuticals or game-blog enthusiasts with tribal tats and furry stovepipe hats worn unironically when out for a night of peacocking. Unsurprisingly, it’s nobody’s fault if they’re not the sturdy breadwinners in the mold of their grandfather’s generation, and women aren’t supposed to notice or care if they’re not. 239
Posted by danielj on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 01:56 | # Morals and values are instilled by parents as well as the environment, The Boomzies? The Gens-x? Assuming somehows dats they transmits anythingz of valuez, it’ll be swiftly destroyed upon arriving to Orientation Night at CSU Chico!!! I can see why you might gravitate towards this perspective, because it bespeaks of the powerlessness of individual agency, and correspondingly, the lack of accountability one has. I can see why you might deny that forces greater than the individualzistics are operating and operatin’ powerfullies. You wish desperately to believes your halfie progenies is the result of all your hard workingz. Responsibilities is the Red Herringz of ze White Knighter. 240
Posted by danielj on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:01 | # Big bad Randies is so Randy for responsibilities and the ladiez! How many chiltlins you got nigger? 1???? Oh you soooooo responible likez with your attritions and extinctionz by negatives fertility ratez plus miscegenation. but your little little baby will be able to plays the Lacrymosa while the beasts overrun the earth… THE MEEKZ SHALLS INHERITZ ZE EARTHS!!! ABOUT 400 POUNDS OF IT ON THEIR CASKETS!!! 241
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 03:50 | # Randy:
Of course not. They’re humans too! I have met a few of these naturally humble and generous souls. All respect to them. But the humble don’t determine the laws and mores of a nation, at least not of this one. ‘Tis the loudmouthed “liberated” post-women who have the upper hand in a system designed for their aggrandizement and total irresponsibility. Sometimes women exhibit both mentalities though! It’s weird as fuck. Like one minute they’re sweet as can be and the next they’re telling you women are better parents than men, who don’t really need to be around.
In the past I have indeed argued quite forcefully against the myth of individual agency. No average woman is responsible for the state of affairs. Neither am I. It is, however, a false moral pose to expect average people to bear up and be this or that ideal under extremely heavy social pressures intended, or tending, to thwart precisely those ideals. I am always having to exculpate blacks for eating junk food, which racist white people claim they love because blacks are irresponsible beasties; maybe if those other racists at Fresh Market would set up shop on Martin Luther King Boulevard they would have the choice to eat well! Like the Baron Muenchhausen, well-placed whites expect everybody else to pull themselves out of the morass of poverty by their own hair up to bourgeois white standards.
Right. You’ve done. You alone are objective and pure. Fucking presumptuous white liberals. You know best.
Let me tell you something, Randy. I told you before but you didn’t absorb it. The reason is you idealize yourself a certain way, and I another; you rely on different cultural forms to support the idealization of yourself. That “bar” is a weapon rich whites use against all other whites. Equality and universalism have made it this way. That’s all. Math and Mozart were never a proper standard for all whites. They are not folkish arts. They are arts of the well-born, the wealthy, the patronized. Whites are trapped in this delusion that has them warping everything to patronize everyone else in a quixotic, wasteful, and truly sadistic attempt to bring them up to their level, ruining the lives of millions of hapless but good-natured and functional cretins of all races in the process. Everyone ought to excel at math and everyone ought to give up ghetto music for “classical”. Of course this is transparently nothing more than class prejudice and universalist guilt-morality acting in concert to torture the have-nots for not only not having money but for not being more like white liberals. Because Randy Garver prides himself on the wisdom of betraying his kind with a ching-chong bride, siring ching-chong whitey multiculti kewpie dolls “good at math”, i.e. worships IQ, of course he is going to fly at one for being low-brow and wiping one’s hands of maths and Mozart. You have it right, bro. I don’t go into the fucking ghetto and tell everyman that he ought to be an intellectual. That’s the business of your kind. The business of my kind is telling the white everyman that he deserves to be exactly what he is, that he is good enough if we could but dislodge the aliens and liberals from his neck. I don’t want to torture millions of my racial kin on this sick fucking rack of “liberal arts” and “achievement” to please the Randy Garvers and Half Sigmas and Sailers and HBDChicks of the world. I’d be content with weening them off corn syrup frankenfoods and wasteful habits, moving them out of the cities onto the land requisitioned from Monsanto and Cargill, moving them back into the towns blighted by their racial competitors given open-season by the yidden and your liberal dinner companions. I want to reacquaint my people with the soil from which we all spring. YOU want to beat their heads for eternity against books they won’t understand and sort of write them off someplace when they fail your math and Mozart. Fuck your math and Mozart you snob! Man survived without math and Mozart for tens of thousands of years, and will do so for many moons to come, long after you and your officious brood of impostors have passed from the earth. Tanning and tramp-stamps, hey, they suck! (Well it’s kinda hot when you’re ... nm lozozlz). Vegas was of course a Jewish fiat to absolute greed and glitz; but you love the Jews, they’re white people too!, so you wouldn’t mention that nor the extent of Jewish machinations in creating a nihilistic trash culture. Above you remind me that women with natural class exist. I remind you here that people exist between the extremes of your “math and Mozart” chink imposture and these tropes of the lowborn.
I suppose so. People have it easy. Women have it easier. Let me show you something though — here is my vision of accountability for women: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16275566
THAT, and THAT alone, is how a strong nation deals with the pointless non-stop bitchy instigation that’s the banal result of the feminist waves. Everything else is institutionalized presenting of the belly. White nationalists sometimes still speak of Russia and Putin with stars in their eyes. In fact it is Lukashenko’s Belarus ALONE in Europe still enforcing some old sovietish simulacrum of patriarchy and normalcy. It is more or less my ideal society: STRONG LEADER, NO BLACKS OR JEWS, RANDY GARVERS SENT STRAIGHT TO GULAG, AND ONE POWERFUL ALLY WITH NUKES AT ITS FLANK. Hell yea. Hail Lukashenko! Argue with a woman about “rights” and she’ll walk all over you. Shave her head and dump her in a dark forest and she’ll think twice about opening her mouth to talk politics.
This is a false relation. You have subtracted the powerful social forces weighing upon white men, making their lives too difficult to be “good white fathers” and so on. Having done that, it is of course nothing to declare them willfully renegade from responsibility. Responsibility to what never has to enter your head; you’ve framed it that way. In reality we are renegade from a society that has betrayed us on every point — where we can live, where we can work, where our money goes, what our women are permitted to do, even screwing with our very conception of who is us and not us. Now everyone is “us”, thanks to your kind. You want white men to “man up” and participate in the very system that expropriated them to begin with? Brilliant fucking plan, bro. Let’s give even MORE money to the state! Let’s play this sadistic peon’s game of worrying our lives long about where our kids go to school: will it be with Randy Garver’s multiculti kewpie dolls at Upholding Western Civilization High on the hill, or will it be at the trailer-riddled George Washington Carver magnet school in the valley? Hm! Lots of formerly decent white folk, now bloated on corn syrup frankenfoods they didn’t choose to have forced on them, at least deserve to know that it’s this way because certain folks, not their own, up on the hill decided to give the whip to niggers and rights to others.
Yea, well, I didn’t make civilization that way. Ever read the history of the Indus Valley civ? ever read the Laws of the Aryas? Same drama. Caste mixing and women overstepping their bounds is old old business. Today it is merely abetted by narcissistic technology and willingly institutionalized by DWLs like yourself.
Yes. That is the meaning of kinship. Your subdivision’s guard shack and the Montesori school where your kids pretend to be white is not kinship. They are illusions of wealth. In reality, you have betrayed your kin, and your ideology follows from that.
Take another cheap shot at Mystery and I will hunt you down, buddy.
“Breadwinning” was a suburban bubble. Under present conditions it is absurd to chastise white men for not being committed to a society that has made them redundant and obsolete. Normal white men cannot compete, as unemployment statistics show, in the floodplains left by mass immigration and a bloated tertiary sector presided over by DLWs and foreign paymasters. You involve us all in a false relation with the purpose of, you think, showing us up as lazy good-for-nothin’s who won’t be what all light-skinned humans are supposed to be — math eggheads who play “Western” music on Italian instruments, or whatever the hell you mistake for “western culture”. You so worship IQ and your own betrayal of kind that you really imagine millions of people born into things beyond their control and imagination have just no share in this affair we call society. They don’t deserve our regard because they didn’t make it to Trig. They don’t even have a Bachelor’s! Never-mind the Jews and blacks dragging everyone down, forcibly mixed schools, etc.; never-mind the Mexicans crowding us out everywhere we turn; never-mind the yellow tides in New York and Washington, all contributing to the vertigo that comes with being alienated in one’s own homeland. Never-mind! Only whites bear the responsibility to pick themselves up above all this massive swelling of anti-white OPPRESSION to “compete” with Randy’s holy race of math-whizzing slants and gandhus. Compete, compete, compete! Bloat that service sector! More urbanism! More opera houses and more research labs! Cure that cancer!! 242
Posted by Silver on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:20 | #
Shopping became a “normal” pastime the minute it became a possible pastime. Just like farming became “normal” pretty much the minute it became possible (or perceived as possible, since, technically, its possibility always existed in the nature of reality). Just how far do you want to turn the clock back before you hit upon the perfect “tradition” that must be maintained for all time?
And yet… and yet… if all that were occurring in a racially normal/healthy/secure environment, just how ghastly would any of it be? Maybe you’d like to correct some of it but would you be as appalled as you now are? See, I think there’s good reason to fear—pardon my saying it—madmen like you, Lentini, the way you take the ties that bind and threaten to make them shackles that bind. And for what, exactly? Glory, conquest, “great art”? What’s it all with a view towards? Why don’t you describe for us what your perfect society would look like? What do people do there that’s so different, so ineffably superior, that it justifies the hard line you take? I’m not asking for a book. Just give me a few details, because, try as I might, I can’t see it.
243
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:23 | # By the way, I ought to note that I am not engaging in the sort of whitewashing we saw from J Richards bot with respect to white women. There are genuinely truant, degenerate white fathers — this is humanity we’re discussing, there’s blame to go around. There are white men who have half-white kids ( ... more white women, and a darkie a father means the child is considered darkie). There are white men who sit around doing nothing; I’m one of them. Then again I live in Miami, which as danielj will now tell you, is no place for a white dude with racial conceits nor any non-deracinated white dude. No “buts” or “howevers”. Just acknowledging the fact. See, whitey always plays fair ... at his own expense. 244
Posted by danielj on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:35 | # Bravo! Just how far do you want to turn the clock back before you hit upon the perfect “tradition” that must be maintained for all time? You are setting a straw man on fires. Nobodyz saids we’d turn back the clock. you are going about imputing nostalgia where the is nonez. 245
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:38 | # Silver,
I thought you knew me better than that? I am no Counter-Currents art-worshiper. Hell, I can’t stand most art, and am puzzled by it. Can I sleep on or under this cleverly-colored canvas? can I mate with this statue of the goddess whatever? are families living in this weird twisted Bauhaus style building? and if not, why then is it tolerated in their midst? I enjoy social realist art, and especially the Peredvizhniki and Soviet styles. Real people. Folkish and inspiring. Bright, positive, not weird or alienating from what is given. I have nothing to do with high-sounding things like glory and conquest. I don’t know where you got that. As a matter of fact, I am interested only in those shackles you mention. Mandatory purdah for women. No joke. A line must be drawn. You draw the line, or they draw it for you. The view is ... well, not all of this. I don’t know, Silver. I don’t have all the fucking answers like you have. I don’t presume to know best like Randy. All I know is that women have too much freedom and are fucking us over. Just as Jews were given too much freedom and fucked us over. The Bad Guys to their eternal credit had this much right. You have SEEN me denounce their subsequent foreign adventures.
I have just now referred to an episode in Belarus that very neatly encapsulates my social preferences. All I want is to see women humbled, Jews out, blacks relocated, and bagpipes outlawed. I wouldn’t know what to do about Mexicans and Asians. They’re just too many to bother with without serious bloodshed. Blacks are fairly mobile thanks to Greyhound. They could be convinced and pressured out if given assurances. But I don’t like to speculate. In two words: Lukashenko’s Belarus. Whatever is wrong with it I don’t care; it has the response to feminism and pluralism exactly right: NO, NOT HERE. 246
Posted by danielj on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:45 | # me thinks silver likes things the way they are.hence the exasperatums at whats a possible lentini world would look like. no starbuckz and desk job for silverno. hed haveto get dirteez!!!! 247
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:49 | # PS, America is in Afghanistan also from fear of “madmen” like me. The invasion of Afghanistan was to the “liberation” (i.e. forced enfranchisement) of Afghan women what the Ciboo Wo’ was to the liberation of blacks: demographic groundwork in the conquest of a nation attempting to exist outside the Anglo-capitalist world system, i.e. forced enfranchisement by the Money Power. Belarus is a “rogue dictatorship” because it is anchored at Moscow culturally and economically, and doesn’t “allow” nation-wrecking agitators to “protest”. It is “feared” because it is authoritarian. But if you fear authoritarianism in the name of white men, you have enlisted with the other side, I fear. 248
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:56 | # lozlzlzozozozzz dirt is bad newz hoeing potatoes is harddd lozozozllzlzlzlzz starbuxx x issis easy check this out goys - worked onna catto’ ranch lozllzzlozozozzzz now eyyo i aint sayin i done anya dose for a long time did disssssss fo like a few weeks o months att a time nahmsayn cuz its rly hard work lolzozozozzzzz n i hate work lozozzllzlzlzooozozozzzz but EYYO i done it—silver done it? randy garver? his multiculti kewpie dolls? bet dey aint even pruned no muhfuggin BONSAI tree!! lozlzlzlzozozoozzozozozz dey 2 busy UPHOLDIN WESTERN CIVILIZATIONSKLOLZZOZ psk psk randy garver say every fiatmensch gotta be at his eye-kew or he aint worth nothin to nobody dont sound like no MAJORITYRIGHTS to me!!! lozozozozozz 249
Posted by Silver on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 06:15 | # Lentini,
That was a low blow, I apologize. I can accept that you don’t feel that way. On the other hand, let’s not ignore that a very large proportion of those who otherwise see things as you do who do feel that way. And forget the conquest or whatever. It’s not for this contingent that race is “there.” Oh no. It must be lived, breathed and celebrated, daily; every man’s individuality sacrificed to the hive mind. These are the “shackles” that worry me. (Sure, some critique “hyper” individualism, but poke around a bit and you’ll start to realize that almost any manifestation of individuality seems suspiciously “hyper” in their eyes—and very, very racially threatening and unsound, tsk, tsk.)
Okay, so you’re more about reining in women. That I can respect. A “basic” level of patriarchy has always seemed so obvious to me that even having a word for it felt like overkill. I don’t regard that as “shackling” women, though, since most women, despite what they say (or feel they should or have to say), like men who make decisions for them. It’s hard for me to regard something that rewards women’s nature as “anti-feminist.”
I neither have nor pretend to have all the answers. But I think it’s important to have answers. If you don’t, people will just fill in the blanks for themselves (as I did with you above). If it so happens that I do have the “right answers,” it will be because they are, in fact, the right answers; not because they’re my answers. I’d rather be proven wrong than proven right. I expect that much of what I think is probably wrong, but it’s when it’s I’m proven wrong that I get excited because that’s an opportunity to learn.
Yes, I noticed it right after I posted. danielj,
Please, nostalgia abounds. But I wasn’t talking about nostalgia. Patton (and you, and Lentini, I’d say) would have it that everyone’s “living wrong” and he’d see it to that everyone begin “living right.” Living right isn’t to be found in modernity. People have “lost their way.” The illustrious ancestors had it right. Very well. So which of their many traditions to revive then? What period encapsulates the perfect tradition? I’m not trying to snipe. It’s just that it can all sound so pretty and enticing until you actually try to pin it down to something concrete—rather like the way some atheists put it that few people ever doubted God’s existence until philosophers tried to prove it. (I have a great deal of intellectual respect for atheism, though I consider myself a theist of sorts, freely acknowledging that I “have faith” in a something-like-God entity, rather than actually “believing” such an entity truly exists in the way I “believe” a person named danielj exists, say.) So I’d simplify his position somewhat and content myself with saying a link with the past helps ground us in the present. I think that’s enough. I mean, race (racial commonality, a sufficient degree of it) and that; that’s quite enough. There’s no need to endlessly critique modernity to the point of depression.
I like many aspects of the way things are, sure. What jumps out at you when you cast your eyes across the last, say, two or three thousand years of human history, dan? For me it’s the astonishing and unmistakable progress. Your band of brothers once succeeded in planting the seeds of doubt in my mind about that (for which I won’t soon forgive them), but they’re wrong. Progress has been tremendous, and it’s continuing—in fact, in many ways, we’re really just getting started. I may not like much of what presently constitutes progress, and in some ways it’s fair to say there has been obvious regress, but neither of those refute the notion of progress in toto. There’s everything to look forward to. As for getting dirty, true, I don’t relish the prospect. Why should I? I’ve done it before and I’m not “afraid” of doing it again, but I don’t look forward to it. If you find such work more “authentic,” great. That’s just one example of the Invisible Hand at work. It may have escaped your attention but there’s a great deal of important work that doesn’t require getting one’s hands dirty and that sort of work is my preference. What’s wrong with that? You asked in some thread “[economic] growth for whom?” That deserves answer and that answer is: growth for everyone. Say the total tax receipts of an economy amount to 30% of GDP (not unreasonable). And let’s say that only one third of this revenue is spent on transfer payments and more “direct” forms of public goods and services, that people more “immediately” get something out of, like health care or education. In an economy of total GDP of $10 trillion, that amounts to one trillion dollars. Let’s say the country in question has a population of 300 million, just like America. And let’s say that half of those citizens pay no or next to no tax. Taking the figure of one trillion dollars and redistributing it among this half of the population (who are, in fact, those most likely to be the beneficiaries of this slice of pie in the real world) results in each of them receiving $6,666 (in the form of transfers or “immediate” or “more tangible” goods and services, those they would pay for of their own volition even if they weren’t provided). If the economy grows by 3% per annum for ten years then the total economy will reach $13.4 trillion and the portion of tax receipts referred to in our example will grow to $1.34 trillion. Distributed among the same half of the population, that results in each of those citizens now receiving $8933. (In the real world, the population is growing, mostly because of immigration, but if population growth is less than GDP growth then total per capita benefits still rise.) And of course, there’s public utility in all spending, not merely the portion I’ve highlighted. Conclusion: growth is good and it’s good for all. Answer your question?
The question is ridiculous. No one, “not even whites,” could be brainwashed into allowing a nigger into the home to butcher them, fuck ya. In a country of three hundred million people incidents like are going to occur, brainwashing or not. And they absolutely could occur to a gook or a spic or a muzzie, unless you want to pretend these people never, ever, ever, ever have anything to do with niggers, and would never, ever, ever, ever think to allow one into their homes, which of course is complete bullshit. But then there’s good old anon for ya, ever ready with a fat serving of it.
250
Posted by Madsen on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:42 | #
He knows what it is to be a man. It is to be an “Alpha” male and run “Game” online and get teenage runaways to fly to foreign countries with you: 251
Posted by anon on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:16 | # uh
“Bride” markets.
The things you listed are part of different cultures’ reproductive strategy. Natural, healthy cultures all have them. Game is a NON-REPRODUCTIVE strategy.
I couldn’t care less if he’s a Jew if he was right - and he partly is - but he’s spinning something half-right into conflict and division - that’s why i think he’s a Jew - because causing conflict and division among the host is their survival strategy. As it happens the previous attempt to stop white people having kids aka feminism, had a male component which told men that women wanted them to be non-masculine, which was nonsense but it partly worked on a lot of men hence the “i’m a nice guy whine” phenomenon. “Game” for all its divisive aspects emphasizes masculinity. It might be a gorilla version of masculinity but it’s better than being non-masculine so all in all whatever his motives i think the pros of “game” might outweigh the cons seeing as average men trying to be gorillas are likely to end up at a reasonable compromise.
“Nice” from a female point of view just means monogamous and committed to them. Men who are naturally that way *and* who are also minimally masculine get *a* woman very quickly. It’s not a strategy for having sex with lots of women for obvious reasons so it’s no use if that’s what you want but it does exist *outside* of the clubbing world hence the distorted view if behavior is generalised based on the clubbing world.
My point is simply if one accepts that a kinder kuche culture would lead to women behaving differently from the Cosmo culture then it’s not women it’s the culture. Or rather the culture reinforces the traits it approves of. If there was a gene each for hypergamy and monogamy then in combination you might get 25% women with hypergamy x 2, 25% with monogamy x 2 and 50% women with one of each. In that simple case the two extremes might behave the same way whatever the culture but a pro-hypergamy or pro-monogamy culture would shift the balance for the ones who were a bit of both so you could switch from 75%/25% hypergamy/monogamy to 25%/75% hypergamy/monogamy with a change in the culture.
Sure but the culture we currently live in was created by and is utterly dominated by genocidally hostile Jews and is more or less the exact opposite in every respect to the culture it replaced. That context > everything else.
252
Posted by danielj on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:22 | # Silver, You deserve a real answer. That will be forthcoming over the course of the next few months. For now you are stuck wondering. 253
Posted by anon on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:12 | # uh
There’s an inevitable return to patriarchy either way. If we win, that winning will almost certainly include sociobiology and hence some form of rational patriarchy. If we lose it will involve the repopulation of the west with people who are already patriarchal and who don’t have the fairness streak that allowed it to be overthrown among whites.
Yup.
I think you’re right all societies will throw up individuals who feel and act like hostile outsiders to their own group and urbanism and technology allows them to find each other easier and network. However the unique thing about Jews is that behavior is their group strategy. It’s not just a random collection of messed-up individuals from a larger population, it’s a separate cohesive population. Hate is a high energy state and difficult to induce in a population with varying natures but fear and paranoia are low-energy and can be induced in everyone. Induced paranoia can work on “good” people. It can work on “average” people. It can work on people who are otherwise normal in every way. That’s the difference. Once you have a separate ethnic group who believe weakening the host population’s cohesion as a group is a neccessary form of pre-emptive self-defence then the stage is set for the inevitable reccurring pattern of entry -> cultural poisoning -> expulsion or eventual social collapse It might be possible urbanism could create enough Marilyn Mansons and Lady Gagas on its own to have the same effect but it seems unneccessary to speculate on that when there’s an obvious alternative which is effectively the same - people who feel like outsiders who are hostile to the majority - but massively better organised.
254
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:03 | # Madsen, Yea, they’ve seen it before. You are too late. I will say just three ... make that four things ... about it: 1. One of the dumber things I’ve done. I am certain you have none under your belt, like all white nationalists.
255
Posted by danielj on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:24 | # oh no UH!!!! dust and ashes forever for you too! and don’t every make another mizistakes or executionz! 256
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:47 | #
The presupposition of all this talk is that white nationalist ideas, my ideas, your ideas, have a chance of working out in society. They have not. None of them. People will compromise because they are eusocial animals who aren’t loner madmen like me and Dan. Concerted action is a myth. OWS was nothing to the order, a funny blip. Idealism made its overinterpretations. Soooo, whatever white nationalists or whomever wish to do, is just irrelevant. You act like a Jew hiding indoors sometimes. “What if the Germans come! Oy vey, den fi’wahr we’den wir fuhkocht sayn.” All the same, Tim Wise wants us gone, and the goyim cheer. Why shouldn’t our side be allowed the same sentiment? Half-Jew “Unamused” says no, we must have strict definitions ... no more anti-Semites in my presence.
Well, I know. It is obnoxious and weird. Obviously, as we’ve said before, a society run by Rassenhygieniker and Captainchaos would be pretty rough. Again though: there will never be a society run by either. Jews run society. I see no way of dislodging them.
Great line. And this is all Roissy’s obsession with psychological research amounts to: Countering feminism does not even require arguments — the counter-feminist script is biological, it exists in women and comes out all the time. All one has to do is sit back and document it. But for real — shackles. Or at least plastic ties. Something.
Yes, it quickly boils down to one’s preferences, and that shows up the fantastical quality of political romanticism. This is why I prefer to merely point to real life examples as better political modes. Belarus, Iran, Transnistria, Afghanistan under the T-bone. Will sound crazy to most, but most are crazed for all the shit that is dragging us down altogether. All I’d like to do is raise goats and smoke opium. And I’m the madman? O-kaaayy, you improvers of mankind.
What I see ahead is encroaching ghetto that can’t be escaped, the remnants of the natural world controlled entirely by the state, corporations, and private wealth. For myself, I’d rather not live in a shoebox in “city” for the rest of my days. I’d like to be able to escape humans for a few hours, lie in the grass in the evening and look at the trees. There’s much talk of humanity’s ancestral environment but no one ever mentions how uncrowded it was on the savannah or in Europe. So much bullshit comes from the mere fact of crowding. You may be comfortable in the antiseptic bosom of the urbs, but it makes me feel like a manic disoriented gerbil. Just now some middle-aged Latino women are loudly chatting outside. I don’t want to hear this garble. If people aren’t allowed to or simply can’t escape, there is a big problem not addressed by your comfort in the creeping sickness called “development”. Yes, yes, space is limited, it’s better that some land be held off to avoid even bigger population explosion, I know all the arguments and counter-arguments. Just saying — some of us don’t want it anymore. I can’t tell you how many lefties I’ve met who own or work at organic farms all over America. These people are sick of it too. The English flock to Spain to fix up stone houses and the like. You just have to accept that there are people who don’t want anymore of your precious “progress”, and that this progress may be a huge net evil for mankind as a whole despite the conveniences it has shed. All it does, in my view, is produce ever more Chinese (all of whom are studying maths and playing Mozart, mind you), more Gandhus, more Africans .... while whites are told to “compete, compete!” or be sucked away into the black undertow. I don’t like it, bro. And your numbers don’t mean shit to me. A couple Waziris playing catch with a rubber ball and sniping at GIs mean more to me than %%%% and all that Arabian sorcery. Don’t want your money. Want out!
Find us an example of it or shut up. You are free to go read ThugReport and any number of such sites. You won’t find anything. You’re just disagreeing to disagree. I’ve done it before, I know how it looks. This exasperated feeling wells up in you and it comes out as mockery — as though an entire race is wise enough to avoid letting teenage coons live with them. And yet it is so. You know this only happens to white people because white peoples exhibit the highest levels of trust in the world, as I pointed out to you before, and you seem to have ignored. I urge you to read that blog and others. Here is JewAmongYou, whom you will trust for not being one of us, on growing research into the relation of oxytocin, national wealth, and racial trust. I have also to conclude that you’ve not had much experience at all interacting with any of those people. When you have them in conversation, you don’t have to go very deep before they express their distaste for blacks and their confusion that whites tolerate them. Ditto the Jews. Other races will almost always come out against them. They may not even know why; could be an old cultural prejudice they absorbed from their family. Doesn’t matter. Forewarned is forearmed. 257
Posted by Randy Garver on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:48 | # @uh: Your comment provided quite a bit of food for thought. Contrary to your implication, I perceive my corner of the world not as being composed of an “elite of the blessed” into which I labor fastidiously to ingratiate myself (and more critically, judge and expect others to also do so), but rather as being fundamentally and universally hostile to traditionalist beliefs and values. It’s this perspective of feeling beset on all sides by malefactors and mongers of moral perfidy which originates a mindset of the need for struggle. Let me ask you this: do you think Europeans are a besieged people? If so, then does that not imply a duty and necessity for strivation? When you learn of the Golden Horde thundering across the steppe, do you beat your plowshares into swords or do you beseech the heavens with a plaintive refrain of “but why should i have to??” then return to your pastoral somnolescence ? Surely you must acknowledge that history does not demonstrate a sympathy for mediocrity and unpreparedness. Globalism is the 600 pound gorilla in the room. Whether or not a different set of leaders would have resisted it, the plummeting costs of communications and transportation has rendered economic globalization of some incarnation neigh inevitable. You were going to have to eventually compete against the Chinese and Indians regardless of how unmixed the populace may have been in your preferred scenario. uh:
Exactly wrong. My feelings stem from a belief that people can and must do better to survive. I come from uneducated peasant stock whose morals I’m immensely proud of. And i feel that there are fundamental values which my forebears possessed which, if again embraced, would gird my extended relations today. It’s not about looking down on the volk, but rather knowing that they have been, and are capable of again being, better. uh:
Why should you, someone obviously tack-sharp and who can write like a ferocious pack of teufel hunden, be so quick to marginalize the potential of your fellows? Clearly the modern knowledge economy world demands a more educated workforce, and many more people seem perfectly capable of becoming such. Further, when has “good enough” ever been “good enough”? that’s a rather prosaic fantasy one can only conjure up during the interregnums between the cyclical horrors of war and deprivation, when there’s enough food and fire for a filling meal and a soporific snooze by the family hearth. We live in adversarial times. I hardly think that responding to exogenous competitive realities is some kind of bourgeois impungnment of the poor, helpless, and hopelessly (in your apparent belief) id-dominated proletarians. You think I expect too much. I think you demand too little. Maybe I’m just a weak kneed optimist in that particular regard that I can think my fellows are capable of far greater achievement (however one chooses to define the term), especially when separated (if only by angstroms at first) from the cacophony of the modern bread and circuses. uh:
So in response this, your message to your marginalized brethren is not “acquire power and community authority, then begin to assert your desires and demands on the broader culture” but rather, “sh!t sucks, my honkies. Keep wallowing in your own crapulence. Love those pathologies like they’re your preciouses. C’mon let’s go grab a 30 of natty light and pull a train on some fattie while we complain about the immodesty of modern woman.” uh:
Says who? Again with the lowered expectations. I suppose we can agree to disagree, but I don’t buy your conclusion, and I feel that your message is cruelly disempowering in a manner which runs counter to your stated desires and beliefs. uh:
Not at all. Rather, I want them to wake up and be more engaged with the world, because I believe that they’re perfectly capable of doing so. uh:
The nature of nature is competition, and always has been. 258
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:51 | # Humans are not eusocial animals. Humans can espouse remote and inclusive ideas. It is not a myth. It is the selfish gene that gave rise to the power to do so. Surely Daniel will not deny that the saving of human souls is evidence of concerted action. 259
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:56 | # Randy
Striving, strife.
This has more to do with my awareness of the limiting factors to effective group resistance than my own temperament. In fine, as I see things, propinquity, white fairness, modern police forces, narcissistic technologies including the internet, some other big factors, make group cohesion and resistance among whites simply impossible. It would actually be far better for us if the hordes were warlike barbarians; then the response is clearly “fight”. When they’re invited or allowed in as “hard workers” and we are punished for even thinking otherwise, the anxiety is resolved by compromise, in which all conspire, the conspiracy even becoming an unofficial group protocol (political correctness, not, to say it again, a “cultural Marxist invention”) of belonging. For this reason your analogy is enticing but essentially false. Hate to split hairs over it, but that is what I see. A warrior band rumbling over the steppes — If only! I might even be tempted to decamp — is not mass immigration of non-combatants engineered by employers hungry for cheap chalupa labor and Jews/Leftists eager to simply weaken a white nation as “preemptive self-defense”, as anon put it. At any stage in the mexicanization of America, for example, a wall might’ve been built and border defense strengthened; but it was always opposed by white holier-than-thous and their Jewish puppet-masters. How much easier to turn away boat and planeloads of Asians? But it happened because whites are too trusting. Bottom line. And there can be no real solution for the same reason — and the saturation point being much too high to reverse.
But here’s the problem: the great majority of the Chinese and Mexicans here are peasants. Our racial enemies — I don’t know what else to call them — let them all in, have criminalized dissent, and now they all get to be as mediocre as they are, while whites all have to be geniuses who can out-compute Sandjob and Fang in the classroom. This is a false relation; it is difficult enough for a race to accommodate its underclass without having to compete also with aliens brought in by inimical fiat. Do you see what I mean here? You think I’m complaining, “Why should I have to!”; where I think you are saying, “Doesn’t matter how it got this way — you must again shoulder the burden, white man!”
Of course. Yet Germany and the Nordic nations, with Canada, still less mixed than America, do pretty well. Mali and Botswana are doing very well relative to the rest of Africa — they happen to be mostly homogeneous. What Jews and their goyish abettors have done is to stack the deck entirely against white (and black) Americans, then step back and say, “There! See that? You can’t even compete with the Asians!” Hey, perhaps “we” can’t — that may be so if IQ differentials are the final word. For all the pot-smoking and slovenly living of which ordinary whites are guilty, I see a lot of other things that invariably betray that native spark of something better — an indie movie, a self-sufficient organic farm, a copy of AdBusters, a blog, some new “digital revolution”, a new PARTICLE borne of the LHC, etc. None of this is “Asian” genius. Let me put it to you this way. A few weeks ago I was briefly addicted to the website ChatRoulette. Naturally, it’s a sausage-fest — all too often a naked one. Bunch of dudes from all over the world trying to have cam sex with chicks. Right. But within a few hours of use I noticed something that I already knew, but knew better for having faces put to it. Which is that young white American men are one of the most agreeable demographics on earth. That may be selection bias or mirroring; after all I am one of them. Probably those brain-dead looking North Africans would’ve come alive somewhat if I had been North African, or whatever. Yet there is obviously much more to it than that. The white American girls waste no time on you — it’s just “Next”, as compulsive and unthinking as an old man changes TV channels; they want the next one, not the one before them. There may be a thug waiting somewhere. But every time it was a white college dude, something funny resulted. There was one kid, face hidden, who was smoking a joint (they love doing this on there). I raised my eyebrows in humor. He held out the joint for me to “smoke” it, so I put my lips up to my cam and took a “hit”. He gave me a thumbs up and we clicked “Next”. And I tell you sans hyperbole that that simple, weird little exchange meant more to me than anything. It suddenly dawned on me that all I’ve really been missing are these “dudes”. Another kid, indie type in his dorm, just started playing a Christmas song on his guitar — now I hate Christmas music with a black hatred, but he pulled me in! It was charming, I watched dutifully until he finished. Then we had a spontaneous, friendly chat about how I hate Christmas music and I was grateful for being disabused by his novel rendition. Just like that — friends! Some other dudes on a couch, with a huge Gadsden flag on the wall, as soon they saw me yelled “BITCH!”, having obviously waited for the chance, but I just said, “Cool flag”, and instantly they were all “Oh shit nevermind you’re cool bro! hell yea!” Another kid, possibly a homo, had his lights off but had a bunch of those light sticks ravers use all over his body and gave a little light show. What is more, I met two very sweet non-white girls. One was a Korean on Long Island “raised white”, as she put it. Very funny, ironic but not overboard, clearly a bit spoiled but nowhere near the extent of white girls. She gave me her number. Another was a seventeen year old Paki in some east London neighborhood. Absolutely the loveliest little blossom I’ve ever met. Mature, self-possessed, humble, playful without being stupid, well-adjusted, and utterly gorgeous. I tried out my various accents on her, and when I asked if she thought she’d believe it on the street, she says no, I’d just think there’s something wrong with you. llozlzozozozlzlzozz I met 0 white girls. I didn’t see a single white girl for longer than 2 seconds. Except for two beautiful twins in Australia who obviously grew up on a farm and didn’t know better. My point is this: Those white “dudes” are my people. If they can’t compete against a deck stacked by some very ruthless domestic enemies, neither can I, and I have to defend them and myself on that ground. I won’t be satisfied telling them they have to do better at math and become doctors, because not every one can become a doctor and escape the black undertow. The most I can do, the most they seem willing to accept, is a bit of bonding amid the “progressive” ruins. ‘Twas white men who made all this happen, not Japanese or anyone else. All the accumulated and tottering wasteful social capital of white men, as GenoType reminded us not long ago. The most I can do here is disagree that “we would have had to anyway”. Compete - yes. Compete within our own borders for living space and national wealth - no. Switzerland isn’t being overrun by Asians, is it. They have a relatively wise immigration policy; their weakest points are African refugees and southern Italians. Big deal! Try a few million Mexicans, Hans.
Now why don’t come on with this sort of talk instead? LOL.
Black undertow. I don’t believe you have addressed this massive internal drag on the education system. Can’t gain much momentum when Jamal’s acting up in class. Or when it can’t even be safely acknowledged that English only is spoken, etc. Whites are capable of and do all sorts of brilliant things. Could do a lot more if they weren’t living within the mess left by their slave-driving and then slave-freeing elites. Still more if they didn’t have to move out of a neighborhood because ten-thousand Mexicans move in, then protest when English is called the official language, and the Mexican kids assault the white kids in the schoolyard. So send the white kids to a boxing gym, right? Wrong: All the boxing gyms are full of Mexicans, and you can’t start an all-white gym, can you. Only riffing but it is illustrative of the real uneven conditions we face. It’s all just too much weight upon white shoulders. And still we blame them if they don’t rise to the top.
It is an artificial adversity with unequal responsibilities. I forget the terms in game theory, but it is one we can’t possibly “win”, certainly not by the rules you prefer. I do see your point though. We have reached a fault-line separating two worldviews, two instincts: one sees progress engulfing the whole world and expects whites to play along; the other sees it and is uneasy, as are millions of others. Not only do I not believe that all or most American whites are capable of becoming college graduates and European-style progressives, I believe it is right that they can’t and won’t, moreover that is flows from their more confused racial makeup. So we’re just looking at a fence with you and Silver on one side, me and millions of white men like myself on the other.
lolzozoozlzlzzoz I don’t have to exhort them to such indignities, they do it of themselves. But yes, it’s more a palliative than a grand moral strategy. It wouldn’t work anyhow given Jewish / leftist pressure. The age when that was possible has passed, as I’ve contended before to the howls of the assembled. In the same fashion that technology itself makes women incorrigible, it also makes white group resistance impossible. Otherwise it’d be happening now. So in the end you come off as more of a white nationalist than me: If you insist that the way out is through education, and I, a rube distrustful of education and its works, insist it isn’t, I dissent from a strategy that has survival value at least for those capable of enacting it; and if I insist that technology itself is what keeps whites from cohering and neutralizing aliens, I argue “for” nothing but perpetual servitude to the machine and its alien affranchis — again not white powerful at all.
Agreed. For me, disengagement.
I know, I know. All I can say is that I want no part of it beyond what it takes to see me out for good. 260
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:39 | #
What the hell? This is you, uh? “Marshall Lentini”? See, this is really my fear. OK, I like young chicks (of age, of course), too, but I don’t like being associated with morally questionable types. We are talking about trying to save the white race here. We must be morally unimpeachable. What has happened to our people? Why is it that this most important of causes is not only rendered morally suspect by a mainstream that does not have our best interests at heart, but really does attract so many, er, nonconformists? I have no skeletons. Until WN comes to be seen not as a weekend affiliation, but rather, to have the same moral standing as the sainted Civil Rights movement, we’re going nowhere. Sorry, I;m still sorta drunk from a Christmas party last night, but that is how I feel. 261
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:42 | # Randy, Couple more points than I have to get some fresh air. What you enjoin is exactly analogous to the popular idea, feminist in origin, that women can wear and act however they want, and it is still be men’s responsibility to control their tortured impulses — despite the enormous mindfuck posed by the supernormal stimuli of ubiquitous barely-clad curves and provocative behavior. (Do read Deirdre’s book. She’s a good woman.) In fact this amounts to an unconscious yet absolutely vindictive assault upon the consciousness of innocent men just for the sake of allowing the maximum of cheap female narcissism in the sexual marketplace. I wonder if you will stand behind the officious gits and white knights who chastise men for not being superhuman stoics all the time. But you will be smart enough to grasp that it is after all unfair to involve men in this relation of which they still manage to not run afoul by the “goodness” of their nature. If the FBI 2010 statistics on sexual assault and rape are true, they certainly do a much better job than blacks and Mexicans. Ditto for the race / progress question. Our whole living space and way of life is destroyed by malignant Jews, the Democratic gutmenschen-mafia, labor-hungry Republican capitalists and so on — involving us in this utterly warped relation out of all proportion to evolved and proximate instincts, and still we are expected to bear up and “succeed”. Am I all wrong here? You’ve been fair with me, I am trying to be fair in kind. Won’t you admit there is something to this? Also this: http://helvena.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/who-controls-our-food Watch the video for that girl. She says something like, “So the USGay allows McDonald’s to kill us with its food but we’re not allowed to eat produce ... ” blah blah. The interviewer asks, “What can be done?” Answer: “Just come out and support your local farmer.” — That’s obviously a fill-in-the-blank answer that is no solution at all, a platitude to provide oneself and the interlocutor with the illusion that something can be done. Most of what’s out there today posing as “revolutionary” or the coming thing that will save us all from the state is just that kind of empty talk. I am glad it wasn’t me for I would have had to say something like: “We can start by smacking that functionary bitch in the face with a shovel and fertilizing the next crop with her composted remains.” The gutmenschen won’t hear of that. But to my mind, that’s all there is to do with the state and its functionaries. You take shots at them or you give ground and pretend complaining about it means something. Benazir Bhutto for example. I liked her. She was beautiful and well-mannered. I read about half of her autobiography and found that she was a good woman, as good as an elite can be in this age. Yet it is impossible for me to disagree with her ... untimely removal. That’s just how it is done from Grozny to Islamabad, and it isn’t wrong. It keeps Pakistan on the brink in its relations with America and India, right where it ought to be. If the choice is between some compromising functionary and an uncompromising radical in NWFP or Peshawar, I’ll go with the latter. Have always been an extremist. You have to toss bombs or watch resentfully as your country is wrecked from within. Of course we are not that sort of race anymore, so it doesn’t happen. I’m really a simple man who prefers forthright action against a malicious state entity, however embarrassing it is to people. 262
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:46 | #
Says the Christmas drunk with a half-Asian girlfriend. 263
Posted by danielj on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:18 | # leonz a sanctimoniousness assholez and a fucking liar. fuck him. it’s also a patently false assertion. the left didn’t grasp power by being unimpeachable. one becomes unimpeachable by becoming powerful. 264
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:13 | # Drinking too much at a party and having an Asian girlfriend is morally suspect? Persuading an underage girl to run away from her home and travel to a foreign country, even if entirely innocent, does not look good to many (most?) Americans. It reminds me of David Duke with his gambling problems. Hurts the cause. 265
Posted by uh on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:48 | #
266
Posted by Republicrat on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:55 | # So let me get this straight - Leon has a gook girlfriend and uh is some kind of pervert pedophile? You people disgust me. 268
Posted by Madsen on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:46 | #
It reflects on your character and is consistent with the pseudo-“Alpha” and “Game” mentality and attitude you espouse. Being a man is not preying on teen girls like a nigger. Being a man would have been her father hunting you down and caving your skull in. 269
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:57 | # Republicrat, I’ve had girlfriends of every race, even black (briefly) and East Indian. White women are the most beautiful - when they are beautiful - though I would have to say that, on average, Brazilians are the best (or maybe Northern Mediterranean types). I mean in terms of having the largest percentage of reasonably attractive females. After all, there are legions of ugly white women, and while I wish them the best in life, I would not necessarily settle with one if I had the option of a really fine nonwhite. My current is half-white, and very lovely. I support laws against interracial marriage, btw. But ending the immigration invasion is a vastly more important nationalist issue. Indeed, of late several friends have half-jokingly suggested that someone actively trying to stem immigration could be more effective in the public sphere if he had a nonwhite wife. Closes up to some extent the “you’re just a racist” line. I suspect that, at least in the US, we will never stop immigration on ethnocultural grounds. The appeal, if successful, will have to be made on employment and budgetary ones. Please note: there is a difference between dating and marrying, and between marrying and siring. Incidentally, I wouldn’t call uh a pedophile, even if he had been intimate with the underage girl. Many teen chicks are basically young, fully formed women (in the old days, age of marriage was often lower than 18). My point is that the circumstances surrounding uh’s dalliance would be morally questionable to most people today, regardless of ideology, and that kind of thing reflects badly on the movement. If that offends danielj, or other ex- or non- or anti-Christians, too bad. 270
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:16 | # My criticism of uh’s behavior has nothing to do with my appreciation of his commentary, btw. Oh, and danielj, you really know very little of Civil Rights history. The blacks pushing to desegregate lunch counters were on their very best behavior, which helped them to change the minds of the white American majority re segregation in the South (and “discrimination” everywhere). Whites were about 90% of the population then, and desegregation, while imposed coercively on the Southern white majority, most certainly was not imposed on the American people as a whole. Civil Rights had the support of the overall white majority, as well as its Congressional representatives. And it got that support because it was seen to be morally correct (even though I would argue that CR was not morally mandatory, and, from a different moral perspective, one I believe is eternally True, it was positively immoral). WN is, however unfairly, associated with evil in the minds of many white Americans. If we don’t change that perception, we will go nowhere (as today). While moral arguments must stand or fall on their own philosophical merits, in terms of influencing political majorities, perceptions of moral character matter. Bottom line: when advocating ideological radicalism (of whatever kind), the advocate must be as conventional as possible in personality, behavior, appearance, and, especially, morality. 271
Posted by Republicrat on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:18 | #
(tl;dr interracial apologetics snipped) Shouldn’t someone who cares about “the cause” be dating with the intent on finding a suitable marriage partner? Perhaps you, just like too many others who profess to care about the white race, are selective in applying their racial principles and are basically just hobbyists? Hey, it’s okay, we’re not married. Condom breaks inside the chink’s pussy? Oh, well didn’t think of that! I don’t even want to think what would happen if you had an “accident” with the shegress. Perhaps we’d be calling that accident “President Haller” in 30-40 years. (Speaking of accidents - there is the famous one by the name of Rabang Miller) 272
Posted by danielj on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 01:57 | # Leon, You’re a fucking idiot. I can’t believe I have to explain this to a “White Nationalist” but I’ll give it a college try. A bunch of Kikes, starting in the early 20’s starting talking over the universities just like Napoleon took over the training of the young (what a sinister phrase) in Orwell’s Animal Farm. One by one they fell; Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford. Just like dominoes… Hmmm…. The professions (particularly the legal one) were infested. A bunch of these empowered (read: EMPOWERED) Kikes and some self-righteous, displaced East Anglians decided that total hegemony over these United States and the world was within their reach. They recruited a Mick with a grudge and USING THEIR BIG AND POWERFUL ELECTRIC SYNAGOGE the smashed that silly Republican idiot from our very own Orange County who had no idea what was coming and couldn’t see the MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIAN. The nigger very may well have been on his best behavior Leon, but that isn’t why we gots the business end of the Talmud. Do I even need to explain that the cumulative effect that the SDS, the riots, COMMUNIST INFLUENCE AND INFILTRATION, radical moral upheaval, the disintegration of the family and on and on ad nauseam was the cause of the legislation? Do I really need to explain that the pleasant demeanor of the “marching” Negro concealed the vicious teeth of the empowered, amoral, Kike?
After all Leon, how did things turn out for the nigger when all was said and done? Is he empowered? He watched his income decline, his drudgery increase, his manhood robbed, his culture destroyed, his Christianity eviscerated before his eyes, his historical territory given to the next MASK THE POWERFUL KIKE DONNED (read: the beaner, the faggot, the feminist, et al) and then had a few Jews ridicule, minimize and commodify his suffering via gangster rap. You’re a fool. Grow the fuck up. Be a man and impregnate a WHITE WOMAN. Bottom line: when advocating ideological radicalism (of whatever kind), the advocate must be as conventional as possible in personality, behavior, appearance, and, especially, morality. BZZZZZZ. WRONG!!!! The bottom line is that “advocating” is for pussies. I can hear the whipcrack when you say it. You watch your p’s and q’s all you want. I know you’re too busy scaling the Wuthering Heights of the academy to see the orgasm through. Basic shit people. I’ve actually got another WN arguing that it’s the “culture” that’s the problem. Is fucking Thomas Sowell in here? 273
Posted by danielj on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:02 | # Shouldn’t someone who cares about “the cause” be dating with the intent on finding a suitable marriage partner? Holy fuck. A logician must have stepped in the room!!!! “A man lives by believing something; not by debating and arguing about many things.” Leon likes debate. He likes a lot of Jewish shit actually…. Starting to wonder about his family tree. 274
Posted by danielj on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:04 | # After all Leon, how did things turn out for the nigger when all was said and done? The nigger - IMPEACHED jooz: LOZZZZLOLZOLZOZZLOLZIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 275
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:26 | # I’m perfectly aware of the history of Jewish involvement in leftist causes, esp wrt the Civil Rights Movement. Nothing I said above denied that history. I did not state that the Negroes won their civil rights all by their own effort. The Jews themselves did not win by force, however, but by appealing to and manipulating the moral instincts of the white majority. Nothing you said refutes that. In a cause like race-realism and preventing white extinction, the anti-racist ‘meme’ being so powerful among whites, WNs must be extraordinarily morally upstanding persons in order to gain an audience willing to hear our message. This is commonsense, and correct. All strident displays of White Power never go anywhere (except within the artificial environment of multiracial prisons) because, as I’ve been saying here since my first appearance, Western Man is Ethical Man. That is veritably an ontological fact. Whites are more moral than other peoples. That is precisely why anti-racism works so well with us. The Jews and their internationalist propaganda (for everyone but themselves, of course) only seem to have substantial effects with whites - not with Japanese, Indians, Mexicans, blacks, Arabs, etc. Only whites are susceptible. Why is that? I don’t know. Kevin MacDonald has offered some possible answers from evolutionary theory, esp pertaining to the European family. Maybe he’s right. What matters practicably, however, is that we build our movement taking the mean psyche of our co-racials into account. Unless America literally collapses as a national entity, at which point all bets are off and anything becomes potentially possible, WNs must work patiently within the system, “system” including white mentality, customs, ethics, etc. We have to convince our people of the moral righteousness of legislation (and personal behaviors) to ensure white survival. This is why I pursue my current difficult (and frankly not wildly interesting) course of study (if it weren’t for the need to develop a theologically grounded ethics for white preservation, I might not have returned to school at all; even if I had, I’m more interested in political economy, and modern and financial history, than theology, and so would have studied something along those lines).
276
Posted by CS on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:33 | # Leon, Another idea about WZ. We could invite other groups like Christians and libertarians for example to go to targeted country and then when all of us together have the numbers we split the country up between our groups. 277
Posted by uh on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:35 | #
If you hadn’t been so eager to moralize about something I did almost ten years ago, you might have caught the partial explanation I offered Randy above. The same blog to which I link has dozens of speculative entries collating all kinds of sources in pursuit of the same idea: Europeans are genetically too altruistic to compete with less altruistic races resident in their own space. 278
Posted by uh on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:38 | #
279
Posted by danielj on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:50 | # Was there a fucking referendum on Civil Rights legislation. Did all those Micks that rioted over forced bussing vote yea because of plucked heartstrings? You are retrojecting your own weakened consciousness. Power is all that matters. 280
Posted by Guest Lurker on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:54 | #
For someone who is always touting his Christianity and your pet notion that western man is more “ethical” than other races, you sure do come across as a hypocrite with statements like the above. 281
Posted by Guest Lurker on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 03:31 | #
I’ve long started to suspect that statements like these are hot air. Just part of whitey’s conceit that our problems are not a result of any inherent weaknesses, but again because of our unique wonderfulness. BS. Our malaise is probably more a result of simple low testosterone and lack of balls. White people are preyed and parasited upon because it’s just easy to do so. Whether it’s Jews, Mexicans and blacks, or muslims in Europe, same story. Whites seem to have an infinite capacity for self-abasement and a high threshold for tolerating abuse from others. Nothing seems to make your average white’s blood boil (“just chill out, dude.”). Call that altruism and ethics if you like. To me it seems more like a lack of a vital life force. Hence white people’s proclivity for abstract speculations and falling prey to the philosophical/political whims of the day. It’s all mental gymnastics just compensating for a lack of good strong vital organic instincts.
282
Posted by CS on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 05:09 | # Guest Lurker, You’re totally right there. White people seem willing to tolerate any amount of bullshit thrown their way. They are just saps and suckers to be taken advantage of by other races. It makes me ill that I have to suffer as a result of these idiots. I want to separate from them just as much as I want to separate from kikes and niggers. 283
Posted by Silver on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 06:56 | # Lentini,
Of course that’s the presupposition of all this talk. It’s why I bother to talk at all. It’s what people do. There are changes that I think that would be beneficial to the vast majority of people (even nigs) and I’d like to see policies instituted to effect those changes. One way to encourage developments in that direction is to talk about them. Long shot? Certainly. On the other hand, it’d be remiss not to take precautions against some of those changes proving, let us say, “too successful.” Look, I’ll say this. A trait that seemingly all nationalists share is the inability or total unwillingness to forgive the past. I’m not a nationalist and I’m totally willing to forgive the past. My grandmother had two brothers summarily executed during the war but I’ll cheerfully forgive it. My perspective is it’s sad things like this happen but if we can “make sure” (not that anything is ever sure) that it won’t happen again then let’s just forgive the past and move on. If I ever run into Hitler in the afterlife I’ll be sure to make the same point to him. All of that’s to say that there’s no Jew hiding indoors here. I’m not interested in endlessly haranguing or guilt-tripping Germans. I’m saying fine, there are certain actions, drastic actions, that’ll have to be taken to put things right, but I’m just concerned about the possibility of things getting way out of hand, or doing so so quickly that they catch us all by surprise and unprepared. You, Lentini, say there’s not the slightest chance of that; I say, dammit man, history suggests otherwise.
So do it back to them. “Oh absolutely, Hindoos are awesome immigrants, just splendid. How many is Israel taking this year?”
So raise goats and smoke opium (who’s stopping you?). That doesn’t make you a madman. You’re a madman if you insist that raising goats and smoking opium is all anyone should ever aspire to.
Who the hell is forcing you to live in a shoebox in a city? You don’t like it, then freakin leave. How hard is it? If you hate Miami so much why in the world do you live there? From what you’ve said, you’re not much a career man, so my guess is it’s not work that’s keeping you in Miami. So then why not move somewhere more suitable? The total urban area (ie the area containing urban settlement, not just “cities”) of the United States amounts to some 60 million acres. Let’s double it just to be safe. That’s still only around 5% of the total area of the lower 48. If you can’t find uncrowded space there there’s something seriously wrong with you.
I can certainly accept that there are people who don’t want any more of my “precious progress.” You need to accept that there are not very many of you. As for it being a huge net evil, lol; all I’ll say to that is I think your aimless angst is quietly destroying you. Look, you wriggled out of answering my question as to what people should do by giving me “Belarus” and “Iran.” That gives me some idea, but if merely studying math or playing Mozart is too competitive for you (and you want away from it) then I really do have to ask again: just what the fuck should people do with themselves?
No, the exasperation was all anon’s. That’s why he phrased the rhetorical question the way he did. Greg Johnson’s exasperation did the same thing with “Can we stop pretending now?” (re the nigger in the elevator). WNs do it all the time.
I don’t doubt whites are more gullible and trusting but it amounts to differences in degree, not differences in kind (“Whites trust always; Asians don’t ever”). I’m not going to look up thug report for incidents of nigger on gook crime because they’re more interested in reporting nigger on white. I don’t have to. It should be assumed that with millions of gooks and millions of niggers there’s going be the occasional gook who pays a price for trusting niggers more than was prudent.
No, I’m aware of this. Only a couple of weeks ago I was talking to some asian student. I had asked him where he was staying and when he answered, knowing that the area was undergoing some of the heaviest niggerfuxation in this city, I asked him how he liked it. “It’s goo, buh too menni blak peopauw. Sik o’klok kum auw blak peopauw to tray stayshuh—iss no goo.”
284
Posted by Silver on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:18 | # Lentini, your Christian name is actually Marshall? I’d see it on VNN but I thought it was marshal as in field-marshal, referring to some forgotten fascist hero—you know, the sorts of names internet militants come up with for themselves, like that polish commie from the phora who occasionally shows up here, “Captain Marinovich” or whatever it is. Anyway—Marshall! Sorry to laugh. I don’t know why, but goddam there’s something funny about that. I read the posts from the bottom up and, going by the stern judgments, wondered what horrendous sin you might be guilty of. Lol, so you ran off to Rome with a teenage girl. Big deal. Not something to be proud of but it’s hardly going to cause the world to end. 285
Posted by anon on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:35 | # @danielj
Think about it genetically If a population has both altruism motivators in equal frequencies then in combination it would go something like so 25% 2rB rioters, 25% 2e plucked heartstringers, 50% a mixture of both, swung either way according to the cultural power. If it’s true that outbreeding increases the proportions of e to compensate for the drop in r then populations that are already outbred will have higher proportions of e. Also upper middle class will usually be more outbred than blue collar so the proportions will vary by class also. Say in an inbred population the proportions are 80%, 20%, then your population becomes Say an outbred population is 60%, 40%, then you get Outbred blue collar (or inbred upper middle class) 70%, 30% Outbred upper middle class 50%, 50% so overall in an outbred population In a homogenous population the e value is directed to the benefit of the whole group - hence the massive surge in relative western power from the renaissance to the 1960s. Two weaknesses (The general case would be the more of a magnet for e motivation the diversity was e.g. stupid, the bigger the dilution effect. Diversity that didn’t attract e because they could look after themselves wouldn’t dilute the e value.) 2) Losing control of the cultural power to an enemy as they can manipulate e and distort the perceived value of B. I think that pretty much explains everything. ~~~ Populations who’ve been inbreeding for a long time might be 90%, 10% (or even less) so they’d be i.e. almost no empathic motivation at all, practically sociopathic to outsiders in fact. People like that would be easy to spot if you were good at that sort of thing. It would be like the void comp. test for replicants in Bladerunner. People who were mixed almost exactly 50/50 between that kind of population and an outbred population might be weirdly schizophrenic switching between normal white mode and plague-rat mode on an hourly basis.
286
Posted by anon on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:45 | #
Should have been - rB (altruism motivator based on relatedness r and benefit B) It should be fairly obvious that if a population starts to outbreed their value of r goes down and therefore their rB altruism motivation goes down. If altruism within a group is good for the group then r, and consequentlyrB, going down could lead to e being more strongly selected for in outbred populations to compensate. 287
Posted by uh on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:54 | #
288
Posted by anon on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:05 | # danielj
When i say the culture that’s what i mean, the cumulative behavioral effect of the universities, mass media, schools etc. Those institutions dominate the culture - or as the process is always targeted at kids they dominate the culture that will dominate behavior 10-20 years in the future. gene-culture coevolution when the culture is dominated by an enemy -> genocide 289
Posted by uh on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:10 | #
You’d be surprised.
Land is owned, you know. BLM. Private hands. Agrobusiness. Costs buckets of greenbacks to escape. This is why the rich buy log homes surrounded by 6,000 acres of forest, no?
Actually not. Reread what anon has to say, then follow my links to HBDChick. The divide may be much sharper than you are prepared to admit. Which is why we only read of whites letting teenage coons around their daughters, LOL. You used a bit of hyperbole to obscure the matter, which isn’t one of Asians ever trusting, but would other races act so gullible toward “youth”. The answer is simply: no. Mexicans have been here long enough now that I can see a mixed family committing the error, but that is already “difference of kind”.
290
Posted by anon on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:43 | # Three things follow from the rB + e thing in an outbred population. 1) The 2rB segment of the population will be a minority. A political organisation could exclusively target that segment with rB arguments but it could only succeed as some form of vanguardism simply because there isn’t the numbers for electoral strategies. 2) The cultural power focuses on manipulating e so political arguments directed at winning the majority of the outbred population have to have both an rB and an e component with the e component ideally revolving around children or the elderly. A (rB + e) argument can work on the 2rB and rB+e segment and at least partially neutralize the 2e segment of the outbred population. 3) The cultural power can’t be contested directly. It has a power of about a 1,000,000 to our 1. However trust is proportional. Reducing people’s trust in the cultural power (academia, MSM etc) by 10% reduces its power by 10% also. If the strength of cultural power was 1,000,000 to our 1 then reducing a person’s trust in the MSM by 10% is the equivalent of increasing our cultural power from 1 to 100,000. So 291
Posted by uh on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:51 | #
You are correct. It is destroying me — and millions more besides. http://www.pihealth.com/adrenal_glands_and_stress.htm The modern, “republican” turn of the franchise was to bring more people under its symbolic order to enjoy legitimacy and spoils. Now, they can’t escape from under it. Your civilization, your progress is a coercive system no less than anything I or w.n.s might come up with. Not my problem that you can’t see it. Read what the environmental / anti-capitalist left have to say on these matters. But I suppose you’ll talk it all down, as you do. Progress — an unmixed good for everyone, everywhere: the end. Thus spake Silverthrustra.
Less. 292
Posted by Patton on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:07 | # @ Silver:
You are equating man toiling and working the fields to provide for himself and his family and quite likely to pay heavy taxes levied on him by his masters with spoilt brats spending their money on enlarging their collection of purses, shoes, cellphones, make-up and what not just for fun. You call that civilisation? I see you are well-initiated into the cult of Mammon. I call female obsession with shopping and the material in general a manifestation of enslavement caused by a lack of belief in something transcending man. 293
Posted by uh on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:19 | # Moderated elsewhere —
294
Posted by uh on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:32 | # Patton,
Last week I found this really kewl site on primitive ways. One page showed how to make flapjacks in the wild from bulrush pollen, you know, the elongated brown pods that explode into feathery debris if you whack them on something. I sent it to a good friend knowing he appreciates such things. He replied, “Kewl. But, it must be said, we are learning to eat pollen while the Armenians are learning to eat filet mignon.” Silver is the wog with his filet mignon. He is like these Colombians one generation removed from dirt and rabbit ears television who now shower obsessively and drive new cars. He is in a love affair with the franchise that lifted his kind out of Balkan poverty and allowed him to flirt with blond girls at the beach. He is the enfranchised — what else to expect from him but attachment thereto? I’m grateful my people came here and grew up in the Depression. My great-grandfather sold hot dogs ‘n kraut to Polish laborers. My grandfather owned a resto that became a hot-spot for mafiosi. Then my father owned a deli that was just next-door to a tuxedo shop owned by a man implicated in the Pizza Connection. He was indicted by none other than Rudy G. My mother went down to the local courthouse and testified on his behalf, which somehow got him off the hook. lolzozlz 295
Posted by uh on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:53 | # Patton, What is more, this is what has always led the simple-minded to accuse Silver of being Jewish. He isn’t a Jew. But he is of Wandrin’s “mercantile latitudes”. It is the same anti-earth instinct. His kind want nothing to do with the dirt ever again. They made it to Australia, for Christ’s sake — why would they ever cast a nostalgic glance backward at their roots? Australia has everything. It is modern. Everything is moving forward. His commitment to this crushing forward momentum surpasses Haller’s, who looks almost like a Green Peace activist in comparison. Haller just wants some free market action. Silver wants the entire world put under the lock-and-key of a subdivision with all amenities. No natural world for him. His parents came from that rot, he’ll have none of it. It is easy to see the Levantine in this, the man of the bazaar, the corner babbler trying to sell you something, utterly at home in the totally delimited man-made space of the city: the natural world is a bad dream to his kind, like racial memories of persecution. When I was a boy I picked berries with mom and played on a big mound of dirt with my action figures. When I wasn’t eating candy and watching cartoons, I mean. To this day the scent of honeysuckle knocks me back into my childhood. We all have such memories, of course, but what Silver has probably never considered is that their potency comes in part from an unmediated experience of the natural world. And that isn’t what progress is about. But capitalists (or let’s be kind and call them entrepreneurs) have figured that one out too: commodified tourism. Come experience the wonders of the asshole of the world, package deal, all for only $2000! That is Silver’s world. Apartment, office, take-away, office, apartment, da cluuub, apartment. 296
Posted by Randy Garver on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:35 | # uh:
Perfectly stated. However, I’d contend that having more can (counterintuitively) enable one to embrace less. As for our previous topic of discussion, I’m still working through your source materials. 297
Posted by Patton on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:57 | # @ Uh, I was just about to reply when I noticed you wrote two other responses so I’m sure you’ll understand I’m a bit too overwhelmed right now to write much of a coherent reply especially given that English isn’t my native language.
LOL. Totally agree on that one. Frankly this is one of these things that frequently annoys me. Just browse some random profiles on dating or pen pals websites and you’ll see all these women into travelling. Or shall I say, spending all your money on trips to improve their tan and go clubbing in the Côte d’Azur, Costa Brava or - worse yet - in get-your-own-STD-here-for-free Ibiza. But since this is Christmas time (more commonly knows as X-Mas these days) they are all off to London to go - guess what - do their Christmas shopping. Now on the subject of White Knighting, I think knighthood was a noble institution. Thank goodness that the praise of saintly women who took pride in their virginity back in the Middle Ages did not translate into their being assigned equal rights in every-day life, though! Yes, I too have this image of the fair maiden awaiting the White knight but then who doesn’t? Fortunately (well, relatively speaking), we’ve all heard how much women really care about their ‘Dear John’ when the going gets tough! Back when women were vulnerable and considered bounty in times of war, knighthood made sense because men and women knew their place in society. Nowadays women may well be the very ones in command, deciding whether you live or die. Talking of women in command, there is nothing I find more laughable than male conservatives whining about Islam taking over Europe, who criticise Muslim women for producing more children than our great ‘aesthetically pleasing’, tattooed, overly maquillaged and liberated women do. Also known as Far Right nutwings celebrating and defending the very things created by their self-declared left-wing and Jewish adversaries. Assuming they have not turned themselves into Zionists for electoral gain, that is. In an American context this idiocy is manifested in ‘social conservatives’ supporting the stupidest airhead women you could possibly imagine. The likes of Bachmann and Palin. ‘But Palin believes in traditional family values!’ Oh, I see, so that explains why she’s pursuing a political career as a woman. ‘She opposes gays serving in the military!’ Well, I’ll be damned. Let’s see how she’s going to respond if you state that women have no place in the military. After all, if men are to be the heads of their households, as they undoubtedly believe as good ‘Christian’ conservatives, what the hell makes them think this principle does not apply in society as a whole and women can have moral authority over men? Just as long as it is outside the household, right? LOL I’m not a Protestant, at least, not anymore, but if it were up to me I would make John Knox’s The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women compulsory reading. Even if it were just for the fact that I love its title! Now that I’m talking of women in politics, just recently we finally managed to form a new federal government here in god-forsaken Belgium. It took over a year to reach an agreement and have a new gov’t set up. But guess what? The women of the Christian Democratic party of Flanders were not pleased - there ain’t enough female ministers, what a disgrace! Boo hoo! Never mind that their political party was amongst those who lost the elections to begin with. So now we have a Walloon Socialist faggot who’s got an Italian immigrant background (not that I have anything against Italian, at least not against my mate Benito) so we now have the biggest pussy of all times dictating Belgium but those pretentious women are still not happy. Maybe they are secretly homophobic? Hmmm. I should add that political parties in Belgium are already obliged to have at least one woman in their top three candidates on electoral lists. The French-speaking Socialists and many other political parties are in favour of forcing mid-sized to large companies to have equally as many women as men on their board of directors. If it were up to them, they would have parliament consist of 50% males, 50% women. Of course, this is not achievable as you will end up with an army of mediocre female politicians trying to have their petty projects codified into law and have a gang consisting of hyper-emotional nannies and heartless feminists rules over us. Come to think of it, it’s pretty much like that already and let’s say 25% of the parliament is made up of women. The rest, of course, are mostly feminised men. Just to end my rant, which I hope you have ‘enjoyed’ reading in some twisted way, I read that a bunch of teenage girls had another brilliant idea to campaign against poverty - create their own nude calendar, of course! Their parents were reportedly ‘anxiously’ awaiting its publication. In other news, some PETA activists - virtually exclusively female, of course, because who else would dedicate that much time to the most idiotic nonsense that would quickly be abandoned in times of war, poverty and devastation (which I often fervently hope will befall to them) - were posing semi-nude to protest against MEAT (how ironic!) or whatever it is these faint-hearted creatures can’t stomach. Given all these issues, it is tempting to tell Western women to go to hell and drag the entire modern West with them into the fiery, declaring the situation to be irredeemable, and thus marry or date gooks as Leon is doing. After all, in the grand scheme of things, ‘aesthetics’ don’t mean a thing as those aesthetically ‘perfect’ creatures quickly turn aesthetically and morally displeasing once you get to know them better. Then again, dating non-Whites is not an option for any self-respecting White nationalist. Being a religious man, I’d prefer to marry someone sharing my beliefs and thus would be willing to marry outside my ‘ethnicity’, but she would still have to be a White European maiden. As for IQ, I agree. It is significant, yes, but it’s just part of who we are and not the sole determining factor. IQ is no guarantee for wisdom or virtue - which requires discipline and self-sacrifice - and I believe those to be far more important in the end than intelligence. I have personally seen all too often how many of those with a high-IQ in the modern-day West tend to be the very ones walking around in dreadlocks and worshipping Jah, claiming to support the ‘working-class’ while thinking themselves to be great intellectuals who wouldn’t go near the actual working-classes because they are deemed too ‘racist’ and ‘closed-minded’. Which is why I’m not impressed by anyone’s IQ anymore and care only about soundness of character. Perhaps we should have beer pong together sometime, uh! I’d prefer a bourbon, though. Puts hair on your chest (not that I haven’t got any, though, I’m not some chest-waxing faggot [something that many girls these days apparently find desirable, wtf?!?!]). Hope you’ll have an enjoyable Christmas’ eve and forget about all the crap we are surrounded by for a while. Cheers! 298
Posted by Mr Voight on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:24 | # In other news, some PETA activists - virtually exclusively female, of course, because who else would dedicate that much time to the most idiotic nonsense that would quickly be abandoned in times of war, poverty and devastation (which I often fervently hope will befall to them) - were posing semi-nude to protest against MEAT (how ironic!) or whatever it is these faint-hearted creatures can’t stomach. 299
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:10 | # Silver spends his days hunched over a sewing machine surrounded by Asian coolies and his nights at the “da cluuub” drowning in spirits the pain of his days? LOL 300
Posted by Silver on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:20 | # Patton,
You know, I didn’t say I was fond of consumerism (as a life-organizing principle). I happen to think that a “life well lived” involves a good deal more than mindless consumption (“gotta have this new…”). Personally, I myself am not much of a consumer at all—20 year-old car; no iphone; first plasma tv three months ago. As disinterested in consumption as I am, I don’t think it’s any great evil. Unlike yourself, I don’t see it as something to abhor or get depressed by. Anyway, I see you’ve moved on from deriding shopping as abnormal; now it’s just not “civilized.” A recent piece at counter currents by some Aric Kartman shares this disdain. He writes “They didn’t add a “food court” — those obnoxious fast food dystopias that are now ubiquitous at malls everywhere — until the late 80s.” My oh my. Food courts are obnoxious. People congregating there for a meal represents dystopia. You know what I think? What I said earlier (maybe another thread) bears repeating: for you race is wrong, therefore everything is wrong. That’s why you people see obnoxious dystopias in food courts. Funny thing is I actually agree with you that people could, in fact, enjoy a more ethnocentrically spiritually elevated existence (even to the point of “transcendence”). But I don’t think you’re going to open many eyes to that possibility by deriding everything that people do for failing to be transcendent enough for your rarefied tastes.
Lol. That was funny. Total load of shit, but funny.
Ah, yes, the infamous anti-earth instinct. The crops gather themselves in those latitudes, you know. Dude, I’m talking about progress over the last two thousand years but you can’t get your focus off the last twenty. So what if Australia has everything? Nowadays, even parts of Africa have everything, too. There’s virtually nothing I can get here that I couldn’t get back there. It’s cultural familiarity that keeps me here, not “the money.” Here, I know the ways and feel like a somebody. There, the ways seem unfamiliar and I feel like a nobody. Probably nothing that five solid years wouldn’t remedy, but hey, why should I go first without any assurance anyone would follow? Getting back to the real point, progressing is just something that all humans do. They do one thing, and then, in time, they replace that with another thing. And then replace that and so on, so on etc etc. (The vast majority of our past was spent on the move, a-huntin’ and a-gatherin’, and I’m some supposed to take seriously “Traditionalist” babble about “rootedness”?) That’s the first thing that really leaped out at me around the age of ten or eleven when I first began to take a serious interest in human history: the story of man was one of constant, relentless development. That’s not true of other animals. Foxes, bear, salmon, they don’t progress. They just keep doing the same thing. Humans just don’t stop improving. Can you imagine how exhilarating it was to learn that I was living in the era in which all the “good stuff” had only recently become available (cars, electricity, computers, real—not guess work—medicine, church finally off our backs etc)? That’s not to say there aren’t some very real problems, the race-replacement crisis foremost among them, but there’s huge difference between acknowledging those problems (and working to address them) and simply declaring that everything sucks.
“The natural world is a bad dream to his kind.” This is great stuff, lol. I actually like the natural world (well, trees, lakes, mountains; not bugs, snakes, wolves and crap like that). I wouldn’t try to pave it all over. Why do you impute such extremist values to me?
301
Posted by Silver on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:55 | # Lentini,
I don’t think I’ll waste any time reading what anti-capitalist nutjobs have to say on these matters because (a) those pukes use anything and everything they can as an excuse to tear down capitalism; (b) because I probably know more about stress than they do—certainly more about how to handle it and overcome it (or rather, avoid accumulating it in the first place), I do. (Not more than the researchers who investigate it; but more than the activist fuckwits who attempt to use that research for their own ends.) Look, it’s obvious you’re vastly more stressed out than me and just as obvious that you don’t know how to handle it. (If you did know, you wouldn’t be as stressed as you clearly are.) I don’t see how you’re in any position whatsoever to be talking down to me about these matters.
So do less then. You won’t find me advocating that people must do more. It’s still not an answer to my question—probably because you don’t have one. Garver,
How’s it perfectly stated? It applies to everybody, does it? We’re all doing “too much,” every single one of us, eh? That’s what Lentini seems to think, and if he has it his way he’ll make sure that you do less. Want your kids studying math and playing Mozart? That’s “too much”! Someone might not keep up, and good grief, the stress of it will eat them alive. Can’t have that. Hey, Lentini, I’ve got a link for you, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CERfoDIU2Yw Let me know if you’d prefer a copy of the book.
302
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:03 | #
The only smell that could carry me home more swiftly than honeysuckle might be that of sassafras. I shudder to think of young people being close enough to smell honeysuckle without ever having tasted its nectar. More’s the pity when it comes to sassafras root. 303
Posted by Patton on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:18 | # @ Mr Voight:
These guys</blockquote> I don’t think PETA and Nazi animal welfare quite compare but in all honesty I couldn’t care less as I am not a Nazi ideologist. 304
Posted by Patton on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:50 | # @ Silver:
Materialism is not a new phenomenon but I argue that the extent to which it pervades society in the West is unprecedented. Global junk food chains and their destruction of traditional (and often far healthier) food, an oversized and decadent entertainment industry, ubiquitous marketing and advertising and its mockery of the family, religion and promotion of feminism & the sexualisation and brainwashing of little girls; faggot fashion designers and their redefinition of what constitutes female beauty, big money invested in constructing huge shopping malls, and women making expensive trips abroad just to do some ‘shopping’ (etc) are all outward symptoms of a huge inner spiritual void people have which would not be as dramatic if people still had a belief in the hereafter and/or in some sense of belonging to community, family, nation, Church, and so on. I have raised this point to many people and usually I don’t even need to open anyone’s eyes because they already feel pretty much the same way about it. At least, about the gravity of the symptoms. If you think I state my views just as plainly in real life as I do here and hate everyone for not conforming to my worldview, you are quite mistaken. 305
Posted by Patton on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:11 | # @ Silver: You may be wondering why I call it a spiritual void and how things like junk food relate to it. Let me try to summarise my view. The Enlightenment and its culmination in Jewish Marxism undermine and destroy religion and nationhood, reducing everything to the material. Age-old traditions, beliefs and ways of life are upset and organic and gradual progress in society is replaced by mechanic, ideology-driven policies based on the theorisations of would-be intellectuals on the political end and by globalist self-interested and treacherous elites on the economic end whose only interest is to maximize profit on a worldwide level and make people buy into the lie that their crap is going to bring them happiness by means of mass marketing. Similarly, the music industry takes advantage of the general public’s liberalised attitudes toward sex and abuses and stimulates mankind’s basic instincts to promote their worthless depravity on society, creating a vicious circle in which the public becomes addicted to the stimulation of their basic senses and want to have the limit pushes even further. It is the increased reliance of the masses on their basic instincts and passions and the exploitation thereof by the industry that I find so revolting. In a civilised society, man strives to rule the passions and not have the passions rule him. 306
Posted by Patton on Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:14 | # With apologies for the spelling and language mistakes caused by having spent too much time sitting behind a computer screen again. 307
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 08:23 | #
Actually not as false oppositions can be created to drain off discontent with the ruling political dispensation into directions harmless to the ruling political dispensation. Does the English Defense League ring a bell? There is ultimately no substitute for a message that explicitly lays out its radical opposition to the ruling political dispensation if it is a matter of totally overturning the ruling political dispensation or all being lost. Those who will not heed the call will go to the slaughter as the sheep they are. How does that math work for you? 308
Posted by uh on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:46 | #
Yea, well, capitalism is tearing the earth down for the sake of “world”. I think it will survive some backbiting.
You don’t need to advocate; they are compelled.
http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/results/?oR=0.45&cR=0.222&eR=0.188&aR=0.722&nR=0.562&y=1980&g=m Result of a personality test I took. Extreme phlegm there. Of course technology cannot be arrested, the Soviet experiment was the last large-scale attempt at that, it can only be resisted locally where conditions permit (T-Bone territory; granola whites in Oregon, Vermont or New Mexico). High technology robs us of innocence that is to say alienates us forever in several ways. It “develops” the land beyond recognition, it produces unnatural methods of calling more and more people into existence requiring ever greater inputs and thus more development, and to those displaced it offers a host of narcissistic amusements to keep them lulled in their displacement from the land. As noted it even begins to sell the specter of what came before the alienation back to us as packaged nature. And the people love it — they must for there is now no escaping it. They love it just as much as Silver loves it. I don’t love it. I think it’s weird and gay and am absolutely certain mankind is worse off for having (inevitably; irreversibly) gone this way. I applaud those who are at ease in their apartments with their electric synagogues and oodles of “information”. For me it’s a big digital anti-climax. The non-white hordes are the largest benefactors of high tech agrobusiness. While whites merely get fatter, other races exponentiate, forcing agrobusiness to bloat and bloat like the fat vampire tick sucking the life from the earth that it is. The Industrial Revolution has produced too many people, which require ever more innovation, in turn producing ever more people. For me it’s as simple as that — and for not a few ecologists, economists and assorted doomsayers as well. 309
Posted by uh on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 15:20 | #
You dramatize yourself. Nothing you say has weight anywhere. I chose the name “uh” to reflect my disdain for online posing. All the importance people believe they have is contained in their internet handles, no less than a $160 pair of Diesel shoes. “uh” conveys approximately nothing but dullness and befuddlement. “Mencius Moldbug” e.g. conveys “wisdom” (Mencius), “humor”, “irony”, “Jew” (Moldbug) — so the fat little kike writing all that anti-white slop means he idealizes himself as an ironic Jewish sage. “Silver” doesn’t say much but you are always telling us how you “must”, you “would be remiss to not” talk back the impending Nazi doom caricature to avoid the excesses. I tell you there is nothing coming but more of the very progress you defend. You may rest easy, man. More of the same FOREVER.
History reflects the precise conditions in which events occurred, so when new conditions are attained, as is certainly the case with industrial technology and exponentiating population, history offers no exact model for what is coming. The industrial-democratic franchise has swallowed just about all of the earth’s nations as you agree it must have done because “it became possible”; and where a people came not unto democracy, democracy came unto them. There is no cogent rebuttal to the thesis laid out by Fukuyama twenty years ago. Race occurs in this context, race relations are power relations — we have no power (there is no “we”), so any proposed “solution” or rearrangement of relations is a mockery of power, legitimacy and what is more coherent political entities. Take British nationalists as counterpoint; they are more of a coherent “we” than we are. But all this does is permit them the illusion of coherent action and the mirage of political success; I won’t follow this logic in deference to the host however. Did you catch my brief dispute with Papa Luigi? Acute dialectic in miniature, that. The man of faith as GW acknowledges vs the faithless man. In the end to avoid offending the guy I had to kinda roll over and say hey pops no offense, best of luck in your endeavors. So no, there has been a sharp break between what is now and what was then. The NSDAP could not have won Germany if there had been YouTube. Conditions must remain in their context and conclusions must not be drawn from mixed contexts. To assert that “history suggests otherwise” confuses local conditions (both in place and time) no less than the foregoing absurd example of YouTube in Germany ca. 1920; it is the isolation of that one variable that makes it absurd, but in fact “history suggests otherwise” contains a far greater logical error than that presuming as it does historical outcomes will be reproduced under hugely different conditions — this has been said better by a few philosophers and bloggers I can’t think of right now.
Strictly speak it does. Utopia, ideal planned society. Dystopia, default commercial society endlessly reproduced everywhere. You appeal elsewhere to humanity having been selected for its mobility — the progress you defend depends on the agricultural revolution which necessitated sedentism and stoop labor. The traditions and identity which Guessedworker and Papa Luigi cherish arose from simply this. No Pancake Day without the stoop labor to harvest the corn. Consider how much of what is sold in a food court is actually composite food from dozens of distillates of corn, cane sugar, bleached flour, various tropical bugs harvested for various subtle chemical properties, etc. etc. Probably more than 70% if typical ingredients lists are representative. Anyhow, you can’t argue that they aren’t disorienting little monuments to alienation in every conceivable fashion. So what that the people love it? The people are teenage girls and their slavish orbiters or niggers too awestruck by de bwight lights boss to understand what has been accomplished so some faggots in suits can bang call girls in stretched SUV limos. Are these the measure of a race? you are seriously arguing that that ISN’T dystopian? Well what the fuck is, I have to ask. If not that then we had better purge the language right now of the very word dystopian as it seems to have no reasonable application. Literary term! Food courts aren’t weird.
You see me as under-adjusted. I see you as over-adjusted. My belief: Humans are tortured by their own works. “Handling stress”, as with popping pills, I view as blue-pillism. My answer to the stress produces by urban-industrial life is to get away from it, not do breathing exercises in lotus position every morning. Or whatever it is that you do. Well I said I would be done with it, so I stop there. 310
Posted by uh on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 15:51 | #
It’s funny. We all make caricatures of each other. I suppose I went too far. It’s just that when you defend endless progress, you defend the paving. And the spraying. And the poison. And the mining, deforestation, desertification and destruction of biodiversity. (The diapers and chemical run-off in the rio where Mayans are still washing their clothes; the Chinese cargo ships shooting at the indios on the beach who take to narcotrafficking to get by, the same Chinese who hire the negresses by the dozen for suckysucky and wind up thrown overboard their bodies washed ashore days later.) And the fiat-carbs and fiat-menschen this all begets. Understand what I mean? I may have but meager eloquence — that asshole with his stilted jabber about “English moralism” saying that to me or anyone, Texts From Bennett readers easier — but I try to make clumsy signs in the direction of my cynical intuitions. Seems to me you, Haller, Captainchaos and all of you just aren’t looking closely enough at the world to grasp the scale of the problems brought on by overpopulation and unstoppable industry. Here’s the tuff gai chump Captainchaos on what to do about all dem darkies: “Confiscate all the arable land and starve them out.” Bwahahahahahahahaa. They have guns ya know. Nationalists are still nursing this “imperial mentality” that is out of all proportion to their relevance in world affairs. Oh well, it’s funny, guarda e passa.
The break in this sustainable process came with the Industrial Revolution and more acutely in the Second. There are always loners who question the import and consequences of new technology (critics of television e.g.) but of course capitalists capitalize and the people follow as they must. As said however there’s been a “break”: industry has grown too powerful, humanity has simply expanded too quickly. This will not end well for the earth as it, as Soren noted some time ago, has already reached sustainable carrying capacity, despite the temporizing speculation of “what happens when” we reach it. The result of your progress is as much “developed” towns as vast shantytowns — really immense squatters cities. http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html Love of capitalism and progress depends entirely upon ignoring the negative side until, you imagine, the squatters can be brought up to standard; meanwhile agrobusiness will have put so many more acres under its heel, created so many more fiat-carbs, ending in so many more human lives to — you guessed it, move into new squatters’ cities and have even more babies that have to be brought up to standard. Totally destructive momentum going on. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/robert_neuwirth_on_our_shadow_cities.html And we will see that this constant balancing act of accommodating ever more fiat-menschen will be capitalists’ (now the “forward” contingent of humanity like the founder population out of Africa) all-consuming task, to very theater of all social and possibly genetic evolution: urban planning is all humanity has to look forward to as the urbs sucks everything into its orbit. http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html *** This isn’t a simple exchange of one paradigm for another. It is the death of humanity’s evolutionary paradigm for the urban complex. And it is this which you defend when you defend capitalism and conveniences. A few dozens of people with tummy ache or laid to rest from tainted raw milk are not worth the forced sterilization of all milk and treatment with additives. A hundred deaths from septic tooth rot or appendicitis are not worth bending all of mankind to socialist medical plans or throwing them into the perdition of debt and “bad credit” under capitalist medical care. The more mankind is brought under the care of the state and its technology, the bigger and more unwieldy it grows. We need die-off. The irony for me is that we desperately do need “BILLIONS” to die. lozlzozoozz I can’t stop, ok ok, I shall turn my attention to Patton’s comments. 311
Posted by uh on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:29 | # heyyyyy Mr Voight, while i agree that feminists ought to be whipped and have their heads shaved, though let’s face they already do that themselves lolzzozolz, you ought to know that part of their gripe insofar as they actually know and are not just taking an opportunity for lefty-girls-gone-wild, is that industrial beef production is one of the leading causes of deforestation in the west: http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0129-brazil.html LOL! i luv beef too but it takes away from da nachuro world that silver doesnt care about as long as capitalism is going forward and fiatmenschen are feasting on fiatcarbs got from synthetic fert got from ammonia which dey get from non-renewable nachuro gas at a higher rate than world production and availability LOZLZLOZZ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Inorganic_fertilizer_.28synthetic_fertilizer.29 n guess who is uses da most synthetic fert in da world .... dass right da CHINEEEEEZ lolzozoz defense of capitalism = defense of chinese exponentiation defense of beef industry = defense of deforestation which as u ought 2 know make big problemms in da atmosphere which we haveta breathe lolzozoz i <3 kapitalismus!!!! “The nitrogen-rich compounds found in fertilizer runoff is the primary cause of a serious depletion of oxygen in many parts of the ocean, especially in coastal zones; the resulting lack of dissolved oxygen is greatly reducing the ability of these areas to sustain oceanic fauna.[46] Visually, water may become cloudy and discolored (green, yellow, brown, or red). About half of all the lakes in the United States are now eutrophic, while the number of oceanic dead zones near inhabited coastlines are increasing.[47] As of 2006, the application of nitrogen fertilizer is being increasingly controlled in Britain and the United States[citation needed]. If eutrophication can be reversed, it may take decades[citation needed] before the accumulated nitrates in groundwater can be broken down by natural processes.” LOLZOZOZOOZ “CITATION NEEDED” do u know what “eutrophic” really means? eyyo it means good + growth kinda ironic cause it means the lake or whatever is literally CHOKING ON THE GROWTH i.e. it is a cancerous phenomenon KINDA LIKE fiatmenschen < fiatcarbs < synth fert < ammonia < nachuro gas ollzozozoz 312
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:13 | # Good work, Uh. I find that I don’t bother to go to the comments section anymore unless I see, from the sidebar, that you have posted. I really like reading you comments. 313
Posted by Silver on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:27 | # Lentini,
The USSR was an attempt to arrest technology. Ayee. Dude, you’re not just alienated; you’re living in an alternate reality.
Lol, I think I’ll leave it to readers to decide just who dramatizes himself.
Hey, cool. On the other hand, and be honest, what reason do you really suppose I would have to take seriously the mutterings of an insolent, ignorant, misanthropic, loquacious little luddite who sees no parallels in historical emotional intensity whatsoever?
Oh, piss off. “Dystopia,” in the context it was written, referred to a sight so horrendous it was more than he could bear.
Of course I can. In no way do I conceive of them as disorienting little monuments to alienation. What makes them so much more “dystopian” than restaurants or cafes or nightclubs or kebab stands? (I mean, for normal people. For you, the answer is they all contain people in just too close proximity to one another, which obviously goes against all that mother nature intended, so they’re every bit as nightmarish.)
So what that you hate it?
Yes, that’s precisely what I’m arguing: none of it’s remotely dystopian. I really have to wonder just what the fuck isn’t dystopian for you? I’m yet to receive a coherent answer. You praise Belarus and you praise Iran, but Lukashenko is popular because has succeeded in creating conditions that are conducive to “more,” not less; and what are Iran’s nuclear ambitions but a testament to the glory of “more”?
Well, breathing positions in the lotus position weren’t developed as a response to the stresses of urban-industrial life, you know, so maybe there might something there even you could use while you’re outdoors sleeping under the stars (or counting them, or whatever it is you do).
Hmm, I think I get it. It’s kinda like how when you defend the luddites, you defend the faggots. And the lesbians. And the yids, and the niggers, and the niggerlovers, and the diversicrats, and the immigration boosters, and the miscegenators. Is that what you mean?
The price one sometimes pays for disdaining facts and figures (%%%%% LOLLZZLZLZLZLZ) in favor of totally groundless intuitions is being flatly contradicted by the facts of reality. If the above were true then white countries, with all those fiat calories in circulation, should be cranking out excess fiat menshcen at breakneck pace. Only they’re not. And in Africa it’s the poorest, least developed countries that have the highest birth rates, not the most developed.
314
Posted by uh on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 20:41 | #
- birth control / abortion non-white countries: - opposed to / can’t afford / too irresponsible for birth control hence: - obesity epidemic in america but keep humming your little “very liquid, very safe” capitalist koan, bro. it will save you at least.
False. The cost of development and free trade are environmental destruction except in the most conscientious cases; these are indisputably correlative phenomena despite controls. The cost of being a luddite is some junk made in China, and has nothing to do with faggots and lesbians — being classic oversocialized products of urban deviance, not, of course, resistance to takeover by the machine. (Though yea, T-Bone did love their boys in kohl.)
My big epiphany came one day at a goat dairy farm when I observed a sleek shiny black cat creep silently up to the hay loft above the goat sty. The smell of the sty, the friendliness of goats nibbling at my sweater and wrists, leaving their saliva, and the sight of the cat stealing into the loft for a nap made me realize the only thing that’s ever been wrong with me was trying to accommodate myself to the modern world, trying to “keep up” as vicious young women love to say. I had had numerous opportunities in the past to come to the same realization, but it didn’t come until then — until I imagined the comfort of that cat settling down onto a dry nest of hay to sleep. This is after all why the Lord was born in a manger, I believe. So there is my vision of that which is not dystopian. I can give you another real fast, I hope it makes you want to mock me some more because that’s all you’re really good for here and we don’t want to lose sight of your value: I went to Holland years ago to meet a girl I knew from the internet. (In fact it was on that same silly trip mentioned above. I was really going to meet this girl, who was by the way twenty at the time, not that that matters to me.) She was Dutch of course and completely of the age, so to speak; former drug addict, cutter, club-goer, waster, but artistic with a certain depth that made her seem more valuable than she was, you know what I mean. We really had nothing in common — by then she had become a hippie and I had just discovered the JQ with all that brings. So she was staying in Apeldoorn at this communal house that was actually a barn that was built by the Wehrmacht while in country. She didn’t know I was coming. I walked through the gate and incredibly she was the very person to walk down the steps to see who had let theirself in. And there she was — in this old farm-style green dress, black shoes and dyed red hair pulled back as it was morning. Her skin was absolutely pallid and lightly speckled with acne. I know that sounds ugly but I found it pretty. Her eyes of course were baby-blue crystals. She seemed to be more dumbstruck than I expected, standing there for a four seconds before cycling through her English and stammering, “Oh ... my God.” Hahahaha. Bull’s-eye. So later that day, as it was then morning, we both went out to chop wood for the evening fire. I love chopping wood — has always been unalloyed pleasure to me, be it battening with a commando knife, hacking with a hatchet, chopping with a two-bit or splitting with a maul. Anyway when we were finished and gathered the sticks in our arms and began walking back to the house I looked back and had one of my out-of-time moments. Suddenly I wasn’t in Apeldoorn at a smoke-filled fucking hippie commune in 200X (forget lol) but in Apeldoorn with this young woman at a farm three centuries ago. Of course one stage of human development implies the next, I know, I know, but the way she looked in the snow in that green dress in her cheap cast-off black moccasins, her blond roots showing under the red, cradling that wood — I couldn’t help seeing an infant in its place. I may be romanticizing a touch but it seemed the rightest thing in the world, and I knew that it was, and would not be again — ever. I mean I had exactly that sensation. Perhaps for the first time in my life I was able to look at something with nothing else in my field of vision to disrupt the picture of the past; perhaps there was a sticker on the ax handle or I was smoking a cigarette, I don’t remember, but it wasn’t enough — traditional things for once outnumbered modern things in my field of vision, and even this human being seemed to conform, indeed she was the center-piece of my revery. ‘Twas almost perfect and my libido supplied the rest. That night whilst I nearly fucking froze to death on the thin old mattress alone in a totally unheated room upstairs, wrapped in two beaten-out sleeping bags and too cold to get up to relieve myself, I warmed myself a little by imagining her cradling a wee bundle of wool and calico with a babe inside. There you are, buddy. Two little visions of what isn’t dystopian — laughably typical of an Italian in fact: an afternoon nap and a mother with child. 315
Posted by uh on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:04 | #
well i know they made progress too as they became an industrial franchise themselves, hence the space race and the invasion of afghanistan. but it did not have the same potential as the liberal democratic franchise that has conquered all other competing big systems.
you consistently cast yourself in the role of alarmist waking people up to the slumbering danger of white nationalist ideas on the internet. “don’t you see, randy, that it’s guys like uh who will make sure you do less?” — the italics standing in for the guns you imagine pointed at his head. as i said i used to speak of captainchaos the same way until i realized he’s an average chump like everyone else abstracting himself from being a nobody.
wait what. anyhow you don’t have to take me seriously. i am not morally unimpeachable, lollzozlzz, and my name is funny!!!
i’d say they’re about the same. i’m pretty sure humans wouldn’t be what they are today if you could go back to whenever, gather them up and dump them at da kluuuub. that’s a cheap thought experiment i know but my personal conceit is one day living more and more like our ancestors of whatever generation or paradigm than greaseballs out to game spoiled pussy. you should have a look at istvan mezsaros’ book “alienation” for where i am coming from, though i guess it won’t interest you if you don’t feel that something is profoundly wrong in the way human relations and space have become entirely commodified. yes i know economy is inherent, ordering of the house, and everything happening now was inevitable and necessary, but i am wary of projecting history-book knowledge (where millenniums are collapsed to the time it takes for the eyes to flit from one geological period to the next giving you e.g. the illusion of rapid progression) onto the unfolding of human destiny, i am just one dude who finds his instincts at odds with recent developments in the world that seems to be making him and his kind obsolete.
316
Posted by uh on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:01 | # addendum </br>
... now i am the hippie and she’s the skinhead, lolzlzoz:
317
Posted by Patton on Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:20 | # Uh,
Now excuse me while I take a puke. Hope I haven’t run out of barf bags. 319
Posted by Mr Voight on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 01:13 | # I don’t think PETA and Nazi animal welfare quite compare but in all honesty I couldn’t care less as I am not a Nazi ideologist. Patton, my point was that you characterised concern for animals as some kind of inconsequential, modern, feminist idiocy; it’s simply not the case. I could have cited Ancient Greece as easily as National Socialist Germany. I say the modern idiocy is confusing cruelty for masculinity, or anti-ecology for big balls conservatism. Respect for animals is healthy. Respect for the environment is healthy. The more depraved cultures of the Orient are nothing to mimic. 320
Posted by Patton on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 01:33 | # Mr Voight, I admit I’m not much of an environmentalist (I’m sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, for instance) but I see your point now. In principle I don’t disagree with you there as I do favour respect for the environment and think it fits a traditionalist and/or nationalist way of thinking. PETA, however, are just a bunch of crazy extremists to my mind. I will never feel guilty of animal abuse for wearing a genuine leather jacket (but don’t worry, I’m not into lederhosen) or eating meat since I do not consider this to be animal abuse and disapprove of real animal abuse. What constitutes abuse is a discussion in its own right which I’m not getting into here. Suffice it to say that just because I don’t believe animals can/need to/should have any rights whatsoever doesn’t mean I don’t think man has no duties towards animals or nature/creation in general. My point was more about how modern-day Western women apparently feel the need to go nude or semi-nude whenever they protest and need some attention…. Great, I just noticed it’s past 2 AM again. Anyway, that’s my problem. Thanks for the reply. 321
Posted by Mr Voight on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 06:43 | # OK thanks Patton. I don’t have any real problem with what you’re saying. I don’t believe in ‘rights’ for animals or humans; there’s just acting like scum and acting decent. 322
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:21 | # Uh, why don’t you begin by telling me precisely what I have advocated which you believe would be personally a threat to you were it actualized (as you correctly diagnose, the Silverster is altogether too hysterical and mischievous a personality to bother seriously asking the question, so I’ll assume you speak for him if you decide to answer). That I might find interesting. Your implicit call, backed by reams of redundant verbiage, for MR’s readership to join you in a circle-jerk of existential despair is surely not. 323
Posted by uh on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:18 | #
My point was exactly that you are not a threat to anyone, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. 324
Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:51 | # Silver:
Short answer: I’m a bit sweet on pithy rejoinders. Longer answer: mankind possesses ancient hardware, ancient firmware, and only moderately customizable software. Much of the trajectory of modern societal evolution (often filed under the heading of “progress”) appears to manifest as an attempt to improve the condition of the species by creating, either by design or by side effect, environments significantly different from that which it evolved to be optimized in. The assumptive problem with this equation should be readily apparent. Now, someone may suggest that “progress” is not a strict linear progression. Cast to a graphable metric, one might disclaim that progress exists within a stochastic distribution. Three steps forward, one step back and such. I believe that this type of classification masks an underlying flaw, that being of how to improve upon the environment which the species evolved in. Progress then towards what? In the social sphere, we’ve created and normalized situations where our elders and our children are abandoned into the care of strangers who (unsurprisingly) are devoid of the abiding love and affection towards our relations which they require and deserve. And to support this arrangement, we often labor in socially alienating environments and then dine alone, consuming food composed and prepared industrially. How wretched. Again, one might again ask “progress towards what”? Science and technology have yielded inestimable gains in productivity, wealth, and convenience. But this begs the question as to why there does not seem to be a concomitant dividend in happiness and satisfaction. Now I’m all for the evolution of art, science, and culture. But if one desires to maximize the concept of humanness in its holistically broadest form, one might best consider the offerings of modernity with a skeptical and suspicious eye.
325
Posted by LOZLOZLOZZOOO on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:56 | # Well, it was fun while it lasted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiQzUEc_FmI -LOZLOZLOZZOOO 326
Posted by uh on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:28 | # LOLZZOZOZ, ZLZLZLZZOLZZOZ how did you know I watch GG? 327
Posted by Silver on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:29 | # Lentini,
If you’d just open your eyes—and that’s really all it takes—you’d realize those and other mitigating factors are in operation in the non-white world, too, which is why so much of it has recently arrived at or below replacement fertility.
Yes, false. And unpleasant, too, all this being associated with ideas and positions one doesn’t hold. So stop doing it to me.
What makes you think I’m immune to such experiences? If you don’t think I’m immune, then your experiencing them has nothing to do with your luddism. I’m not interesting in mocking you. Your position is so ludicrous, so poorly informed, that it effectively mocks itself.
It didn’t have the same potential structurally, but that’s not why its devotees promoted it. They were convinced it that had just that potential and much more besides. They were certainly not communists because they were attempting to “arrest technology.”
That’s you casting me in that role. I see myself as doing no more than evaluating a train of thought and its implications and voicing my concerns about it. What does it matter that the entire world isn’t paying attention? It’s paying no attention to you, either, yet that doesn’t seem to slow you down.
“I know, I know.” Cute the way you whip up a get-out-of-jail card for yourself on the fly. You aren’t so generous, I notice, when it comes to me. No, for me it’s A implies B and I since say A therefore I’m saying (and on the hook for) aaaalllll that B implies and perhaps much more.
Of all the adjectives you could have chosen, that you settled on “disingenuous” says more about you than it does about me. I guess since you don’t see any threat then when you wrote, “Obviously, as we’ve said before, a society run by Rassenhygieniker and Captainchaos would be pretty rough,” you really should have added ” —but don’t get me wrong, I’d like it!” 328
Posted by uh on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:12 | # Silver,
Nonetheless ... from initial statements, the line was drawn and we stand on opposite sides. You are content with the relentless march of progress, I believe it to be a collective compulsion that will (must) see the whole earth consumed by industry and urbanism — which a few far-sighted types realized decades ago ought to be stopped for the good of the planet and the betterment of a reduced humanity, but which we are really powerless to slow down. There is merit in aligning oneself with the compulsion, as there is merit in desiring to opt out of it. Perhaps also it is just uh’s way of making himself feel better that he doesn’t “get” economics?
You lean on that notion too much. Ever seen the slums in Lima, Bogota, Rio, Sao Paolo and Buenos Aires? ever been to Mexico City? Buenaventura, Recife, west Montevideo, Ciudad de Guatemala, Tapachula or San Salvador, Salto or La Paz? I assure you, from very wide first-hand observation, that these populations are not below replacement fertility. Even if each childbearing woman had one child, the numbers would still exponentiate at current levels. And this is only Latin America, of course. One day you ought to take a trip to someplace unpleasant, and I don’t mean to America. Then we’ll see who opens his eyes!
Ok.
Yea, I am poorly informed. In your penultimate comment you seemed to imply that the popularity of A. Lukashenko is due to economic reform and prosperity — totally false, as his nationalistic policies have done very little to quicken the Belarussian economy. This again is partly why he is labeled a dictator; he doesn’t play along with the world democratic franchise. When a leader takes more interest in the sovereignty of his nation than in its GDP, and the economy stagnates a little, everyone goes into fits of rage and consternation. This is how committed people like you are too finance capital and markets. All right, I am not as well-read as you are — but I’ve said myself that about a dozen times in the past, so it is nothing new.
Oh, I know. I suppose I was projecting my terms onto it. Reviewing the technological achievements of the twentieth century, though, Communism does seem to have had that effect despite advances in space tech, chemistry, etc. Isn’t that what capitalists argue — Communism stifles innovation? why do I have to argue it? I know they didn’t have that explicit purpose in mind. In my head it exists as a massive anti-capitalist political project that presupposed the negation of certain effects of unbridled capitalism. (By “anti-” I don’t mean political opposition or feeling, but the theoretical opposite, which of course it quickly outgrew in practice as is unavoidable in human affairs.) One of those effects is a lot of innovation in the race for patents and dividends. I don’t imagine Communists were Luddites, believe me. I am thinking here of the Great Leap Forward and the CCP’s long-lived obsession with steel for example. As is known there was and is a titanic tendency to doublethink among Communist leadership and functionaries with respect to the nature of their ideology and the consequences of its enactment. That alone can be called one of the biggest cases of sunk cost loss aversion in history. I view the world democratic franchise as the same sort of phenomenon with a lot more invested and thus much less likely to be righted if it can be agreed that a course correction is in order.
We’re speaking to each other at different semantic levels. You take white nationalist trains of thought as though they might one day come to fruition, and offer counsel to everyone on how to reduce the negative effects of this eventuality; I speak from a highly person level, obviously, which prefers to not mistake its own preferences aas having traction in reality. On the other hand it is the single example of living simply that contains the only practicable solution for the dread we all feel to some degree more or less at the encroaching jungle. Kievsky has his finger on it. Randy also seems to understand. There is no substance to the specter of white nationalism — it is an interpretation of reality at the semantic level of collective agency by isolated individuals — but there is plenty of substance to the yogurt I just made or the sunflower seeds I beat from a flower head to feed the squab (the latter is something I have done in the past, not now). These alone are realia. So to speak of Captainchaos or whomever’s more sanguine pronouncements as possibly really occurring is basically false. Strangely, you tell me “so leave”, or say the world is “paying no attention to you, either”, as though I haven’t been saying just this the entire time. And that is a confusion of levels — WNs speak “as a group” despite being individuals, I speak as an individual to other individuals. WNs often find this uncomfortable as it interferes with the smooth running of the script writ from the angle of collective agency. I suspect it bothers you because, by reiterating that it’s nonsense, I thereby make nonsense of your alarmist posturing. I don’t know what to make of your economic position(s). I shall reread everything when I am settled and perhaps something might pierce the thick fog that is my poor native stock of understanding. You won’t be holding your breath, I’m sure.
You’re probably right about that. I charged you with affirming all the destructive consequences of capitalism for being in favor of a well-run capitalist economy, and I exempted myself from the material conditions and consequences of a Dutch farmhouse economy of three centuries ago to affirm my idyll. I don’t know that those are equal, but it reduces to the same thing.
LOL. All right. I certainly did not mean to imply that I think such a society possible.
329
Posted by uh on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:00 | # Cultural critic: You know what? Shopping malls are weird places. A bunch of glitzy storefronts to entice people to waste money they probably didn’t earn to outdo each other in Chinese-made glamor, which become socially compulsive tokens of group belonging ... And the food courts ... overpriced bad food, an ugly congeries of teenagers of a hundred races, bright lights, no cultural reference to anything before or outside itself, THE “food court” ... it’s rather dystopian .... Developer: What! What are you talking about? DSYTOPIAN? Ha ha ha! You are a cynical weirdo. “Dystopian”, sheesh, don’t be so fucking dramatic. It’s just a place where shoppers go to eat. What is wrong with that?? and what would you have in place of the food court, hmm? nothing? Ha! Some world! You would eliminate food courts, shopping malls, heaven knows what else. A poor world indeed is one without the food court. You know what you little luddite freak? DON’T GO THERE if you don’t like it. Cultural critic: Well I .... umm .... Developer: *builds another mall* (20 acres / 50+ acres parking) 330
Posted by anon on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:25 | #
If everyone 100% trusted the cultural power they wouldn’t need false opposition beyond mainstream conservatives. The creation of new false opposition further to the right of the existing one is a sign that trust is waning.
Obviously. That doesn’t change the fact that reducing trust in the cultural power - media and academia - is the most time-efficient form of political activity. x time spent reducing people’s trust in the cultural power + x time spent recruiting people to the cause > 2x time spent recruiting people to the cause Easily provable on an individual basis. 331
Posted by anon on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:37 | #
They don’t aim. Anyway. if you were looking closely enough at the world to grasp the scale of the problems you’d realise there’s going to be a crisis point - or rather that we’re already in it - so any WN (or close enough) with sense should be relatively optimistic right now. The near-term is bleaker than the long-term. 332
Posted by danielj on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:37 | # Developer: *builds another mall* (20 acres / 50+ acres parking) Correction: Jew: *builds another mall* Westfield, Simon, etc. 333
Posted by uh on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:53 | #
Ok, anon. I will meet you here in ten years to see how things have shaped up to WN prognostications. We could exchange e-mails in case the venue shuts down. If, in ten years, things have not gone accordingly, you can choose to petition for an extension of the prophecy, or concede that uh was right, shit doesn’t look remotely favorable, and send him one folding heart cut from pink construction paper containing the words: “uh — u were rite, i wuz wrong — love, anon”. What do you say? Note: I am still waiting for my hearts from the VNNers who told me I was a “defeatist” and an “agent provocateur” for claiming that Obama would win the last election. Time: 4:52 Eastern. 334
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:02 | #
Time, yet again, to remind everyone of the existence of antiwhitemedia.com. Its in the links on MR. 335
Posted by Savrola on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 01:05 | # Uh has won the debate, indubitably. GW should do something concrete now, and turn over the site to him. What we have here is the crux of the problem: AGE. Elderly and middle-aged men who have no understanding of the world they live in, or its harsh realities. Not only do they have no sympathy for the younger male generation, but they are its active enemies. White men over 35 are the enemy. 336
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:33 | #
Hardly the historical long view. When Premier Zhou En-Lai was asked about the impact of the French revolution, he said it was too early to tell. No doubt you also predicted OJ would be found innocent or maybe that’s an old man’s prediction. In 1600 if the prospects of the people of a small island in the N. Atlantic were to be considered over the following decade the outlook was particularly grim and gave no indication of the outcome that would be theirs at the end of the nineteenth century. Though I am no optimist, a lack of perspective is the weakness of youth. 337
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:51 | # yeah mon “very liquid, very safe” — that’s all that matters to the established fact: uh enjoys savrola’s utterances elsewhere “very liquid, very safe” 338
Posted by danielj on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:51 | # AGE. Elderly and middle-aged men who have no understanding of the world they live in, or its harsh realities. Not only do they have no sympathy for the younger male generation, but they are its active enemies. White men over 35 are the enemy. Thanks very much! Oust the greybeard contingent from the movement and all of their co-conspirators (read: WN Jonah Goldbergs and such). 339
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:29 | #
My perspective is long enough (lozlzooz). Just falsified by wanting to make a joke. Still Desmond, review anon’s terms: - “we are already in [the crisis]” If these phrases reflect a belief, that belief seems to be that “something” (the desired historical “moment” when white nationalists might capitalize on whatever conditions are presumed) will not be long in coming. If we are already at a crisis point (care to elaborate?), then ten years ought to be long enough to see some exacerbation that would justify “relative optimism” among white nationalists. I’m wondering what justifies such optimism today. But review how WNs were talking ten years ago, or twenty years ago. They have, of course, very consistently underestimated the extent and falsified the nature of the problem, precisely because they have not seen enough of the world and extrapolate political events from their preferences, not observable conditions. Is that political science? I look at a paper mill, or a favela, or “gay couples” en promenade, and I can’t arrive at what white nationalism imagines it can do about it. As I said at Kievsky’s, the human brain is driven to solve problems, no matter how far beyond the reach of the human organism in which it resides. The problem we face is much too large for us, yet because it exists in a box in very easily assimilable terms, approached at this or that one familiar angle, the brain’s reflex is to come up with a “solution”, which arises purely from semantics. The world is untouched. Australia’s total population is nearly equivalent to the population of the city of Mumbai alone, yet we have some jerkoff insisting it’s “English Moralism” that’s the problem, otherwise we could “confiscate all the arable land”, because their armed forces “don’t aim” .... and I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but I think a few other nations, with their diplomatic circle of concern around a few weaker nations in the sights of Los Esclavos Unidos, are by now sufficiently equipped to give Kwa its Stalingrad moment. There is a precise analogy between what J Richards said a few hours ago, that a political party is useless, that conditions must be changed, with one of Roissy’s Maxims, that the purpose is the mission and the not goal, i.e. indirect game and uncaring assholery. Zeroing on a chick too hard makes one too self-conscious, and broadcasts desperation to the chick.
The rat in the insoluble maze is obsessed with finding an exit. What if there is no exit? 340
Posted by Silver on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:00 | # Patton,
I hope it wasn’t too much trouble typing all that because—at the risk of raising Lentini’s ire—I’ve been “in a conversation with” WNs for a number of years now (“Hitler and I” is how I sometimes think of it—go on, groan) and I’m aware how common the views summarized above are to WNs. I just don’t believe those views accurately describe the world or events. I think you’d do well to reflect on what Lentini wrote just above: ”[WNs] have, of course, very consistently underestimated the extent and falsified the nature of the problem, precisely because they have not seen enough of the world and extrapolate political events from their preferences, not observable conditions.” In your case, I wonder whether it’s not even simpler, the “huge inner spiritual void” being yours alone, not the masses’.
I think there’s a good bit of truth to each of the many charges leveled here, but I don’t believe the various pieces fit together in some unified narrative about—forgive me if I’m jumping to conclusions—the white race (or, if you prefer, the nordic race) being fucked over by its enemies, who drool over the prospects of its demise. You accuse materialism of enabling the exploitation by industry of (some of) the masses’ passions but you neglect to consider that materialism has served to tame (others of) those passions, the result of which has been a saner, fairer, more humane world in which the ratio of “winners” to “losers” has increased exponentially (albeit via a transformation of what “winning” and “losing” entails). You also neglect that nationalism (or “ultra”-nationalism) entails the exploitation (in this case by politicians) of the masses’ base passions towards ends which serve only a fraction of the full panoply of man’s needs and wants. It’s quite the understatement to say that it’s not obvious to me that the former is necessarily inferior to the latter. Materialism to you is barren and hopelessly underwhelming. But there’s an opposing view which sees in materialism a certain magic that’s endlessly exciting. This is not to contend that materialism is all one should be concerned with. Far from it. I’ll repeat again that I share (to a degree) your longing for a spiritually elevated existence, particularly one with a firm ethnocentric undertone. (Although I’m sure my reasons differ. I just think life is better that way. But I don’t believe the present arrangement is at all “unlivable.”) Contemplating materialism has done much to augment my appreciation of life (of my own life and of human existence in general) and I’m fairly certain it could go a long way in plugging some of the “inner void” for you (help alleviate some of your distress), if you’ll allow it.
341
Posted by Silver on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:25 | # Lentini,
I’m sorry to keep repeating this but here we really do have a straight up case of facts versus intuitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate Or, even better, if you can be bothered going to the trouble, here: http://uploading.com/files/a18fd655/Total+Fertility+Rates.ods/ The uploading link contains data going back to 1960, so you can see for yourself just how much some of the “hellholes” above have decreased. The trend is unmistakable. You’re way wrong that each woman of childbearing age only having one child would still see the total population “exponentiate.” I ‘built’ (is that the word?) a crude demography simulator on excel. While crude, I can fairly accurately model any country’s actual demographic past on it, so while some of my data/variables may be off (relating to survival ratios), there’s little doubt in my mind that I’ve got the basics correct. (I’d upload it for you, but in hindsight there was a much better way to go about constructing it so I’m a bit embarrassed by its crudity. I was just anxious to be able to play around with the numbers so I couldn’t be bothered to start from scratch once I realized what my mistake was.) Anyway, the total population continues to increase after woman begin having only one child in most cases, but the point at which the total population begins to decline depends on how many children women were having before the switch to one child. In countries that were near a replacement rate (~2.1) the population begins to decline almost immediately. In countries that switch to one child from a very high fertility rate (say 5.0 to 7.0), the total population will continue to increase for, roughly, another twenty to fifty years, and the total population will grow another forty to fifty percent. That’s not my idea of exponential growth.
There are a couple of ways to read this. The first is that Lukashenko’s policies are not responsible for the explosive growth of the Belarussian economy over the last ten years. The second is that that explosive growth doesn’t account for Lukashenko’s popularity. What cannot be doubted is that the Belarus has experienced explosive economic growth over the last decade: the total economy has doubled over that time—“explosive” in anyone’s language. Knowing what we know about people, they’ll tend to look most favorably on anyone at the helm during such times of plenty. I’m sure the are some who value his leadership for reasons other than economics (and who would value it even amid economic consternation) but I’m supremely doubtful that they constitute anything like a majority. I’m not committed to finance and markets per se. I just think they are the best way to deliver economic wellbeing to a society.
Firstly, my telling you to “leave” referred to leaving Miami (if its so intolerable); it had nothing to do with your participation in discussions. You seem way too invested in cutting people down for me to read this as you simply making nonsense of my “posturing” (there you go again: I cannot possibly be sincere in your eyes). It’s people discussing issues that they regard as relevant and in ways that they regard as relevant that appears to put your nose out of joint. You seem to keep frustratedly implying that people should consult with you first before proffering an opinion of racial matters, whether they’re WNs or not; and your advice to them would be the same each time—“It doesn’t matter. None of this matters! The world isn’t listening, so stop talking about it! [I, of course, will exempt myself and continue to talk.]”
This is interesting: “waste money they probably didn’t earn.” Buncha niggers, I guess, living the high life with their EBT cards. But how are people supposed to earn money unless they engage in productive activity? Productive activity is of the devil, according to you, so we really are in a quandary.
Exactly. I knew you’d come around.
Hot diggity damn, that’s seventy total acres. One of those for every 20,000 people, and we’re looking at close 2000 square miles of nothing but mall. In a country of three million square miles obviously there’s going to be nowhere to turn without running smack bang into a mall. [/sarcasm] Last item. Read the last paragraph of my reply to Patton. I was aiming it at you just as much as at him.
342
Posted by Silver on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:05 | # Lentini,
I like the way I put it at racehist. It’s rather like the “units” of various ingredients of a cake belatedly realizing they’re baking and angrily protesting the process as each comes into awareness, to no avail; the cake gets baked. Nevertheless, because there’s a tremendous amount of congruence between what racialists believe and what constitutes a better way to live there’s really no choice but to push on; any degree of change in a racial direction is of benefit, even if “final objectives” (and of course I differ rather profoundly in what I believe they should be from what, say, a Desmond Jones believes) are never realized.
Hehe, I knew if I read long enough you’d say something interesting. Good one. I put it up right there with my “Pledge of Indifference” that I offered to American fuck-this-shitters. (“I pledge indifference to the flag of the United States of America and the republic which it used to represent; one nation under ZOG, divided beyond repair, with liberty and justice for all [<font size=“1”>but the progeny of the founding stock whose posterity it was intended to secure</font>]” for those who missed it.)
You ever read the Druuna series? I’ve read it in English and Italian. Though I was consulting the dictionary every thirty seconds for the last, it made the theme of desperation that’s prominent in the series feel more palpable. Worth checking out (for a bit of frivolity.) 343
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:49 | # Silver,
Snappy. Will have to memorize it for use on civilians (discourse being “war”, you know). Well done. I may have to make that a fixture of my and Daniel’s upcoming podcast experiment. Recited at the start of each. Would change to ” ... for which it stood”. Credit to a disgruntled Colombian in New Jersey for my phrase.
Also well done. Where was that? That commentary is so absorbing. You would be most valuable collecting such dicta of yours and slapping them onto your blog, tout simple. We have all said enough for a lifetime. I would like to see some organization brought to the material rather than more useless compounding. Discourse is not war, but without a proper defensive rhetoric, at the end of the day one is still a sitting duck for those pushing the narrative. Sometimes when I formulate my half-witted replies here, I have the depressing feeling that I’ve written that exact thing years ago, possibly to the same person.
344
Posted by Silver on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:33 | # Lentini,
Which it stood, right. Oh yes, use it, use it. I don’t come up with this stuff (paltry though my efforts may be) for my own amusement (er, okay I do, but not just that). I think it works even better spoken. The “but the progeny of the founding stock” part in parentheses (which was meant to appear in half-sized font—what happened?) should be read in ‘Terms and Conditions apply’ radio voice for full effect.
Racehist.blogspot “Open Thread.”
So how isn’t it “war” then? What we perceive to be true and/or important about the world shapes our behavior, so to the extent that discourse shapes perceptions it’s entirely fair to regard it as a form of warfare (considering the terrible cost that unremitting, doctrinaire anti-racism exacts). If I’m too hysterical or dramatic (and I don’t deny that I am a bit too), then you tend to be more condescending than is sensible (or warranted).
345
Posted by anon on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:33 | # saveloy
The latest divide and rule tactic? Are we done with it’s all women’s fault now? How about white hermaphrodites? Cripples? Stamp-collectors? Everyone except the Jews. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf
Jews aren’t the only cause but they are so obviously the *primary* cause that anyone who focuses elsewhere except for tactical or camouflage reasons is plainly of no use either because they are too dumb or their hatred / dislike for some other group is too strong to overcome.
There is no historical moment. Jews will always kill the host eventually for straightforward, logical reasons. We’re at that point now. It will very likely get worse but contains the possibility of getting better ergo there’s more reason to be optimistic.
I missed this extremely good advice. If you’re WN with self-esteem issues that require having a woman and don’t like 2rB working class females with personal experience of the big media lie on inter-ethnic violence but at the same time still want to do some damage to the enemies of God and apple pie then join a pro-palestinian or anti-banker leftwing group. You don’t need to attack “Jewish” bankers as just bankers is pretty much the same thing in all important details. There’ll be masses of 2e women and if you’re dark you can say you’re half-Palestinian.
346
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:24 | #
Yes, because Savrola RULES!!!
Prove it.
Ok. I’ll be sure to mention the “Palestinian Holocaust” in my OkCupid profile. If I don’t receive more replies, you know where to send that construction paper heart. 347
Posted by Patton on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:51 | # @ Silver: I get the feeling we may really not really differ all much in our aspirations. I do not see myself as much of a WN and am not violently anti-Capitalist, though I am strongly opposed to some aspects of modern-day capitalism and oppose globalism. I find myself in agreement with WN’s analysis of what’s wrong with the West, but not necessarily with the solutions it offers and its tendency of oversimplify the issues. I agree with Uh there. I’m not a fan of National Socialism. I disagree with its overemphasis of ‘race’, for instance, including on the JQ. I see myself more as a traditionalist - deeply anti-Communist, in favour of a status quo between Church and State, a blood and soil conservative with a tendency towards authoritarianism, in favour of economic nationalism and meritocracy, and sceptical of novel and revolutionary ideologies, including Nazism and, yes, Fascism (though I’m sympathetic towards them in certain respects). Having said that, I agree that many WN and similar ideologies tend to abuse people’s passions, though that doesn’t mean the cause of the people’s anger, hatred, resentment, frustration (etc.) ought not be dealt with, or that these sentiments are entirely unjustified. Note also that I said one ought to strive to rule the passions - absolute mastery of the passions unfortunately is only for a happy few. As for materialism, I recognise that man is also a spiritual being. We all have a spiritual void of some sort and I’m no exception. Most people are in the dark about their own void as they reject the significance of a spiritual mission, and vainly attempt to fill this void in other ways. There is nothing wrong with private property or wealth, but in the end it is all meaningless. Hence, I fail to see how any degree of materialism might be of use to me. 348
Posted by anon on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:39 | #
Do. Apart from anything else you should pick up a bunch of Jewish girls going through their rebellious phase. Serious advice, become an Occupy Wall Streeter. It would be useful in the current context plus more women.
349
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:42 | #
Patton, I hesitate to ask a delicate fellow such as yourself such an indelicate question, but I figure, what the fuck. What in your opinion should be done with all the subhuman niggers and shit-skins that have immigrated into Europe? And fyi, a certain general of note that went by your chosen name had this to say:
LOL 350
Posted by Savrola on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:47 | # The Jews may be a common enemy, but I don’t want any older white men who cling to their out-dated morals and past visions of a world whose ruin they assisted in completing, behind me, in the ranks. Older men are moderate, not because of their wisdom, but because of they have suffered more indoctrination by the system, and conformed to the Judaic standards longer. They like things the way they are…except for a minor adjustments that might supposedly ensure the future of their race. Older men will compromise. They will betray you and rationalize their backstabbing more successfully. A movement composed of men under 35 is the only hope. Gray hairs not wanted. Read the Futurist Manifesto or something. 351
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 23:15 | # Or worse ....
352
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 23:35 | #
AGAINST THE GRAYBEARDS 353
Posted by Patton on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:15 | #
Patton, I hesitate to ask a delicate fellow such as yourself such an indelicate question, but I figure, what the fuck. What in your opinion should be done with all the subhuman niggers and shit-skins that have immigrated into Europe?</blockquote> We ought to shoot the bastards that allowed them in, first. They are responsible for those ‘subhumans’ entering Europe - they are the traitors. Then, I’d have non-natives repatriated except for some who’d qualify as refugees and be granted temporary residence, but not the nationality. Those that can’t be repatriated would have to assimilate. I would also introduce segregation laws inspired by those in the US South and Apartheid South Africa. Btw, I do not subscribe to ideas such as the ‘übermensch’ and don’t take theories about some Nordic super race seriously especially given that most great empires of the past were not Nordic or Germanic to begin with. I don’t like Negroes much at all but I am not a supremacist. I simply believe in the preservation of our national identities, and our whiteness is part of that. I support segregation, not extermination.
LOL</blockquote> So what? I prefer to get my point across without resorting to profanity, especially since English is not my native language and most of my compatriots who enjoy using English four-letter words are admirers of those subhumans you so despise. Other than that, I’m fine with some profanity and make moderate use of it myself when the situation asks for it, especially in my native language. The guy whose name I adopted also said the following, you know:
I guess by some White Nationalists’ standards he’s a race-traitor now, too. Oh well. 354
Posted by Silver on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:01 | # Patton,
Fair enough, but look, you’re among friends here, so lose the quotation marks. Just because a man can’t live on breed alone shouldn’t mean race can’t be discussed as race, not “race” (pronounced ironically with a nervous laugh, because, come on, there really isn’t any such thing now), the latter permitting only the most banal, innocuous observations to be made. Conversely, discussing race shouldn’t mean interlocutors having to dive for cover every time a Crapandchaos appears for fear he’ll spray them with verbal machine-gun fire. So much more could be said about this, but here I’ll just point out that there can be a fine, fine line between avoiding an overemphasis on race and avoiding any emphasis at all. Unless you’re careful, before you know it, you’ll find you’ve compromised away your entire existence.
Obviously I agree that those sentiments are justified. But that’s the point at which exploitation/abuse enters the picture. The bolded phrase is all fine and dandy, but it’s cold comfort, I’m afraid, once the passions have been stoked. The pressure brought to bear by the “hardcore set” to prove one’s mettle can be very difficult to resist. (Observe the mighty Cap’n here, always circling, sniping, probing. Then imagine him in the flesh.)
You seem to be thinking of materialism in its more colloquial sense of “being materialistic,” which connotes acquisitiveness, an obsession with money, walking around with dollar signs flashing in one’s eyes. I had in mind the philosophical meaning of the term, which denotes a view that contends that matter is all that exists, and which investigates the world and draws conclusions about it based solely on this metaphysical assumption. This is the sense in which I believe there’s a certain magic in materialism, especially for someone coming at it from the cold, as I did. While I would by no means call myself a materialist, I found materialism to be more warm and welcoming than I ever thought possible. Although I reject their metaphysical assumption, I’m afraid I doubt rather severely that, had they not assumed it and profoundly internalized it themselves, the illumination of what was previously obscure they have provided us would have ever occurred. For this they are to be thanked, not demonized. I’m aware that some of the conclusions materialists draw, particularly those imbued with metaphysical significance, can seem prohibitively nihilistic. I struggled with this for some years myself, only to ultimately affirm that that which doesn’t kill us only makes us stronger. If you read my comments with this in mind, I hope you’ll see that my intention isn’t to bring your world crashing down all about you—at least not without supreme confidence that it can be reconstructed and then fortified many times over what it was. 355
Posted by Silver on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:06 | #
Case in point? This is probably only scratching the surface.
356
Posted by CS on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:37 | # What we should or could do with the non-whites in Europe… If I was in charge. Stop all non-white immigration. Deport non-white criminals. Deport non-white leeches. Set up “white only areas”. Start paying non-whites to leave. Start paying non-whites to get sterilized. Start increasing the size of white only areas. Start discrimination against non-whites. Increase discrimination. Eventually after decades most of the country is reclaimed. Eventually all of it is. 357
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:28 | #
Man would that ever result in a clusterfuck. Most men under 35 are utter fools. I was not at that age, but I was far more foolish than now. Under 35s can fight, but older men must decide.
358
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:51 | # uh, Silver, Patton, anon, etc - great epic comments battle, guys! Glad you have the time. CS, I like how you keep it direct, to the point, and real. I’m going to try to be more like that myself in the future (and not only due to lack of time; I suspect really long comments, no matter how well written, get ignored {nb:uh}). What I realize (GW, too, I’m certain), is that the white race is doomed to extinction as present trends go. As I have said in the past, only a Teleological Racial State (a white republic overtly dedicated to maintaining itself forever) can save us. But how to get there? How do get people to want that? Only two paths: persuasion via fear (“look at how shitty your future will be unless ...”), or conquest (and subsequent imposition of the WN way of life), either through violent revolution, or demographics. Respecting the first, you cannot expect to change too many people’s entire perceptions all at once. I harp on immigration, because it is simultaneously the most important, most visceral, most easily understood, and possibly most popular WN issue. On the other hand, the comments I’m seeing re women, or Jewry, or markets, etc, however much I may secretly agree with them, aren’t going to get you anywhere in the actual world. If not with immigration, where else should WNs begin?
359
Posted by Patton on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:30 | #
Fair enough, but look, you’re among friends here, so lose the quotation marks. [...] So much more could be said about this, but here I’ll just point out that there can be a fine, fine line between avoiding an overemphasis on race and avoiding any emphasis at all. Unless you’re careful, before you know it, you’ll find you’ve compromised away your entire existence.</blockquote> Duly noted.
I haven’t been on MR for a long time so I’m not well-acquainted with each of the posters here but I see your point. On the issue of materialism, thanks for the explanation. I have a rather humble working-class background myself. I have often been highly ‘capitalistic’ in the sense that I believed (actually, I still do) in personal advancement and working your way up the social ladder through hard work. Perhaps I have been and may still be a materialist in a philosophical sense. I’ve become increasingly cynical about those ambitions, though, as money, power and wealth tend to corrupt. Still, I see it as a duty to do my best to be better off economically than my parents or grandparents are/were, though it’s driven more by a quest for financial security and the belief one has to use one’s talents and make yourself useful to society, than about wanting to be filthy rich. 360
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 04:07 | # <h2>Third major reply to Uh, part 1</h2> @Uh I don’t have the time to respond to your foul portrayal of women here… too many comments by you… nor should I bother as your generalizations of women are basically evidence-less… but I’d much rather not see these kinds of comments at MR. I’ll address one issue and then lay down some rules. You’ve continued to dismiss the data from internet dating samples showing that white women are less interested in dating outside their race than white men, claiming internet selection bias when dating is most prevalent among youth and internet usage is common among youth. WDH’s example isn’t the only one we have. Here are other studies showing that white women are less likely to date or be sexually involved with non-whites than white men: Tucker, Belinda M., and Claudia Mitchell- Kernan. 1995. "Social Structural and Psychological Correlates of Interethnic Dating." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 12:341- 361. Sakai, Derek K. and Ronald C. Johnson. 1997. "Active Phenotypic Assortment in Mate Selection: Self-descriptions and Sought-for Attributes of Mates in Dating Advertisements." Social Biology 44:258-264. Miller, Suzanne C., Michael A. Olson, and Russell H. Fazio. 2004. "Perceived reactions to interracial romantic relationships: When race is used as a cue to status." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 7:354-369. Fisman, Raymond, Sheena S. Iyengar, Emir Kamenica, and Itamar Simonson. 2006. "Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment." Quarterly Journal of Economics 121:673-697. And to this evidence we can also add a different internet study revealing the same find: Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, and Golnaz Komaie. 2008. Gendered Racial Exclusion among White Internet Daters. Population Association of America Annual Meetings. http://paa2008.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=80046 So there’s consistent data from multiple sources showing that white men are more of a problem than white women regarding sex or potential sex with non-whites, yet you’d like white women on a leash! Filthy ideas like this belong at an MGTOW website, not MR. As noted earlier, the pattern is only reversed when it comes to sexual activity with blacks, but since so few whites have a sexual interest in blacks, the overall pattern remains intact. On the topic of white women sexually involved with blacks, I’ll refer to data from the following representative samples of Americans that focus on youth. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) You can look at the figures here: This is the reality, not the MGTOW filth on women you’ve been espousing. So I’ll lay the following rule. No more misogyny on your part or else you’ll end up in trash. I know you’ll ignore the request, but I’ll remind you again, and one day it’ll be trash time. Let me try to explain misogyny. Misogyny must portray women in a negative light. However, statements that portray women in a negative light aren’t necessarily indicative of misogyny because they could be true. If you make negative statements about women or suggest the adoption of policies toward women that restrict their freedom then you need to come up with justification comprising of verifiable data, as in the peer-reviewed publications and/or representative data samples cited above, or else your statements and urgings will be taken as indicative of misogyny. Note that generalizations about women cannot be supported by the characteristics of a non-representative, outlier or extreme subset of women. 361
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 04:12 | # <h2>Third major reply to Uh, part 2</h2> @Uh I should further justify the standard I’ve set for you above. A reading of your comments suggests a certain psychological profile. I infer someone who thinks that women should serve him [sexually and otherwise], but most women won’t and you must obtain some sort of pleasure in degrading the masses of women who wouldn’t give you their time of the day. One way you do it is prey upon vulnerable females, like others in the MGTOW and PUA movements, as in the mentally disturbed underage girl you took to a land far, far away. You claim it was a mistake and that no sex happened. The men busted on TV while looking for a rendezvous with underage teenage girls claim the same excuses, too, but get arrested and convicted because their intent was clear and they knew what they were doing; you’re lucky if you escaped a conviction. Another way you apparently derive pleasure from degrading women is by talking shit about them, as above. Yet another apparent way you derive [vicarious] pleasure from the degradation of women is through your stated interest in watching GGG. I was curious what GGG is, and things like girlsgogames, General Guitar Gadgets, Genes-Genomes-Genetics, Giant Global Graph, etc. don’t make any sense. What makes sense is a pornographic video series called “German Goo Girls” that specializes in women being ejaculated and urinated upon by multiple men. An interest in the GGG series could be indicative of various preferences, and your writings suggest vicarious pleasure in the degradation of women. Maybe the German part gives you additional pleasure as your writings suggest that you’re either part Jewish, full Jewish or a non-Jewish southern European who sees kin among Jews. This would also be consistent with your extensive viewing and apparent enjoyment of bestiality comprising of sexual relations between white women and blacks on camera. Look at what you’re doing at MR. You’ve talked about the need for expelling Jews repeatedly, but these are empty exhortations. People could read the mass of your writings and not be convinced of valid reasons why this should be aimed for, whereas you don’t see me calling for the expulsion of Jews yet I’m much more likely to make a reader think that it’s time to expel the Jews, which you understand very well as the stronger the argument I’ve made about Jewish malfeasance, the more disturbed you’ve been. On top of this, a lot of your comments seem to be coming from a drunken retard, and you’re no retard. Now, someone who’s been targeting vulnerable, disturbed women may extrapolate his experiences with these women to women in general if he has low IQ, but you don’t have low IQ. Hence, your stated views are apparently part a manifestation of your inflated sense of self [thus poor opinions of others], part an attempt to defile women in one of the limited ways you have access to, and part sabotage of MR, including trying to derail the activities of people trying to effect useful change, in the manner that drug abusing and sexually degenerate individuals are often directed to by… you know who. So let me remind you that this isn’t an MGTOW outlet. 362
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:06 | #
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Jebus H. Christer, Richards, I think I can see Uh’s ashes blowing away in the wind.
363
Posted by uh on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:28 | #
Me neither! I was out getting laid by a gorgeous woman last night — what were YOU doing?
You know what you officious bot? Fuck you and your rules. I’m done with this site*. You’re running it into the ground with your paranoia. What else should we expect though from the delusional bugbear who tried running off Fred Scrooby. Sure, I went overboard, but tu quoque de proprio ratio.
Empty exhortation is all white nationalism is about beyond the descriptive dimension. There is no place for the rat to go, so he looks up — and he squeaks, hoping to be heard.
We can agree that neither likes the other. I don’t question your fidelity in this matter, but you have let your imagination get the better of you, freely warping information to conform to your prejudice, and being an extremely rational type it is easy to convince yourself of these things, which amounts to the same bad taste in people’s mouths. You don’t find it significant that the only person to get behind you is Captainchaos? I won’t belabor this though. I was strung out by that debate with Silver, which I couldn’t even finish. Am glad we had that ... moment.
*yea, i’ll still be visiting to read the archives — you snoop
364
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:32 | #
I’m disappointed by this development. I have enjoyed reading Uh’s comments. It’s not that I agree or disagree with his viewpoints. Half the time, I can’t even figure out exactly what he’s getting at, but that is precisely the part that I have appreciated most about reading him. I find that his comments, more than any others of late, have had a disruptive influence on my thinking patterns, and on the monotonous tedium of White nationalist discourse in general. I think it served an important need. If we graybeards had the answers we would have implemented them long ago. It is the predictability of our thinking which confines us to the cul-de-sac of lamentations, and yet we ostracize those who refuse to mouth our discredited memes. To whom shall we turn for future degaussing? 365
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:01 | # The other thing I liked about Uh’s remarks was his willingness to admit his own biases even as he called us out on ours. He had a corrosive effect on the pretense of our objectivity around here, and I think that was good because that pretense in itself could very well be the underlayment of the universalism we wish to shed. When the limits of objectivity are exposed, moral universalism is deposed. 366
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:08 | #
Ah yes, and the saga continues:
Wife: “Yes, just who does that uppity J Richards think he is.” Wife: “decades.”
367
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:51 | #
The idea I’m trying to develop is that to the extent we become willing to admit that what we had previously considered to be objective reality is in fact malleable with respect to our individual constitutions, we may feel morally emboldened to insist on our rights, as racially distinct peoples, to inhabit cultural realms exclusive to our own creation. 368
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:59 | # All I can say is, um, er, uh, don’t go! As I’ve said, the movement to save the white race must be a mansion with many rooms. No one not obviously criminal, disruptive or pathologically off-topic should be censored or driven away. 369
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:14 | # BTW, uh is a smart guy, even if his prose really could use some tightening up. To reiterate a frequent complaint of mine: anyone noticed how MR has declined this year? How many regulars of old are gone? Forget good guys like Scrooby or Notus Wind, or even the to my mind somewhat annoying, but still consequential, James Bowery and Grimoire. Where is Wandrin, Dasein, Armor, Gudmund, Trainspotter, Gorbudoc, anon from Belize, and others I’ve forgotten? I warned GW about this. The Richards/Helvena/dc faction is driving everyone away. Like we’re Mossad or ADL agents if we hesitate over 9-11 conspiracies or support the gold standard or Ron Paul. I stay mainly because I like MR’s graphic layout, instant comments, and learning about our Anglo brothers across the sea. But I’m tired of having my motives questioned, and I’d like to see higher intellectual types back in the comments.
370
Posted by Guest Lurker on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 11:42 | #
Or maybe it’s just that MR itself is not what it seems. One never really knows. Even though I barely contribute, I used to enjoy checking in and reading some of the intelligent discussions and learning something. As of late, though, it’s been mainly continuous bickering and recriminations. Much of it started with the appearance of this J Richards character, who seems to be trying to outdo Linder and his “polarizing” strategy. I have noticed that since Richards’ appearance, GW barely posts anymore. Is J Richards GW’s alter ego? 371
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 12:22 | # I’m not ashamed to admit that I agree with much of J Richard’s thinking. However…
Very good. Haller’s deficiencies substantially outweigh uh’ misogyny, yet Haller is offered a special “trash” folder when he’s a bad boy and uh is threatened with banishment. Since GW has made it clear that Haller won’t be banished, something more than uh’s misogyny is involved here. What is it?
372
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 13:02 | # GT, Your dog in this fight, so to speak, is to use Uh’s deconstructive abilities as an icebreaker for the insertion of your microcommunity strategy into the vacuum created by the destuction of previously standing intellectual edifices. So then, it would be a bit disingenuous of you to say that Uh’s commentary here was genuinely considered of much more substance to you than that, wouldn’t it? Just so you know, Uh’s alleged deconstructive abilities were found absolutely wanting when confronted with the evidence Richards marshalled; and it wasn’t even close. If you are looking for a horse worthy of a gentleman’s bet, Maguire is surely a more worthy candidate. Uh has a date with the glue factory. 373
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 13:40 | #
No, don’t be foolish. Richards is (not mincing any words here) a crony of GW’s. Richards does the technical grunt work of keeping MR a presentable and operational site. For that GW is grateful and is hence inspired by the resultant goodwill he experiences towards Richards to listen to Richards views on multifarious topics. Richards has a grinding and convincing ability to sway his listeners with evidence and tightly-woven argumentation based on that evidence - though his obvious eccentricity is noted. Btw, I have no insider information; these are just common sense inferences.
Very astute. For the lemmings smears can be as convincing, if not more convincing, than real honest analysis. So, of course that is in play. But look beyond that. Attacking the Money Power, at least rhetorically, is now the most vigorous means by which the anti-White genocidalist System can be discredited if not destroyed. And, of course, the System’s discrediting in the minds of the lemmings must precede its destruction. Do you really need a yahoo like me to explain this shit to you?
374
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 13:47 | #
Think about it this way, GT. How would you like it if your daughter spread her legs for Uh, much less if Uh attempted to get her to do as such? You do the math. Do you really need a yahoo like me to explain this shit to you? Apparently not quite a rhetorical question. 375
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:03 | # Cap’n,
Your character deficiencies are as transparent as Hallers’. Your stupidity rivals that of your fellow Beta, .357 Dave. I repeat the question for J Richards:
He can ignore the question, of course. Or answer honestly. I won’t ask again. 376
Posted by Corsair on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:32 | #
He could be James Bowery’s alter ego. With Richards’ appearance, Bowery doesn’t post anymore. Bowery was also into conspiracy theories. 377
Posted by Corsair on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:43 | #
Bowery is also technically proficient with computers and such. 378
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:54 | #
The search function is your friend. 379
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:03 | # There was a time when Richards and Bowery were both posting contemporaneously. Richards then stopped posting - for years! Bowery departed MR some time ago and only recently did Richards start posting again. Therefore I contend they are not the same person. Furthermore neither of them strike me as the type to pass themselves off as another. Richards posts under two IDs here but he has explained that, its no secret. 380
Posted by Guest Lurker on Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:59 | #
Really? I’m not persuaded at all by Richards’ argumentation that everybody from Linder to David Duke are either cryptos or controlled opposition.
It’s a strategy that has achieved exactly 0.
....which Ron Paul seems to be attempting to move in the right direction, yet Richards saw fit to label him as controlled opposition as well. I understand the urge for ideological purity and the desire for a final confrontation with the jew. Yet who’s strategy would better lay the groundwork for this? Ron Paul and his attacks on the Fed and the money system, or Jimmy Marr and the NSM marching around in brownshirts and swastikas getting mobbed by white leftists and non-whites ten times their numbers? 381
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:11 | #
Maybe I should adopt this style of attack. “Genotype’s stupidity notwithstanding ...” “Richards’s maliciousness” “Helvena’s trolling” etc.
382
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 02 Jan 2012 06:00 | # @Haller
Join the departed and spare yourself the misery of coming back here
There’s a difference between hesitating and lying in the face of evidence, there’s also a difference between a dupe and a propagandist regarding the gold standard… you know which of these you are. @genotype
GW hasn’t made it cleat that Haller won’t be banned, and Uh was threatened with trashing, the same as Haller, not a ban. Guest Lurker @380
If you can provide justification for basing money on gold as sound monetary policy, I’ll issue a retraction and apology to Ron Paul on this count; I’ll maintain he’s controlled opposition on other counts.
Lots of NSM folks and some NSM groups are genuine whereas Ron Paul and the entire libertarian/Austrian School stance on money are a sham. The Fed only creates 2% of America’s money; abolishing or nationalizing it achieves nothing really. What really needs to be targeted is fractional reserve banking, and the resulting system left such that bankers neither create money nor control its supply. If you can show that Ron Paul is working toward the latter, you have a point, otherwise not. 383
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 02 Jan 2012 07:28 | # @Richards Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Mises, and most of the Austrian School oppose fractional reserve banking, too. Didn’t you know that? Rothbard was a 100% (gold) reserves man. 384
Posted by Guest Lurker on Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:10 | #
Paul attacks the Fed “system”, and as fractional reserve banking is indeed a part of the “system”, he most certainly IS against it and has explicitly attacked it. It matters not whether it’s the Fed printing the money or your local bank branch creating it out of nothing by lending out 90% of your savings deposit only to be redeposited again in another branch by someone else as another deposit. They are all a part of the federal reserve “system”, and that is precisely what Paul has been attacking, in addition to the fact that the Fed meddles with the free market and the currency supply by manipulating interest rates. So you are both semantically and factually in error. As to the Gold standard, Paul has acknowledged in the past that it has bee open to abuses, so he has argued for a commodities standard and for allowing competing currencies. He addresses both issues briefly in the following video starting at 7:00.
, and applying your own logic to yourself, you wouldn’t seem to fit into the dupe category. Your blatant and clumsy mischaracterization of Paul’s stance once again seems intended to maliciously and deliberately spread disinformation in order to sow confusion, strife, and demoralization. There would not seem to be any other viable alternative explanation for your behavior.
385
Posted by John on Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:45 | # For all intents and purposes the UK Tory part is as liberal as the US Democratic party and far to the left of the US Republican party. 386
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:54 | # GT, I don’t support Uh and Haller being banned or in any way being censored. They are both good writers and occasionally have something interesting to say. Moreover, I think there is more to be gained by a no-holds-barred debate than one constrained by the overweaning sensibilities of whatever moderator in question. It was precisely seeing Richards soundly refute Haller on the issue of the Austrian school’s stance on money which led me to agreeing with Richards on the importance of monetary reform. P.S. If you spent less time bitching like a beta and more time working you just might finish your microcommunity some time in the next twenty years. LOL 387
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 03 Jan 2012 02:28 | #
Capt’n, Seems as though GT is averse to work. He prefers spending his time haranguing people that post comments at WN websites. Obviously, it’s his hobby. LOL! 388
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 03 Jan 2012 02:59 | # But hey, GT has an alter ego. His better angels are evident from whence his submerged personality shines through ... very good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQrqgSK8-XU Just havin’ a little fun with ya, GT. 389
Posted by GenoType on Tue, 03 Jan 2012 03:08 | #
Thanks for clarifying, J R. 390
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 03 Jan 2012 07:09 | # @Haller
You know that I know this from our previous exchanges on the matter. So why bring it up? Don’t do this again. In my reply to Guest Lurker, I noted that aside from targeting fractional reserve banking, the resulting system should prevent the bankers from creating money and controlling its supply. The people you’ve named have pursued policies that assign the powers to create, issue and control money to the bankers as they have most of the gold. The policies are also non-workable, as noted earlier, as never in history has it been possible to tie increases in commerce and population size to the gold supply. @Guest Lurker So I have blatantly and clumsily mischaracterized Ron Paul and am maliciously and deliberately spreading disinformation in order to sow confusion, strife, and demoralization? Let’s see what you use to back this up.
The Federal Reserve System is the central bank (12 private banks + a board of governors), whereas fractional reserve banking (FRB) is a process of money creation as debt; both are distinct concepts; attacking the former doesn’t imply attacking the latter. Whereas Paul criticizes FRB, this is distinct from his superficial criticism of the FED. FRB predates the establishment of the Fed, by nine centuries.
There are two flaws here. Neither the Fed nor the local bank is printing money [bank notes]; the government is printing the paper money but not issuing it; the Fed issues the notes. Secondly, banks outside the 12 private Federal Reserve banks aren’t part of the Federal Reserve System.
No he isn’t; you’re the one tying in FRB and banks outside the Fed to an attack on the Fed. Andrew Jackson killed the central bank that preceded the Fed, in the 1830s, but he didn’t kill FRB as he didn’t understand it. FRB continued and the bankers had another central bank in 1913 and, 20 years later, were back to the status quo that prevailed just before Jackson killed the central bank. This is a good illustration of why attacking a central bank and attacking FRB aren’t the same thing.
How could the Fed meddle with the free market? The Federal Reserve banks are 100% private; they are part of the “free market”; the private ownership of the Federal Reserve banks comprises of a subset of the people who control and manipulate the “free market.”
My response is here: http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/ron_paul_controlled_opposition_best_for_president In the video, there’s no talk of competing currencies but of the market determining which commodity to base money on. 391
Posted by Guest Lurker on Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:42 | #
Not really. As a lender of last resort, the Fed exacerbates fractional reserve banking. One of the reasons it was created was to provide banks teetering on the brink of insolvency with liquidity.
You’re resorting to obfuscatory semantic smoke bombs. The Fed is crediting reserve accounts via computer keystrokes.
False. Yes they are. Each regional Fed Reserve bank is owned by the member banks of that region. These member banks are supervised, or so to speak, under the jurisdiction of the Fed. There are state chartered banks which are outside of the Fed structure which are regulated by the FDIC. If the FDIC were to falter, they would get a line of credit extended from the Treasury Department. But the treasury department itself is to a large degree dependent on the Fed to buy a percentage of its instruments in order to avoid a credit squeeze. So how independent is any bank in the U.S. from the Fed? Not much.
What are you talkling about? One of the reasons the Fed was ostensibly created was to regulate and oversee banking institution in this country. When it buys U.S. bonds on the open market with money created out of nothing, it deposits this money into the reserve accounts of the seller’s bank. This has been Paul’s consistent gripe- the creation of money out of thin air. That bank is then allowed to further lend out nearly all of that as “debt money”, being required by the Fed to only retain a minimal reserve of 10% of it. The Fed has lowered the minimal reserve since its inception. In a manner of speaking, all banking within the U.S., more or less, is under Fed jurisdiction, so yes, it is all intertwined within the Federal Reserve “System.”
Creating money ex nihilo certainly doesn’t sound like it’s subject to the laws of the free market. Colluding with government to provide it with much needed money created from nothing which it will never have to pay back, while collecting handsomely on the interest on said funny money also doesn’t sound like it’s subject to the same market laws the rest of the private sector is. Was congress’s authorization of the bail outs for the too big to fails also in line with free market principles? You’re really painting yourself into a corner with such absurd argumentation.
If you were an honest broker and not a troll, it would have been easy for you to find any number of video clips or articles on the matter. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul434.html
392
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:32 | # Guest Lurker@391
The Fed creates 2% of the money whereas commercial banks create the other 98%. So for the few banks that fail, what is the Fed’s contribution to exacerbating FRB? You digress into irrelevance. You’re resorting to the technique of “Deceiving with the truth” when you talk about one of the reasons why the Fed was created; the Fed’s function is correctly stated but this wasn’t the reason for why the Fed was created; the reason was the need for a central bank for total control of a nation’s money. Your point also happens to be a digression.
It’s a verifiable fact, not obfuscation, that paper money is printed but not issued by the government. The other statement is another digression and useless as the Fed maintains no reserves of its own and creates money with keystrokes that is used as some of the reserves to base fractional reserve banking on by commercial banks; this isn’t appropriately described in your manner.
Let’s look at your logic. The local bank has a stake in the local Federal Reserve bank. The local bank also offers public shares that I buy and so does the company I own, which has nothing to do with finance. Thus my company and me both have a stake in or partial ownership of the local bank. So, if the local bank is part of the Federal Reserve system, then I suppose my company, which has nothing to do with finance, is part of it, too. Where does it end? What about other companies that have shares of the local bank? You act as if there can’t be independent functioning of different groups related in some way. As a matter of law it’s possible for different related or connected groups to not constitute a system, and the Federal Reserve system is a creation of the law. And again, you go into facts that aren’t germane, and a digression.
Again, looking at your logic in the previous example, if Ron Paul’s criticism of the Fed is a criticism of the local bank’s policies, too, then it must be a criticism of the policies of my company and myself, too, right? In this case, the entities that are connected function independently of each other on many counts even though some functions aren’t independent. Therefore, there’s no assumption that an attack on a Fed function is also an attack on a function of commercial banks that the Fed doesn’t indulge in.
I talked about the “free market,” which is economics speak for what really drives/controls the market, which is the bankers (they effectively own the non-financial corporations and provide the money for commerce). These people are the “free market” and their laws are also those governing the functioning of the Fed, a private bank.
Wrong. The government has to pay back the money. Why does the national debt keep climbing up if the government doesn’t have to pay back what it borrows? And why do the taxes keep worsening over the decades?
You’re the one who doesn’t understand what the “free market” is. Read: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0878 The bankers a.k.a. “free market” own the government and get it to “bail out,” which is taking on more debt to bail out a bankrupt institution.
Nice attempt to move the goal post. My response was to the specific video you said the claim appeared in, not a claim that Ron Paul has never argued for competing currencies. On the topic of competing currencies, the article’s deceptive. Ron Paul seeks a competition given the current environment. But the current environment’s about fiat currency that’s issued by bankers, which Paul omits, and a situation that is making a lot of people grumble. So Paul being the bankers’ agent, suggests that we should have commodity-based money such as gold and silver coins. If this competition is introduced, the bankers will move to eliminate the competition once money is based on gold, and decades later will take money off of the gold standard. History tells us what these devious creatures have been up to, and your responses, for everyone to see, tell us how you relate to these creatures.
In recent centuries, a gold standard, when implemented, has been forced by the bankers; the true market [people with goods and services for sale and those who want these] would never select it as money. 393
Posted by anon on Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:18 | #
If you have a royal or temple mint with a monopoly on creating money then you have the potential for a multi-generational long-con involving the slow debasement of the currency that goes all the way back to Sumer. (It requires the cooperation of the political authority who get their cut in return for enforcing the monopoly.) The bankers in the mint version melt down 100 old gold coins, mix the gold with 2% zinc or tin and then mint 102 new coins. They transfer the value directly to the two new coins they keep for themselves. In a fiat currency the central bank effectively does the same thing when it creates base money out of thin air. The extra new money dilutes the existing stock of money in the same way the zinc or tin diluted the gold in the old system. The money is created on the books of the banks in the cartel by the central bank. Those banks then multiply that using FRB but the base money is the foundation. Apart from smoothness and efficiency there is no difference between It’s the same thing. There are two components - base money creation on the hand and FRB on the other - and they could work on their own but in the current system they work as a pair. I assume the sequence was
It wasn’t just that. Central banking is an international system which seeks to expand and defend itself. That international system more or less besieged America until it got its way - and they have a lot of bribe money. They start wars to bring about regime change if they can’t get their way with bribes.
394
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:29 | #
Hyde’s Fallacy?
395
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:36 | # Dasein @394 Hyde’s data is sound. Giudice et. al. respond to Hyde’s interpretation, which I asked the reader to ignore. Let’s look at the issue using the following analogy. If you compare men and women with respect to nose length, eye width, lip thickness, etc., and adjust each of these measurements for face size, you get numerous face shape variables. For each face shape variable, the overlap between men and women is considerable. In other words, if I were to give you a pair of values for a particular shape variable and ask you to guess the sex, you’d often be wrong close to half the time. But if I give you male and female faces without make up and with the hair hidden, you’d easily classify them correctly 90% of the time. This is the essential difference between Hyde and Giudice et al. in so far as the data are concerned; both data are correct [though the calculations could be improved]. Which of the data types should be discussed or emphasized? It depends on the situation. We have the following: Juden filth in the form of feminism. The appropriate response to MGTOW filth, as espoused by Uh, is citing Hyde’s data [not interpretation]. The appropriate response to feminist filth is citing the data of Giudice et. al. [not interpretation]. The interpretation of Giudice et. al. is another story [and isn’t much]. But notice that their’s is within the framework of evolutionary psychology. We have: Judaic-core [academic] feminist or regular sociology The Judaic-core [academic] feminist sociology is a development or implementation of the kosher Frankfurt School and the kosher Fabian School in sociology. When developments in the biological understanding of human social behaviors threatened to undo the progress of the Frankfurt/Fabian Schools, the Juden panicked. Demonization of sociobiology wouldn’t be enough. They had to set up controlled opposition in the form of evolutionary psychology. So you have the Judaic-core disciplines misleading and sometimes playing a game of false dichotomy. As I recently brought up, in the case of 9/11, NIST [progressive collapse] on the one hand and ae911 (Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth) and stj911 (Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice) [controlled demolition] on the other are playing a game of false dichotomy with their technical arguments, both flawed and both courtesy of the Juden. The take home message is to separate the data from the interpretation and beware of who’s interpreting it for you. 396
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:24 | # Dasein @396
The second sentence isn’t the interpretation, but the data, resulting from an examination of a large number of variables as opposed to the restricted variables assessed by Giudice et. al. The main claim of Giudice et. al. is the ability to distinguish, well, men from women based on latent personality variables. Uh isn’t bringing in latent variables, let alone talking of the correlation structure underlying the latent variables, but bringing in specific variables or generalizing from specific variables, and on these variables, citing Hyde is appropriate for the data, and the interpretation is something I’ve taken care of myself on the issues I’ve discussed with him. Post a comment:
Next entry: A thread for Serbia
|
|
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) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:02. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 25 Nov 2024 02:05. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sun, 24 Nov 2024 19:32. (View) |
.html
?w=341
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Dec 2011 06:24 | #
From Daily Bell 8.12.2011
http://www.thedailybell.com/3331/Say-What-UK-Telegraph-Promotes-Camerons-EU-Support-as-Honorable
The BBC and left media opinion in general have painted Cameron’s decision as a Doomsday apocalypse now scenario. The BBC must be called to account.
I must admit I didn’t figure Cameron would pull the plug, what’s going on?