|
|
|
The majority and pluralism So, JJR has provoked another “lively” debate about the JQ. The unedifying spectacle of extreme philia threatens. Antagonism stalks the thread. Questions are raised, as ever, about the purpose and utility of the blog ... Situation normal, you might say. This is MR, after all. It has never been Amen Corner. But I think it would do no harm to set out in a formal post why the blog functions in this manner, and why I will not willingly change it. When one starts a political blog it is usually for the purpose of inflicting upon the world one’s own half-baked opinions, bad jokes and other illiteracies. It is not wholly beyond the realm of possibility, however, that one may be motivated by something a bit bigger than self. Apart, I guess, from the survival of the planet absolutely nothing in and beyond politics is bigger than the survival of European Man. And it is that - the shattering significance of where he stands today and why, and where he is heading tomorrow - combined with the fact that this cannot even be discussed in the political and journalistic mainstream, which caused me to set-up this decidedly free speech blog. Now, at the time there was no template to copy. There were fine websites addressing the issue from various sides, it is true. But by definition a blog is an open resource. Uniquely, the time and opportunity exist to interact, to persuade ... to try to answer and, thereby, awaken as many people as possible who are not currently in possession of all the facts and arguments they need to awake. That, surely, is the first duty of anyone damned fortunate enough to escape the deadly embrace of conventional thinking. Now, the place to do it is not, in my opinion, among the demonised and ghetto-ised nationalists. It is out on the edge of the sleeping world where every illusion about us obtains, and only dreams of freedom drift across eyes wide shut. I once read that it takes five years to change a man’s mind. I don’t accept that in our case, because we have Nature, tradition and truth on our side. There are a lot more light sleepers out there, too, as events drag them unceremoniously towards the morning light. But there was another, more personal reason why I wanted to position MR as close to the mainstream as our interests and material would allow. Like John, Phil, Martin and Mark, I am a Conservative by instinct. I did not come to The Great Issue through nationalist politics. I am comfortable talking to Conservatives about the dichotomies scarring their worldview. I believe that if Conservatives can gain, or regain, their normal, healthy group-awareness from contact with nationalists, so nationalists can gain realism and respectablity from Conservatives. The relationship should be mutually beneficial. That, at least, is the theory. In practice it has, let us say, been occasionally frustrating. MR is very like a great pre-war airship. When the storm-winds blow she is a might susceptible to being driven off-course - quite a bit off-course, actually. Usually somewhere around Jerusalem. We have lost bloggers from both wings - temporarily in most cases, I hope - because of the JQ as well as because their tastes and interests naturally diverge. In the order of things, individual tastes and interests are of little importance and should, ideally, be subservient to a shared notion of the common good. The JQ, however, is a challenging subject, and it doesn’t help for nationalists who are very familiar with (and completely unphased by) it to discount the difficulties it poses for others. I have said elsewhere that I think we spend too much time on it. Still, for all that the blog is what it is, which is something pretty unique and, I hope, valued by some. I won’t change it. I want, instead, to push the experiment forward and invite all who read this and who believe, from whatever political standpoint, that the Crisis of European Man is politically paramount to join in that effort. Comments:2
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:37 | # Conservatism is also non-ideological and thus has been fighting, at least for the last two centuries, a rear-guard action. Conservatism, to a large degree, has been less concerned about change than the means by which change has been implemented. The Conservative malady, because it is non-ideological, is a chronic failure to grasp the initiative. Initiative and ideology are fundamental prerequisites for victory. Dr. William L. Pierce writes:
Nationalism/Nordicism/Preservationism are ideologies. In fact in the modern world they are radical ideologies. Nationalism et al puts forth, if not a poltical and economic belief structure, certainly, a relatively coherent system of social/racial values, beliefs, or ideas shared by a racial group. As traditionally defined radicalism is the opposite of conservatism. Conservatism needs radicalism to retake the horizon, however, radicalism can never be safely respectable to conservatives. Historically, the ally of conservatism has been liberalism. Radical conservatism will be a strange bird indeed. 3
Posted by President Barbicane on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:40 | # Jon Jay Ray’s thread has received an astounding number of posts. This also happens on the American Renaissance website. Whenever a post mentions jews, there is a deluge of comments. Why does the jewish question energize people so much? If people put half as much energy into promoting race realism as they did into the jewish question, all of America would be race realist by now. 4
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:06 | # GW, Your calculation that race realism (I’m new to MR, if you are not a race realist, then I apologize) needs to be clothed in something more substantial than nationalism is, in my view, quite on the mark. I’m not convinced that hitching our wagon to conservatism is the best idea, though. Conservatism has been an unmitigated disaster for Americans of European ancestry over the last forty years. Of course, I fully admit my bias here, as I have never identified myself politically as a conservative. I’m an extremist. It’s true. Why apologize for that? I don’t want to reign in out of control liberals who are using government to advance their own objectives. I personally have no objection whatsoever to using the power of government to advance what I believe are sound public policies (deport all illegal aliens now, every single one of them!). I want to throw anti-racists out of the cockpit for people like me can seize control of the state. I’m more of a reformer than anything else. So, I am going to make a pitch here for Progressivism as our vehicle of choice. We have been here before, well, sorta. In the late nineteenth century, there was a similar struggle in America to rollback the racial egalitarianism that flourished during Reconstruction. There was nothing particularly novel about the civil rights legislation of the ‘50s and ‘60s: forced integration, anti-discrimination laws in employment and housing, voting rights, etc. It had all been done before, but was eventually deep sixed by the courts, in much the same manner as segregation was after Brown. During the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century, America was being flooded by an unprecedented wave of immigration. There was outrageous corporate and government corruption. Egalitarianism was being intellectually undermined by the latest science (Darwin, Mendel, Galton etc.), as is now the case today. Falling birthrates inspired much concern over racial degeneration (race suicide, as it was known in those days). The spread of vice elicited a similar social conservative backlash in the temperance movement. This was the milieu in which the progressive movement of early twentieth century crystallized and swept across America in the course of several decades. The progressives were able to successfully unite the discontent of the masses with an inspiring, uplifting vision of the future that appealed to reform minded elites. The result was a golden age of racialism that has yet to be matched. The constellation of forces that gave rise to Progressivism are realigning in our own day: disillusionment with mainstream conservatism and laissez-faire economics, widespread social degeneracy, opposition to globalization and stagnating wages, advances in genetics and molecular biology, rising anti-immigration sentiment, anti-multiculturalism. I’m not aware of the existence of a better political template for race realism, but remain open to persuasion on the point. 5
Posted by David L Nilsson on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:49 | # I used to think Jewish egocentricity and loquacity were the biggest bores in the blogosphere until I encountered Mr John Jay Ray. He is not nearly as clever, as original, as interesting or as amusing as he thinks he is; and since he appears to have a dozen websites of his own in which to indulge his conceit, I cannot see why he is permitted to make all the running here as well. How about ignoring both Ray and the Jews for a year or two, just to see if we can survive without these nattering nabobs of narcissism? 6
Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:50 | # Jews oppose race realism because they associate race realism with anti-semitism, and by extension, with what is “bad for the Jews.” What are we to do about this? Jews are an extremely powerful minority in the United States. They have both the funds and influence to make life miserable for us if they desire to do so. The instinct of most racialists to strike back overwhelms their better judgement. Is this a sensible course of action? I don’t think so. It really makes no sense for a mosquito to pick a fight with a windshield, and the same is true in our case, at least for the foreseeable future. We need other tactics. Haranguing the Jews elicits more hostility from them which severely inhibits our efforts to effectively organize. Nothing will be accomplished until we can build in peace. Why not try to allay their concerns instead? Why not try to convince them that race realism and anti-semitism are not synonymous? 7
Posted by Jacques de Molai on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:55 | # Race realism may not be inherently anti-semitic but resistance to multi-culturalism is. The best strategy for now is to pretend Jews do not exist as Guillaume Faye suggests… put them in the same category as Eskimos. There is much work to be done and if we focus too much on Jews they will certainly crush us. 8
Posted by JB on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:39 | # Fred Scrooby:
wrong, he said americans need to accept that their country will become Mexico 2 because it doesn’t really matter anyway and besides if they want to keep their country white they simply have to make more babies : http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/shilling_for_the_bush_open_borders_plan/ Daedalus:
how about kneeling before jews and begging them to let us live ? Read the thread on Lawrence Auster/Michael Hart. Even the so-called pro-white jews don’t want racially conscious whites who aren’t afraid of pointing the finger at the culprits. They would rather live in their gated communities in a Brazilesque garbage dump than in a white country in which they wouldn’t have the possibility of using the media and the politicians to further their interests because the people in which they would live would be aware that they’re not like them. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/hart_attack/
9
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:52 | # They have both the funds and influence to make life miserable for us if they desire to do so. You speak as though this isn’t already the case. 10
Posted by Steve on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:59 | # If only the issues affecting Western societies were purely ideological. If only. It would be easy to break out of this mess if it were just a matter of proving our case. The problem with the JQ is that it makes everything ten times harder. People are a lot harder to fight than ideas. However, the phenomenon we are dealing with has a name and has been defeated throughout history. It is called imperialism: a system where one people dominates another and feeds on their resources. The only way to fight imperialism is to avoid divide and rule distractions (like ideology) and focus on the center. In other words, we have no choice. We didn’t start this fight, but we have to finish it. We have to. There is no other way. None. Anyone that doubts we are dealing with imperialism should read the following post. I am trying to assemble a compact case for why one should oppose Jewish imperialism (Judeo-fascism) and support white nationalism (Liberationism). The following post is my current working model. If you see any logical weak points or if anything is badly or insufficiently explained please point it out. If you can, please suggest improvements or additions. I’m trying to keep it under 1500 words in order for it to be usable on leaflets, but additional arguments that are really potent may be worth driving the font size below 9 point. Also, feel free to comment on grammar and petty stuff. Sceptics help me out too. If, having read the post, you persist in thinking the JQ ought to be ignored, please explain why you didn’t find the post convincing. The next post will be titled: Wake Up And Smell The Judeo-Fascism. If not, look for it further down. 11
Posted by Steve on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:02 | # Wake Up And Smell The Judeo-Fascism Our democracy has withered down to a vote between Zionist A and Zionist B:
This is in turn driven by Jewish media control, a fact that single handedly redefines America as a Judeo-fascist regime. Media control and democracy cannot co-exist under any circumstances:
Judeo-fascism is not a recent development. This hidden ruling elite has been intimidating sitting presidents into behaving like frightened children for quite some time now:
Immigration is imposed on us against our democratic will by Judeo-fascists and their regime collaborators:
Judeo-fascism affects us in many other ways, including personally. Our children are worth less than a third of a person while our tiny elite, the two percent that eat half the pie, are forty times more privileged:
The Judeo-fascist regime is founded and sustained on the persecution of whites:
12
Posted by allotmentkeeper on Thu, 29 Jun 2006 02:30 | # Now that GW has explained why JJR is a blogger here - basically to attract a currently aracial, anti-nationalist readership - perhaps JJR should explain why he blogs here. All signs point to a precisely opposite motive - to actively undermine the will and focus of racialists and ethnic nationalists. 13
Posted by On Holliday on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 10:55 | # “We have lost bloggers from both wings - temporarily in most cases, I hope - because of the JQ as well as because their tastes and interests naturally diverge.” If you are going to make a post like this, GW, it would be more helpful if you’d actually admit the real reasons people leave the blog - which revolve around the sort of quality issues recently brought up by Steve Edwards -rather than focus so strongly on the “JQ” and on mysterious comments like “tastes and interests naturally diverge.” Other than the JQ, what may these “tastes and interests be?” Tastes for high quality posting/commenting and an interest in seriousness and in arguments that are superior to what a chimpanzee might produce randomly poking the computer keyboard? 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:07 | # Alright, JW, I will explain further. But it won’t be what you want to hear. It’s perfectly possible for people who claim some intelligence to tolerate those who propound opposing views. It’s even necessary. The pro-individualist, pro-suicide views which comprise the political zeitgeist, in which we, too, live and breathe, are sincerely held by the majority of our kinfolk (which I mean in the widest European sense). They simply do not know they are so tragically wrong because the zeitgeist has corroded the particularist values on which a healthy cast of mind would, in any other age, rest. Accordingly, they place a demand upon us (ie, those who are, IMHO, lucky enough to have escaped the intellectual chain gang) for tolerance, patience and understanding. The core of that understanding is that we are weak beings, JW. It is ideas that are strong, and the strongest idea in Man’s entire history confronts us now. It is so strong and over-arching it causes us to set aside the very imperatives of evolved nature. So ... what does this statement, by which MR stands or falls, really mean? Just this. We claim an affinity to our kind. Hell, the very word “kind” - a fine Anglo-Saxon oddity - communicates the whole of it. But if we lay claim to this love, then love we must. We can’t say, “Well, racially of course I love my people but, Jesus, I hate the bastards who disagree with me.” The bastards are propounding the mainstream view. They may be de-moralised, they may be logically wrong. But they, not us, have their worldview confirmed at every turn in life. We are fighting liberalism, not them. If one discards this truth ... if one gives way to emotion all that is achieved is the ghetto-isation of WN. Well, I don’t want to live in a ghetto while my people go to merry hell on a liberal sky-ride. That’s not my idea of effective resistance. I do not know whether enough people share my view to let the blog survive and develop. But there we are. Majority means majority, and that means all of us. 15
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 14:54 | # As somebody who is probably a flaming liberal by the standards of this site, I would like to lay out my own motivations. I do not have any problem with rational nationalists, even though their methodology is very different to mine, just as I theoretically do not have a problem with pseudo-libertarians (in fact, he is a NWO shill, but we’ll leave that for another day) like John Ray. I am able to conduct my disagreements with people in a civil, if robust, manner, even on cultural marxist websites such as Larvatus Prodeo. People have different opinions - it is a fact of life - and reasoned debate is the appropriate manner in which to arbitrate those opinions. Just look at the ideological diversity in the links over at my blog and you’ll get the picture. However, the case of John Ray is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Unlike the cultural marxists over at Larvatus Prodeo, who I believe are well-intentioned if misguided, John Ray has been repeatedly caught out for his mendacity, sophistries, half-truths and general duplicity. THAT’S the reason why people are becoming rather irate (including me) at his presence. I am quite able to share the polite company of radical leftists through to white nationalists, but what REALLY drives me up the wall is when someone is arguing in bad faith. I don’t believe John Ray should be thrown off. I say keep him on. But if he starts spamming the blog, I posit we have every right (and every obligation to our readers) to delete the offending posts. 16
Posted by On Holliday on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 15:16 | # “It’s perfectly possible for people who claim some intelligence to tolerate those who propound opposing views.” Apparently, all of my public and private airing of concerns and complaints (yes, Fred, GW knows who it is) haven’t made too much of an impression. The problem is not, and has never been, per se, tolerance of those who “propound opposing views.” It is the nature of the arguments, or what passes for them, the juvenile postings, the childish ‘logic’, and, perhaps worst of all, the tendency to completely ignore counter-arguments, with the endless repeating of the same factually incorrect and illogical comments over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I have noted, so many times I’ve lost count, that the problem is not that people have different opinions, but the total lack of quality control over postings and threads. Am I the only one who has complained? Hardly. Recently, Steve Edwards expressed, publicly, his chagrin about the low quality postings from others in contrast to the time and effort he (Steve) put into his own postings. Let’s take the JQ for instance. If someone wants to make an argument against “anti-semitism”, fine, make an ARGUMENT. Talking about bull terrier breeders, or “I know two good Jews”, or attacking KMacD for teaching at a “third rate university” are not arguments. It’s stupidity - stupidity that is repeated here over and over again. How many times must the issue of “race replacement” and reproduction be brought up again and again and again and again, with the constant answering being COMPLETELY IGNORED and the same mantra repeated every other week? That issue has been discussed and refuted and dissected in detail over and over and over and over again, but the “rubbish, race replacement does not occur as long as people reproduce” comment pops up - as if for the first time, as if people had not already spent time putting together lengthy replies. How many times must we observe threads suddenly ending when someone makes a point that cannot be answered, followed up by the same post, with the wording slightly altered, repeated over and over and over and over again? And, then, again and again and again, some more? Not to mention some of the vulgar degeneration of some threads which, as GW knows, was pointed out in private a number of times. “But you don’t strike me as the faint-hearted type who’s put off by the choice of words that can emerge once patience, long wearing thin, finally runs out.” Indeed, Fred, patience has run out - but I’m not going to engage in a stream of curse words, and did not do so even back in the time when everyone’s patience was tested by individuals from “Gene Expression” coming here with their absurdities, saying that ‘genes are mystical’, and such. There harshest thing that was said about them was they were “extended phenotypes” of the founders of that blog - an analysis which can be debated and discussed, and which does not consist of curses, vulgarities and stupidities that you suggest are justified because “patience runs out.” But, enough. Obviously, the “amen corner” here thinks everything is fine. That’s your right. But do not distort the reasons why people leave the blog, thinking it is some sort of close-minded intolerance compared to your shining, bright embrace of diverse opinion. There is a difference between a “big tent” approach and a “garbage heap” approach. Diverse opinions - that being the wish of the blog owner - are not what cause people to become disgusted; opinions expressed with all the intellectual rigor of a brain-damaged groundhog, are. 17
Posted by On Holliday on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 15:20 | # “However, the case of John Ray is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Unlike the cultural marxists over at Larvatus Prodeo, who I believe are well-intentioned if misguided, John Ray has been repeatedly caught out for his mendacity, sophistries, half-truths and general duplicity. THAT’S the reason why people are becoming rather irate (including me) at his presence.” That’s right, Steve. Is anyone else listening? It is NOT that it is an intolerant rejection of different opinions. It is the “mendacity, sophistries, half-truths and general duplicity.” Steve, remaining on the blog (for now) may be in a better position to continue to protest about this. In my case, I’ve made my point, which Steve has seconded with his own comment. 18
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 15:53 | # I will further add that John Ray seems to have this idea in his head that he, as a former college professor, is a cut above the rest around these parts, who are basically a gang of racist knuckle-dragging primates. This in itself could explain why he insists on continually insulting the intelligence of his audience, while trying to pretend that their comprehensive rebuttals were never made - to do otherwise would expose the central conceit in his demeanour and force a little humility on his part. I won’t speculate as to who would actually come out on top in an MR-wide IQ test, but I daresay JJR will be much closer to the peloton than he would care to admit; he should cut the juvenile rubbish and show more respect for his fellow bloggers. 19
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:05 | # An MR-wide IQ test might place JJR at the average for college professors (130) in which case he would lag behind Mensa-member and JJR stalwart Nick Tamiroff. 20
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:16 | # Nick’s CV is impressive, but I never knew he was that much of a genius. 21
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:21 | # Having said that, one of the reasons I was initially attracted to MR was the fact that there were clearly a disproportionate number of potential MENSA candidates in attendence. This is in stark contrast to most other sites of a similar disposition - to say nothing of the utter garbage that passes for mainstream “conservative” or “progressive” “thinking” out there. 23
Posted by Steve P on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:31 | # GW wrote
Our people (or race, if you prefer) are our extended family. No more, no less. Affinity toward them is as normal as affinity toward our immediate families. The difference is only one of degree. We are the ones who are normal. It is the self-haters, anti-white racists and kindred deniers who are profoundly abnormal and whose beliefs could hardly survive a day without massive and continuous ideological reinforcement from all corners of the racist anti-white establishment. This is why the anti-white racists persecute any symptom of normality among us. They have to because they are the minority view. Over time, this suppression has purged the language and intellectual structures necessary for us to resist. As such, although most of our kindred share our view, their inability to articulate and their fear of persecution creates the illusion that we are the minority view. Yet opinion polls on immigration as well as the “white flight” phenomenon consistently prove otherwise. In order to intellectually re-arm we might benefit from intellectual isolation, but I doubt it. I’m totally isolated on my blog and let me tell you, it’s not helpful. I actually think we need more opponents like JJR against whom we can test and refine our ideological weapons. On the “another stirring of the pot” thread I tried out two attack strategies on JJR. This weapons test was very useful to me insofar as it confirmed that the opposition is highly vulnerable and possibly completely helpless before certain techniques. (Of course, it would be great if JJR replied to my posts but his studious avoidance of them is a result nonetheless; they get logged as admissions of intellectual defeat). Another great weapon testing range (besides MR) is libertyforum. I have posted the “Wake Up And Smell The Judeo-Fascism” article (above) on six threads and so far have had excellent results. But unfortunately, although Judeo-fascist swine have engaged, white uncle toms have been conspicuously absent. I just can’t wait to detonate this nuclear device when they show their face:
Folks, the tide IS turning and we are emerging as the superior intellectual force. There is no doubt about it. The more opponents to test ideas against the better. To quote America’s leading white uncle tom,
24
Posted by Steve P on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:32 | # P.S. I’ll go by Steve P from now on to avoid confusion with Steve Edwards 25
Posted by Steven Palese on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:33 | # What the hell, I’ll go by my full name: Steven Palese 26
Posted by Steven Palese on Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:03 | # Steve Edwards and On Holiday: I too would love to deal exclusively with hellenic thinkers who are concerned with objective truth. However, we do not have the luxury of choosing the intellectual battlefields we fight in. In the US, all intellectual arenas—whether on campus or in print—are totally dominated by gramscian thinkers. Their ONLY concern is moral posturing; they couldn’t give a fig about objective truth. Even in the so-called citadels of intellectual discourse, the Ivy Leagues, debates consist of frenzied struggles for the moral high ground where the first person to seize position immediately declares victory and then physically runs away in a fit of self-righteous indignation. Folks, we are living in the intellectual ruins of Western Civilization. Yes, ruins. We need to adapt and take on these intellectual barbarians on their own terms. We have no choice because they dominate ALL arenas. So here’s my point regarding JJR: When you debate a gramscian thinker like JJR, you believe getting to the objective truth counts as victory, but he does not! His only concern is proving how morally superior he is to you all. That’s it. That’s why these debates end with both sides deluding themselves that they’ve made their point. It would be funny if it didn’t represent a microcosm of what is happening everywhere else and if our side wasn’t shut out of the debate because of it. Since JJR clones dominate all intellectual arenas we need to defeat them on their own terms. We need to learn to argue for the moral high ground and JJR is an opponent on whom to practice. Not a good opponent - he doesn’t respond when you stick it to him, but an opponent nonetheless. Question is - if you knock JJR off the moral high ground - will he stay? He’s only in it to win the moral debate so be careful with the gramscian thinkers you use for practice; if you hit them too hard they shatter to pieces and may never come back for seconds. And then good luck finding another one to practice on. The second they see their game is up they run back to their college ivory towers to hide behind legions of stalinoid censors that protect them from such “insensitivity”. They are very delicate you see. (warning: switching to counter-gramscian mode. stop reading now if you can’t handle ad-hominem terminology) Like I said earlier, I’m actively hunting for an even worse breed to attack and humiliate: American uncle toms. By worse I mean more degenerate, not harder to deal with. I’ve been scouring libertyforum for two days trying to engage them and knock them off their high horse by exposing the searing anti-white race hatred that warps their racist hate-infested minds. No luck. I am still trying to corner one to slap around with this:
Dammit, where are all the white uncle toms when you need them? Here’s hoping they held a conference and the racial self-hatred that oozes from every pore of their bodies like toxic waste from a septic tank flushed them out and drowned them in pools of their own vomitous hate. Post a comment:
Next entry: A few numbers on Bromley
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:51 | #
Conservatism is prudent conservation. Our foundation in organic reality relentlessly drives any prudent conservation effort to recognize the fact that we don’t know what our ancestors have bequeathed us in the form of organic heritage and this leads directly to race realism as a primary conservative principle. There is a need to preserve races as organic entities simply in response to our profound ignorance facing the onslaught of technological civilization. (While there are arguments that it is all the more urgent a conservative principle due to our ethnic genetic interests as well as our unique value among races these are unnecessary to the conservative principle.)
Every sincere effort to preserve racial heritage runs headlong into Jews, both as a race and as a group entity opposing race realism. The question of how one handles group entities inimical to prudent conservation is the general question that imposes itself on us without mercy when we attempt to avoid the Jewish question. It is our misfortune indeed.