|
|
|
Theory and practise in violent resistance In 1993 the US Catholic Conference established the following formulation in respect to use of force and Just Cause:- Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, ie, aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations. The most basic right of any human population is the right to exist. This is what is denied European peoples throughout the West. The Jew, the African, the Moslem of any race is accorded that here in Europe, but not the European. We are just required, basically, to go away. This is contrary to natural justice. In any normal age, of course, a serious and ongoing threat to a people’s existence would be addressed immediately and with all due vigour by the properly constituted authority. But throughout the West the properly constituted authorities are a principal party to the attack on the European people’s right to exist. Ethically, a state of exception has been created by this flouting of natural justice. This authority - this Establishment - has relinquished its claim to legitimacy. Indeed, the Establishment now stands full-square in the firing line, along with all its servants in political and cultural life, and those elites whom its members themselves serve. The right of self-defence adheres - the people may, by whatever means, constitute their own revolutionary authority to initiate and conduct the appropriate corrective and retributive actions. These may vary from waves of street protest such as that seen in Greece over the last days to a full-scale waging of civil war. Under the new state of exception, the precise nature of action is the decision of the revolutionary authority. All this is pretty straightforward. But then we come to consideration of the use of force against the biological weapon which the “authorities” deploy against us. Is force ever justified directly against race-replacing populations which are not employing direct physical violence themselves? Yes, I think, to the extent required to contain and resolve the existential threat they pose. The very act of invading another’s living space is an aggression in itself. To transverse from ethics to law for a moment, since the invading minorities freely respond to the Establishment’s invitation to come and, once here, are a willing beneficiary of its coercive policies of race legislation and anti-racist practise, they are accessories before and after the fact of Establishment treachery. The ethical path is free from obstruction. But force is only ethical if it is proportionate. That proportionality is conditional upon the absence or otherwise of any conscious collective intent among immigrant populations to race-replace. Likewise, it must be conditional upon the degree of resistance, if any, offered once the European majority took it upon itself to act. In general, I would say here that force as a corrective alone is justified. There is no moral justification for punitive force - and certainly none for exemplary force, which I will come to in a moment. First, I want to address the ethics of force applied to the one non-native population to which collective intent can most easily be ascribed. Jews are a special case not only because of their long-standing preference and agitation for the cosmopolitanisation of European lands, but also because, on the one hand, they have lived for centuries in the West and, on the other, since emancipation they have proved to be so exploitative of Western freedoms. As a general principle and bearing in mind the disasters of the past, we should take scrupulous care to accord to our Jewish population the same kindness they have shown us. On that basis, there cannot be a just settlement of the Jewish Question when the politicised culture of critique and the culturalised tradition of subversion arise in every generation of Jews and can, through Jewish political influence and money-power, so easily be translated into harmful results. It is not Jews as members of the human race to whom some Final Solution is owed, but the Jewish culture of critique and the tradition of subversion. The price for living in the West has to be the eradication of these racist behaviours. If it cannot be paid, the Jewish population must be regarded as a race-replacing population like any other, and their long history in Western diaspora will count for nothing. Alright, now I’ve got down the principles of authority and proportionality, let’s look at how far away such considerations are from real-world ethnic conflict in a white homeland. How do you respond to the following two statements?
and …
The first, it seems to me, could be uttered by pretty well any of us. It is the mirror image of the Establishment’s encouragement to us to “celebrate” the immigrant influx. “No, we will not celebrate it ... we will discourage it as actively as we can,” it seems to say. It accords well with the position often set forth here and elsewhere by JWH, and best summed up in his urgent commendation to “Balkanise, balkanise”. As such, it would be a proportionate response well within the terms of Just Cause, but for the more problematic fact that these are the words of a Russian skinhead band-member who follows up with, “Every single moment … every single moment … write about it … think about it. Don‘t sit like lazy rat at home doing nothing. Just take your fist and make your life.” He’s talking about beating-up lone immigrants as examples - a common and very cowardly phenomenon in Russia, and one that is filmed and podcast on the internet to discourage others who may be contemplating the long journey north or west:-
Quotes 1 and 2 appear at the beginning of a well-known film-investigation of anti-immigrant violence by skinheads and Neo-Nazis in Russia. It’s by a current.com journalist who, naturally enough, operates from the usual liberal stance. It’s over a year old now, but it is worth watching because it clearly demonstrates the willingness of the most extreme and violent elements to fill what are, essentially, ethical vacuums. The result is a very long way indeed from the mannered adumbrations of the US Catholic Conference. Towards the middle of the film the second quote above is spoken. It is the “therefore” that is problematic, of course, since it ghosts over all consideration of authority and proportionality, and a morally sustainable Restoration. In essence, because of race-replacement any Russian is licensed to do anything to any non-Russian, and call it self-defence. What that leads to becomes apparent in a reference at the very end of the film to a notorious (and much-disputed) video that surfaced on the net last year. From the New York Times:-
There will be those who argue that in extremis ethics do not matter. Winning is all that history recognises and Nature respects. But we have been through enough bestiality in the 20th century to know that European Man, with his unique individualism and altruistic behaviour, is ill-disposed to the authoritarian societies which are the only kind that can flow from the anti-ethical spring. The entire dynamic of Western thought since the Renaissance can be reduced to one cry of the European heart: None but the individual himself shall dispose of the physical life of the individual. It is why we have statecraft and geopolitics, and why we have human rights and what, in that normal age I mentioned before, ought to be an effective resort to suffrage. It is an expression of what we, in our deepest natures, truly are. Nationalism is not social darwinism in uniform, not a license for psychopathy. It has to be consonant with our true natures. The loudest nationalist voices should be those who claim all that was won over the last half-millenia from kings and cardinals. It belongs to us too, and we can use it to justify our people’s cause, and to fructify the future when that cause is triumphant. Comments:2
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:05 | # GW: “Nationalism is not social darwinism in uniform, not a license for psychopathy.” Our racial enemies are social darwinists in suits and ties. What can be said of their “culture of critique” and their “group evolutionary strategy” but that it is a “license for psychopathy”? That psychopathic and sadistic rabble can be utilized as enforcers for the power hungry is not noteworthy or stunning. What is more profound is the idea that a good man can become as ruthless a dispenser of opposition quelling violence. It is the realization in him, that he internalizes to the core of his being, that those who act against his people would literally, physically exterminate his people without compunction. That they would do to him and his what his scruples would prevent him from doing to them because they are incapable of having such scruples. At first his rage is white hot, then it cools to the point where it is no longer reactive but something hard, cold, refined like a polished diamond. It reveals to him reserves of strength and will he didn’t realize he possessed. His retribution is calculated. It is not the cheap thrill seeking of sadist; but the response of the committed for maximum effectiveness. I imagine that is the psychology of men like McVeigh and the 9/11 hijackers. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:14 | # Pelindaba: [I would have no qualms volunteering for the kind of political theatre described in the NY Times article The employment of unrestrained violence and the abdication of proportionality frees our opponents to respond in kind. Extend the lines. Count the slaughtered white women and children who looked to you for protection, and whose fate you sealed through your own decision that violence will be absolute. My preference for ethics is not some wishy-washy, love all mankind ‘n do good thing. I would want us to pursue a strategy which is minimally dysgenic, and which has the maximum impact on our opponents and the minimum negative impact upon our own people. 4
Posted by Donald Miller on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:42 | # This topic is very close to the analysis provided by Michael Voslensky (1984) in “Nomenklatura, The Soviet Ruling Class.” While Voslensky doesn’t understand that Communism was merely a socially constructed body of ideas, not an authentic response to its times and place, most of his text is eminently readable with piercing insights into the question of violent resistance or, as he would put it, violent revolution. (Voslensky thought that Communism floated above ethnicity while we now know that it was just one of many social constructions put forth to enhance the wealth and power of one ethny.) Nevertheless, he explains how Lenin stood Marx on his head from time to time, and led the creation of two bodies. One would be the Communist Party constructed around the propaganda sheet, Iskra, and the other to be an entirely separate entity made up of paid professional revolutionaries. Most of us assume that Lenin led one organization but, if Voslensky is to be believed, he created and led two that were never absorbed into each other, at least during his lifetime. Worth reading on the point raised in the topic. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:57 | # CC: It reveals to him reserves of strength and will he didn’t realize he possessed. His retribution is calculated. It is not the cheap thrill seeking of sadist; but the response of the committed for maximum effectiveness. This is true, and it isn’t restricted to mass murderers. Remember the testimony of Gheymears:-
6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:46 | # Things are simmering nicely now. Not fast enough to suit anyone with sense, no. But they are simmering. Things are not standing still. Compared to five or six or seven years ago we’ve grown significantly and our presence is felt as a potential force by those watching from the other side (though of course they will in no way acknowledge that, because they are careful not to give us any publicity or recognition, lest those things only strengthen us —which is exactly what they would do). What we want is for lots more just like us to “come out,” just as we all have “come out,” “seen the light,” “understood what was going on,” within the past few to several years. We want élites especially to “come out.” If that happens we’ll sort this whole thing out peacefully. The absolute LAST thing we want right now is violence. An outbreak of violence now could set us back five hundred years. If the other side cuts off our internet access with “hate” laws, leaving us truly no hope, then it doesn’t matter if violence breaks out: it’ll be a last-resort situation; if we do nothing in that situation we’re dead anyway, and violence would be our only chance. But things are far from that now. (I’m not saying the Jews aren’t working very persistently on getting us banned from the internet on gounds we’re “haters.” They are doing just that. But they’re not close to success yet.) NO VIOLENCE! 7
Posted by cobbett on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:35 | # “The entire dynamic of Western thought since the Renaissance can be reduced to one cry of the European heart: None but the individual himself shall dispose of the physical life of the individual.” It’s drippy bombast like this that keeps me coming here. “The-entire-dynamic-of-Western-thought…” Amazing. Was that taken from “The Collected Poetry of Cato Institute Interns, 1989-1997”? Nebulosities+adjectives+outrage=British socio-political analysis 8
Posted by Diamed on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 04:41 | # I consider anything justified so long as it works. There is simply no price tag you can attach to the white race. Better the rest of the world perish than us. Our enemy is intent on genociding our entire race, they have pursued us into every single continent sparing not even Iceland for God’s sake. Their intent could not be more clear, and thus they deserve whatever is coming to them. But let’s be honest here, violence won’t work. Let’s assume we have 10,000 nazis waiting in the wings to start blowing up government buildings and sniping darkies left and right. It’s no use. We are outnumbered, out-trained, out-armed and out-funded by our trillion dollar million man armies, who are still composed of whites just as smart, just as brave, and just as dedicated as we are. Sadly the army still believes it would be protecting ‘the constitution,’ ‘france,’ ‘freedom,’ or some other buzzword worth dying for. Killing nazi terrorists would be considered the most clearcut moral right decision ever made, they’d never hesitate. We’d be scoured root and branch and discredited for all our terrorist acts and losing besides. Something has to happen first, and that’s the demoralization of our police and military, and the complete discrediting of our national governments. When the West looks like a failed state like Zimbabwe, when corruption, police state totalitarianism, economic depression and rampant crime are all at their height—-then and only then will these white soldiers and police stand down. Instead of ‘protecting the nation’ by killing us, they’ll be reading our websites and wondering how much longer the insanity should continue. It will be camp of the saints but backwards. The government will call their army out to fire on us, but the army will, bit by bit, refuse the call. Some won’t even appear, others will switch sides during the night, still others will simply throw down their arms in disgust and leave. This is what HAS to happen. I don’t give a damn about how the rest of the country feels, but if the army is still willing to serve and butcher us, we don’t stand a chance. I don’t even require a military coup, just a military sick of serving corruption and lies. Whites have high standards and do not readily serve evil. Whites do not ordinarily carry out Tianeman square attacks on their own revolutions, they will simply refuse to do so. But so long as they are under the delusion that they, not we, possess the moral high ground, they will serve with the same ferocity and dedication as us, but with more money training and weapons than we could ever dream of. We must attack the moral underpinnings that moralize the army and make them think they’re do gooders. We must show they are a force for evil in the world, not for good. That they have been deceived and are being used against their own people. That Christianity, the Constitution, and Freedom are nowhere to be found and are just buzz words long since hollowed out from within by termite communist jews, that they are defending an illusion, and that moreover the entire conservative mantra is itself a hollowed out shell lacking any substance compared to Race. The army is intelligent, it’s dedicated, it’s white. In a sense they are the very best of us. They are a terrifying unbeatable enemy and conversely the only friend we need. They are perhaps the easiest people to convince in our country that our cause is just, but if we don’t convince them the revolution will last five minutes. So, keep at it, rhetoricians! There has to be a book, song, or poem that will inspire our soldiers to switch sides, and meanwhile events all play into our hands, because they are all so horribly bad. The worse the better. The curse of foresight is that we must all wait until the most dimwitted can see what we realized centuries ago, but even the most dimwitted will ‘get’ it when we’re 1% and 99 out of every 100 people they see are feral snarling savages trying to rape and torture them. Really! 9
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:09 | # Slightly O/T I see the Civic Platform has, like JWH, gone on the defensive. Seems to me, in the internet war of words, thats a defeat. Which is the next site to lay down its arms? 10
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:38 | # Ive even gone through the hassle of getting a wordpress username/password. No use. 11
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:20 | # Off-topic. What kind of teaching U.S. universities give? Three 30 minute parts: http://alastontotuus.blogspot.com/2008/12/hyvien-ihmisten-opissa.html 12
Posted by Armor on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:08 | #
We cannot recommend killing anyone (!) as it would get us arrested. So, mulling over the morality of violence is a waste of time. If a secret organization is set up to kill race-replacement activists and officials, they will have to do their own moral mulling without our help. I can imagine them having a seminar and a lunch together at the end of every month to discuss the morality of the killings they will have committed the weeks before. Maybe they will invite Melanie Philips to join the debate… Seriously, I don’t expect much violence from intellectual types, but at some point, in some countries, white morality may sink to the level of the non-whites and there will be a lot of decentralized violence coming from what’s left of our side. Obviously, we cannot discuss who should be eliminated, but we should try to identify and denounce people who bear the biggest responsibility in the immigration policy. We can also do illegal things like throwing rotten eggs, destroying billboards that carry propaganda for racial mixing, and things like that. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:44 | #
And exercise the boycott: the New-&-Greatly-Improved-Under-All-Jewish-Control Walt Disney Company, also known as “All-Negro-All-The-Time” Central, deserves to be boycotted by every white person on the planet. Under Jewish control it has morphed into one of the youth entertainment industry’s biggest promoters of white-nonwhite miscegenation and race-replacement. If Michael Eisner and the Jews he’s hired to run that organization at every level (no, “Jewish nepotism” is an anti-Semitic myth: doesn’t exist!) want to race-replace Jews with Negroes, fine: just make sure to include something identifying the Caucasian girl who is flirting with the Negro( * ) boy as Jewish — a very visible Star of David around her neck for example, that viewers can see in every scene in which white-Negro miscegenation is being pushed. Or include prominent references in the dialogue to her family’s celebration of this or that Jewish holiday, or to her going to temple or attending Hebrew School, etc. Then Euro girls who are watching will understand that the message to go out and find a Negro boy to flirt with isn’t aimed at them but at Jewish girls. (Of course Michael Eisner and the Jewish directors he hires will then have to worry about Jewish Defense League car bombs going off when they start their ignitions in the morning to drive to work but that’s not our problem.) But if Michael Eisner and his Jews want to promote race-replacement of Euros with Negroes they should be boycotted by Euros until these Jewish genocidalists and foaming-at-the-mouth Euro-haters are driven out of business. ( * Oriental, Mexican, Subcon, or other variety of non-Euro may be substituted for Negro there: Eisner’s New & Improved Disney Co. uses them all) 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:01 | # Also boycott the Jewish press. I must say, one thing I’ve never understood is why The New York Times isn’t completely ignored by people on our side. Why does Steve Sailer, for example, ever refer to it, so much as one single time? Why does he or anyone else even read it? To do anything other than totally banish it from thought, from speech, anything other than pretend it doesn’t exist, helps the other side. The New York Times hates me, hates my family, hates my traditional nation, hates the Ancient Nations of Europe, hates all Euros everywhere, with a passion and wants our deaths. It should be one-hundred percent boycotted by every Euro individual on the planet as being one of the main house organs of the Jewish forces pushing the worldwide extermination of European peoples. The same goes for all other Jewish press organs: The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Time Newsweek, US News and World Report, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and so on. Boycott every one of them. I certainly do. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:51 | # Finn’s link (a few comments above) to a film much talked about a couple of years ago, “Indoctrinate U.,” is well worth clicking on to view the three parts of the film in their entirety. The people who made the film aren’t like MR.com folk but like today’s mainstream “conservatives” such as fans of FreeRepublic.com, Lucianne.com, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. Nevertheless the film is highly instructive in showing how the totalitarians on the other side operate and, for those Eurosphere inhabitants outside the U.S., for showing albeit indirectly why you yourselves are being race-replaced along with us here in the States: a huge part of the reason is the exact same totalitarians as depicted on these college campuses have entrenched themselves in the U.S. federal government bureaucracy and are imposing race-replacement on your own national bureaucracies, whether by exerting strong influence only, or by actual intergovernmental coercion. 16
Posted by Dasein on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:18 | # Fred Scrooby: “Under Jewish control it has morphed into one of the youth entertainment industry’s biggest promoters of white-nonwhite miscegenation and race-replacement.” I’m reminded of that Uma Thurman movie ‘Prime’. The Jewish grandmother faints when her grandson shows up with an African. The mother tells her son that he’s to marry a Jew. He shags a goy and they split up (after making it clear there will be no inter-racial love child). Does this prove Jewish openess to miscegenation? Perhaps in one direction, no surprise there I guess. Fred Scrooby: “Also boycott the Jewish press.” I think it’s good to keep current with the propoganda organs. Of course, only free online stuff. Not because the small numbers we are would affect their bottom line, but as a matter of principle, like you say. Haaretz is a wonderful place to find out what’s being cooked up for the goyim. 17
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:51 | # So far as I can see, reciprocity starts with the respect for other’s territory. If that is violated, then the principle of reciprocity itself is nullified. Let me explain: Territory is necessary for life. Due to ecological effects—often times only vaguely conceived let alone understood—these territories must be non-trivial in range just as are ecological ranges. I think we can all agree that reciprocity starts with respect for other’s right to life. If territory of non-trivial range is necessary to any security in one’s life then it follows that reciprocity starts, also, with respect for other’s right to territory of non-trivial range. This makes the idea of “proportional response” problematic when territory is being violated. If those who refused a challenge to mortal single combat were immediately killed as cowards by anyone or everyone in whose ecology he resided, then I might have some sympathy for the argument that there is no ethical basis for “non-proportionate response” to territorial violation. In the presence of government promotion of territorial violation, by punishing those who engage in single combat to the death over territorial violations, then there can be no ethics of reciprocity restraining one’s response to territorial violations. There is only pragmatism: Are one’s actions effective? 18
Posted by Armor on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:16 | #
What’s left? What newspaper or magazine is not anti-white? 19
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:23 | # So its just me that can’t see the Civic Platform then? 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:32 | # Nope, I’ve mailed Freidrich to ask what’s going on. He has not responded. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:35 | # I can’t get onto it either, Lurker. Same as you: you have to log in. I haven’t e-mailed FB yet, but plan to. 22
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:53 | # Even more O/T…!
Thanks. 23
Posted by Jews Hate Germans on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:36 | # NYT Jew Krugman continues to blame Germany for European economic problems, wanting the prudent German to come to rescue - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/opinion/15krugman.html 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:27 | # Armour: We cannot commend killing anyone as it would get us arrested Yes, and rightly so. No one here wants violence, and certainly no one wants vigilantism. Think of my piece above as a reflection on the basis for the use of force, whether it be corrective or retributive, which includes violence if that is proportionate to the nature of the opposition. Bear in mind that the key is authority. If a nationalist party wins power at the ballot box, and institutes a process of national reclamation, compulsion under the force of law, with the state’s claim on monopoly of violence, would be entirely ethical. If no such electoral breakthough occurs - and it likely won’t - natural justice still waits to be served, and the revolutionary path is the only one open to serving it. A moral revolutionary authority is then required. In such an unpredictable circumstance as revolution ethics remain absolutely crucial. They are the the rock. They cannot be shaped into “revolutionary ethics” to justify horrors and cover over the fact that horrors, actually, are all that passes for method. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:25 | # James, Is reciprocity the same as proportionality? It could be said to be so in the context of punitive force. But reciprocity is not a principle of corrective force. There the core principle is sufficiency. You can call that pragmatism if you wish - so long as it is understood that the determinant of what is sufficient is a properly constituted authority and not the “pragmatic” vigilante. Loose cannons need not apply. I have suggested that retributive (punitive) force would be morally justified only against our own political and cultural class. They are not violating our territory directly, but through a proxy. The approach to these two parties cannot be the same. Now, until the Treason Act of 1814, treachery brought down upon the offender a unique and bloody punishment under British law. Subsequent traitors had cause to be grateful for the passing of their carriage to the place of execution, uniquely, through Traitor’s Gate, there to be hung, drawn and quartered. The last executions (by hanging) for high treason were in 1945. William Joyce, Theodore Scurch and John Amery were all hanged at Pentonville. Capital punishment is long gone now. But it remains the case that traitors are set aside in the public mind from the worst of ordinary criminals, and for the good reason that national interests exceed individual interests. Hence the ethicality of the punitive recourse. Joyce, by the way, made this statement on the scaffold:
26
Posted by Armor on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:48 | #
If you’d like to serve natural justice to someone like Ted Kennedy for example, you had better hurry. I don’t think natural justice will be served in the end. And much of the evil done by the holy leftists can never be undone. We can improve the future but not repair the past. We cannot resuscitate people murdered by immigrants for example. Whether or not we’ll ever be in a position to serve natural justice to those who now do their best to destroy our peoples, I think it is still useful to talk publically about punishment so as to help the lefties realize that their race-replacement policy is criminal. So, I propose this new plank in the MR.com party platform: we propose that the following politicians should receive the following punishments if we come to power: Bush—> electrical chair 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:20 | # Ah ... Armor, you are demonstrating the crucial distinction of the Napoleonic Code from Anglo-Saxon law. Here and in rhe States, messers Bush and Blair would benefit from the presumption of innocence. In revolutionary Paris, meanwhile, Sarkozy would have to talk his way out of the chop! 28
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:08 | # It’s not just us that they’ve been screwing over. I would be in favour of sending Bush and Blair to the Iraqis. 29
Posted by silver on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:20 | #
Who could really argue that that isn’t somwhat effective, at least in terms of reducing flows? It just needs to be backed up by an intellectual wing that says, “Look, we warned you that loose cannons would take matters into their own hands. Will you please now listen to what we’re telling you? Will you now give us a fair hearing.” Much will hinge on what is said on being granted that fair hearing. In my opinion, all but the tiniest few of you would royally fuck that hearing up. Royally. I don’t have a problem with violence. But I don’t think the violence wing has the slightest comprehension of what it is they’re attempting; that their objective should be political power and then justice, not political power and endless violence. Naturally, I’d feel for innocent lives (best to choose targets which are transgressors by culturally valid standards, illegals, muslims, politicians, newspaper men) which are lost, but, then, this is Serious Stuff. I don’t think endless amounts of it would be required though. Just enough to earn that fair hearing. (And, of course, it would be tragic if a genuine ally like me were to fall.) The problem, to repeat, is that the hardcore groups don’t have much of anything attractive to say when given a hearing. “Stop genociding us” won’t cut it, not after you have just been “genociding” (killing) others. That’s the real problem I have with groups like Greece’s Xrisi Avgi (“golden dawn”). They’re good for violence and not much else. They can provide the “what” (immigrants, racial others out) but they can’t provide a “why,” certainly not a deep, all-encompassing why that will result in liberals (and, I like to believe, not a few Jews) slapping their foreheads and saying, “Holy shit, why didn’t I see it before? It isn’t about “hate” at all!” But because these groups so disproportionately invest their energies, they don’t come up with forehead-slapping material and they massively discourage otherwise uninvolved intellectuals from coming up with it for them. (Certainly what I’ve seen from you lot (“new right,” “national anarchists” and crap like that) isn’t good enough.) Western countries have the problem that so few are willing to pick up the bell and step up to the cat. Under the circumstances, rightly so. Do you know how to begin a Mexican wave? One person, or he and a couple of friends, count down to ten and then stand up and fling their arms up. No one else, of course, follows so they repeat it a few times. And then a handful of nearby others, seeing that it’s “serious,” join in. Eventually, the countdowns are reduced to beginning from five. By then it’s clear that it will start, and only a few more iterations are required for entire section to join in, and once it does, it sets off the chain reaction. Bob Matthews was some thirty years too early, and arrived on the scene at an almost perfectly unpropitious moment: still early days in black uplift, no Mexodus, no (mass) European problem, no Islamic violence/cultural catastrophe, no internet etc. 30
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:40 | # GW writes: You can call that pragmatism if you wish - so long as it is understood that the determinant of what is sufficient is a properly constituted authority and not the “pragmatic” vigilante. What is “properly constituted authority”? This really gets to the heart of my problem with governments that outlaw killing of those who refuse a challenge to formal single combat to the death. Answer it and you’ll have defined the difference between a man like Aaron Burr or Andrew Jackson and a “vigilante”. If we don’t start with individual sovereignty proper—from whence does this grant of properly constituted authority materialize? 31
Posted by John on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:15 | #
The modifier “proper” has an implicit subtext of “according to my or some elites’ (with or without God as middleman) opinions, sensibilities, objectives or customs. One should be able to see quite clear in the last hundred years that what is “proper” has depended heavily on the “constituted authority”—and not so much the other way round. 32
Posted by John on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:32 | # The simple question to ask when you come across the word “proper” is, “according to whom?” A similar word in Newspeak is “governance”. Whenever I come across that duplicitious term (that UN types are so fond of) I try to ask, “who is doing the ‘governing’?” 33
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:01 | #
Polls frequently survey as little as seven or eight hundred people in America to gauge the opinion of the nation as a whole. So for every person openly expressing their pro-White opinions by posting here and at Amren, Stormfront etc… how many might be represented who do not yet speak out publicly? 100? And beyond that how many more are simply “lukewarm” and would turn with the tide should the right winds come along? You’re right Fred.
. 34
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:43 | # Wonderful! To think I did not even know this site existed! Briefly, I am happy that some are beginning to think in terms of the violent resistance that probably will become necessary if the West is to be saved from genomic alien conquest. White patriots at this time should never initiate violence for ethical, but mainly prudential reasons. The Eurofolk masses have not yet become convinced of the morality of the true conservative position: namely, that our civilization is the unique product of our race, and cannot survive in perpetuity if either 1) our collective genome should become adulterated through excessive miscegenation, or 2) whites should lose their numerical preponderance within their historic homelands/polities. Thus, patriot initiated-violence would likely be strategically counterproductive, giving the occupationist regimes in power throughout the entirety of Europa political cover to further tighten their strangleholds on society through increased censorship, greater police powers, additional anti-patriot “hate crimes” and mandatory “diversity” training legislation, etc. It is useful, however, to begin thinking about the practical, physical measures which will be necessary to render the West again a viable civilization, and to formulate moral justifications for them ahead of their implementation (indeed, amongst Western men, ethics precedes action, another of our race’s glories). I am not going to prove now but merely assert that for the West to be assured of perpetual existence, portions of Europa must be racially cleansed; that is, they must be rendered white-racially homogenous. (Put another way, the Eurofolk must have autonomous living space coincident with political sovereignty.) How is this cleansing to be realized? One hopes peacefully, through racial nationalists democratically achieving political power, and proceeding to pass and enforce repatriation legislation requiring the removal of all non-(genetic) Europeans from the territories under their jurisdictions (enforcement of this legislation will, however, likely necessitate perfectly justifiable police or military force/violence to quell expected violent alien, as well as Euro-race traitorous, resistance to repatriation). But what if patriots are unable to gain office, or pass the necessary geno-preservationist legislation? At some point, it could become ethically justifiable to initiate violence; certainly, it is past time to begin contemplating this eventuality, and theorizing its moral basis. In my evolving book, RACIAL ETHICS, which I’m very much still researching and writing, I fully intend to address this question, which is possibly the most significant (and surely the most ‘cutting-edge’) of all. Thus I applaud this article, and look forward to others in a similar vein. Yours for the West! 35
Posted by Pelindaba on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:09 | # Great comments from Leon Haller (above). Agreed, initiating direct action today would be counterproductive. Let us be clear, no one here is advocating anything illegal or extraordinary, at this time, should any of the preceding comments above be misconstrued. It is useful, I would say, to think about enhancing the way WNs and Whites in general approach the task at hand. 36
Posted by Armor on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:37 | #
My main impression is that the crazy left is getting crazier all the time, and more fanatical in its support of race-replacement and islam. Although it may be a good thing if we hope for a popular reaction.
Maybe it is the influENCE of frANCE. In France, the fad began with a 1997 repentANCE statement from the bishops. They said there had been too much prudENCE, silENCE and obéissANCE on the part of the Church during the holocaust of the Jews. 37
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:45 | # @ Amore: There’s also “mouvance” in this New French, which I’m sure you’ve seen. 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:47 | # “Armor,” sorry (when I get irritated I can’t type straight). Speaking of straight, by the way, Armor is one of the straightest, clearest thinkers on this board. 39
Posted by Montherlant on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:02 | # I can feel the love ,on this discussion board. 40
Posted by silver on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:23 | #
You’re from the takimag/paleocon circuit, right? I’ll risk a sharp rebuke for saying this (nothing new there), but another racialist book from the right isn’t really what is needed. Unless you’ve got some very special connections, you’ll publish it in obscurity and the only people who’ll read anything with “racial” in the title are the same people on the racialist boards already. 41
Posted by John on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:41 | #
“Government” implies something chosen by contract (with obligations and consideration on both sides) and that people have a right to dissolve and reconstitute by choice if the government isn’t holding up its side of the bargain. “Governance”, OTOH IMO, is specifically used because it implies something akin to the fish/water relationship, that just “happens” and operates almost metaphysically and that the plebs can’t (even nominally) do anything about. 42
Posted by Armor on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:33 | # “Governance”, OTOH IMO, is specifically used because it implies something akin to the fish/water relationship, that just “happens” like, for example, migrance. 43
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:43 | #
I don’t know if this is all across Germany, but in my city there has been a widespread poster ad campaign by a publisher of language dictionaries (called Pons, not to be mistaken with Ponce 44
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:21 | # Welcome aboard, Leon. I was wondering when you would show up? 45
Posted by Armor on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:38 | # Dasein: “is France any better?” I don’t know. I no longer pay attention. One place where they may have more pictures of Africans than anywhere else is in employment agencies. 46
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:03 | # Armor, perhaps some of our masters have a sense of humour? Laughing is better than crying, these kind souls are trying to make it easier on us 47
Posted by John on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:33 | #
A poster expressing the urgency of the “AIDS crisis” in Africa (about which I’m personally dubious, btw, hence the quotation marks) and solicitating for donations might not run afoul of the law. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:16 | #
It’s back up. http://www.thecivicplatform.com/ 49
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:48 | # TCP was successfully hacked because of a flaw in an earlier version of the software; and it took a while to restore backups. TCP has been around for about three years now and there are over 7000 posts on it, it’s a rich source of information. 50
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:21 | #
Leon showed up thanks to my hortatory posts at Takimag. See: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/chuck_baldwins_party/
Post a comment:
Next entry: National Anarchism in the sun
|
|
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 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 19 Dec 2024 01:11. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 21:35. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 20:51. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 19:49. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:47. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:29. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:01. (View) Manc commented in entry 'News of Daniel' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:52. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17. (View) Thorn 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) |
) The posters show kids who are learning new languages for something they want to do later in life (e.g. Lena, 2028 architect in Madrid). There is this one kid, Paul, a Mulatto, who they have in each of these series of ads. He’s always got this surly look on his face- my blood starts simmering every time I see these posters. The most recent one had something to the effect ‘Paul, 2024 motorcycle trip across South America’. I kept thinking that one morning there would be a print out taped over the ad which had his destination as ‘back to Africa’. But I guess this would land someone in deep trouble in Germany. Armor, is France any better? It looks we may be stuck with rotten eggs on this side of the Atlantic.
Posted by Pelindaba on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:11 | #
Let’s not underestimate the power of violence, terror, and force.
Perhaps it shows how much of a moral degenerate I am now (writing as an ex-Catholic and Jesuit public schoolboy), but I see little wrong with the two quotes above, especially given that they seem to be having an effect on migration-invasion trends in Russia. I believe there is a role for paramilitary, skinhead gangs, operating of course in conjunction with a legitimate WN political organisation or party and cultural initiative. Force alone is insufficient. There must be a political, administrative, and financial structure waiting in the wings as a shadow government, to replace the current one.
As an aside, personally I would have no qualms volunteering for the kind of political theatre described in the NY Times article above. Executing white Marxists, EU bureaucrats, immigrant gang leaders, Communist commisars et al? No problem. Let me at ‘em! Let’s not forget, we are in a war. Our enemies would do the same to us. Oh, I almost forgot, they ARE doing that to us, as I write!
No one here actually believes Whites will achieve our liberation through the current political process? The system is a game and it is rigged.
Of course I am not advocating anything illegal here. Just thinking out loud.