|
|
|
The shaping of European altruism in left political form, part 1 Last November Daniel Sienkiewicz published an article at VoR criticising the tendency, prevalent in much WN intellectualism, to target “the left” rather than Jewish activism. We agreed that I would reproduce the article with some minor revisions at MR and I would offer a commentary on it. Daniel’s article will be published separately on our page immediately after this first part of my essay. Here, I am going to put forward my own, no doubt idiosyncratic and shamelessly provocative view of the central problem here, which is the foundation of Jewish thought in the Western religious and secular intellectual canon, and the open doorway that offers Jewish ethnocentric activism. I am English. My beautiful, brave, precious people are, today, suffering a vast and shocking physical colonisation by, to my northern eyes, unbeautiful and utterly alien peoples. These peoples are unadmired, unwanted and unloved by the overwhelming majority of us. Our will in the matter is clear and is known, and is, on all historical evidential bases, perfectly justified. But because the power of choice in the matter has been taken from us, and our dissent delegitimised, we can do absolutely nothing in our own defence. As things stand, the colonisers will minoritise us within the normal lifespan of anyone in his or her early forties today, and beyond that tipping point lies only one foreseeable outcome for us: an increasingly dark and vertiginous descent to the hell of a despised and threatened rump minority. My child will see the first, my unborn grandchildren the second. By any reckoning, and notwithstanding the extended temporality of the process, this is a genocide event. But it is a genocide that nobody is interested in talking about, which is odd because we are given to believe that the decent, educated liberal abhors genocide above all crimes, and strives mightily to eradicate it from the life of Man. As a creature much given to moral crusades, to non-aggression and opposition to colonisations, to sniffing out any injustice, to empathising with victims, to human rights, and to peace in perpetuity you might think he would have some sympathy for the English, and for all Europe’s children who face this same terrible and final existential disaster. But he cannot. He just can’t do it. Prior considerations exercise too much, in fact, vastly too much control over him. Specifically, my people, our people, are not moral in the only way that matters to the educated liberal, that is, we hold a monopoly on “power”, from which unfair vantage point we “discriminate” on grounds of skin colour. And that, as everybody knows, carries an ethnic death sentence in postmodernity. No further proof of guilt required. No circumstances excepted. No plea of mitigation tolerated. No reprieves granted. Discrimination is an existential sin grounded in an “irrational fear” and “hatred” that must be wiped from this world, and can only be so by, first, mixing humanity - all of it - in the living spaces of the (non-Jewish) white of skin, of the “fearful” and “hating”, and, second, destroying their hegemony (or privilege). This is “the good” today, and not even the fact of its Kafkaesque nature and its screamingly obvious injustice gets through to the stampeding minds of those who think this way. We all know this. We’ve all encountered the mind of the morally-crusading, anti-racist left-liberal many times. In truth, of course, it is impossible for an Englishman, say, to be morally inadmissible in any way when protesting the colonisation of England. No one of European descent can be racist in the Hirschfeldian sense, can be a “hater”, can be the stripped out, inhuman cypher anti-racism fashions from us entirely for its on purposes. We are defending our life when we defend our land, and self-defence is always a morally unimpeachable cause. We are morally free to do all that we must to remain who we are, and Life itself commands that we do so - we do not need a moral reason to pursue our own survival. Not even Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy interferes with the unanswerable logic, the is/must, of survival. But it makes not a whit of difference to the leftist herd. If it’s white it’s racist. So the universal reflex is abuse. It’s mechanical, it’s thought-free, it’s self-proving. It’s extremely difficult to get them to give it up and actually think. They don’t want to, and they don’t have any incentive to because the next auto-defence is ready in place, and it’s denialism. They deny any colonisation and any demographic replacement. Then, when that fails they deny the ethnic specificity of our people. “We are all mongrels”, they will say. In my case, I will be informed that Anglo-Saxons were immigrants just like the Somalis today, and tomorrow the Somalis will be just as English. Finally, when that wishful thinking has also been broken in their hands, they fall back on the alround African-ness of human origins. Apparently, they think these are killing answers. They must tell themselves so in their sociology classes, in their social spaces and on their fora. And it doesn’t seem to make the slightest difference to them when their treasured truths are falsified. It is no drawback to anti-racists that their ideology is filled with inconsistencies and is wafer-thin intellectually. It does not trouble them that it contains no positives and no functional discourse at all, actually. What matters, as has been observed by many others, is that it functions as a religion, and certainly grips the mind with a religious intensity. But if it is religion it is clearly one which promises a very strange personal salvation, indeed salvation through the punishment of someone else. In other words, its modus operandum is freudian projection. We are, then, dealing here not with a rational argument but an emotional need. Further, it is a need that, whilst it is personal, arises out of a deep-seated, general trauma, something particular to our race and to no other races, and which, in its specifics, afflicts the educated (but none too smart) fraction. We are, therefore, also dealing with something targeted, something communicated - a seeding of fertile soil, no doubt, but one that produces a particular animus against the self? Perhaps the most perfect visual summation of that animus occurred when Alex Linder’s VNN crew mustered in Knoxville on May 27, 2007 to protest during the trial of those accused of the kidnap, rape, torture and killing of Christopher Newsom, 23, and Channon Christian, 21, in January of that year. A counter-demonstration was organised by local anti-fascists, many of whom dressed as clowns in bridal white, or Southern belle white, or white anyway, apparently in parody of the Klan (the FBI stooge Hal Turner helpfully concluded his speech to the thirty or so VNN supporters by claiming that after the rally he would be driving off to meet a Klan Grand Wizard to discuss the next move).
This photo of Linder’s (quite unnecessary) arrest on that day perfectly juxtaposes Alex in the foreground as a clean-cut, conventional figure good-humouredly suffering the attentions of two perfectly porcine gentlemen in blue with the jeering, lunatic contingent of anti-fascists in the background. Their desperately gleeful, grotesquely homosexual mutilation of their own whiteness is too eloquent to be a mere parody. It is unconscious performance art. The whole of the anti-fascist mentality is contained herein: the joy of destruction, the blind racial nihilism, the completely unexamined and stunning ugliness and unnaturalness of it all. Here is the Universal Anti-Racist, every bit as much the stripped out, inhuman cypher that his anti-racism strives to manufacture out of us. And that tells us something about the communication aspect of the anti-racist mentality. These people are tools. They have, as Alex would say, been comprehensively jewed. There is no kinder way to put it. They have been fed the lie. They have been pimped for another cause. That old piece of Soviet arrogance, “useful idiots”, does not even begin to cover it. But I’m not content to leave it there, as Alex is, mostly. In part 2 of this essay I will explore both halves of the problem: the making of the Universal Anti-Racist and the traumatisation of Western life which opens the door to that possibility. Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:39 | # OK, back for literally a minute. Reading about the sickness of PC, here as elsewhere, why do you, GW, never weigh in on my White Zion argument (ie, that WNs of all persuasions - conservative, Christian, nationalist, pagan, NSM - will never be a majority of any sovereign polity, and thus our race is doomed unless there is some kind of emigration-ingathering so that we might attain a sovereign majority somewhere)? 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:57 | # I’m English, Leon. England is Zion to me, not that I like or need Jewish symbols. 4
Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:30 | # I’m English, Leon. England is Zion to me, not that I like or need Jewish symbols. That was funny ...“And did those feet in ancient time, Walk upon England’s mountains green?”.... 6
Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:15 | # No they didn’t, Daniel. That was funny too.. No, I guess not, but a good tune, rather inspirational in its own way…and I like the Blake poem as it goes back and forth from Christianity to paganism from verse to verse - it can be seen, in a sense, as urging Christians/Christianity to conform to English nationalist interests. ...but neither do I recommend that strategy. Enough middle eastern influence to sort out as it is. You already have quite a temple mount there in the London Square Mile 8
Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:23 | # While I am seeing the humor in those few quips by GW, I must also say that I am moved by this essay. It is rather not funny - heart wrenching. 9
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:44 | # GW interesting ‘opening’ essay. I look forward to you developing your thoughts on this topic. It’s not really the left, as such, that is the issue - it’s PC left-liberalism – something that the typical WN buffoon cannot differentiate from the older traditional communitarian left (equally they can’t differentiate the hyper-liberal ‘free-market’ ideology from genuine conservatism). Indeed many of the best values of the left; social solidarity, a collective sense of “we are all in this together”, not allowing the uber-selfish and destructive ‘free-riding’ of collective social-capital is much, much preferable to the ‘dog eat dog’ world beloved of Republicans in which the liberal (in this case a Hayekian/Nozickian neo-liberal) constantly tells us that all of our communitarian impulses are ‘radically evil’ and a danger to the most precious of all socio-political values individual liberty. It seems most painful to WN types to even start to admit that the communitarian strain of the left might just have some useful to contribute - the principles of mutual obligation and social solidarity within an intra and inter-generational ‘moral economy’. No true liberal can stand such talk (is Mr. Haller looking in?). Within the context of a maximally homogeneous society or ‘in-group’ the right and sensible collective ‘small-l’ left/communitarian policies can produce rather healthy societies with generally low levels of various social pathologies. Think of Scandinavia. Right-wing Americans (like Charles Murray of the religion = societal happiness camp) seem indecently silent on why these rather irreligious nations top all the sociological comparisons of societal happiness/well-being. Equally American ‘free-market’ ideologues seem rather silent on why they top any index of human development and welfare despite their ‘slavery’. But never, never let empirical reality interfere with the timeless insights of ‘correct theory’, yes? Such ‘correct theory’ in principle can obviously never be wrong. We might call such an outlook a species of theology but I doubt actual theologians of even a moderate level of intellectual sophistication are quite that dogmatic these days. Like any human impulse or virtue ‘in-group’ altruism can be manipulated for unwise ends. It’s all about the how and the what and whom. But again it makes me laugh (with contempt) when American WN types say they really, really, really care about this collective European identity (and the people that embody that collective inheritance) but they only want to be maximally collective on keeping the blacks out – beyond that we need a ultra-individualistic libertarian world in which if your Euro neighbour falls on hard times, might be jobless, or homeless, or extremely ill and in real and genuine need of help, the response would be effectively “go fuck yourself and take your problems elsewhere”. Of course people looking in on that bizarre ideological formation might just suspect that the underlying commitment to real and substantive in-group loyalty and solidarity is paper thin – instead beyond the patina of racist posturing the real commitment is to one’s bank account above all else. The communitarian model of Scandinavian societies are actually a mechanism for building upon and amplifying in-group loyalty. They are a strong ‘signal’ of an underlying recognition of a social ontology beyond the individual. That ‘we’ really exist and that means something - we owe duties and responsibilities to each other. Thus the particular ethno-linguistic national community is made up of an extended family and more importantly we try to care for each other. The welfare of our extended kin matters. Such that the ‘good society’ will not, as a matter of routine, throw our own people to the dogs. That our collective ‘human-capital’ is to be genuinely valued and helped to flourish. That there are standards of well-being that I wouldn’t want a member of my ‘in-group’ to slip beneath and that those impulses are reciprocated across society by all members of the ‘in-group’. That the quality and trustworthiness of those relationships and inter-dependencies that constitute the health of social body are key to a social order in which one has some form of protection from the actual and metaphorical prospect of one’s throat being cut at any point in time. To enjoy and maintain ‘deep’ social-capital. Do right-wing WN types never wonder why it is in relatively progressive communitarian European nations such as Denmark that post-modern, ethno-centric, popularist parties have actually gained some noteworthy success? Obviously not as they would rather shill for whatever Republican creep is on offer and pretend the scumbag is a ‘conservative’ in between receiving the wisdom of Glenn Beck. They are not the most curious of personality types it seems. Every variety of liberalism pushes a radically deflationary ontology of the social - the liberal theology that the autonomous individual is alone in the universe and in the market – all other forms of life are ontologically disprivileged – hence “there is no such thing as society”. So collective forms of agency, being in the world, living together (such as the ‘beloved’ communal forms of life suggested by the concept of Aristotelian philia) etc., are all, in essence, illusions with no validity. Something like ‘society’ is nothing more than the aggregated product of individuals. Hence this ‘whole’ has no ontological validity or status over and above its component ‘parts’ – all social phenomena can be fully understood and radically reduced to the individualistic level. Such methodological individualism goes from being a useful perspective and a starting point for analysis to being an ideological article of faith – a prism through which certain phenomena, not captured by the viewpoint, simply become invisible. No serious non-liberal such as Roger Scruton thinks that there is no such thing as society. Liberals like Thatcher do. She was not a conservative of any type. Nor was Ronny Reagan – a loathsome Hayekian liberal that I wouldn’t have pissed on if had been on fire. I actually have been looking again at Christopher Lasch – a rather wonderful writer and thinker – a ‘non-American’ American in that he could perceive beyond the bullshit banalities of ideological ‘Americanism’. In fact something like Chris Hedges scathing accounts of the profound failing of American liberalism of both the left and right-facing varieties is a decent, but ultimately journalistic exploration, of themes explored by Lasch in both deeper and wider modalities. Lasch’s politics will potentially baffle contemporary onlookers and future readers too, because they elude any simple late twentieth-century classification. Is he, the reader asks, a democrat or an elitist? Or both? Is he a revolutionary or a reactionary, or does he not know whether he is left-wing or right-wing from day to day? Perhaps Lasch was simply suffering from inconsistency or even incoherency? I don’t think so. Lasch rejected the simple-minded world-view of dishonest or dimwitted ideologues. What do I mean? All political ideologies are very rough normative descriptions and prescriptive models of social reality. But precisely because human affairs are very complex no political ideology can possible track or account for every aspect of those realities. Moreover, if applied in the wrong way or in the wrong context ideologies can produce disastrous or radically sub-optimal outcomes. What the dishonest ideologue does is assume his ‘tribe’ can never be wrong, are always virtuous and everyone else is both totally wrong and only motivated by stupidity, vice or malice. Equally they do not recognise the frequency dependent (or dose dependent) nature of politics. A little of X in context Z can do the patient wonders, but too much of X will kill him, or in context Y even a tiny amount of X will be deadly. Dishonest ideologues never actually recognise this. The answer to any problem is always the same – more free-market reforms, more liberty, more whatever. Now of course in Schmittian mode there is no such thing as non-ideological politics. And politics at best is a semi-rational phenomenon that only occasionally connects with a moderately sophisticated understanding of empirical realities. No political view is from a punctum Archimedis - we all stand somewhere - but the question is does one live with the recognition that no-one and no school of thought is omni-competent? Nor is there only one way to read the evidence that the world provides (assuming one doesn’t have an utterly fool-proof ‘correct theory’). That it is possible to be wrong, for circumstances to change, for the applicability of given ideas to be context dependent. One can hold passionate views and have a strong commitment to certain values while holding them honestly and moderately. To leave space for the notion that on occasion one’s world-view might be wrong, or mistaken or in need of modification, or correction from a different perspective is not part of the dishonest ideologues mindset. I think this was one of the impulses behind Lasch’s thought. No single ideological tendency has some invariant royal road to truth and virtue. They are prisms which can illuminate but also seriously distort the picture one observes. Secondly, I think Lasch was a true non-liberal – he refused to play along the banal political axis of left and right as defined by liberal sensibilities. Now people might say but there are non-liberal forms of politics, genuine conservative themes etc., within the ideological spectrum. True but what is more important is that these non-liberal tropes are, within the nested hierarchy of modern politics, very much secondary factors. The ontological terrain of modern politics is totally defined by liberal theory. We are all liberals compare to Europeans of the 12th or 16th centuries. Liberal theory is foundational to modernity – non-liberal ideas are in contemporary politics secondary afterthoughts - merely a reactive and partial critique to that liberal theory but that are, by and large, totally accepting of the underlying liberal ontology. For example, Lasch is one of the few commentators to dare to connect the anarchic ‘leftist’ cultural themes and expressive individualism of the sixties with the neo-liberal predatory economic individualism and stupefying mass consumerism of the present. Lasch was convinced, however, that they form two sides of the same hyper-liberal ideological coin. Interestingly Adam Curtis also suggest the same in his film ‘The Century of the Self’. The dullards of the Republicans and Democrats and their activists and supporters would reject such an idea instantly. Lasch was I think a genuine non-liberal (an ‘ontological’ one even) even if he didn’t explicitly frame his world-view in quite those terms. Equally Roger Scruton is a genuine non-liberal of the right - he was deemed too weird in his views for the modern Tory party on his application to stand as an MP. The slimy estate-agents types and assorted spivs and chancers of the modern Conservative party would not know a conservative idea if it took a bite out of their arse. The serious communitarians are non-liberals, as are some environmentalists and some old school Marxists. Or Alasdair MacIntyre for example - a one time Marxist and still somewhat on the left I believe - is a serious non-liberal in the tradition of Aristotelian ‘virtue ethics’. Or indeed Perry Anderson whom is one of the most scathing and penetrating critics of liberal ‘superstars’ such as Rawls, Habermas et al., (as well as being occasionally extremely and wickedly funny about his liberal targets and their pretensions to intellectual rigour). Personally I’m happy to engage with the ideas of anyone that is intelligent, lively and something approaching an ‘ontological’ non-liberal, from anywhere within the ideological firmament. What I am becoming extremely bored by are dimwitted people practically channelling John Locke and then claiming not to liberals. That what we need to a collective problem is more individualism etc., (sovereign or otherwise). Enough already. Life really is too short for such idiocy. Sorry for the rant GW it’s a bit off-topic – I might try and produced something longer and more in-depth about Lasch for the front page to make up for it.
10
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:34 | # That’s OK, Graham, it was a very entertaining rant, and one which may need much repetition before “the last European man” has forsaken his love of the very politics that brought him to this sorry pass. 11
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:40 | # GW - I also think PC is to do with signalling status and moral vanity/posturing. To even move one mm from it is, for those with some form of social status, to risk a great deal of kudos and standing with one’s friends and professional peers. Some are ‘true believers’, others are merely going with flow or line of least resistance, and some are involved in double-think or self-serving duplicity. Hence why WN are generally such marginal antinomian types - they, for whatever reason, do not fear or care about the opprobrium of wider society and so tend to go ‘demob’ happy embracing a whole world of less than sane opinions - they make a type of category error; “well society disapproves of view X but I think it’s right ergo if society also disapproves of view Z then I will also embrace that” - no matter how crazy Z is as they no longer care about disapproval or the loss of social status. GW do you recall those videos on the evils of ‘whiteness’ I posted ages ago in which a variety of Euro Americans discussed the topic? Also recall I attempted to place them in a spectrum from the sincere ‘true believer’ to the earnestly confused, right to the other end of the insincere poser? Really we are dealing here with the forces of social psychology as much as any rational discussion - hence the inability for mere facts to be a ‘killer’ blow in any argument. We also discussed the idea of the ‘psychological costs’ in allowing oneself to listen to or accept particular political arguments - most people don’t wish to think of themselves as immoral or bad people. Normal people don’t want to be associated with perceived moral turpitude irrespective of the ‘logic’ (or not) of their position and the putative counter-position. “What will other people think of me if they think I believe X?” might not be, by the narrow definition of logic and rationality, the best way to choose one’s outlook on a subject - but it’s an important if unacknowledged factor for most of us. ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————- Re: GW on ‘White Zion’ Far be it from me to put words in our hosts mouth but I seem to recall on a thread about Michel Holleqbecq and his anti-American sentiment the idea of WZ came up in the comments and the different sensibilities of Europeans and New-Worlders on such an issue. I think I suggested that Europe is our only true home in the world – it’s Europe or nothing. Anything else would be deeply inorganic, inauthentic and lacking the vital quality of autochthonicity. As such I would not give my European homeland in the face of some uppity Africans and wild-eyed Muslims. I think GW basically agreed with me. Perhaps I’ve misremembered or his view has changed? 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:04 | # Graham, The Jewish politic of anti-racism, which is the driver of PeeCee and the final value of the cultural left, is reducible to the punishment and expunging of European ethnocentrism. “Racists” are proxies for the ethnocentrism in the “anti-racist” which, through a constantly reinforced narrative of white guilt, he finds it necessary to expunge by projection. The result is a faux-moral purification of European ethnicity which is, actually, the condition of the European gentile in Olam Ha-ba. Simple as that. Obviously, the denatured clowns in Knoxville stand as a perfect symbol of the total, mutilating denial of self and Nature. The racist Linder, meanwhile, looks like every Mum’s dream son-in-law. Such is the inverted morality of our times. 13
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:06 | #
You never heard of Harold Covington’s Northwest Front, Leon? 14
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:58 | # GW – I guess part of the issue is in the disentanglement of ultimate causes from proximate mechanisms. On the moral vanity/posturing point all I was conveying is that I think the ideological ‘true-believers’ are a small hardcore of any particular population. The vast majority of people aren’t serious political thinkers beyond their immediate and basic personal concerns (“how much tax do I have to pay” etc.) but most Mr. & Mrs. Averages are deeply social animals and even unconsciously beset with status anxiety. One way for them to overcome this is the ‘follow the crowd’ strategy. Hence in a Fascist regime Mr. & Mrs Average are modest ‘small-f’ Fascists, or ‘small-c’ Communists or ‘small pc’ PC liberals etc., in such regimes. Such people generally follow the ideological ebbs and flows of a society and culture in a fairly thoughtless and unenthusiastic way - a bit like the fish that don’t even notice the waters they are swimming in - it’s very passive. But they are not completely thoughtless; they don’t want to risk being too much outside the socio-cultural mainstream (whatever they think that is). Loss of status is a real fear (perhaps more so for the middle-classes). Such everyday ‘non-political’ folk are somewhat ‘rationally ignorant’ as some people describe it. The other question is in who’s interest is it for many people (even those superficially educated to a high standard) to be quite so ignorant as they end up being effectively politically illiterate, such as they don’t even have the ‘political grammar’ to formulate a different view? Ignorance in the ‘right’ places is a very valuable commodity. As the old Marxists used to say: “it’s no mere accident”. 15
Posted by Jenko on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 03:30 | # It is the Left that has made White genocide possible, not Jews. Of course Jews love it. But they also want to genocide Arabs. This isn’t working, because Arab leftism does not exist. At least, what passes for Arab leftism would likely be considered “right-wing extremism” by the ignorant zombies who run White countries. The left is responsible for radical feminism, invasion (read: open borders/unrestricted immigration), the homosexual movement/sexual revolution, dumbing down of schools, failed approaches to economics (Marxism) and the gradual replacement of science with superstition (“carbon credit” hoax, the idea that humans have not evolved in 50,000 years, the rise of “fad” science, etc). Nations that grow, that remain strong, that are advancing today, their leaders do not make domestic policies like the leaders of the USA or Great Britain. Leftism is a symptom of a dying people. 16
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 03:31 | # O/T - Ive thrown in my two pennyworth at that HuffPo thread. 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:33 | # They never answer, Lurker. Their sense of altruism has been mutilated by the insertion of a narrative of guilt and self-loathing at the ethnic boundary of care, release from which requires the destruction of that boundary in others. So, for example, you post this:
But what leads your opponent to think Martin Sewell’s statement is “dumb” is that it’s a comment upon blacks by a white man, ie, it is a comment appealing to the ethnic boundary of care. Its factuality does not mitigate its “dumbness” because, doncha know, Sewell has automatically become the eponymous guilty “racist” and “sexist” white man ... a cypher. The projection must commence, and no facts about IQ can change that. 18
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:34 | #
)
Yes, of course, and I support it, though I remain sceptical that it will happen, other than as a de facto result of a general social or economic collapse, which, however, I do not espy on the horizon just yet. I think the US ‘managerial system’, which is systematically eviscerating Middle America, is, recent financial overshoots notwithstanding, fairly competent at ‘boiling the frog’ slowly, and that it will be a long time before Middle America stages anything like a real, even political (let alone physical/military) revolt - by which point we will undoubtedly have become too demographically overwhelmed (as Graham Lister, with rather unseemly glee, routinely reminds us) for such actions to have much effect. Moreover, please recall that WZ is not, per the NWF, about carving racial territory out of an existing polity (though all WNs ought to support serious efforts in that regard, if and when they appear), but about migrating to a conquerable sovereign polity and actually taking it over - just as, eg, the Mexicans are taking over CA (and the whole American Southwest). WZ is not the optimal solution to our problems. Very far from it. I contend, however, that it will prove to be the only solution (and I dearly hope to be proved wrong on this point), despite its inorganicity and sub-optimality. Note, too, that at some point the burden of proof shifts to my critics. WZ is based on the assumption that anti-racism is some kind of psychosis (nearly) unique to whites, and that, between 1. white race traitors, WNs will never have the raw democratic power really to do much of anything substantial to reverse our racial collapse. Maybe Scotland and Finland and Estonia are still salvageable, but can anyone say that the US, or France or England will be white again? Even if we end immigration - the sine qua non of any WN platform, the simplest and least morally problematic of any aspect of the WN policy agenda, yet something which still hasn’t been effectuated anywhere significant - will France or England expatriate their racial aliens? I wish it were so, but the realist in me says “probably not”. Even if we end the invasions, I maintain that miscegenationist pressures will act eventually to reduce the remaining unmixed white communities to politically ineffectual and even (racially) powerless minorities. If the bulk of whites are soon to be racial minorities in most places, with only a few geopolitically insignificant majoritarian holdouts, how long will the white race endure? My belief, based on decades of wide reading as well as life experience mostly spent in the multikulti hellhole of LA, is that our race will not remain in existence at the sufferance of the dominant races for very long. The world is a nasty place, and almost everything that is tolerable about it today is a function of white racial power, even if that power is never used to advance our own race. As our power diminishes, the world will grow uglier, and at an accelerating pace. The effective, and then literal, end for the white man will arrive with astonishing rapidity. It’s easy and romantic to dismiss WZ on grounds of sentimental patriotism, but what no one answers is why such dismissal is realistic. Violent WN insurrections leading to a WW3 in Europe, a WN victory, and The Great Cleansing - this is more realistic than awakened whites, in an ever more closely ‘connected’ world, migrating to a common place so that we can live among our own in dignity, safety and peace? Not wishing to renounce one’s fatherland is hardly the same as proving its salvageability. (Dr. Lister: I will try to respond to you tomorrow.) 19
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:56 | # Lister@14 This is an insightful comment. If true, and I think it is, though to what extent I just don’t know (number of truly nutty PC Kool-Aid drinkers? probably pretty low, with general societal attachments to ‘extreme-PC’ wide but shallow; but number of whites who embrace individualist - Martin Luther King, Jr.-style - anti-racism? probably pretty high - hence my emphasis on the need to fight the race-deniers on explicitly ethical, rather than only scientific, grounds), it does provide some reason to think that a reversion to racial normality in the West could occur, like the collapse of communism, more suddenly than we might otherwise suspect, given the right circumstances. It’s just a question of our preparing the ground beforehand, a long slog (though we’d best hurry things up, as the aliens just keep arriving, and physical power will ultimately be decisive ...). 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:55 | # Salvageable, Leon? You talk as though homeland is a mere possession to be fought over. To those colonising it, it is, no doubt. But not for peoples who are indigenous to the land, who became peoples on the land. To us its possession is the guarantee of life and is synonymous with the freedom to live and to be. Peoples - whole peoples - fight for this freedom to live, not for gods, not for heroism, not for kings or politics. 21
Posted by torgrim on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:10 | # GW said, “Salvageable, Leon? You talk as though homeland is a mere possession to be fought over.” As a son from the son of a migrant from my ancestor’s homeland, Norway, living today in Amerika, I understand what you are saying, indigenous Europeans are the peoples of the land. I hold my ancestors as my nation, my people, a whole people, with connections to all of Europe and Europeans in Amerika. It has only been a few hundred years on the Continent called N.Amerika that Europeans have settled, are we peoples of the land? I think it is not yet decided. Are my few descendants that are left, destined to a nightmarish future? Why, have the sons and daughters of Europe, not made aware of their dispossession? If we loose N.Amerika, we must not loose Europe. To loose “whole peoples”, is a sin, and not in the sense of the holy books, but a great tragedy, a crime against Natural Law, as that would have dire results for other peoples and the natural world, as well. If European People continue to decline demographically, then the state of the political and natural world will decline likewise. 22
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:31 | # O/t I believe Mr Sewell married a SE Asian of some description which suggests he values high IQ more than descent. Just as Chris Brand pushes high IQism over racialism. His site used to reference KMac too which is strangely absent from the charge sheet. 23
Posted by illegal aryan on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:19 | # There’s more to a mind than what IQ can convey. In my experience living abroad, I have found Asians to be consistently insecure, apathetic towards the plights of others (which is why anti-racist propaganda doesn’t work on them, and why they have so much theft), easily intimidated, freely dishonest, petty, and just small overall. In short, they’re subject to all the wretchedness that can be expected when by design, a creature is diminished in passions. But it seems classy WN’s like to say they like Asians, perhaps so outsiders can see they don’t disdain ALL races. 24
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 03:39 | # O/T - again. Ive been drawn back to HuffPo a few times now. Must. . . . re…resist. God, what a depressing, liberal, nihilist hellhole. 25
Posted by Mick Lately on Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:14 | # Lurker,
As depressing as this? Is Race Replacement Acceptable?
Post a comment:
Next entry: Civilization Takedown: Immigration vs the Individual Man
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:54 | #
Good essay. I’m sorry I cannot at the moment respond as I might like. One observation: if we agree that the Cult of Diversity truly displays many of the characteristics of religion, then why assume that its adherents can ever be reached rationally? I’ve encountered these fanatics in many sociological places over the decades (school, work, politics, Church, dating, etc). They trumpet the virtue of openmindedness, but they are invariably the most closed-minded people in the world (which is why the epithet “politically correct”, with its totalitarian provenance, is so apt).
I think PC types cannot be reasoned with, but only marginalized or annihilated. Again the salient issue is ethics. Good, rational men need to be persuaded of the morality of the hard measures necessary for our racial survival - because those measures will violate existing and traditional moral norms. We must show that the collective, and not only the individual, is deserving of solicitude and respect (of course, it must be “collective” rightly understood - a whole topic in itself!). I maintain that this has yet to be philosophically demonstrated.