|
|
|
Utopian idealists against the nation and the people by David Hamilton We are led to believe that mass immigration is a blessing to us, and that only Enoch Powell and a few narrow-minded and prejudiced people have ever seen danger in it. All decent folk of good will, we are told, have embraced this break in our national continuity as a sign of enlightenment progressing to a higher state of civilisation - that of a one-world utopia made up of coffee-coloured persons. It also has been presented as an ideological battle between left and right. But actually it is between people of common sense and, at best, utopian idealists. Most ordinary people relate to the world by common sense. So the impracticable dream of a multi-racial utopia has had to be socially engineered, which requires totalitarian methods. The Utopians see immigrants as essentially good, and if we are nice to them they will be nice to us. This utopianism does not engage with human nature, and does not need to. Actually, we find people being brought in as cheap labour, with all the idealism a mere smokescreen. If the high-minded ones are so benevolent and moral, why have their plans been underhand ... and why public infamy for those who foresaw the danger in just letting it happen? Multi-Racialism follows on from the French Enlightenment in trying to create a society on rationalist principles and ignoring human nature as was the Soviet Union too. Those who wished to preserve our traditional way of life knew how human nature works from their experience of how people treat each other and what they are capable of doing to each other. They learnt from history how different ethnic groups have vied with each other for power and territory and looking at the world around them see that in practice immigration is not assimilation, but the colonisation of our territory. Conversely, Multi-Racialists never describe reality but appeal to a vague future utopia, not facing that if we have been cruel to them in the past then these newcomers could be cruel to us in the future. Further, people from all walks of life have now given warning of the practical consequences which shows the British people as essentially conservative. Some have made crude remarks but most bring common sense to an irresponsible series of idealists who just let things happen with no control. All have suffered and some have been openly persecuted. Two days after the Empire Windrush docked on the 22 July 1948 with 790 west Indians, J.D.Murray and ten other Labour MP’s wrote to Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee, asking for legislation to prevent an influx. Atlee replied, that he thought they would “make a genuine contribution to our labour difficulties at the present.” There had been racial battles in 1948 between 31 July and 2 August in Liverpool, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 but the idealists ignored them as they had in 1919 when after the racial battles in Liverpool and Cardiff Lord Milner wrote a Memorandum of June 23rd “On the Repatriation of Coloured Men.” ”I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there…” ( Panikos Paranyi (ed) “Racial Violence in Britain in the Nineteenth Century.” (Leicester University.1996). The first actual debate on immigration was in the House of Commons on the 5th of November 1954 in a thirty-minute adjournment debate called by John Hynd Labour M.P. for Sheffield (Attercliffe). “One day recently 700 embarked from Jamaica without any prospect of work, housing or anything else.” He also said the colour bar in Sheffield dance halls because of knife fights was justified. Both Hynd and another Labour M.P. James Johnson called for a committee of enquiry to be set up and speakers repeatedly asked the Government to take action but Henry Hopkinson(c), Minister of State at the Colonial Office fobbed them off by telling them “the matter is receiving urgent attention.” He did admit that he had received many letters from worried M.P.’s on both sides. In March 1955 Frank Burden(L) in the debate on National Service asked the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Labour why immigrants did not have to serve in the armed forces as native-born youngsters did. Winston Churchill battled in cabinet against appeasers of Commonwealth leaders but was old and ailing. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White” in 1955. If Sir Winston had been well we would not know be suffering gun killings, knifings and muggings or Muslims bombing our people. Harold Macmillan entered in his diary for January 20th 1955, “More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted - but it’s not an easy problem. P.M. thinks ‘Keep England White’ a good slogan! The bill was not ready till June 1955, two months after Churchill had stood down. (Peter Hennessy, ‘Having It So Good - Britain in the Fifties’ (Allen Lane, 2006) p 224 Documents at the Public Records Office show the fifth Marquess of Salisbury trying, “I should not be satisfied with the legislation which you suggest. I feel that it would only be tinkering with what is really becoming a fundamental problem for us all, though it is only beginning to push its ugly head above the surface of politics. The figures which we have been given make it clear that we are faced with a problem which, though at present it may be only a cloud the size of a man’s hand, may easily come to fill the whole political horizon …With each year that passes, and with the general improvement with methods of transportation, the flow increases. Indeed, if something is not done to check it now, I should not be at all surprised if the problem became quite unmanageable in twenty or thirty years time. We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will p[our in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.” Letter to Viscount Swinton March 1954. These records also show Oliver Lyttleton (later Lord Chandos) trying to bring common sense to bear on the matter. In a letter to Swinton 31/3/1954 wanting deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants, “ if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.” He had a list of all restrictions imposed on Britons by other Commonwealth countries who refused to accept “persons who are likely to become a public charge,” illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” had “unsuitable standards or habits of life” many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependants as he shall bring with him to the island”. Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission. We look back to the time of Salisbury’s illustrious ancestor Lord Burleigh advisor to “Good Queen Bess” and see coming alive our tradition of practical wisdom and how idealists are trying to destroy it. It was Elizabeth1 who in 1601 had the “Blackamoors” expelled from her realm. As we move forward we find David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher, write in “Of National Characters”, “There are moral causes that tend to transform whites from a barbarous nation to a civilised one, whereas nature does not allow this to happen to blacks.” His near contemporary Edward Gibbon, the great historian of the Collapse of Rome, warned of a time hence when minarets would sprout amongst the spires of Oxford. Farther on, we come to G.K.Chesterton who predicted a war with Muslims in England in his novel The Flying Inn (1912). Nearer still Enoch Powell refined his views in a speech to the Southall Chamber of Commerce on 4th November 1971, “Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him possession of his native land.” On 20th January 1955 when immigration from Jamaica was 11,000 a year, Conservative Cyril Osborne(later knighted) had written to the London Times,” But the present West Indian and West African invasion is a mere trickle of what we must expect, because as the law now stands everyone born in the Commonwealth is entitled to come to this country. What shall we do when the millions living in the bigger areas decide to emigrate?” The open entry to anyone was not brought under any control until the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961). At the second reading Osborne warned “that the world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.” Both sides of the House laughed at him and called him Fascist.” We are seeing this now with boats leaving Africa for Europe. Churchill was replaced as P.M. by Internationalist Anthony Eden who answered Osborne in the House of Commons, “There is no question of any action being taken to control immigration and in any case most were from Eire.” In May 1958, 3 months before the racial battles of Notting Hill and Nottingham, Osborne had written to Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell who contemptuously handed it to his secretary to reply, “The Labour Party is opposed to restriction of immigration as every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter this country.” He instigated a Commons debate on the 5th of December 1958 3 months after the racial battles when Labour spokesman Arthur Bottomley replied, “We are categorically against it (restrictions).” Seconding the motion Martin Lindsay said, “We must ask ourselves to what extent do we want Britain to become a multi-racial community. If that is our desire and we decide to make it a matter of deliberate policy, well and good, but let us at least consider where we are going and make up our minds that is what we want, and not simply drift.” Simon Heffer relates in his biography of Enoch Powell “Like the Roman” that in 1958 Osborne pleaded with the Conservatives 1922 backbench committee to consider the future consequences of mass immigration. When they refused to listen this genuine and sincere man broke down and wept. In March 1965 he told the House,”Our children and grandchildren will curse us for our moral cowardice.” Supporting Osborne in December 1958 Labour’s Frank Tomney, remarked on elected representatives ignoring their constituents. “We have been sent here by the electorate to give expression to issues which concern them.” Fellow Notting Hill MP George Rogers (L) told the Daily Sketch of 2/9/58,” Overcrowding has fostered vice, drugs, prostitution and the use of knives.” James Harrison (L) from Nottingham also supported controls. Mr Tomney was a practical man of humble origins and understood his people, “I have come directly from the benches of a factory to the benches of the Commons”. In the Guardian of 20/3/01 Andrew Roth slotted him into a standard stereotype, “the crusty old far-right Labour MP.” In the late 70’s Militant, the ideological group in the labour party, tried to de-select him. Norman Pannell Liverpool (Kirkdale), who had served in the Nigerian legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the U.K. had an open door policy and let anyone in. “When I visited Nigeria two years ago as a Member of Parliament without ultimate responsibility for the affairs of that country, I was given an entry permit valid for 14 days and renewable subject to good behaviour.” He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. The debate was stage-managed to stop Cyril Osborne speaking who stood outside in the rain handing out off-prints of a letter of his from the morning’s Daily Telegraph. Mr. Pannell stated that though Home Secretary Butler had disagreed with limiting numbers he had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes but nothing had been done. In a letter to the Times of 13th December 1960, Harold Gurden wrote, “On the health question we find the middle ring of the city (Birmingham), where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country. We have a duty to our constituents.” In the winter of 1961-62, a young Pakistani girl entered the country with smallpox and caused an epidemic. In January 1962 two Pakistanis were in hospital in Birmingham with smallpox Mr.Gurden wrote to the Minister of Health urging medical checks on immigrants. In 2005 we were told that we now have a record number of TB cases and there are more in London than the usual breeding grounds of the disease abroad. Peter Griffiths Smethwick called for health checks on immigrants when he responded to a question in the local paper the “Smethwick Telephone”, “Immigration should be limited to those of sound health who have jobs and living accommodation arranged before they enter.” This was prescient as there was an outbreak of Typhoid in Smethwick in April 1965. A series in the Times in January 1965 “The Dark Million” showed what the official attitude was. The author wrote: “Back in June (1964) a senior civil servant talked to me about a particular aspect of the problem that has since taken some people by surprise. I had asked why figures were not available to give a nation-wide picture of the problem. I was told: “We haven’t tried to find out. It may be as things get more critical, and they are getting more critical, it will be decided that should do so. It will be a political decision. One of the things about statistics is that people asked what they are, then again in three months time what they are, and then you have a problem on your hands. People start to keep the score, and you have a crisis. If, as, a result, they know that such-and-such is happening in Wolverhampton, they say what is the Government doing about Wolverhampton. It is a matter of judgement as to when you start taking that line and say something should be done. It is a matter for central Government.” In the House of Lords debate on the renewal of the Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1/12/1964, Lord Elton took the long view,” I take the view that we are laying up for ourselves, our children and grandchildren, problems - economic, political, social and moral -and that there is no evidence that we can solve them. The brake should therefore be put on more firmly” On the 5th of March 1965 Patrick Wall (later knighted) spoke against the multi-racial ideal,”We must for the moment reject the multi-racial state not because we are superior to our Commonwealth partners, but because we want to maintain the kind of Britain we know and love.” In the debate on the 1968 Race Relations Bill Ronald Bell (later knighted) argued that the bill was “very deep and damaging encroachments into the proper sphere of persons decisions.” (Hansard, 23/3/1968). In a speech “This Sceptred Isle” to W.I.S.E. at the National Liberal Club in 1981 was concerned at the nascent totalitarianism in the multi-racialists attitude, “The very word discrimination itself has been grossly abused. It used to be a good word: a discriminating person was someone to be admired. People have been brainwashed into thinking that it is a bad word except when native inhabitants are being handicapped. That is now called positive discrimination, and is deemed a good thing. We are well on the road back to “presentment of Englishry”, when in the days after the Norman Conquest that it was a defence to show that the injured person was only an Englishman.” Sir Ronald had constant difficulties with his constituency party chairman who wanted him de-selected. Harold Soref had to flee a mob of unworldly students that tried to break into the Oxford Union and attack him while he addressed the University Monday Club on immigration on 10th May 1974. He should have accused them of anti-semitism! John Stokes MP wrote to The Times on 27th May 1976, “The question is not one of simply maintaining good race relations here, but of preserving our national identity. What sort of people are we to become? Surely not a hotchpotch of all kinds of peoples whose first loyalty is found to be to their own homelands and who we know will never truly integrate with us. What an end to a thousand years of glorious history for our nation! The intellectuals, the intelligentsia and some sections of the media (middle class to a man) expect our English working class to absorb these alien peoples in ever increasing numbers.” He was mocked by the Mirror as “the member for the 17th Century.” Warren Hawksley (C) Wrekin, told Oswestry Conservatives in 1981,”You may have read in the National Newspapers of the 12 or so back-bench Conservative M.P.’s who had a meeting, during the summer, with the prime minister to put our fears that Mr. Whitelaw (Home Secretary) was letting us down by not implementing our election pledges with speed and enthusiasm.” In the same year Tony Marlowe MP in Northampton told the Oxford University Conservative Association, “Hordes of exotic invaders have flooded the continent (Europe) wishing to help themselves to the luxuries of Western living. Nowhere has the pressure been greater than in the United Kingdom. No country has been less prepared to stem the flow than our own. In this land which proclaims free speech free discussion has been stifled by humbug and by the censorship of an establishment unwilling to contemplate the radical cures which alone can reverse the tide.” “What would be unacceptable and should not under any circumstances be tolerated is a policy of suppression and inaction for no policy can be more calculated to bring about the racial holocaust which we should all so earnestly strive to avoid.” K. Harvey Proctor addressed the 1983 Conservative party conference ,but no senior party member sat on the platform apart from a glum looking John Biffen who only clapped sparely. Mrs Thatcher was not present. Just two years previously Proctor had announced a plan by the Monday club Immigration and Repatriation Committee to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. The forward to the document was by Sir Ronald Bell. Mrs Thatcher rushed to assure Asian leaders that they have a right to be here. Just two years previously she had won power by stating on TV that the British people feared “being swamped.” At a Monday Club dinner in early 1984 guest of honour Enoch Powell revealed that the Conservative party had threatened to not speak to Proctor for his belief in repatriation which would have been the first time in their history they had sent one of their MP’s to Coventry! In 1993 the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, also called Winston, warned that in the north of England half the population was now Muslim and If our prime minister(Major) believes that 50 years hence “spinsters will still be cycling to Communion on Sunday morning” he had best think again. Rather, “the muezzin will be calling Allah’s faithful to the High Street mosque” for Friday prayers. The Times (London) attacked him for a ‘tasteless outburst,’” a leading Labour Party politician described his remarks as ‘putrid and racist.’ Michael Howard, the Conservative Home Secretary, denounced “any intervention which could have the effect of damaging race relations”; Downing Street stated Conservative Prime Minister John Major agreed with Mr. Howard.” Mr. Churchill was viscously shouted down on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme by presenter John Humphrey’s in what was a despicable attack on an elected politician. Another M.P. to be bullied by his party leader(William Hague) was John Townend(C) who wrote in 1991, that Government “ministers wanted to turn the British into a “mongrel” race and the Commission for Racial Equality should be abolished.” In 1989, he suggested deportation of Muslims who opposed Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, “England must be reconquered for the English”. Another of Sir Winston’s grandsons, Nicholas Soames commented in the Commons. On July 17th 2007 he said, “foreign immigration is now 25 times higher than it has ever been in the past, even at the two peaks. Talk of Britain as a nation of immigrants is absurd. It would be much more accurate to describe us as a nation of emigrants. Indeed, the number of emigrants exceeded the number of immigrants until the 1980s. Net immigration is a new phenomenon and initially was quite small. Between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s, it hardly exceeded 50,000 a year. Since 1997, however, it has quadrupled to some 200,000 a year. Even that number makes little allowance for immigration from eastern Europe. In 2005, it was assessed as a net inflow of 64,000—a figure that today looks remarkably low. None of those numbers include any allowance for illegal immigrants, who are believed to comprise at least half a million people. “The sharp increase in immigration is no accident. To suggest, as Ministers do, that it is all a result of the fall of communism or of globalisation is, frankly, bizarre. The numbers point clearly to a massive increase since the present Government came to power in 1997. Part of the increase is due to their failure during their first five years in office to get a grip on asylum claims, of which more than 60 per cent. were eventually judged to be unfounded. Another part is due to their decision to allow a massive increase in work permits, which have trebled since 1997. At the same time, their decision in June 1997 to abolish the primary purpose rule has led to the number of spouses admitted to Britain doubling from 20,000 to 40,000 a year.” He was accused hysterically of getting his information from the BNP! In 2005 Lord Tebbit former chairman of the Conservative party told e-politix website , “Islam is so unreformed there have been no real advances in art, literature, science or technology in the Muslim world in 500 years, and multiculturalism was in danger of undermining UK society. In the 1980s he disputed the loyalty of immigrants who backed cricket teams from their countries of origin. He claimed if he had been heeded it might have stopped the London bombings. A leading Muslim group said he was “misguided”. After the Muslim bomb attacks in London he declared that Enoch’s prophecies of racial civil war were right. Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, produced Salisbury Paper 9 in 1981,”The Old People of Lambeth”. It was an empirical research into the real living conditions of “whites” rather than another abstract academic study. One elderly man told him, “…its our Queen and our country, why should we be afraid to go out?” Another former Sunday Telegraph editor Sir Peregrine Worsthorne has written “even Hitler would not have treated ordinary people with such cruelty.” In 1991 the Conservative party tried to impose a black candidate on its party in Cheltenham. A local party member Bill Galbraith expressed his indignation in crude language and was pilloried by the media and hounded by the Race Police and this persecution led to his death. Eminent legal minds were concerned. Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary was concerned about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above that given to the natives, “ I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”(Immigration and Settlement: some general considerations”, Race, vol.11, no.1, pp 35-51.) In a case against squatters, Judge Harold Brown commented,” It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.” (Guardian, 2 August 1969.) In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds, “Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer… There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people daren’t go even with their cars… All immigration must stop… The country is full up. We don’t want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life” (India Mail 02.03.95). Bradford M.P., Max Madden, described Judge Pickles as a “repulsive old buffer” who had “plumbed the depths by his remarks which will cause widespread offence to people of all races and nationalities”/ Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act. In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published — What Next In The Law and the publishers withdrew 10,000 copies because of some inaccuracies, wrote: “The English are no longer a homogenous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out.” Lord Denning had been a benefactor to young people from the Commonwealth and was expressing common sense. In 1976 Rock guitarist Eric Clapton advised his audience that Enoch was right and that Britain was overcrowded. This raised a profoundly important point about culture and Multi-Racialism. Those of us who were brought up on Black music as I was, have a great respect and admiration for those blues and soul singers who developed a deep, expressive music. Clapton had black musicians in his band but understood a human truth - that enjoying different cultures and having friends from other ethnic groups is good: but that does not mean that we should try to force them together and destroy both. There have also been scholars. Dr. John Casey who read a paper to the Conservative Philosophy Group which was also printed in the first issue of The Salisbury Review in Autumn 1982. “There is no way of understanding British and English history that does not take seriously the sentiments of patriotism that go with a continuity of institutions, shared experience, language, customs, kinship. There is no way of understanding English patriotism that averts its eyes from the fact that it has at its centre a feeling for persons of ones own kind.” Dr.Casey was persecuted for this and recanted. Marxist professor Terry Eagleton held rival English lectures, the usual campus rent-a-mobs demonstrated as well as refusing to go to his lectures and the Sunday Times of 1st December 1991 printed a photograph that made Dr.Casey look like a wizened crow! Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton was quoted in “The Opinion Journal” of December 10th 2002, “It is a tautology to say a Conservative wants to conserve things; the question is what things? To this I think we can give a simple one-word answer, namely: us. At the heart of every conservative endeavour is the effort to conserve a historically given community.” For years we have been told how evil we are and how morally superior the multi-racialists are but now we see that a main motive for importing immigrants is for them to have cheap labour. Eminent economist Professor Ezra Mishan exposed immigration as being about cheap labour in the Salibury Review in 1988, “Frequent claims that the new immigrants have in fact reduced the labour shortage in particular sectors of the economy – in particular, the apparent shortages of labour in transport, in nursing, and in what are popularly to be the more menial and less attractive occupations- are naïve. Managers of public services in Britain who, along with some private firms, sent agents to the West Indies in the 1950’s in order to recruit labour were only acting as good capitalists would in such circumstances – attracting lower-paid labour from outside their area in order to prevent wages from rising within it. If it was not for that wages would have risen.” Professor Bob Rowbotham in the London Sunday Telegraph of 2 July 2006, referred to the motives of the elites, who were creating what Marx called “A reserve army of labour.” In November 2006 it emerged that the Government were advertising for immigrants to come here. A Foreign Office pamphlet declares: ‘Multicultural Britain - A Land of Immigrants’. It encourages immigrants to move here because of the preferential treatment they get under the Human Rights Act and well-paid jobs. The Foreign Office put it in embassies across the world. In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003 Sir Alfred Sherman, former senior advisor to Mrs Thatcher and leader writer on the Jewish Chronicle, recalled a friend in race relations had asked him to take a look at the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60’s, “ I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, but the working classes had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.” The transformation of Southall was brought about by Wolf’s rubber factory encouraging workers from India. Since New Labour took office in 1997 there has been such a massive increase in immigration that even middle-class Liberals are now worried. The veteran Liberal broadcaster Ludovic Kennedy wrote in a book review for The Oldie , in January 2004, that there ”are too many black faces on TV, political correctness has got completely out of hand.” The preferential treatment given to immigrants over that to our own elderly caused Sir Patrick Moore, the world renowned astronomer to remark “The more asylum seekers get the less there is for us.” Early in 2005, Welsh film star John Rhys-Davies who played Gimli in Lord of the Rings told “World magazine ”the Muslim birthrate is a demographic catastrophe, I think that Tolkein says that some generations will be challenged. And if they do not rise to meet that challenge, they will lose their civilisation.” The same month in the Radio Times film star John Hurt praised Enoch, “I think he was just saying: We can’t afford to have any more.” The Socialist intellectual David Goodhart in Prospect (march 1998), quoted Conservative M.P. David Willetts on the Welfare State: “The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties which they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn’t do? This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the US you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests.” Prof. Goodhart reflected, “Thinking about the conflict between solidarity and diversity is another way of asking a question as old as human society itself: who is my brother? With whom do I share mutual obligations? The traditional conservative Burkean view is that our affinities ripple out from our families and localities, to the nation and not very far beyond. That view is pitted against a liberal universalist one which sees us in some sense equally obligated to all human beings from Bolton to Burundi - an idea associated with the universalist aspects of Christianity and Islam, with Kantian universalism and with left-wing internationalism.” In an echo of Enoch’s warnings on “racial civil war” The Sunday Times(London) June 11, 2006 reported that Rear Admiral Chris Parry, one of Britain’s most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire. He said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African “Barbary” pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries—a “reverse colonisation” as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flight. The warnings by Parry of what could threaten Britain over the next 30 years were delivered to senior officers and industry experts at a conference. The result for Britain and Europe, could be “like the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals”. “Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned … the process acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet.” Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, welcomed Parry’s analysis. “Bringing it together in this way shows we have some very serious challenges ahead,” he said. “The real problem is getting them taken seriously at the top of the government.” Frank Field(L) has also spoken out on cheap labour. In August 2006 was questioned by the panel on the BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze and asked why he has only raised the issue now and was it because the mass of current immigrants are white (from Eastern Europe). His answer was, “The sheer numbers and the attempt to close down the issue.” He took the side of the poor natives and talked about this influx pushing down wages and people having to compete for homes. He commented that the panel are well-heeled and the ones who are getting cheap labour. Former Conservative MP George Walden told of how we are being replaced in Time to Emigrate (Gibson square Books). Writing in the Times of 5th November 2006 wrote on how he had been attacked by historian Tristram Hunt. The previous day the Office for National Statistics (ONS) had announced some startling new figures: Britain was taking in 1,500 immigrants a day, while 1,000 Brits left, “Which rather confirmed the central premise of my book: that more people were moving out as well as in, and that a growing number of emigrants — by no means necessarily racists — were quitting because of the numbers coming in. Earlier in the week Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, had complained to a committee of MPs that it was hard to manage the economy when nobody knew how many people were in the country. Unmoved by any of this, Hunt denied there was a problem, real or potential. In one sense he was right: for the well-born, expensively educated liberal elite he represents, there isn’t. I doubt that the Hunt dynasty (he is the son of Lord Hunt of Chesterton) will be inconvenienced too much by immigration and its social, economic and educational consequences. Less privileged folk of his generation, for whose fears about the future he clearly has a patrician contempt, will pay a heavy price if our unprecedented experiment of mass immigration goes wrong.” David Hamilton writes the Philosophy Blog for the Conservative Democratic Alliance, the leading voice of British Conservatives who straddle the divide between loyalty to kin and loyalty to the Conservative Party, with a marked leaning towards the former. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:04 | # One thing that stands out glaringly on reading this important piece is that the current state of affairs has been forced. It nowhere says it but that’s inescapable on reading it. Had things been conducted the normal, decent way, people’s wishes would’ve been taken into account and forcible replacement of the British race by the government never would’ve advanced much beyond those first boatloads of Jamaican Negroes between 1948 and the early 1950s. What’s less clear from the piece is the exact identity of the agent behind the force, the agent controlling government policy. We all know, nevertheless, that agent is an alliance of powerful selfish interests exerting control over the government, and we know which ones (capitalists for example, seeking cheap labor; socialists with the E.U.-style one-coffee-colored-world mentality; Jews out to settle ethnic scores real or imagined; and others). And we know lots of detail about lots of facets of the crime, but the main thing imparted by this log entry is, again, that official government policy of race-replacement didn’t just “happen” but was forced every step of the way on an unconsulted, unwilling populace starting right after World War II. What do we do now? We stop the bastards and put things back the way they used to be. How? By enough decent folk agreeing: once enough agree they’ll take the first step to get us out of this and to implement measures to keep it from ever happening again — to keep anyone from ever again using the machinery of the British people’s own government to bring about their extinction and replacement by alien peoples. 3
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:37 | # I have also stumbled upon information of how we got to this multiracialist state by studying Communism. Communism preached “All the workers Unite”. Communist is known by it other name “International Socialism”. Communism seeks a One World that wants no borders. Multi-Racialism follows on from the French Enlightenment I don’t think so. Rousseau, a child of the Enlightenment is said to be the founder of the Socialism and Nationalism. I might be wrong, but where in Enlightenment thought is de-racination? or multiculturalism? Rousseau points in the opposite direction and is the forerunner of national socialism—-not International Socialism. I trace Multiculturalism to the Communism and hence to the Jews that preached tolerance, multiculturalism and the end of nationalism! Not to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was Atheist and New Order—it seems to me that it was the Jews that hijacked and then added deracination to the Enlightenment mix. In this regard, Winston Churchill’s mother is Jewish. Winston Churchill, friends with Bernard Baruch, familiar with the Fabian Society advocated a “United States of Europe”. Winston Churchill did more to cause WWI and WWII thus destroying the Old Order and ushering in Multiculturalism and political Correctness. Winston Churchill is a Judas Goat and that he wanted a “white England” very strange. De-racination or multiculturalism is a Jewish idea—-not an Enlightenment idea! It is Socialist and Communist. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:42 | #
To me this sounds fundamentally right. Whenever the Jews put their stamp on things, it includes something like the following: “ethnoracial identity for the Jews good, ethnoracial identity for all others is to be eradicated!”
Forgive me but there was never evidence of this, and in fact unless I’m mistaken it’s been disproven (his mother’s Jerome-family genealogy has been traced, if memory serves). It’s the same sort of thing as calling Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower Jewish: strictly tinfoil-hat stuff. 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:53 | # Also, why let degenerate Euro élites (like Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and the entire Bush family) off the hook, as a group? Degenerate Euro élites are a plague in their own right, and shouldn’t be permitted to escape group condemnation, whether by thinking, “Oh, they must be Jewish to act like that,” or through some other excuse. Are the Kennedys Jews? If our verbal counterattack is all cockeyed it’s not going to serve much purpose. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:29 | # Here’s a tiny fraction of the horror our masters are forcing on us. It’s infinitely worse — this isn’t even the ten-thousandth of it. Pray God we don’t stand for it much longer. And pray God when the time comes for a reckoning, those responsible will be ........... called to account .................... 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:34 | # (The guy being savagely beaten up and stomped in that first video is 76 years old. He had earlier asked the two “youths” to put out their cigarettes.) 8
Posted by birch barlow on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:20 | # Mass low-skill immigration is obviously insane (and even high-skill immigration can have its downsides, especially in the case of market-distorting H1B visas and the like). Unfortunately there are a lot of vested interests supporting this pure insanity—businesses using low-skill labor, and of course the Dems and multi-cultis who want more constituents. Perhaps more importantly, it is so crass to say that we should allow a young beautiful 5’-9” East Asian female with a 1500 SAT score over a poor, ugly overweight Mestizo(a) with a 5th grade education who could barely register on the SAT (even if given in Spanish), or worse yet a Somali refugee type. Even taking out the explicit racial element (which is almost impossible, since a merit-based system would shift the balance of immigration away from Mestizos and towards East/South Asians and even white Europeans), saying I would want a beautiful 5’-9” Mestiza with a 1500 SAT (to the extent that there are Mestizos who can score that high or even anywhere close to that high, say over 1100) over the poor, ugly overweight, low-IQ one is only slightly (it at all) better. I love how the far-left, granola eating, NPR listening types would call someone a philistine for having no interest in say, opera, yet at the same time support policies that disfavor intellect and beauty (and for that matter, the kind of high art that they enjoy—how many poor Mestizos are there at an opera?). Of course it’s not just the far left either, “moderates,” “conservatives,” and especially religious right types would tend to find my POV, at least when stated as explicitly as I stated it, to be incredibly crass. 9
Posted by danielj on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:36 | # Wheeler makes a point that is fully elaborated in the more than worthwhile read titled “Fire in the Minds of Men: The Origins of the Revolutionary Faith” by James H. Billington. 10
Posted by larch harlow on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:55 | # “young beautiful 5’-9” East Asian female “ Get your hand out of your pants, birch. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:14 | # Somehow I don’t think Birch and BraveBlondeGirl would see eye to eye on dating .... hey that’s just a hunch, correct me if I’m wrong ........ 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:24 | # Birch you’re not still pining over that Chinese girl in your biology class are you? What’s it been, around three years now? Have you gotten up the courage to ask her out yet? Hey if you need more time no problem, man — was just curious .... Anyway BraveBlondeGirl says all the Oriental girls in the Bay area are targeting white guys for husbands — yellow meat doesn’t do it for them apparently .... (are you anywhere in the Frisco area? .... you could hit the jackpot if you are ....) 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:32 | # If you wanna score big though, Birch, Braveblondegirl posted a comment by an Oriental gal listing the turn-offs white guys are apt to blurt out: don’t say, “I wonder what it’d be like to f*** an Asian girl,” never use “Oriental” when referring to her race, only to things like Ming vases and stuff, and oh yes, one of the worst turn-offs for yellow girls is when a white guy suddenly says he “likes Chinese food” right in the middle of a meal, apparently. They really don’t like that. Hey, good luck out there! And come back and let us know how you make out! (No pun intended, really ...... no, honestly ......) 14
Posted by Alex on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:53 | # That’s quite an excellent article. Yes, these elites have indeed built a utopian vision based upon the exploitation of many millions upon millions of people in that variant of slavery known as ‘cheap labor’, as expressed in the unfortunate ideology of multi-culturalism. With huge numbers of persons being preyed upon as cheap labor, ‘exported’ and ‘imported’ in this modern day slave trade, peoplehood is nearly impossible to maintain, indeed, is in the way of the obtainment of the huge profits to be had, and thus one sees its supression. Rather than face squarely the hard facts of what it was they were doing, ie the greed, the extreme self-centeredness, the moral error driving this exploitation, and the massive social destruction directly resulting to the peoples of the world that make up humanity, and thus doing the proper thing and ceasing, they instead have told themselves, and anyone who might listen, tall tales and fables. From an article published in the very late Victorian era in the United States, circa 1899, about the time of the formation of the ‘special relationship’ between the US and UK. The writer states ‘racial distinctions are in many respects beginning to break down’ due to ‘intermingling of peoples’. He does not state the why of this destruction of distinct peoples, likely figuring it is a given that far more than the invasions and destruction of war which the peoples of the world have rightly tried to avoid whenever possible, it was the exploitation of people as cheap labor by way of ‘mass immigration’ that was resulting in this ‘breaking down’ of ‘racial distinctions.’ Then as now, they were quite aware Europeans in many instances tend to have quite recessive genes, and also quite aware sub-Saharan Africans tend to have the least recessive. In other words its in no way by chance that sub-Saharan Africans are being ‘imported’ into Europe to be exploited as cheap labor, and as the 95% bogus asylum seekers to provide a fig leaf for the same, and crude and offensive to most everyone, to be breeding stock. Those who adopt and advocate the ideology of multi-culturalism are crude and offensive, so that ought not to be surpising. The article speaks of these recessive genes, a part of many European peoples as well as that of others identities, as ‘adventitious* and unessential’ to be ‘throw[n] off most completely’. When reading this, one ought to bear in mind that the push for that variant of slavery known as cheap labor, typically acquired by way of mass immigration, and the primary cause of the ‘intermingling’ the article speaks about, is driven by the incredible profits to be had, four times those of the already lucrative chattel variant of slavery as effectively calculated by the former US treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker when writing from London in 1863. What a shame it would be if the wonderful physical and cultural differences that once existed between the distinct peoples of the world, and that the multi-cultists claim they care about but don’t in reality, only caring to use that ‘diversity’ so as to pit people against people to break up largely homogenous peoples to ultimately create sameness, were no more as they had been…sold. From the article
What people are seeing today has been in the works a very long time. The self deceit and deceit of others is the same today as it was then…tall tales and fables indeed.
* adventitious [adjective] Not inherent but added extrinsically A link to the full article in the April 1899 issue of The New England Magazine pg 258-259 15
Posted by Alex on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:22 | # From the same writer as that of the article excerpted from above and published a few months prior, Dr Benjamin Trueblood, president of the American Peace Socieity, and an attendee at Czar Nicholas II’s Hague International Peace Conference of 1899. That money is the center of what this is about is made clear. And this has not changed. Can anything good come out of world driven by greed and with a strong element of slavery, ie ‘cheap labor’, as they appear to be proposing?
A link to the August, 1899, edition of New England Magazine pg 651-668 16
Posted by Alex on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:11 | # A pretty good summation of the ideology of cheap labor/institutionalized divsion, aka multi-culturalism, from the 1907 foreward to the book ‘The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865’, published in 1908. The writer gives the figure that about 97 out of 100 Southerners did not own chattel slaves….yet those non-slave holding Southerners had to suffer under the burdens of those who did. I would submit it’s probably a similar figure regarding the exploitation of people as cheap labor, and that an extremely self-centered and greedy few are making incredible profits at most everyone else’s expense. So expensive are these relative few to everyone else, they are expecting the peoples of the world to give up their identities as peoples, so they can pursue their profits. I seem to recall something somewhere about what good is gaining the world if it cost the person their soul.
[url=http://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/andrews/andrews.html]The War-Time Journal of 17
Posted by birch barlow on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:47 | # Fred and “Lurch Larlow,” 18
Posted by larch harlow on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:07 | # “OK, I may have made my point gratuitously…” Yes. “...but wouldn’t you agree that a major factor making immigration reform” “Reform” is what you are promoting. Don’t you know that one of your heroes is already on record stating that the situation in America is so bad that “immigration reform” would be useless - completely contrary to his previous assertions on that matter? “...difficult is that basing immigration policy on intelligence and other desirable factors seems crass to the vast majority of the population? “ How about making kinship the “desirable factor” in “immigration policy?” “Maybe replacing “East Asian” with “Scandinavian” would make my POV seem more understandable to you?” “Understanding” is not the problem. Agreeing is. “Not that I wouldn’t go for a hot Nordic or other white female even though generally I prefer E. Asians…” Open mouth, insert foot. “well, OK maybe I’m digging the “Birch Barlow is a shallow perv” hole deeper here…maybe I should just quit while I’m ahead, or at least not too far behind. “ Yes. 19
Posted by birch barlow on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:25 | # It looks like JW Holliday is at it again (maybe you’re not JW, but you sound a lot like him, in both his obsession with “kinship” and his rude, condescending tone). There’s more to life than ensuring the world has the maximum number of copies of your genes and the most similar overall genetic structure to you. Darwinism may be a very good way of explaining a wide variety of biological/biochemical, psychological, and social phenomena, but it makes a crappy theology. Hell, Islamic countries seem to do a good job of maximizing their genes, with their high birthrates and extreme hostility to outsiders. But those countries are miserable places. One could argue that Western/white people must be more authoritarian, xenophobic, and “pro-natal” to compete with Muslims and other authoritarian types, but that’s not the case. The best way to deal with wacko Muslims and other resentful, low-productivity, rabidly anti-Western types is to just not let them in the country, kick out the ones illegally here, and bribe the ones who are citizens to leave. And yes, I agree that the left-wing views of Asians, Jews, and high-income/educated Latinos and blacks are a concern. However, the high productivity of these groups, in all likelihood, more than counterbalances the harm done by these groups’ support of socialist and multiculturalist policies. Also, if there is less association between being poor and being non-white, racial tensions should be reduced. Race and class are nasty issues by themselves, and to the extent that race (especially “whiteness” vs. “not whiteness”) can be decoupled with class, any policy promoting such decoupling (such as high skill immigration) should be encouraged. The best way to fight extreme-left politics is to expose it for the lie it is. Left-wing politics is nothing more than status seeking competitive altruism, using the have-nots of the world for one’s personal power, and in the case of non-whites tribalism aka bigotry and racism as well. Make people realize they are not sticking it to “the Man” by voting left, but only supporting “the Man’s” twin. At least in the case of (East) Asians, the biggest problem seems to be their political apathy—they just go with the flow because they don’t want to fall farther in status, similar to white academics in the sciences. I doubt most Asians, other than the loony activist types, really care all that much about poor blacks and Mestizos, other than keep themselves and their wallets as far away from them as possible. Also, Asians are probably turned off by the religious right element of the conservative movement. Young Asians in particular I would guess are turned off by anything reeking of the old, white, and “white is right” America, as I am. Two cheers for diversity (in the sense of cosmopolitanism, not in the sense importing, glorifying, and ennobling poverty and authoritarianism) technology, outrageous wealth, South Park and its relatives, and “sex, drugs, and rock’n'roll.” I look forward to an America and world in which a 19-year old today will look better at 90 than she does now, where even the best drug high available today pales in comparison to how we feel through gene therapies and psychotropic drugs, without the problems of withdrawal, tolerance, intoxication, and psychotic thinking. 20
Posted by larch harlow on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:53 | # “There’s more to life than ensuring the world has the maximum number of copies of your genes and the most similar overall genetic structure to you.” And what’s that? Screwing 5’9” East Asian females? No one says that the end all and be all of life are genetic interests. But it is the most important thing to some of us. No “naturalistic fallacy” here, values play a role. But here’s the rub: not everyone shares your values. Obviously, people like you don’t share my values either. That’s great, let yourself be replaced. Who needs you? “Darwinism may be a very good way of explaining a wide variety of biological/biochemical, psychological, and social phenomena, but it makes a crappy theology.” No, if you want a “theology”, go to GNXP and bow down before the “theology” of making America safe for high-IQ Asian immigrants. Trying to avoid manifestly maladaptive policies is not “theology.” It’s rational action to promote a value system based upon solid science. “Hell, Islamic countries seem to do a good job of maximizing their genes, with their high birthrates and extreme hostility to outsiders. But those countries are miserable places. “ Maybe that’s because of the extended phenotypes produced by said “genes?” It’s not the act of “maximizing genes” that is the problem. And no one is arguing for “maximizing copies of genes” per se, but it’ll be nice to avoid non-white immigration, “productive” or otherwise. “One could argue that Western/white people must be more authoritarian, xenophobic, and “pro-natal” to compete with Muslims and other authoritarian types, but that’s not the case. “ Because you say so. “The best way to deal with wacko Muslims and other resentful, low-productivity, rabidly anti-Western types is to just not let them in the country, kick out the ones illegally here, and bribe the ones who are citizens to leave.” I’d like to do the same to “productive” Asians as well. “And yes, I agree that the left-wing views of Asians, Jews, and high-income/educated Latinos and blacks are a concern. However, the high productivity of these groups, in all likelihood, more than counterbalances the harm done by these groups’ support of socialist and multiculturalist policies. “ What’s the benefit of “productivity?” Is it an end in itself? Or a means to improve the standard of living? We are talking about people here, no? Can’t we then ask *which* people? Of concern to whites is the well being of whites. If the damage to genetic interests and the displacement of whites from high status professional positions outweights the “benefits” of “productivity” than it is hardly boosting white well being. “Also, if there is less association between being poor and being non-white, racial tensions should be reduced.” But “racial tensions” are good, if they expose the damage done to whites by multiracialism and if they prevent miscegenation. 21
Posted by larch harlow on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:00 | # “Two cheers for diversity (in the sense of cosmopolitanism, not in the sense importing, glorifying, and ennobling poverty and authoritarianism) technology, outrageous wealth, South Park and its relatives, and “sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll.” Thanks for exposing your priorities to us. Most people associated with this blog, however, have a different set of values. Since you claim to oppose “authoritarianism”, certainly you support freedom of association? Therefore, if some of us reject your Asians as fellow citizens, we have the right to opt out of your cosmopolitan paradise? ” I look forward to an America and world in which a 19-year old today will look better at 90 than she does now…” And who or what that 19 year old is doesn’t matter to *you*, but it certainly matters to others. How about looking forward to am America where one can live out their life, at the top of the professional world or wherever they may be, without once ever having to physically encounter an Asian? Now, *that* would be something to look forward to! “where even the best drug high available today pales in comparison to how we feel through gene therapies and psychotropic drugs, without the problems of withdrawal, tolerance, intoxication, and psychotic thinking.” Sure, in the “cosmopolitan” nightmare you support, the remaining whites would need to be drugged to make their lives livable. Don’t drug them too much though, or else they won’t be able to do their janitorial duties for their xenophobic, ethnocentric, ethnic nepotistic Asian masters. 22
Posted by the larch on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:33 | # “It looks like JW Holliday is at it again “ The owner of this blog is Guessedworker, not you. Until such time as GW asserts his property rights and asks me to refrain from commenting here, I will do so at the time of my choosing. And, if you don’t like that, that’s too damn bad. “(maybe you’re not JW, but you sound a lot like him, in both his obsession with “kinship” and his rude, condescending tone” God forbid anyone is concerned with kinship. That’s like, you know, an “obsession.” A parent who cares more about his own children than a stranger’s “productive” offspring is, I assume, “obsessed” as well. Better we all sit back and fantasize about sex with Asian females and taking psychotropic drugs, eh? Let’s assume that the Chinese are more productive than Bengalis, a certainty I would think, and one that is, if anything, supported upon reading Razib’s inarticulate diatribes. Thus, replacing the entire population of Bangladesh with Chinamen will increase the overall producitivity of that nation state, enhance the standard of living of everyone living in that state, and create a more orderly society. However, that’s not going to benefit the native Bengalis, will it? Well, that’s an extreme example, you say. Very well. Do we then replace half the population? A third? What? Do we import a smaller ruling caste of Chinamen who’ll run the nation in a more “productive” manner, relegating the natives to lower positions, displaced from authority and upward mobility in their own nation? Is the genetic, political, social losses of the Bengalis compensated by the fact that they have a higher “standard of living?” Is there any people who would really accept a lower relative status compared to an immigrant group in exchange for “productivity?” Keep in mind that whites are not sub-Saharan Africans and are perfectly capable of creating advanced societies sans Asians. Indeed, it’s the Asians who wish to migrate to white lands. Why should whites sacrifice their own interests because freaks like you enjoy the “cosmopolitan diversity?” 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 01:17 | # Larch, Glad to see you back. If that answers Birch’s near-question. Birch, As you are fully aware, we are, in our blind man’s way, trying to feel ourselves towards a salvatory philosophy for European Man, at this hour before the final hour. Now, when I started this site my default position on philososophy was a Conservatism-cum-nationalism mixed with some sociobiology, a bit of Durkheim, a bit of Pitt the Younger, and so on. It seemed to me to be a good package, but never a complete package. Then one day this impossible, passionate, brutally frank, brilliant individual - let’s call him “larch” - hurled genetic interest into the mix. I’m still digesting the consequences. But the first thing I realised is that he had hold of a deeper, more human value than I did. My philosophy sort of started half way up the street, instead of from base, and that wasn’t good enough. That wasn’t going to get the job done. So I’ve had to take the only option open to me, which was to incorporate that deepest of values, and start over again with the process of logical expansion. I am a slow worker, so I haven’t got far yet. But I couldn’t have continued on the path I was on before. And that’s the change larch’s ultimate human value should have on you also. You should, if you really understand the crisis in the West, be arranging your views around that value and not, for instance, the wholly man-made values of productivity, prosperity or progress, however you define that. If you don’t understand said crisis, fine. But then you are indeed a lost soul, and I can only hope you find your way out of your present thrall. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:31 | # Birch, have you said what your race, ethnicity, and family religious background are? Forgive me, I don’t recall. If the Chinese race went out of existence and it turned out it was preventable would that be a loss in any way, of any significance? Don’t reply that it’s highly unlikely or “it ain’t gonna happen,” or some such. Just answer. By the way I’d love to see a debate between you and BraveBlondeGirl in the “Does Race-Mixing Make White People Look Better” thread — she’s had it up to here with white guys (I assume that’s you) who prefer Oriental girls. By the way, Merry Christmas to the comrades in Europe (and, starting in about two hours, the ones over here too)! I’m sipping some eggnog with mace sprinkled on top — couldn’t find nutmeg in the spice cabinet but mace is as good or better, it turns out. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:41 | # Merry Christmas, Fred. And to all. It’s breakfast-time here, and I really shouldn’t be anywhere near a computer screen! 26
Posted by birchbarlow on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:07 | # “Thanks for exposing your priorities to us. Most people associated with this blog, however, have a different set of values. Since you claim to oppose “authoritarianism”, certainly you support freedom of association? Therefore, if some of us reject your Asians as fellow citizens, we have the right to opt out of your cosmopolitan paradise?” Freedom of association does not mean freedom to not see people with non-white skin, any more than it means freedom from encountering people who curse, look at naked or racy pictures of women, people who are homosexual, smoke, drink, use psychoactive OTC and Rx drugs like Vicodin, Robitussin, and Ritalin, use medical marijuana or THC pills, and so on and so forth—in fact, I think most drug laws should be abolished or weakened, and mis-users of substances punished for their bad behavior (DUI, poor work performance, theft, fraud, etc) rather than testing dirty (as is the case for parolees and being fired or otherwise disciplined at some companies) or possession. Essentially, freedom does not end until someone else’s nose or wallet begins. Being offended by simply *seeing/hearing* or *encountering* non-whites, homosexuals, swearing, sexual innuendo, or simple use of drugs including nicotine and alcohol does not warrant the force of law. Remember that laws mean guns, batons, imprisonment, extortion, and ruined lives for those who break them (this is NOT a case for anarchy, just a case for not making laws about petty crap…we do not need a society of easily offended a—holes with guns). You can certainly chose to make friendships and marry with only whites, and get to the whitest neighborhood/city/county/state you can. In fact, I think it should be legal to not sell a house to someone for any stupid reason, whether it be race or because the seller woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning. By the way, GuessedWorker, you didn’t seem so extreme when you were posting at gnxp (maybe a few steps in the white nationalist direction from say, Lawrence Auster), and you were actually quite refreshing at Samizdata (where Frank McGahon et. al. were the uptight jerks). JW Holliday has definitely been a bad influence on you, GW, and probably to a lesser extent on Fred Scrooby…you guys have been reasonable much of the time, if too “old guard” and white-centric Duty, honor, and pride can be every bit (and more) dangerous than careless overindulgence. The fact that tribalism is part of our nature does not mean that it is desirable, or should be utterly unrestrained. Liking fatty foods is part of our nature—does that mean we should eat a 5-lb cheesecake every day? Perhaps more relevant to our discussion, status-seeking is another base part of human nature. Does that mean we should be encouraging and enabling do-gooder, holier-than-thou, phony multicultural leftists because their status seeking and power grabbing is an unavoidable component of their/our nature? 27
Posted by larch on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:28 | # “Freedom of association does not mean freedom to not see people with non-white skin, any more than it means freedom from encountering people who curse, look at naked or racy pictures of women, people who are homosexual, smoke, drink, use psychoactive OTC and Rx drugs like Vicodin, Robitussin, and Ritalin, use medical marijuana or THC pills, and so on and so forth—in fact, I think most drug laws should be abolished or weakened, and mis-users of substances punished for their bad behavior” You really do have a drug hang-up don’t you? Are you writing your comments under the influence? Does that explain it? What exactly does “freedom of association” mean to you? You have just defined it out of existence. If one is not free to associate with whom one wants, then this is not “freedom of association.” If one cannot escape from corrupt, alien, genetically distant Asiatics, and if one has, by government decree, such creatures forced upon them as “fellow citizens”, filling up national carrying capacity with their genes and phenotypes - how the hell is that “freedom of association?” Barlow is like those EU and Canadian hypocrites who tell us they are all for “freedom of speech” - before they carefully define for us what we are not allowed to say, and what forms of expression can land one in prison. Barlow tells us that “freedom of association” excludes the right to exclude individuals because of race, sexual orientation, drug use, or other forms of behavior. Well, then, this leaves us with what? That we can exclude people based upon whether they are Red Sox or Yankees fans? If I must be forced - against my will - to live in the same nation as, and associate with, non-whites or whatever, that is, by definition, NOT “freedom of association.” This guy barlow has got his brains so scrambled at GNXP that he is spouting absolute nonsense, and is redefining fundamental human freedoms in the most totalitarian manner possible. But, then again, let us remember, he is from GNXP. And at GNXP, all human freedoms, all “progressive” policies, all inferences about human biodiversity absolutely end once some whites begin questioning whether they want to live in the same polity as GC and Razib. That, you see, is the “original sin” at GNXP - and all of a sudden “freedoms” need to be redefined so that escape is impossible. When it comes to the issue of whites being FORCED to live with Asiatics, then GNXP becomes more stalinist than “uncle joe” himself… 28
Posted by larch on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:30 | # “Being offended by simply *seeing/hearing* or *encountering* non-whites, homosexuals, swearing, sexual innuendo, or simple use of drugs including nicotine and alcohol does not warrant the force of law. “ Because you say so? How about we don’t want biologically and culturally alien migrants committing genocide by filling up carrying capacity with their odious presence? “Remember that laws mean guns, batons, imprisonment, extortion, and ruined lives for those who break them…” That includes “equal opportunity laws”, “fair housing”, forced integration, as well as affirmative action for Asians in the form of “small business subsidies” and other government policies. “Remember” also that replacement migration is genocide. And that two Asians, using the most naive measures of EGI, equal one “child equivalent” to persons of European origin. Yes, even if those Asians are “5’9’” beautiful East Asian females” that barlow has sweaty nighttime fantasies about. “You can certainly chose to make friendships and marry with only whites, and get to the whitest neighborhood/city/county/state you can.” No, you cannot do that because the federal goverment imposes integration by force of law. And as the nation becomes more non-white, these options diminish. “In fact, I think it should be legal to not sell a house to someone for any stupid reason, whether it be race or because the seller woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning.” Note how barlow equates the most fundamental issues of human interactions (race) with “getting up on the wrong side of the bed.” “By the way, GuessedWorker, you didn’t seem so extreme when you were posting at gnxp (maybe a few steps in the white nationalist direction from say, Lawrence Auster)...” Hmmm…and the desis at GNXP hysterically delete any and all comments that threaten their ethnic interests….should GW and others here trace their histories regarding GNXP? Should Fred Scrooby describe his interactions with GC? How about GC’s reaction when GW informed him he was setting up MR? “...and you were actually quite refreshing at Samizdata (where Frank McGahon et. al. were the uptight jerks). “ So, therefore, birch barlow wishes to set the parameters within which GW can express his opinions. Don’t get too radical GW or birch will have a hissy fit. One just cannot exclude his masters at GNXP. “JW Holliday has definitely been a bad influence on you, GW, and probably to a lesser extent on Fred Scrooby…you guys have been reasonable much of the time, if too “old guard” and white-centric “ You arrogant little snot, who are you to decide what is, or is not, a “bad influence” on grown men such as GW or Fred? Perhaps we can speculate that self-interested alien filth like Razib and GC have been a “bad influence” on you, no? Let’s see if we can ponder what’s more likely to be a “bad influence”: encouraging people to behave in an adaptive manner, or to encourage people to disregard racial extinction and civilizational collapse? 29
Posted by larch on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:31 | # “Duty, honor, and pride can be every bit (and more) dangerous than careless overindulgence.” Really, now? Given that the West is dissolving because of the latter, it seems strange that you see the former as the threat. A poster boy for Frankfurt School pathologization of adaptive behavior, are we, birch? “The fact that tribalism is part of our nature does not mean that it is desirable, or should be utterly unrestrained.” Idiot. I’ve stated that values play a crucial role in determining policy and not a straight derivation of “ought” from “is.” “Liking fatty foods is part of our nature—does that mean we should eat a 5-lb cheesecake every day?” Sweaty nerds liking Asian women may be part of their nature, does that mean we should import genetic aliens just so they can jack off under the desks in their biology class while staring at Suzie Wong? The point is using rational thought mechanisms to decide what is, or is not, adaptive behavior, once one decides that pursuing such behavior is an important value. A person who values long-term health over immediate taste bud satisfaction will eschew the cheesecake. A person who cares nothing about health but who “lives to eat” will take the cake. Likewise, white people who value group continuity, genetic interests, and civilizational survival will fight to keep Asians out, while those individuals who think only about satisfying their immediate selfish “pleasure” needs - be they drugs or alien women - will promote racially destructive alien immigration. Is + values = ought. As I’ve already stated our values differ. These differences are not necessarily objectively equal though. “Perhaps more relevant to our discussion, status-seeking is another base part of human nature. Does that mean we should be encouraging and enabling do-gooder, holier-than-thou, phony multicultural leftists because their status seeking and power grabbing is an unavoidable component of their/our nature?” No, and neither should be “enable” desi liars who establish “science” blogs in order to disarm whites in the struggles of ethnic/racial competition.” 30
Posted by danielj on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:09 | # Rich Barlow’s and Rudy Giuliani’s definition of freedom comes from a speech Rudy Giuliani gave in 1994:
31
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:46 | # Birch, I had read JW’s writings elsewhere before I’d even heard of GNXP. I had not read him on Salter, however, until he requested to post at MR. Yes, my experience of his work on Salter has had a definite effect on my political thought. That effect is still percolating through, slowly reordering it. This, it seems to me, is a normal and healthy process. A blog that has an educational and inspirational purpose is hardly aided by its founder being closed of mind and convinced that he alone knows the One True Path. Let me fill you in a little bit on my GNXP experience. On my very first fishing expedition to a GNXP thread I made some throw-away, vaguely WN-ish comment of no importance, and was told in no uncertain terms to leave. I waited a while, identified the actors and watched the way things were done. Then I adapted. The guys couldn’t get a handle on me. “Is Guessedworker a WN?” someone asked GC on the Open Thread. He thought probably not because what I said was mostly pretty reasonable. Actually, he was right. I wasn’t a WN. I was a Conservative English nationalist and just, well, plain middle-class English like David B. They couldn’t sort the nationalist wheat from the English middle-class chaff. For my part, I had decided that maintaining a position with GNXP was useful. Elsewhere I was arguing for h-bd while possessing not a shred of scientific know-how. Running into the occasional liberalistic scientist was problematic, not because their arguments were any good but because they could so easily throw science dust in my eyes. Politically, I could skin their hides. But GNXP afforded me some cover in the objective truth department. As for Samizdata, in a political sense it was more in tune with Razib and GC’s ethnic interests than I ever could be. But ... Perry de Havilland and Frank McGahon each, for their own reasons, made the huge mistake of denying h-bd (you will doubtless recall with pleasure McGahon’s wondrous “tools” stratagem in Razib’s thread “Talking past eachother” - and all because the boy loved Milk Tray). But their h-bd denial meant that I walked in constant danger of being IP-banned from Samizdata threads. I worked pretty hard to keep the ban at bay. But Charles Copeland was a more fearless and extravagent performer and, to be honest, he gave Perry the ammunition to fire. We were banned together for “not moving on”. That means, when the Ideally Free posted something denying reality we two (along, of course, with others) cruelly reminded them about this oversight. We didn’t set out to be obstructive or offensive. We didn’t spam the site. We were simply inconvenient, causing them to waste too much precious time defending what, naturally enough, they could not defend. Samizdata has since developed into a highly compromised operation, with free expression channelled along the same narrow lines as any typically correct left-liberal site. The moral, which will surprise no one, is that neoliberalism is liberalism. “Left or right” is not a useful taxonomy. As far as I am aware I was never actually IP-banned from GNXP. At this time GC had started signing himself gc-emeritus or somesuch. His tone changed. He became palpably more dictatorial, and I got into one or two quite interesting discussions with him. Then, in a pre-arranged move, another commenter and I announced that we were quitting the threads. GC over-reacted, and raced to shut the stable door, ordering me never to reference the site elsewhere, no less. A trifle unnecessary, that - not to mention arrogant. So, Birch, my apologies if you were in any way deceived by me - not that it matters since I am of no importance in this world. Still, to state it plainly… My real politics were never fully on display at any of the sites I commented at in the time I allotted, perfectly deliberately, to establish a rep as Guessedworker. What you see here is what I am: a questor for, and disseminator of, information of utility to the salvation of my people. 32
Posted by silver on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:50 | # Birch evidently cares more about other peoples than he does his own. He fails to realize that such care will not be reciprocated. Niggers do not and will not reciprocate; Hispanics do not and will not reciprocate; Muslims do not and will not reciprocate; and neither will the Asians he holds so dear. He is needlessly setting up future generations of whites for endless torment. Birch, the “old white America” may have been harsh but it was playing by rules no different to which any other people play by. If you wish the values you prize to endure, you must set aside your malcontented wistfulness and, short of complete separation, find a way to ensure America maintains—and, ideally, increases—her white majority. 33
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:02 | # “GC over-reacted, and raced to shut the stable door, ordering me never to reference the site elsewhere, no less. A trifle unnecessary, that - not to mention arrogant.” Not to mention unenforceable! Unbelieveable, I didnt know that, is this post still on GNXP? GC if you ever read this you really are a crown & anchor (get a Brit to explain it to you GC). A happy Christmas to all - yes and to you GC. 34
Posted by larch on Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:25 | # With mathematical certainty, the other shoe has started to drop. There was, of course, a reason for my “over the top” insults vs. GNXP in yesterday’s posts. 35
Posted by barlow is a despicable worm on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:06 | # GNXP seems to be having “virus problems”, and “birch barlow” - in a typically snide and cowardly fashion - wishes to suggest that I had something to do with it while at the same time putting up a front of “plausible denialibility” with respect to the accusation: “birch barlow That post by barlow contains links to both one of my MR posts (“this guy”) as well as this thread (explaining how he “pissed” me off). Yeah, barlow, if you really think it is not “very likely” I am “involved,” what’s the reason for the comment to begin with? Can’t stand the heat here, so you have to drag your pansy nerd ass back to your unassimilable Asiatic masters and spread lies about me, eh? Let me clarify for you: 2. Unlike the biologically and culturally alien founders of GNXP, I don’t believe in censorship, so I certainly don’t approve of electronic attacks against blogs - that is, assuming GNXP’s problem is an attack and not due to Razib’s technological incompetence. 3. If you are so concerned about such issues, why don’t you persuade the desi aliens at GNXP to stop deleting comments that they disagree with and stop banning commentators? How about ending the inter-racial porn links to GNXP from MR and amren? You really are a despicable little worm, aren’t you birch? But what can one expect from a turd who, unable to connect with women of his own (presumed) race, has to support alien immigration to supply East Asian females for his “pleasure?” Question: do even *they* give you the “time of day?” No problem: there is always the “psychotropic drugs” to turn to. Right? 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:21 | # birch, If your only reason for commenting here is to “piss people off”, I will ask you not to comment at all. An apology to JW is in order, I think. Do you have the personal integrity to offer one? 37
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:27 | # Birch, that was low. Everyone assumed you were posting here in good faith. 38
Posted by larch on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:40 | # On the same “GNXP virus thread” we find a new, irrelevant comment by “David B”: “David B Several comments. First, who on MR is “convinced” that Churchill’s mother is Jewish? Has this been discussed recently? If one or a few commentators make such an assertion, how does this reflect on the MR blog as a whole (other than that GW doesn’t censor his blog, unlike Razib)? By saying he is “not surprised”, David B suggests that MR as a whole is “Bonkers” - a term perhaps better applied to the blog for which he serves as a desi-extended-phenotype. More to the point: what’s the connection to the issue of the GNXP virus? Oh yes, apparently, David B’s comment was meant as a secondary attack added to barlow’s crude attempt at libel. Please note that before barlow’s asinine comment, it had already been established that the “virus” “attack” had something to do with Israeli scam artists (I thought that Jews were all high-minded cognitive elitists), and Boxenhorn’s analysis, combined with the Israeli connection, makes it obvious that the problem is in no way associated with MR or with any “MR readers.” That of course, didn’t prevent barlow’s stupidity, followed up by David B’s additional foray into imbecillity. I also note that the censor-happy Razib, who is obviously aware that “MR readers” have no connection to GNXP’s “virus problem,” doesn’t feel the urge to hit the “delete” button with respect to barlow. That “delete” button gets hit only when a comment is posted which threatens the ethnic interests of GNXP’s founders. “Everyone assumed you were posting here in good faith. “ That’s a lesson, Fred. GNXPers are of such low character, that you should assume that any posts of theirs is *not* made in good faith. 39
Posted by larch on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:53 | # http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071227/ap_on_re_as/pakistan South Asian cognitive elitism. Bonkers. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:15 | # I’ve visited Razib’s thread and offered the following for his “aggressive moderation”.
41
Posted by birch barlow on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:17 | # Yikes! This discussion has gotten quite nasty (I’m sure this comment saying that the discussion got nasty will get a nasty remark in return). Note that I said that it wasn’t very likely that JW was responsible for the “attack”—I’m not accusing JW or anyone else here of a damn thing; I was noting an odd coincidence. Mostly, I just wanted to start a discussion on gnxp, which has not been as interesting without Godless (no offense to Razib and other posters). It just so happened that a post I made caused JW to fly off the handle (this was NOT my intention—I do not like dealing with JW…GuessedWorker and Fred Scrooby can at least be talked to sometimes even if I strongly disagree with them…JW, much like like some of the ModelMinority crowd and Abiola, (just to name two) tend to engage in nasty personal attacks (and then have the chutzpah to say that those caught in their line of fire don’t like being flamed because the flamers’ arguments are so damn airtight). PZ “PC” Myers, Crooked Timber(Daniel Davies in particular) and a poster under the name “RedDaniel” also fit this list IMO. 42
Posted by larch on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:44 | # “Note that I said that it wasn’t very likely that JW was responsible for the “attack”—I’m not accusing JW or anyone else here of a damn thing; I was noting an odd coincidence. “ What a despicable, cowardly, little worm you are. Right…again, I ask you worm, if you don’t think it was “very likely” I had anything to do with it, why mention it to begin with? Because you wanted to “start a discussion?” Liar. How is this for an analogy. Readers of Gore Vidal’s historical fiction “Burr” will remember that Vidal’s explanation (which, by the way, is not supported [or refuted] by historical evidence) for the Burr-Hamilton duel was that Hamilton accused Burr of incest with his (Burr’s) own daughter. Let’s assume for a moment that is actually what happened. Do you think that if Hamilton had said in public: that could be viewed as anything other than a weasely way of just saying: If Hamilton had said nothing, obviously no one would have thought of the accusation to begin with. Likewise, no one at the GNXP thread had any notion to link the “virus” to myself (or anyone else at MR) until the cowardly no-character dishonorable little worm barlow had to plant the idea in their head by saying “it’s not very likely he’s involved, but…” How convenient, worm. Do you think that everyone is so stupid that they cannot tell your intention was to imply involvement, while covering yourself “legally” by prefacing the comment by “not very likely?” Coward. Worm. Filthy trash. “(and then have the chutzpah to say that those caught in their line of fire don’t like being flamed because the flamers’ arguments are so damn airtight).” No, worm, you’ve implied that I’m a criminal (hacking is a crime), without having the courage to come out and make the accusation without prefacing it with weasel words. Instead of having the integrity to admit your error like a man (which you are not in any sense other then the strictly biological), you then have the “chutzpah” to claim that you just wanted to start a “discussion?” Are you so dimwitted that you cannot think of any other way of starting a discussion without libelling someone with an accusation of criminal activity, worm? This worm barlow should be persona non grata here. 43
Posted by larch on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:48 | # “Mostly, I just wanted to start a discussion on gnxp, which has not been as interesting without Godless” How about going to the “two blowhards” blog, worm, where your master GC has, relatively recently posted a *very* interesting comment on immigration reform and the future of America - a comment that can be very interestingly compared to some of his prior comments on those subjects. 44
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:55 | # Which thread is this at 2 blowhards? Ive had a look, cant see GC there. 45
Posted by larch on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:34 | # Lurker: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009206.html That’s quite interesting. In the past, we’ve heard that: Now: That’s quite a change. One would think that all those paranoid WNs from 3-5 years ago were correct in their pessimism and that “reform” is useless and that the situation for whites, in both America and Europe, was so serious as to justify radicalism. By the way, some of the controversial comments have been deleted from the GNXP “virus” thread. I note that GW’s comment there (which has also been deleted) led to the “comment” immediately preceding Lurker’s, at 4:09 PM. 46
Posted by GT on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:20 | # Godless Capitalist wrote: It [Political Correctness] controls the military, the media, the government, the corporations, and the universities. All of Western Civ has been compromised. You try to fight it publicly, and you will be quickly deprived of a job and (perhaps even more importantly) of access to mates. If you live off the grid (something <u>almost</u> impossible to do nowadays) you are <u>a person of no relevance</u>, while if you live on the grid you are vulnerable. You can’t even go meta and ask who is pushing PC and why. The penalties for asking such questions are even more severe. Key phrases in the paragraph above are “almost impossible” and “person of no relevance.” Thus GC has just informed us that “living off the grid” is <u>too hard</u> and will result in <u>low status.</u> Assuming this teeny, tiny bit of insight to his character was intentional, I thank him for his honesty. Godless Capitalist’s foundational conservatism has much in common with the zeitgeist of today’s racial nationalism. So much, in fact, that if it doesn’t change soon in two or three centuries our people’s epitaph will read: Here lie the defenders of Western Civilization, dead because breaking free of the judeoconomy was too hard and would have resulted in low status. 47
Posted by birch barlow on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:21 | # larch/JW, 48
Posted by birch barlow on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:33 | # I just want to admit that I made a big mistake in the MR thread and here as well. Trying to talk reason to or worse yet, to please or gain respect from angry, hateful people is stupid and a waste of time. 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:38 | # birch, It’s very, very simple. Just don’t be dishonourable. Now leave it there, and return for good to the porn king of Patuakhali. 50
Posted by danielj on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:49 | # GT: Exceptional point! I enjoy very much when you ground the debate firmly in reality. Godless Capitalist has confused the attempt to recreate and rebuild the destroyed temple of us gentiles, that is Western Civilization, with a popularity contest or a high school class presidential election. I am not seeking “relevance,” institutional weight, demarginalization of my viewpoint, redefinition of the terms of debate or popularity. I am at war and will act thusly by not making my camp in my enemies stronghold. What is absolutely astounding is that he has identified the source of the problem (living on the grid) yet manages to denounce the only solution as impossible since it relegates those who employ the strategy to irrelevance. Of course it is! One can not be “civilized” and travel in the hedonistic and destructive milieu of feminized apartment living. One can not serve both Western Man and Sumner Redstone. 51
Posted by larch on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:50 | # barlow: Ah, yes, I’m “angry and hateful.” Of course, it’s not “angry” and “hateful” to put inter-racial porn links from MR and amren to GNXP, nor “angry” or “hateful” to respond to GW’s comments on GNXP with the posts here that were deleted: inter-racial porn jpg images associated with “Guessedworker’s happy go lucky daughter.” No, that’s calm and loving objective insights. It’s not “angry” or “hateful” to call people “terrorists” because such people advocate perfectly legal and non-violent racial activism. No, that’s reasonable discourse, right? Equating a political scientist with “Jack D. Ripper” from “Dr. Strangelove” is not “angry” or “hateful” either; why, that’s just a logical and relevant argument! How about this: Mocking the possibility that Don Black was raped in prison (there is no evidence that such occured) - is that not “angry” and “hateful?” That last quote, by the way, is from a quite interesting comments thread, where a particular person makes arguments which are, more or less, completely opposite of those made 11/10/2007 on the blowhards blog. Barlow, go back to the “amen corner” at GNXP. Only be careful to what your masters endorse - one year they say “X”, several years later, it’ll be “anti-X.” But just like Oceania in “1984”, there is never any correction to the previous set of nonsensical statements. No, the desis will change course without ever admitting they once uttered completely opposite opinions, and, of course, without every admitting that they were wrong. They’re counting on “star-struck” fans like barlow not remembering from one year to the next what is said. 52
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:26 | # The writer gives the figure that about 97 out of 100 Southerners did not own chattel slaves….yet those non-slave holding Southerners had to suffer under the burdens of those who did. From what I understand, the percentage of white households owning at least one slave was a hell of a lot higher than 3 percent - more like 30 or 40 percent, though what I understand might not be a good source. On the other hand, the vast majority of slaves were owned by a small class of slaveholders. 53
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:39 | #
Nah. The only major factor is “cuz that’s how massa wants it.” Public opinion could change in short order, right along with the wind. (In fact, I think the only thing giving the anti-immigration movement the legs it’s had to date is the racialism inherent in Americans; in other words, suicide is a tough sell.)
No, not really there isn’t; just ancillaries. The trick is to keep them adaptive.
I dunno, I think Judaism’s pretty durn functional.
Sorta - the west could annihilate 99% of their populations at will, but on the other hand, we’re busily suiciding as we speak… Miserable and alive is infinitely better than dead.
Let me help you speak MRese: you just said “what’s the harm in dying if you’re well paid for your trouble?”
No. As far as I can tell, cognitive elitism is simply a nerdier invasion. I suppose any delaying tactic is a good thing, but on the other hand I’d prefer simply getting on with the spring cleaning.
The best way to fight leftism is with power; that’s all leftism has, and that’s the only way to defeat it.
The only way to end this is to remove the rewards. That means a direct power struggle.
The biggest problem is that they’re east Asians! Why is this so hard to grasp? They’re going to turn our territories into east Asian territories. Where’s the mystery in this?
Unity of purpose is a requirement of (or at least a great boon to) all the futurist stuff you’re alluding to. The homogenous Chinese and Japanese will have it, and the cosmopolitan and “diverse” and authoritarian west will not.
Goddamn right. The will of the universe, the nature of my place in it, revealed to me through science. Crappy theology my ass. Birch, this stuff will have the hair on the back of your neck standing up, if you’re ever lucky enough to actually think - and feel - your way through it.
I see. Freedom doesn’t mean the freedom to do stuff you don’t like. It’s all so much clearer now! YES, freedom of association does mean the freedom of disassociation. And even if it didn’t, the right to self-determination does expressly include those rights.
Libertarian mumbo-jumbo. Freedom is more a collective right than an individual one - the right of peoples (PEOPLES Birch, PEOPLES - the “s” isn’t a typo) to determine their own future. Individual rights are secondary.
Yet, by implication, you don’t recognize the right of groups to do the same thing. That’s odd. Or, am I misreading you?
Free men don’t have to hold their tongues; a melodramatic way of saying GNXP mods are petty net despots.
No, the fact that tribalism is generally adaptive means that it is desirable. No one but your straw man suggests that it, or any other cognitive module, should be “utterly unrestrained.”
How does this relate back to the discussion? Is your point that tribalism, like many other tendencies, should be moderated in a way consistent with flexible strategizing? Right now the white race is experiencing an almost total lack of tribalism. Is this your preferred state? What exactly is your limit, before we have “too much tribalism”? An erg?
If you’re going to belabor your point, maybe you should actually MAKE it first.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Weird semantic games from Birch. Are they self-deceptive? I wonder. I suspect Birch isn’t really eligible for the particular flavor of self-realization we’re selling. He’s too keen on “diversity” for its own sake. 54
Posted by GT on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:41 | # Daniel, I am at war and will act thusly by not making my camp in my enemy’s stronghold. No genius was required for you and I to realize this. Yet, to my knowledge, in the past 50 years not one “leader” in the racial nationalist camp has made the same observation – at least publicly. What is absolutely astounding is that he [Godless Capitalist -gt] has identified the source of the problem (living on the grid) yet manages to denounce the only solution as impossible since it relegates those who employ the strategy to irrelevance. If GC truly believes the solution is too hard and the cost unacceptable, then why does he bother with it? IMO, the answer is he’s a hobbyist. 55
Posted by larch on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:37 | # Svigor, thank you for that analysis of barlow, which is a good summary of his lack of logic. “I see. Freedom doesn’t mean the freedom to do stuff you don’t like. It’s all so much clearer now! “ Indeed. That’s similar to the speech issue. Thus, the great proponents of “freedom and democracy” are all for “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression.” Mysteriously though, these freedoms exclude the right that persons of European ancestry can speak and act to strategize in favor of their racial survival. That’s “hate speech” and “the promotion of racial hatred” and is, in places like the EU and Canada, illegal. You cannot have “partial free speech” - just like you cannot have “partial freedom of association.” There are some freedoms which are not divisable, in that they lose their meaning in the fractional sense. And no, laws against “libel and slander” (which are probably overdone anyway) do not apply, since whites are punished for speaking things that are objectively true. And no, “yelling fire in a movie theater” does not apply either, since that is an act of vandalism without any social or political content; in contrast, speaking about racial differences, or against immigration, or in favor of genetic interests is enriched in social and political content and therefore should be “protected speech” in any society that maintains the pretense it is a “democracy” and has “freedoms.” “Yet, by implication, you don’t recognize the right of groups to do the same thing. That’s odd. Or, am I misreading you? “ I noticed that as well. He’s just desperately trying to find a formula that would “prove” that he’s not violating our rights of free association, while at the same time ensuring a supply of East Asian females for his tastes. Of course, separate polities cannot be countenanced, because the masters at GNXP have already pronounced their displeasure with that option. “If GC truly believes the solution is too hard and the cost unacceptable, then why does he bother with it? IMO, the answer is he’s a hobbyist.” No, GT, he’s against - or at least, was against - everything that MR believes in. Take a look at GC circa 2003: It’s interesting to compare GC version 2003 with GC version 2007. The former, looking at the comments of the latter, would likely have deemed those comments as GC2007 is much closer to the truth than GC2003, but he still can’t bring himself to admit two things: 1. He was wrong in 2003, and pessimistic guys like Oleg were correct, and 2. More importantly, given his 2007 diagnosis, whites are well justified to be “angry” and “hateful” and, indeed, are perfectly justified in pursuing racial radicalism and racial nationalism. If “America” is “finished” and if the most Europe can hope for is that “some” states “may” survive, if the West is “finished” - and “reform” is useless - where does that leave the peoples of the West? Instead of blithely stating “go east young man”, how about honestly admitting that if the situation is as bad as is stated then the populations of the West - who cannot, will not, and do not wish to, “go east” - need to overcome the whole multiculturalist, multiracialist apparatus? That’s not saying that they actually will do so, but at least admit that they *should* do so, and would be amply justified if they did? No, instead we get barlow telling us to import even more racial aliens, we have David B telling us “life has no interests” and we have Razib with his “population projections” that “Eurabia” won’t be that bad (is he still doing that?). The GNXPers and their fellow travellers are still preaching the doctrines of aracial worldviews and that things aren’t that bad - while GC, who was the foremost in also preaching that 4 years ago, is now telling us that the West *is* doomed, and is doomed even if all immigration were to be shut off today. 56
Posted by larch on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:52 | # Repeat the GNXP mantra: “things aren’t that bad, and whites don’t have much to complain about”: Don’t worry too much about it. Since “life has no interests” and the most important things are “Mahler and toffee”, what difference does it make if Europe becomes a mix of Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, and East Asia, or if America becomes a Negro-Mestizo majority nation? Or, if you do worry, then just emigrate to Hong Kong. After all, 700 million or so odd whites from Europe and America will just migrate there, claiming to be “skilled immigrants.” The Chinese, who kicked out all the British workers (skilled or not) from Hong Kong after the takeover, surely would love that possibility. 57
Posted by larch on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:06 | # On GNXP, birch barlow has written the following: “The other big issue with drugs and alcohol is that for those susceptible, they tend to take over a person’s entire life and thinking. When I do drugs, it usually begins to take precedence over everything else, which causes a lot of problems. This is not to say that drugs aren’t loads of fun, or even that they aren’t valuable. But anyone who has depression issues should really try antidepressants. I had to try 5 over a period of nearly 3 years before I found the 6th one (Cymbalta) that’s actually worth a damn for me. Note that mixing antidepressants with recreational drugs can be dangerous; though in my personal experience Cymbalta has reduced (street) drug cravings and stereotypical “addict” like behavior and thinking while not causing any negative interaction effects.” Of particular importance: “When I do drugs, it usually begins to take precedence over everything else, which causes a lot of problems. This is not to say that drugs aren’t loads of fun…” and “...try antidepressants. I had to try 5 over a period of nearly 3 years before I found the 6th one (Cymbalta) that’s actually worth a damn for me.” and “...in my personal experience Cymbalta has reduced (street) drug cravings and stereotypical “addict” like behavior…” Hmmm. A self-admitted drug user who has taken Cymbalta, which he notes reduces “street drug cravings” and “stereotypical addict like behavior” is the same person who supports East Asian immigration in part because be likes East Asian women and how dare anyone get in the way of his personal pleasure. I see. Interesting. Is this the sort of “freedoms” that we are to “enjoy,” while being denied freedom of association. No doubt as well that there are Asiatics out there who are not only happy to see white guys advocating for Asian immigration, but also removing themselves from competition through drug abuse. Connect the dots…. 58
Posted by birch barlow on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:29 | # Time to admit (my) defeat I have gone to far in flaunting my hedonism, not only at this site and the web but in my life in general. Though I don’t think race relations are necessarily as dire as argued on this site, the idea that things will be peachy if we stop low-IQ immigration is blindly Utopian, and overly idealistic and romantic. The first fact—I will get to the downsides of Asians later—is that, as a group, blacks and Hispanics are inferior in the traits that count. The only saving grace is that there are *some* blacks and Hispanics who do possess the kinds of traits that maintain and even build civilization, that is there some blacks and Hispanics who are equal or superior to the average white, and a few who are much superior to the average white. As an example, I think this clip from South Park is a riot. Kid (giving report on Asian culture): Asian culture has plagued this fragile earth for many years. We must end it. Teacher: Excellent, A- But just try inserting “black” or “Hispanic.” The PC people of course would be outraged. But anti-PC people probably would see it as true but too serious and horrific to be funny. As for Muslims, a minority are decent, but Islam is a fundamentally corrupt religion. To be a “good” or “true” Muslim in the sense that Bible Belters are stereotypically “good” Christians is to be unspeakably evil and destructive. The only hope is that the low IQ black and Hispanic population will not reach a critical mass, and that there won’t be too much strife between amongst the multiracial cognitive elite. It’s all well and good to believe that people are basically decent and everything will be OK. But that’s not the case. For example, it is a fact that abuse of chemicals all too often destroys the life of not only the chemical user, but those around him. “Recreational” drugs can easily take over a person’s life at the expense of everything else, and there’s no way of knowing until you try and get burned. Even those who think they didn’t get burned, or didn’t get burned in any important way should realize that they have had to compromise the other aspects of their lives to do drugs, at least to an extent. Likewise, a person living in a society with an average IQ of 125 made up of the same race will, on average, have better personal relationships than a person in a multiracial society with an average IQ of 125. It’s easy to say that those who oppose things I find pleasurable or important in my life are stupid a—holes, but this kind of thinking should ring alarm bells in any sane person. Believing that “I just need to work and suffer enough to support and maintain my pleasures” is incredibly juvenile and destructive. In addition to being a means of status seeking and competitive altruism, multiculturalism is also a kind of codependency. People want to believe that they are good, that they can help, that the downtrodden are noble but very unlucky. Thinking of large groups of your fellow citizens as difficult, worthless, harmful, and dangerous is uncomfortable and very scary. For people in high IQ diverse environments like myself, it is even scarier to think that race is a divider even amongst the cognitive elite…the thought that I may be more at ease and more easily make friendships with whites, is unpleasant. Worse yet is the thought that other people, both white and nonwhite, tend to feel more at ease with and more easily make friendships with those of the same race. As for the obsession of myself and other white males with East Asian women, I tend to think that it is in large part because my own race and culture has been so battered in the media and in the schools, in combination with my lack of self-confidence, self-respect, and sense of self-worth (probably from genetically inherited depression and anxiety). I have been constantly told “whites suck!” for my whole life. I was only born in 1984, by which time PC madness was already entrenched. Generally being a realist and practically minded person, I found it hard to “celebrate” or look up to poor, crime prone blacks and Hispanics. But Asians…they’re non-white *and* they’re smart and superior—as Cartman from South Park would say, “Sweeeeeet!” My Asiaphilia is too deep-seated to change, but it is nothing to be proud of. Just like with gays, I will have to get my jollies, and I will see those who burst in anger over it as bad people, but to revel in Asiaphilia is incredibly perverse. I should follow Scrooby’s advice and have fun with Asian women on my own time, rather than advocating hordes of them to come to the USA. Adding racial differences to sex differences and individual differences in the dating/mating world is a good way to weaken already fragile romantic ties between men and women. All other things being equal, interracial marriage is a bad idea. If the West re-asserts itself, and becomes proud of its European heritage (yes non-Europeans can contribute, but historically the West=whites), maybe interracial marriage, particularly of the white-Asian variety, will decrease. Yeah, my sobering (pardon the pun) was thanks in large part to Godless and your link to him. But it also has to do with recent events in my life. I went off the deep end because I so desperately want to believe that the things that please me are all-around good. If you ask why I am such a follower of godless, I will explain. When I first read his work, I found his thinking very much in sync with my own. I consider GC to be a friend. Moreover, Godless seems smarter, happier, more worldly, more disciplined, and less put off by “boring details” than me. My admiration of godless can be summarized as being him being almost identically like-minded, but more willing and able to do real footwork than me. Yeah, godless has influenced me, but he couldn’t have influenced me as much as he had if he did not think so much like I did when I first read his writings. To close, I want to say that I am not writing this to gain some sort of favor amongst the MR crowd…you probably think I am a coward whose line of thinking changes as soon as it gets me in hot water, or that I am simply a hedonist mugged by reality. 59
Posted by danielj on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:40 | # Lay off the cocaine. I liked it too Birch. Lay off the Asians. I liked them too. Do not engage in destructive behaviors. Very simple. Eat right, exercise, disengage from the current system and read lots of the right books. Very simple. 60
Posted by skeptical on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:24 | # Birch,
If East Asians are so superior why are they leaving their own countries to come to Western ones? Alternatively, why haven’t East Asians made countries of their own at least as attractive (for immigrants) as Western ones? From my experience the East Asian has the benefit of being relatively disciplined, obedient, and mechanically intelligent. But those attributes alone do not make great countries. 61
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:17 | # That was a brave post, Birch (assuming it was you, not some prankster). I’m sure I’m far from alone in respecting you more for it. Good luck in getting things better-sorted-out in your own mind. Looks like you’re off to a good start. You’re young yet, just beginning. Just keep being honest with yourself and others. And as you’ve obviously already realized, abusing drugs isn’t the answer to depression or low self-esteem. The sooner you turn back out of that blind alley the better for yourself and for everyone. 62
Posted by birch barlow on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:03 | # Lay off the cocaine. I liked it too Birch. Lay off the Asians. I liked them too. Do not engage in destructive behaviors. Very simple. Eat right, exercise, disengage from the current system and read lots of the right books. Very simple. The problem is, that by age 23, a person’s sex drive is pretty much hardwired (and btw, I’ve barely done coke…mostly Robitussin “DM” (dextromethorphan aka DXM is the active ingredient), Vicodin (hydrocodone), pot, and booze…You may ask, OTC and Rx meds????? Yes I am a sick puppy). This may sound hypocritical since I most certainly still desire East Asians, but I think the best “solution” to interracial dating/hooking up and especially marriage is to teach your children to be proud of, or at the very least not disgusted by, their heritage (a proud white person may have a “fling” with an Asian or other nonwhite, but ultimately would probably not want to marry that person). While I don’t think interracial marriage and high IQ non-white immigration are very big problems compared to say, the burgeoning of the low IQ underclass and the elderly (nothing against the elderly, or low IQ people for that matter, but these are very serious social problems). The schools and media may be hard to change, but parents can still influence their children, and adults can influence their peers (though this can be risky). I also still believe that the benefit of high IQ nonwhite immigrants outweighs the increased racial and cultural divisions, but such immigration is far from essential, and could be harmful, especially in the present environment where the powerful get Asian and other high IQ nonwhites to believe their interests lie with with the black and Hispanic underclass and against whites. As long as this “united front” exists, high IQ nonwhite immigration, not to mention Jews, will have a major downside (not to mention the decreased social cohesion, at least relative to IQ and other social capital traits, that results from a more diverse society). If East Asians are so superior why are they leaving their own countries to come to Western ones? Alternatively, why haven’t East Asians made countries of their own at least as attractive (for immigrants) as Western ones? From my experience the East Asian has the benefit of being relatively disciplined, obedient, and mechanically intelligent. But those attributes alone do not make great countries. It has been my belief that East Asians have not risen above Europeans because of geography, history, and pure chance. I still believe this to be true. But the days of getting huffy and puffy (except maybe for show at the workplace or in front an Asian girlfriend [or really, any girlfriend]) over statements like the one quoted below are over. [T]he civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people. I do not currently accept Sam Francis’ above statement as true, but I most certainly don’t reject it out of hand either. 63
Posted by birch barlow on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:05 | # Ooops…I messed up the italics. This should all be italics: If East Asians are so superior why are they leaving their own countries to come to Western ones? Alternatively, why haven’t East Asians made countries of their own at least as attractive (for immigrants) as Western ones? From my experience the East Asian has the benefit of being relatively disciplined, obedient, and mechanically intelligent. But those attributes alone do not make great countries. 64
Posted by onlooker on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:12 | # birch barlow, I really think you should take the advice of the sometimes irascible, but always avuncular, Fred Scrooby. 65
Posted by birch barlow on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:14 | # I will also add that while serving base desires may be fun, and in some cases necessary or unavoidable (see Derbyshire re:Don Quixote vs. Sancho Panza), it is incredibly stupid to think “if it feels good and doesn’t hurt anyone (or at least doesn’t seem to…), it IS good.” I’m not very biblically literate, and am barely religious. But I believe the Bible says something to the effect that “It’s bad to sin, but you can be forgiven; however it is MUCH MUCH worse to *revel* in sin.” I think there is a lot of wisdom to that. This may sound like an endorsement of hypocrisy, but its not. Screaming “hypocrisy” is just a person’s excuse to f*** up (that guy says it’s bad and does it anyway, so I should just say f*** it, and do the bad thing, and convince myself it is good). Better to slip, or realize that you have a vice, than to ennoble it, grow it, and revel in it. 66
Posted by skeptical on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:24 | # birch
Ha! Very little is hardwired at the age of 23. As you get older you’ll find out just how drastically people can change over the course of their lives.
So, in other words, you are willing to admit the possibility that the success and grandeur of Western [White] civilization could have alternatively arisen under the basis of (say) East Asian genetic material? That seems like a strong statement to me. Towards that end, have you ever been to an Asian country? 67
Posted by birch barlow on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:48 | # So, in other words, you are willing to admit the possibility that the success and grandeur of Western [White] civilization could have alternatively arisen under the basis of (say) East Asian genetic material? That seems like a strong statement to me. I’m sorry, but the romantic idealist in me says that must be true. Now if ask me, would I want to be able to transfer to another “quantum reality” in which Europeans were replaced with East Asians, and where, supposedly Western culture would have arisen but only even better than with Euros? No. In this regard I’m as bad as the limousine leftists and pseudo-righties. I desperately want to believe in that sort of syrupy idealism, but I wouldn’t want to put my money where my mouth is, and I’m glad I can’t. Now as the scenario applies to the West today in the form of allowing Asian and other high-IQ nonwhite immigration, there is some difference. Western culture is already established. Even if Asians and high-IQ Africans and Amerinds would not have been able to build Western civilization, they still may be able to contribute to a majority-white societies. Though as I said I still have misgivings about such immigration, and believe that Europe should have the right to stay European. 68
Posted by skeptical on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 07:20 | # birch,
Well, at least you admit that it is the “romantic idealist” in you which speaks this way.
And can be similarly tossed aside (concomitant to a demographic transformation). Don’t assume for a moment that our precious Western civilization will survive (in any recognizable form) the kind of race-replacement MR contributors harp on. Nothing is certain nor immutable. And before you cast aside this notion meditate on the American negro’s drastic change in status (to borrow a phrase from Scimitar). What was once a truly Western civilization will continue to evolve (as all societies must) and if our countries are no longer populated by [White] Westerners then it can be certain that it will evolve in non-White racially alien ways. As an old man you will certainly not be able to recognize (or even call home) the place of your birth if the struggle for the preservation of Western man isn’t won. On a concluding not, I certainly appreciate your candor in this exchange and wish you the best as you continue to grow and develop in the nihilistic postmodern abyss we accidentally confuse for civilization. 69
Posted by larch on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:09 | # “(assuming it was you, not some prankster).” That was my first thought as well, but, apparently, the comments are real. ““That was a brave post, Birch” I’ll admit that, although I’m still annoyed over the GNXP “virus” incident. That was some turnaround in thought. Not complete, but something. That’s the first sign I’ve seen that reading a blog can actually accomplish something in changing an individual’s mind - that is, change it for the better. As much as this turnabout can be viewed as positive, a pessimist such as myself would like to concentrate on the negative for a moment: “If you ask why I am such a follower of godless, I will explain. When I first read his work, I found his thinking very much in sync with my own. I consider GC to be a friend. Moreover, Godless seems smarter, happier, more worldly, more disciplined, and less put off by “boring details” than me. My admiration of godless can be summarized as being him being almost identically like-minded, but more willing and able to do real footwork than me. Yeah, godless has influenced me, but he couldn’t have influenced me as much as he had if he did not think so much like I did when I first read his writings.” People from GNXP have mocked us in the past for asserting that white participants of that blog sometimes behave as extended phenotypes of Razib and GC. Here we have a behavioral description which sounds very much like the extended phenotype. I will give credit to GC2007 for being more honest about the racial situation, which has allowed a person like barlow to reevaluate certain things (*). But version 2007 should admit error with respect to the diatribes of version 2003. *The problem here is if GC2008 decides to return to the ideals of 2003, rather than 2007. Will those who admire him also alter their viewpoints to follow? It’s not a good idea to have a “guru.” Yes, if someone makes an important contribution, digest it and ponder it and, if it sounds reasonable, incorporate it, but don’t “admire” someone in the sense of “hero worship.” In the end, it’s about ideas, not personalities. 70
Posted by larch on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:21 | # On an only partially unrelated issue, Auster has been going off the deep end recently about “anti-semitism;” the latest of his “anti-semites are souls in the depths of hell” diatribes is here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009553.html It’s stunning that such an intelligent man as Lawrence Auster has such a blind spot with respect to this question. Ad hominem, nutty emotion-laden comments about “hell”, strawmen - all are grist for the mill for him on this topic. He is unable to actually objectively sit down and carefully answer the actual points made by the “anti-semites.” For all that Auster dislikes the MacDonaldite theory, his own behavior bolsters it. It seems like self-deception is going on there. Needless to say, Auster’s constant harping against Darwinism is boring as well. 71
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:48 | # Larry is in conflict with his Jewish soul (not to mention EGI). It is not unusual for emotionally conflicted people, regardless of their intellectual endowments, to re-arrange their intellectual or idelogical model of the world to give an appearance of resolution. This is also the modus operandum of many personally conflicted white liberals. Politics is just one field in which the conflict can be safely externalised, and the negatives exported to a third party. Larry exports his psychological negatives to “the far white”, to Jared Taylor, me, Alex Linder ... anyone will do. In the process he denies us our humanity, and reduces us to hate cyphers, the better to serve as carriers for his projection. It is a personal tragedy for him and a nuisance for us. 72
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:06 | # I will also gladly applaud birch barlow’s honesty, which I think is one of the more remarkable things to have been posted on this site. I hope that now he thinks hard on Fred’s advice - and, especially, on those last words of JW’s. This battle we fight is indeed one of ideas, not personalities. Birch will help himself if he can detach personality issues - meaning, really, his own, but also his admiration for GC - from the arguments for and against the survival of European Man. If, as a general principle, he can see that survival is a moral, natural and ultimate interest, and all the rest - the appeals to Western cultural continuity in the hands of Asians, to a race-blind productivity, prosperity, etc - work against that, then he is “getting there”. Birch, to a greater or lesser extent all of us have been immersed in the postmodern test-tube - not through any fault of our own, of course. It’s a hell of a task, but it’s also a fine thing to climb out of it. If that sounds condescending, I can’t apologise. It is as it is. Like it or not, you are a prodigal son. 73
Posted by danielj on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:01 | # The problem is, that by age 23, a person’s sex drive is pretty much hardwired I am not sure where you have gotten this idea and would like to see some sources. I’ve been through a lot of different sexual phases and escapades in my life and am grateful to be disease free and well adjusted now. However, this (hopefully final and lasting transformation) did not start until two years ago at the age of 22. (and btw, I’ve barely done coke…mostly Robitussin “DM” (dextromethorphan aka DXM is the active ingredient), Vicodin (hydrocodone), pot, and booze…You may ask, OTC and Rx meds????? Yes I am a sick puppy). For indulging in the consumption of synthetic drugs I can only sympathize but also state that I don’t really think there is anything that wrong with small amounts of recreational drug use of the “natural” varieties. I don’t understand why you are so stuck on that as the barometer of your morality. I was more of an ‘upper’ fiend than the ‘downers’ you seem to enjoy but I imagine developing the necessary fortitude to kick the bad habit involves the same qualities and characters and therefore I offer this a of wisdom. After you have given up the friends and situations in your life where the drugs are easily available most of the desire to do them goes away. This may sound hypocritical since I most certainly still desire East Asians, but I think the best “solution” to interracial dating/hooking up and especially marriage is to teach your children to be proud of, or at the very least not disgusted by, their heritage (a proud white person may have a “fling” with an Asian or other nonwhite, but ultimately would probably not want to marry that person). No one is in charge of their desires! It is not “hypocritical” to have desires that one does not seek to fulfill or tendencies to certain behaviors that one actively suppresses. Whatever this trait is, it is not hypocrisy. It is in fact the opposite and it is called, in the parlance of our times, practicing what you preach. 74
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:35 | # A minor point, but I’ll throw it in: my sense is it’s counterproductive to say “doing” drugs instead of “taking” drugs, and it’s counterproductive to say “dealing” drugs instead of “selling” drugs (or “peddling” them or “trafficking in” them). “Doing drugs” and “dealing drugs” (instead of, respectively, “taking drugs” and “peddling or selling drugs”) are particular “in-crowd” styles of speaking about drug-taking which are intended unmistakably to convey subtle sympathy for the wrongdoing, and were originally deliberately promoted by the degenerate-symp media (largely Jewish) precisely for the purpose of popularizing drug-taking. Adopting those ways of speaking about drugs sort of advertises sympathy for the activity, solidarity with it. In my view if you adopt those styles of speaking — “So-and-so did cocaine” (instead of took cocaine or used cocaine) or “That guy used to deal drugs” (instead of used to sell drugs) — you risk helping the wrong side, however slightly. I for one always strictly avoid those two post-‘60s drug-friendly stylistic innovations. 75
Posted by birch barlow on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:01 | # Larry exports his psychological negatives to “the far white”, to Jared Taylor, me, Alex Linder ... anyone will do. In the process he denies us our humanity, and reduces us to hate cyphers, the better to serve as carriers for his projection. It is a personal tragedy for him and a nuisance for us. The problem for everyone from Godless to Auster to Salier to myself is that it is so fun, easy, and emotionally satisfying to tromp on those who are any farther to the pro-human biodiversity extreme than we are. It also wins us status points in our own minds too…“well yeah, my views aren’t terribly respectable, but at least they’re more respectable than those guys’ views. I can handle reality without become a raving racist.” And yes I wouldn’t deny out of hand that ethnicity plays some role for Godless, Auster, Sailer (I believe one of his biological parents is Jewish), and the extended phenotype idea to people like myself. As an aside, I wouldn’t mind if someone here expanded on the extended phenotype idea more. From my google searches, it seems to be mostly about how an organisms genes affect its environment…how exactly am I an extended phenotype of Godless, Sailer, attractive East Asian women, etc. I mean it seems hard to say that the traits of these people evolved specifically to control the weak-minded, depressed, insecure people of the world…how could East Asian genes evolve to dominate insecure white males* by making Asians smart and their females attractive, for example? Maybe I am asking the wrong questions. But I would be interested to hear an explanation. *And there is evidence that N. Europeans in particular are especially vulnerable in the sense of being, on average, more shy, insecure, and overly concerned about the wants and needs of others than other groups are. Also N. Europeans are more susceptible to alcoholism and (I believe) other chemical addictions than other Eurasians, and probably more susceptible to addictions and object/idol worship in general, whether that idol be alcohol/drugs, other people in general, or anything that helps to melt away a person’s sense of insecurity. Also, there seems to be a view of people in general that Nordic (including Celtic/Anglo/German) traits tend to be more innocent, weak, feminine, vulnerable, and recessive. I think there’s something to that. 76
Posted by larch on Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:58 | # I would say that “A” is an extended phenotype of “B” in the sense described here, if: 1. A behaves in a manner to boost B’s genetic interests at the expense of A’s own (genetic and otherwise) interests, and 2. This behavior of A can be reasonably seen as being significantly influenced - directly or indirectly - by some aspect of B. There’s no reason to start speculating if this property of “B” is somehow “evolved” and in what manner. That’s the GNXP obsession to conflate “what” arguments into “how” and “why” arguments. It may well be that these effects of B are some “side effect” that has not been “evolved” for this “purpose.” 77
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:02 | # Auster’s anti-Darwinism/anti-semitism are related. Accepting evolutionary theory gives credence to a Jewish evolutionary strategy. The existence of a Jewish evolutionary strategy means that Auster’s assertion that Jews will respond to a reasoned argument, by a assertive non-Jewish host, to change their maladaptive/destructive behaviour, significantly less likely. 78
Posted by larch on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:24 | # Auster’s “solution”: “To boil down the elements of this Christian-Jewish entente to the simplest terms: Christians must accept Jews as the minority, and Jews must accept Christians as the majority. “ Interesting. “Christians”, and not “white gentiles.” Thus, if America becomes a Christian mestizo majority nation, that would be an acceptable outcome that Jews can and “must accept?” What about those white gentiles who are not “Christian” in the religious sense. Do they have the obligation that they “must” accept “Jews as the minority?” 79
Posted by larch on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:35 | # I think it is worthwhile to read the following in its entirety: 80
Posted by bleh on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:38 | # *And there is evidence that N. Europeans in particular are especially vulnerable in the sense of being, on average, more shy, insecure, and overly concerned about the wants and needs of others than other groups are. What evidence do you have in mind? I’m aware of studies showing blue-eyed children are more shy than their brown-eyed counterparts, but these studies are presumably detecting a differences between racially similar Northern Europeans (the studies I’ve seen deal only with white children and have been done in areas where most whites are presumably Northern European), not between ethnicities. And I’m aware of no studies on shyness and eye color in adults. Also N. Europeans are more susceptible to alcoholism and (I believe) other chemical addictions than other Eurasians, and probably more susceptible to addictions and object/idol worship in general, whether that idol be alcohol/drugs, other people in general, or anything that helps to melt away a person’s sense of insecurity. Again, I’d like to see your evidence. The major variants shown to be related to between-group differences in alcoholism directly relate to alcohol metabolism. Mongoloids and Middle-Easterners tend to become alcoholics less frequently because many can’t drink excessively without becoming physically ill—not due to any general reduction in addictive behavior. As for DRD2: I suspect Northern Europeans may have an inherently greater tendency to value objectivity and individualism than members of other groups. But I doubt they are “vulnerable” in any of the senses you mention. Also, there seems to be a view of people in general that Nordic (including Celtic/Anglo/German) traits tend to be more innocent, weak, feminine, vulnerable, and recessive. I think there’s something to that. At least through the 1930s, the masculine ideal was blond in much of the West (this according to Joanna Pitman). Hollywood has heavily promoted the blond man as villain and/or effeminate and has preferred to cast dark-haired (though still typically Northern European) men as heroes and romantic leads. But I’m not sure how much this idea has taken with the general public. There’s a general tendency among humans to view traits characteristic of the in-group as positive, and traits associated with out-groups as negative. So it would hardly be surprising if nonwhites believed Northern Europeans were “weak”, etc. That said, I don’t think there is any such general belief in America. It’s pretty obviously false since Northern European men are on average bigger/stronger than men from other groups. Do Asian women view white men as “feminine”? Is squeaky-voiced, skinny-fat razib a paragon of masculinity? Woody Allen? Blacks are widely promoted as more masculine than whites, and this belief may have more traction among the general public. It seems to be especially popular among Jews, who view themselves as less athletic, less physically-attractive, less masculine than white men and wish to bring white men down a notch, as well as among blacks themselves. But this again goes against your assertion that there is a “general” belief Northern Europeans are “feminine”. 81
Posted by bleh on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:55 | # “It seems to be especially popular among Jews, who view themselves as less athletic, less physically-attractive, less masculine than white men and wish to bring white men down a notch . . .” Add effeminate Bangladeshis with interracial-porn fetishes to that. 82
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:39 | # Re: the Auster thread, the “Tanstaafl”/ “Schutzstaffel” bit is simply hilarious. Somehow it seems that “Tanstaafl” was just hoping that someone would notice that “Tanstaafl” rhymes with “Schutzstaffel.” Schutzstaffel is, of course, also known as the SS. 83
Posted by birch barlow on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:46 | # Re: Nordics I’ll admit this is definitely a two-way street, but I think that railing against East and South Asians, Jews, and high-IQ/generally superior blacks and Hispanics is a waste of time. I’m not going back on saying that there are downsides with these groups, only that in the present political climate, these groups are far down the list of negatives/potential negatives for the West. Moreover, GNXP-Sailer-Auster types like myself have much bigger worries than white nationalists. I think the only fair criticism of white nationalists—one that is not rooted in South Asian, East Asian, or Jewish ethnic interests, or whites such as myself enamored with and psychologically invested in “model minorities,” i.e. any non-European who could fairly be perceived as “superior”—is that white nationalism is so far beyond the pale in the mainstream, so politically suicidal, that race/IQ/genetic realism will be even more marginalized than it already is. Ideally, in a political sense, I believe a spokesperson for the race/IQ/genetic realism side should be non-white (at the very least Jewish) and less importantly, but probably still a plus, female. Also I think it’s politically best to knock those in power, particularly middle age to old white men like George W. Bush, Ted Kennedy, et al. For example, push ideas like Bush and Kennedy are using open borders as a battering ram for their own selfish interests, white limousine liberals don’t give a s—- about underclass crime because they can insulate themselves from it while at the same time looking compassionate towards the underclass, etc. This helps gain the “speaking truth to power” angle; who doesn’t think that Bush, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, etc have more wealth and power than they should? 84
Posted by bleh on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:13 | # However, I would like to say that it seems that at a bare minimum Nordic *women* are more desired than Nordic men. I don’t see the point of this comparison. Rank women vs. women and men vs. men, if that’s what you want to do. Anyway, men tend to place a higher value on physical characteristics than women when choosing mates, so the comparison is not valid. I’ll admit this is definitely a two-way street, but I think that railing against East and South Asians, Jews, and high-IQ/generally superior blacks and Hispanics is a waste of time. . . . these groups are far down the list of negatives/potential negatives for the West. I don’t see how promoting greater understanding of inter-ethnic group dynamics could be considered as a waste of time, but I guess that depends on what your goals are. What is your ultimate objective? Elites infatuated with cheap labor are part of the problem, but only part. Aracial white elites should be attacked where warranted, but if you think ignoring the ethnic factors shaping immigration policy will prevent the ADL from releasing statements like this, you are sorely mistaken. If Jews have been instrumental in creating and perpetuating our present immigration disaster, why must we ignore the Jewish role? If there are sound tactical reasons for doing so in public, so be it. But why come to a venue like MR and tell us we’re “wasting our time”? Likewise, I see no problem with using nonwhite spokespeople, if white interests are advanced. Jews have used their share of non-Jewish front men to great advantage. But, ultimately, I don’t think we’re going to get too far operating within the current structure of taboos. There are hints these taboos are already starting to wear thin. Let PC enforcers try to marginalize race realism further. They will discredit themselves as scientific evidence piles up against them. That may or may not happen. They may attempt to co-opt scientific results and shoe-horn them into a leftist framework. Saletan has already tried this at Slate, and found out his indoctrinates weren’t ready yet. Great. I think the farther science gets ahead of the current PC orthodoxy, the less-likely that orthodoxy is to survive in the long run. 85
Posted by birch barlow on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:10 | # I don’t see how promoting greater understanding of inter-ethnic group dynamics could be considered as a waste of time, but I guess that depends on what your goals are. I’m saying it is a waste of time compared to the pressing issues that the West currently faces. Criticism of Godless Capitalist and other GNXPers, Steve Sailer, and Lawrence Auster may be perfectly valid. Ethnic self-interest, holier-than-thou attitudes amongst anti-racist race realists, model minority fetish, and the influence of PC on its allegedly virulent opponents are real and debate-worthy issues. But compared to the underclass and their power-grabbing exploiters, these issues are small potatoes, like worrying about the lack of higher meaning in life while one faces starvation. 86
Posted by bleh on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:34 | # Whites already know they don’t want to live in black or hispanic neighborhoods, or send their children to schools dominated by these groups. One doesn’t need to explain this to them. Whites don’t want to live in Asian neighborhoods, for that matter. People are less clear on why America is being demographically transformed and how they can reverse it. I don’t understand why you think it’s acceptable to go after “power-grabbing [white] exploiters” but not hostile ethnics. If you think the growth of the “underclass” is the immediate threat we must address, then clearly white elites are no more a direct part of the problem than Asians and Jews, and hostile ethnics are no less of an indirect cause than white “exploiters”. 87
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:44 | # Regarding the impudent little troll who calls himself Birch Barlow: I suggest those not familiar with this creature’s deep-seated animus for the West read the following Majority Rights thread in its entirety: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/diversity_leads_to_a_loss_of_social_capital/ Here’s a quote for the ages to keep in mind:
No doubt B’nai Birch Barlow (referred to as “Birchy” henceforth) gets his kicks by gumming-up discussions (note how much of this thread has been dedicated to refuting his sophomoric remarks) while pushing his diseased neo-liberal theology of a “One World” cosmopolitan elitism in which all lesser hominoids, regardless of race, color or creed, live as “equals” while serving their technocratic masters in perpetual rut. But such prattle about “bio-diversity” and a global society dominated by economic “productivity” and the “bottom line” is nothing more than a red herring to cover up his brooding psychopathological hatred for the race and civilization he purportedly belongs. Surely Birchy understands that the entire field of science and technology which he ostensibly worships is a product of the Western mind and our race’s Faustian spirit and not of the static-minded East Asians whom he venerates as our “betters”? And surely he knows that the best and brightest of the yellow man’s East flock to the white man’s West to study, to learn and to improve their understanding of such fields of thought that they were incapable of creating and advancing on their own? In fact, when we speak of Western science and technology it is important to note the racial adjective that precedes these terms. Western = White. Of course, it is easy today to deny these facts given the universal dominance of Western thought which gave rise to these endeavors and was mindlessly given away to our racial adversaries but the fact still remains that without the white man, such discoveries and advances would have been impossible. As the writer Anthony Jacobs points out: “To my mind it is self-evident that the Anglo-Saxon and kindred peoples are absolutely irreplaceable, and that without them the civilization they engendered and represent would, with the possible exception of one or two curious deviations or malformations, soon cease to exist. Let there be no mistake about this. When we speak of civilization we are referring to that which is wholly our own. There is no other civilization whatever. At best there are one or two successful foreign copyists of our civilization’s more material aspects. But there are absolutely no imitators of its moral and spiritual uniqueness, because there are no other people like the Westerners whose possession it is….Without the Westerners, even the successful material copyists of our civilization would not further nor even for long maintain that which they have copied, any more than the froth on the surface of a great river would continue to exist were the river to dry up.” (—White Man Think Again!) To cite just one historic example, let us consider the best racial stock the East Asians have to offer: the Japanese. At the beginning of World War II, these so called “Aryans of the East” had a military and industrial capacity that was on par with that of a comparably sized Western nation. Yet within a few short years, the Japanese found themselves technologically outclassed in every field relating to the war effort. Their once vaunted “Zero” which had dominated the skies of the Pacific was obsolete and even their best pilots were no match for our worst pilots given the superiority of American aircraft design. Without the means to copy from the West, Japan’s entire military effort quickly stagnated with no significant advances being achieved and thus their war of conquest was lost. Not even their insatiable desire to die for their emperor via Kamikaze attacks could make up for their innate deficiencies. And in terms of spiritual and moral values, there is simply no comparison at all. While Japan outwardly embraced Western cultural norms, standards and values, nevertheless it remained inwardly despotic and tyrannical at heart. Just ask the unfortunate souls who nations were occupied by the Empire of the Rising Sun and the allied soldiers who suffered so horribly as POWs. Does The Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March ring a bell? The Japanese claimed to be an “honorable” people but thought it not dishonorable to launch a sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor before issuing a formal declaration of war, just as they had done to the Russians at the beginning of the 20th Century, thus demonstrating that despite all of their pretenses, they were not our equals! Brutality, barbarism, treachery and savagery were the hallmarks of the Japanese throughout the Second World War—something all Westerners should never forget! Yet despite these facts, Birchy declares that the West would economically implode and become spiritually prostrate without the influx of “high IQ” Asians to keep it afloat! LOL! Clearly this is not the case as recent history has so aptly demonstrated. To the contrary, the West was strongest when it embraced the notion of racial integrity while remaining true to its Christian and Classical traditions. But despite all of the technological transfers via “free trade” to the non-white world, it is the white man’s West which clearly remains the fountainhead of scientific and technological progress to this very day. Again, Birchy’s insipid and inane remarks constitute nothing more than a ruse on his part, especially given the fact that he gleefully cheers for our racial and cultural destruction. Clearly, his profound antipathy towards our race takes precedence over the technological achievements which he ostensibly holds in reverence. Why? The answer lies in the fact that science and technology are ultimately manifestations of our spiritual qualities which are traced directly to our race’s soul, a soul which he hates implacably. Birchy is motivated not by love of science and technology and the material “goodies” which are mere end products of that chain of thought but hatred of the spirit and soul that ultimately gave birth to such creations—a spirit and soul that is found in our White Race. That is why he despises and ridicules those of us who want to preserve our race with vicious taunts about how we must accept and even embrace our own demise and eventual extinction. That is why he mocks sacred concepts such as honor, duty and pride in our civilization’s accomplishments. That is why he embraces “diversity,” “South Park,” and “sex, drugs and rock & roll.” That is why he defames and slanders the names of good men found here at Majority Rights while bragging about his childish exploits on other boards. Only a truly depraved soul revels in the liquidation of his own kind and spits on the hallowed traditions and values that brought them to greatness. Birchy is nothing more than a secular-minded nihilist driven by the worst emotion known to man: ENVY. He is driven by hatred of the West not for its flaws, which it certainly has, but for its virtues and no amount of Orwellian double-talk on his part will change this fact. In the immortal words of Tennyson: Envy wears the mask of Love, and, laughing sober fact to scorn, Birchy is a contemptible little prig who attempts to pass himself off as a “serious” mind only to fail at his endeavors miserably. He outwardly claims to have come here to Majority Rights in the spirit of good faith seeking knowledge, understanding and dialogue and then proceeds to attack us while chuckling behind our backs on another “discussion” forum about how he successfully managed to perturb some of the board’s regular posters. Birch Barlow is a snake who speaks with a forked-tongue. He is a drug-induced degenerate, a pervert and a weakling. He is a prototypical example of the kind of biological refuse that every society invariably produces but must be flush from its system if life is to go on. Indeed, this piece of animated garbage epitomizes the term “white trash.” The time will come when Birch Barlow and his ilk will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Having repudiated their less successful kinfolk in favor of higher income non-whites and having actively participated in the whole-sale destruction of their own society, they will one day find themselves in “no man’s land” having been rejected by the very cosmopolitan elitists they once embraced. No doubt when that time arrives our race will experience a badly needed cleansing of the “Augean Stables” and the proverbial wheat shall be separated from the chaff. So be it! Frankly, I relish the moment when that day arrives. The sooner the better! For when it does arrive it will be traitors like Birch Barlow who will have to LIVE WITH IT! Strength and Honor! Scipio Americanus 88
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:13 | # Scipio are you saying his apology and follow-up explanations of why he had behaved like that were insincere? It you are, who knows, you might be right, but I for one believed him. 89
Posted by Canada Firster on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:42 | # Ideally, in a political sense, I believe a spokesperson for the race/IQ/genetic realism side should be non-white (at the very least Jewish) and less importantly, but probably still a plus, female. Perhaps we can extract an ambiguously semitic phenotype among our Italian WNs and use her as a “Jewish” spokesman. Two can play the crypsis game. 90
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:58 | #
Since when has Majority Rights become the Oprah Winfrey Show? What matters is his track record of statements over a length of time. Frankly, his remarks have been the most condescending I’ve come across in years. Please note that his supposed contrition came only after he was exposed as a drug addict, a pervert and a degenerate—something that was no surprise for me to read at all. Hats off to “Larch” for some mighty fine detective work. I also think he’s playing to your vanity while simultaneously playing the “victim card” in order to score some sympathy points. I have a younger brother who is a master of that technique and used it time and again on my parents with great success. It’s sickening to watch! Needless to say, my younger brother is still an asshole to this very day. As my very wise Grandmother (god bless her soul) used to say: “Excuses are like noses kid—everybody’s got one.” Besides, Birchy’s still babbling about his beloved Asians. It’s enough to make a grown man vomit! It’s time for Birchy to just shut the hell up and go away!
You damn right I do, Birchy. In fact, I think you are nothing more than a maggot subsisting on the remains of a civilization that is infinitely beyond your comprehension. Your loss to our race would be a blessing. Don’t expect any sympathy from me, dear boy, not after the sickening rhetoric you have spewed on this site. You haven’t been mugged by reality—yet. But trust me, that time will come. Whether you get your life together or not is really no concern of mine. Those who matter to me are the fine younger men and women who don’t sit around making excuses for themselves while maintaining their composure, dignity and sanity in a world gone mad. However, in the unlikely event that there is a shred of decency left in that rotted-out soul of yours, I suggest swinging by Robert Frenz’s old site for some badly needed spiritual sustenance. Robert Frenz was the great, great, great grandson of Robert E. Lee who spoke of honor, courage, loyalty, character and many other values that once made the West strong and vibrant. Start with the following essay: Females to Avoid: http://www.faem.com/edward/fleamale.htm and then proceed to the main page from there: http://www.faem.com
Guessedworker, there are millions of upstanding young men and women who don’t sink to the level of a Birch Barlow and who don’t make excuses for themselves. Indeed, they are the true Atlases who are still holding up this stinking cesspool of a world. Birch Barlow is not someone to be pitied. His earlier remarks are sickening and for you and others to now disregard them on the basis of a few statements strikes me as inversion of true morality. Besides, the prodigal son did not make excuses for himself—he accepted his own responsibility for his degraded condition and begged his father’s forgiveness. Redemption requires true change in a person and it must be demonstrated over a substantial period of time. I’ll repeat my Grandmother’s words: “Excuses are like noses kid—everybody’s got one.” Scipio Americanus 91
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:29 | # Scipio americanus, A fine and combative post. But the boy is 23. He will stop taking drugs, and will look back on that part of his life with regret. He might also grow ashamed of his obviously stupid Asian fetishism and the attitudes he has adopted towards his own people. Or he might seek to bolster them with more of the same and keep it going his whole lifelong, which is something people who live in error very often do. I tend to think it will be the latter. But at least that is in the balance. In any case, it behoves us to leave the door open. We are the believers in our people, and none who make it through that doorway are excluded from our company, even those who have lived in the most wilfull error, and in self-harm. 92
Posted by birch barlow on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:05 | # It’s good to see that GW, Scrooby, and even JW seem to see some good, some openness to reason in me. But that’s not really my top concern. Ultimately what will matter for me is whether my intelligence and my values of being a net contributor, of not being part of the riff-raff, of being no better than some illegal, will win against my desires—particularly for drugs and alcohol; I don’t see nearly as much danger from Asian females, or South Park, Family Guy, House MD, 24, Married with Children, All in the Family et al. as with the dope and booze, which really have no value beyond relief and fun, like a mini-vacation. I’ll admit also that I have a major issue of idolization and idealization (and not just of East Asians, but pretty much anything related to what I enjoy) and being a follower—my opinion is heavily influenced by those I respect and have trust in…not just GC and other members of the “Sailersphere”/Bell Curve advocates (Parapundit, VFR, Derbyshire, just to name a few), but also talk radio hosts like John and Ken, Bill Handel, Doug McIntyre, Al Rantel, academic psychologists who seem to have a realist point of view such as Martin Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, Vallaint, and my own friends and acquaintances. Probably one thing that almost everything I have listed…from South Park to GC to Seligman, even while perhaps “maverick” in today’s political atmosphere are also heavily influenced by it as well. I’ll also admit that I spend a lot more time thinking about Asian females, popular culture like South Park and <a href=“http://www.91x.com/resurrection.html”>91X/KROQ music</i>, than my bread and butter, like my family, work, and school work (though I do enjoy many academic/intellectual topics and subjects, I find the nitty-gritty of say, organic chemistry, linear algebra, and statistical mechanics to be often quite boring). Why am I saying all this crap? I’m not really hoping to gain sympathy, but just sort through my issues. All the hedonistic crap I enjoy can be loads of fun, but when it gets in the way of my being a productive member of society (as it has in the past), it’s a real problem. 93
Posted by birch barlow on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:47 | # Surely Birchy understands that the entire field of science and technology which he ostensibly worships is a product of the Western mind and our race’s Faustian spirit and not of the static-minded East Asians whom he venerates as our “betters”? And surely he knows that the best and brightest of the yellow man’s East flock to the white man’s West to study, to learn and to improve their understanding of such fields of thought that they were incapable of creating and advancing on their own? In fact, when we speak of Western science and technology it is important to note the racial adjective that precedes these terms. Western = White. Of course, it is easy today to deny these facts given the universal dominance of Western thought which gave rise to these endeavors and was mindlessly given away to our racial adversaries but the fact still remains that without the white man, such discoveries and advances would have been impossible. I see this as a debatable point. I would argue that the main reason East Asians are not currently ahead of Europeans is due to geography and accidents of history. For example, a few dozen people had a huge influence on America’s winning the Revolutionary War, and later on in adopting the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation…if the Brits had gotten lucky and wiped out, say, a Continental Congress, or killed Washington, history may have turned out quite differently. And the prosecution/persecution of Galileo arguably had a major chilling effect on the Scientific Revolution in southern Europe. Now, I’m not saying that this necessarily *is* the case. I’d say my main difference from my previous thinking on this issue is that I would not shout down the converse as racist, or consider it impossible or personally unthinkable (though like I said before I might do so to impress my co-workers and boss, or an attractive female…but this is the Web, and there is no one with power over me [other than to ban me] to impress). 94
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:57 | # Scipio I think Birch is showing maturity, honesty, and courage. Of course, only he can know inwardly how sincere he is being, but my sense is he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Time will tell. 95
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:33 | # Less “me” and more “we” would be a beginning, Birch. 96
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:47 | # The question now becomes how to advance the truth and prevent the fall of Western civilization. Tactically, I am of two minds on the White Nationalism vs. Elitist Cosmopolitanism. On one hand, it seems stupid for elitist cosmopolitans like myself or even traditionalists like Auster and Buchanan to be associated in any way with white nationalism or white supremacy, because society tends to reject WN harshly. And the Stormfront types can be a liability independent of their point of view. On the other hand, offering concessions to the left and pseudo-right doesn’t seem to do much good. I think both the “yeah I believe in THE BELL CURVE but everybody to the right of me is a stupid racist” and “it’s good and well you believe in THE BELL CURVE but your vision of multiracial cognitive elitism is just another shade of multiculturalism” are incredibly stupid points of view. A white nationalist living in a 50% nonwhite society (but where the nonwhites have an average IQ equal or greater than the white mean) is far better off than someone in Mexico Norte. Likewise, a cognitive elitist living in a 90+% white society, with many areas virtually 100% white, will be far better off than in Mexico Norte. I think both elitist cosmopolitans and WNs (and all those in between) should realize that we have common goals. For the USA, stopping unfiltered Mestizo immigration (and relatively small but incredibly destructive groups like Somali refugees) is critical…but if stemming that tide means stopping immigration period, that’s good too. Both elitist cosmopolitans and white nationalists have an interest in deporting illegals/punishing their employers, deporting legal non-citizens (esp Muslims and the low IQ) and punishing THEIR employers…a harder step but probably necessary, and paying Muslim and low IQ citizens (or if you wish, all nonwhites and those wishing to be with them) to leave. 97
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:52 | # In other words, WN and elite cosmopolitans should join where their interests are similar, and sort out the differences once the anti-hbd side is defeated. Like I said my only misgiving is that I don’t want to be associated with white nationalism, because even those sympathetic to h-bd or who COULD be sympathetic to h-bd are repelled. 98
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 02:13 | # As for convincing others of h-bd: yeah it can get boring, like in the quote below:
The whack-a-mole game getting boring and tiresome is one reason I have posted (and stupidly posted) here. It’s more fun getting attacked from the right. But debates between WNs and Elite Cosmopolitans are largely counterproductive to the cause of the West, unless the debate somehow brings WNs and ECs closer and gives them more combined firepower against the Left. I think GC is too pessimistic and paranoid. I have discussed h-bd/Bell Curve issues with dozens if not hundreds of people at school, at work, and in my neighborhood. If I present my POV thoughtfully (as opposed to sloppily, as sometimes happens to me particularly on blogs), people usually seem at least sympathetic, even if they aren’t convinced. They at least tend to go up on J.B.S. Haldane’s “four stages of acceptance” of a scientific theory: 1. This is worthless nonsense. I have never gotten in trouble for discussing h-bd with anyone*...though notably I have never done it in front of my professors or supervisors. GC needs to let go of some of his pessimism and paranoia. He will be happier for it. I think his belief that especially attractive females do not give a damn about abstract topics, and especially abstract taboo topics, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because this belief causes GC to lose all his self-confidence. Yes, women are different, but not as fundamentally and radically different as GC seems to fear. It’s easy to fall into the cynical “I’ll only be accepted if I’m totally boring and phony” trap, because I’ve done it myself. *Well, OK, Abiola threatened to sue me, and Frank McGahon revealed some of my identity (e.g. my first name and last initial, which I stupidly used to post under, and the college I used to go to). 99
Posted by onlooker on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:07 | # birch, You’re 23 years old. Are you employed? Did you ever have a full time job?
Better yet, start your own bussiness and work for yourself. You’ll soon find the most demanding boss you’ll ever have, ironically, will be yourself. What I say is true, I’ve experienced it myself. If you want to succeed in this world, there is only one thing you must do…work your ass off! 100
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 05:22 | # I am not currently employed, but I am about to become an electrician apprentice. 101
Posted by larch on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:14 | # “But debates between WNs and Elite Cosmopolitans are largely counterproductive to the cause of the West” No, it’s not, because the “Elite Cosmopolitans” are hostile to the West and their “vision” needs to be refuted. More aliens - “high IQ” or not - are hardly “productive” for the West. It is in fact the problem. “In other words, WN and elite cosmopolitans should join where their interests are similar, and sort out the differences once the anti-hbd side is defeated.” This is nonsense, since the differences are absolutely fundamental. “A white nationalist living in a 50% nonwhite society (but where the nonwhites have an average IQ equal or greater than the white mean) is far better off than someone in Mexico Norte. “ Define: “better off” and define “Mexico Norte.” “Likewise, a cognitive elitist living in a 90+% white society..” I can’t help but notice that *all* your choices are characterized by a significant non-white minority. “brings WNs and ECs closer and gives them more combined firepower against the Left. To me, the “ECs” are just as big an enemy as the “Left.” In some ways, bigger, as they divert some naive race realists away from racial identitarianism and towards aracial “cognitive elitism” or “citizenism.” By analogy, the Republicans can be viewed as more of a problem than the Democrats. “I think GC is too pessimistic and paranoid.” In other words, when GC finally writes something that I can at least partially agree with, then that’s when you decide to criticize him. Interesting. “The question now becomes how to advance the truth and prevent the fall of Western civilization.” Yes, “western civilization” is important (assuming we are defining it similarly, which I doubt); but preserving genetic interests are paramount. 102
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:30 | # Let me make the central point - the real argument - absolutely plain to you, birch. Asian cognitive elitism is not any kind of path to European (or white) racial survival in America or any other of our living spaces. Quite the reverse. And that’s precisely why it is proposed by Asians, Jews - always the great opportunists - and by whites (David B?) whose children are the products of miscegenation with Asians. It all comes down to ethnic genetic interest - that “mysticism” GNXPers are so loathe to acknowledge. They can’t acknowledge it because it begs the question: what’s yours? Asian cognitive elitists do not relish exposure for what they really are, which is the implacable racial enemy of the white American. So here it is again: Asian cognitive elitism is a vehicle for the advancement of Asian (and Jewish) genetic interests. Like the more colourful forms of Jewish ethno-particularism we all know so well, it is just another means of attacking the genetic interests of white Americans. Specifically, instead of cleaving them through class-war or debilitating them by cultural attack, cognitive elitism seeks to hive-off a layer of intelligent but snottily traitorous whites, while casting the rest into the proverbial historical dustbin. It is grossly offensive, and if you can’t see through it you are still far from understanding the meaning and significance of white survivalism. 103
Posted by larch on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:43 | # “Specifically, instead of cleaving them through class-war or debilitating them by cultural attack, cognitive elitism seeks to hive-off a layer of intelligent but snottily traitorous whites, while casting the rest into the proverbial historical dustbin.” That’s a fairly good description, GW. It also explains the rage felt by some cognitive elitists when high-IQ whites don’t “go with the program.” Taylor was always a favorite target in that regard, for example. To the “cogists” the problem is not the Stormfronters and others of that ilk that they may mock; the real problem are intelligent whites who favor kinship over constructed identitiies. Who knows, they may even label some of these as “delusional” (pathologization) or as obsessed with “precious bodily fluids.” 104
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 14:23 | # In other words, when GC finally writes something that I can at least partially agree with, then that’s when you decide to criticize him. Interesting. What I was criticizing as paranoid and pessimistic was not GC’s position on the issues, but his seeming hopelessness about spreading the reality of h-bd. 105
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 14:30 | # Also, I don’t consider high-IQ immigration (nonwhite or white) to be essential to the economic wellbeing of the USA. And, as I said, Asians and other high-IQ nonwhites *do* present real political problems, especially in the current political climate. There are good reasons to stop even the immigration of high-IQ nonwhites to the USA. 106
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:09 | # I guess the big divider here is the issue of ethnic genetic interests. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the collective Majority Rights point of view seems to be that EGI are an end in themselves. Whereas in the past I would just scream Racist!Racist! at the concept EGI, I now see the issue in practical terms. As shown by Robert Putnam, ethnic/racial diversity tends to reduce trust and increase conflict. So there is definitely a downside to racial diversity, where I disagree is HOW MUCH racial diversity causes problems, and ultimately whether racial diversity is negotiable. I think most people would have a price on racial continuity. The fact that this price isn’t zero is very un-PC, and offensive (though true) to even leftist-hating people like me, though on the other hand, it is probably not infinity either. Given the choice between paying $500,000 for a house in a heavily Asian city or neighborhood, and a $1,000,000 house (equivalent in all ways but the racial makeup of the neighborhood), I think most whites would choose the former (assuming the coupled earned say, $200,000 a year…obviously someone with lots of $$$ will pay more for any given desirable feature, even if that person doesn’t care that much about the feature). 107
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:39 | # Birch your house thing is wrong in the sense that our side aren’t talking, fundamentally, about an Oriental or Subcon neighborhood which might be set, let’s say, in an otherwise white country, and about how much extra a white family would pay to live in an all-white neighborhood rather than that one. We’re talking about whole races and, if you prefer, sub-races of Euros going out of existence. No they won’t go out of existence if the non-white population is ten percent as it was before 1965 and people retain, as they did before 1965, the freedom of association and so on that allowed whites to arrange their modes of living and social affairs largely as best met their needs. They will go out of existence if the present trends continue, which are the opposite of the last sentence. Things are on a conveyor belt moving toward a certain destination. We want to stop that conveyor belt at the very least, and ideally put it in reverse. In a sense your example of the two neighborhoods incorporates the problem we see: why must it cost a million dollars to live in a white neighborhood? If the whole nation is white apart from just a small number of Orientals or Subcons a white family would never have to pay double to live in a white neighborhood. 108
Posted by larch on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:23 | # How much money would you accept to have your entire extended family wiped out? Genetic interests in ethnies are several orders of magnitude higher than that of families. Economists attempt to estimate the “worth” of an individual human life based on risk avoidance; such estimates range from 1.5-7 million $, based on articles I have read. Given that, according to Salter’s simplistic calculations, every two East Asians decrease European EGI by one child equivalent - and that’s actually a gross *underestimation*, in my opinion - who is going to give me anywhere from $750,000 - $3.5M for every East Asian in America? I certainly can use the money. 109
Posted by Alex on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:03 | #
That was based on her figure of the total Southern White population, not households, from the 1850 census showing 300,000 slave owners out of a total population of nine million Southern Whites. The total number of Southern households with chattel slaves would no doubt have been higher than 3 out of a 100.
Yes, I’d tend to agree that’s probably not from a good source and is a bit inflated and on the high side. However, even with the likely inflated figures such as those you’ve mentioned, that translates as 60 and 70 percent of Southern households, ie a strong majority, being non-slave holders…non slave holders who, leaving aside the general immorality of chattel slavery, had to suffer under the burdens of those who did own slaves…ie depressed wages, the periodic slave revolts, the crimes committed, etc, etc. With ‘cheap labor’ it’s quite the same, though in many ways exponentially worse in harm done. A strong majority suffer under the burden of a minority who do engage in that immoral exploitation….ie the depressed wages, the periodic rioting of the cheap laborers, the crimes committed, etc, etc. With both the cheap labor and chattel variants of slavery you have this minority of the population so engaged going to the greatest and absurdest lengths to persuade the majority that their very destructive and immoral pursuit is a good thing for not only those being exploited, but for the rest of the majority population as well.
That’s exactly right. The author I quoted from spoke of ‘the privilidged 4000’ families who dominated the South, her family being one of those. Three thousand of those families had a family member who owned one hundred or more slaves. The other thousand or so families were something of a support network for the slave holding ones. The rest of the three hundred thousand persons owning slaves apparently owned anywhere from one to several dozen. 111
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:04 | #
Lol. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or, musings and ramblings to mull over whilst living in fear of the Priests of PeeCee. Anti-Semite: –noun Seems a pretty risky behavior. One minute you don’t like them, the next you’re “obsessed” with their “evil” and their bringing about their “destruction” and roasting your nuts next to Sisyphus. What a frickin’ loon (except for the typical Semite wordplay - that’s clever, if plodding). “Became a Christian.” Lol. A “Christian” with Jewish interests… Funny, just like most liberals, most neokahns prefer the cloister to the ring and the straw man to the European. Remember, Auster lumps all “anti-Semites” together and describes them as a single archetype; no doubt he has a lot of fun pointing this sort of thing out when it’s done to Jews. 112
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:15 | # From that 1860 Census chart, I get the number of CSA families holding slaves as 394,000 and the number families in the CSA as 1,515,000, giving the percentage of slave-holding families in the CSA as 26%. (This figure will be off if the rubric “Number of families” in the Census chart included slave families; I assumed it meant only white families.) 113
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:16 | #
Really? I remember regularly kicking brown ass over at GNXP , and always having my posts removed. Anyway, what you say is true; everybody triangulates, I think it’s an evolved mechanism or something. 114
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:45 | #
Could you expand on that? 115
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:48 | #
HOW can Auster not know how full of shit he is? That, my friends, is POWERFUL self-deception, if he honestly doesn’t see how transparent this is (i.e., “I get to arbitrarily set the rules of discourse”). I’ve been unkind to Mr. Auster, he doesn’t deserve my epithets; he deserves a good thrashing in an open forum. 116
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:49 | # Auster - just another would be Jewish cult leader (see MacDonald’s trilogy). Pity most those who swarm him. 117
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 04:04 | #
Fair enough, GW. But he shouldn’t expect to be pampered if he chooses to mix it up with the BIG BOYS here at Majority Rights. “Carthage Basher” is my middle name, ya’ know. LOL! So long as he minds his manners he won’t have any problem from me. By the way, since when has the age of 23 not been associated with the arrival of manhood? There are 23 year old Americans currently leading men into combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m in my 30’s so the age difference between us isn’t too great. It’s time for “the boy” to grow up! He needs to stop flapping his gums via the keyboard and start learning from those who have time-tested wisdom to offer him. I have left the door open in this regard by recommending Robert Frenz’s thought-provoking site: FAEM. What is the likelihood that this gonad-orientated wastrel of a hedonist will even read the single essay recommended earlier and actually think about it in a critical manner let alone peruse the thousands of other pages of material found on the site? I would put the odds conservatively at a 1000 to 1. It has been my direct observation over the years that by the time most people reach their mid-twenties, their ability to listen and learn essentially shuts down, thus making them immune to logical arguments that are required to persuade them to consider and accept a divergent view and course of action. No amount of argumentation will achieve success once this point is reached, regardless how well it is constructed. Further compounding the problem is that only about 15% of the population can actually think for themselves. The vast masses of any given population simply go along to get along—a fact which explains why civilizations inevitably crumble once the herd is stampeded towards the abyss. Of course, our Marxist-dominated school system plays a cental role in stunting the development of the rational faculty of our present and future leaders. Having spent many years attending prominent universities and having earned several college degrees, I will say without certain locution that the university system is the center of corruption in the West. Years ago, The Academy served as the intellectual bastion of our hallowed civilization. Today, these institutions of higher learning have been wholly subverted into institutions of lower living. They spew nothing but hate-filled incantations while filling the minds of our young men and women with the most grotesque and debased superstitions imaginable while simultaneously promulgating anti-conceptual methods specifically designed to cripple the rational faculty of their unknowing victims—most having been stealthily prepared many years earlier by mind-paralyzing media programming which inculcates “white-guilt” and teaches them to hedonistically copulate like barnyard animals because it “feels good.” When coupled with the debilitating effects of psychotropic drugs we arrive at a fiendish scheme for producing a generation of stultified zombies who exhibit a perverted collective racial masochism that has no parallel in history. By the time they graduate from these Marxist boob-hatcheries their minds have been so debauched and deformed by years of death-worshipping egalitarian propaganda that they have been effectively reduced to a state of mind that can best be equated to a frontal lobotomy. Their ability to reason and form necessary, life sustaining concepts has been so thoroughly damaged that few ever recover. They plod through life each day reciting their professors’ gabble while forever chattering to others about “democracy,” “bio-diversity,” “social good,” “under-developed nations,” “One World,” “universal brotherhood,” “human rights,” ” the underprivileged,” “just society,” “equality of opportunity,” “serving mankind,” “meeting the needs of a changing world,” “world peace,” “there’s no race but one—the human race” ad infinitum nauseam! If anyone doubts the veracity of my claims, I suggest watching the following 3 minute clip of “distinguished professor of English and noted author” Nikki Giovanni* reading her convocation “poem” to a crowd of “mournful” students, professors and dignitaries the day after the cold-blooded murder of 32 Virginia Tech students by a hate-crazed Asiatic killer. Watch as this cross-dressing lesbian parades up to the podium sporting a man’s suit and tie to give her “We are Virginia Tech” address before a crowd of limp-wristed poltroons. Watch as this 60’s styled black radical embraces what should have been a solemn occasion not with a dignified presentation but a perverse liberal diatribe on AIDS in Africa, hungry Mexican children and baby elephants deprived of their “community.” Watch as this pseudo-intellectual prostitute begins to jump up and down like a crazed Bantu with clinched fists held high in the air much in the same manner that her African ancestors did after having slaughtered and eaten a party of unsuspecting white settlers. Watch as the crowd of glassy-eyed suckers enthusiastically give this low-IQ negress a standing ovation with our vaunted President George W. Bush leading the way in this televised fit of insanity! Watch as the audience then begins to clap and cheer as though they are attending a niggerball pep rally. Watch, dear patriots, if you have the stomach for such displays of induced masochistic madness and impious impropriety! *NOTE: Nikki Giovanni’s “poetry” appeared many years ago in an anthology entitled The Black Poets (Bantum Books, 1971.) A few lines should suffice as examples of her poetic “genius”: “Can you kill? Can you run a Protestant down with your /El Dorado/....Can you [obscenity] on a blond head/Can you cut it off?” In the immortal words of the late classicist Revilo P. Oliver: “They have received not a liberal education, but an education by ‘Liberals’...They have since the first grade been sloshed about in the standard detergent: one ounce of fact dissolved in a gallon of hogwash. They have so much to unlearn!” Is it any wonder why our society and civilization is on the verge of total ruin? As you hopefully now understand GW, despite my aggressive, hard-as-nails posture towards “the boy,” I do understand the brain-contaminating environment that promotes his mentality. However, to excuse Birchy’s comments solely as a derivative of his white-hating indoctrination, youthful inexperience and his drug-induced fantasies does not completely explain away the underlying venom of his earlier remarks. Nevertheless, I shall cease and desist in my rhetoric towards the young lad and take a wait-and-see attitude regarding his presence and road to recovery. I will admit that I would be delighted if he turns out to be a diamond in the rough. But I’m not holding my breath. In the end, it is far more productive for us to concern ourselves with attempting to reach those younger men and women who are innately decent and not too self-absorbed and hence can possibly be rescued before Moloch claims their souls. Scipio Americanus 118
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 04:07 | # Larch, if you just meant due to the huge size differences, never mind. 119
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 04:15 | # Given the nature of this discussion, I would like to recommend a superbly crafted essay by Robert L. Kocher: “The Socialist Matrix” found here. It is part 8 of a 13 part series dedicated to unraveling the up-side down bizzaro world we find ourselves living in today. To quote the author: “This series is being written by someone who has extracted himself from the present matrix and who has memory of another world. It is an extraction and post-extraction training course for producing iron, tough-minded sonsofbitches. It is designed for those who know there is something wrong with the world. They don’t know what it is, or perhaps are unable to put it into exact words, but they feel it. This series is the source to obtain the tools to know and verbalize with exact accuracy rather than to vaguely feel. It is a system of therapy developed over many years to free the mind of distorted premises and virtual thought and enter the real world.” “We are facing a world filled with prisoners who don’t know they are prisoners and are addicted to, and demand, the initially easy life obtained through the co-imprisonment of others. Many seek escape into virtual reality, virtual thought, and virtual logic in return for removal from the uncomfortable realities of the real physical world. They are willing slaves in a prison of the mind. Those who are not freed are the enemy. Those people still in a virtual reality which both misconstrues attempts to free them and attempts to free yourself from them as an act of aggression are the enemy. Those who are partially freed are a source of dangerous treason to the Matrix from within.” In the essay, he defines our current society as follows: “In our present real world, the incipient Matrix equivalent is liberalism/socialism or industrial fascism. There is no real fully developed Matrix as yet, although the American psychological environment is becoming increasingly dominated by a distorted atmosphere that would have been considered science fiction 45 or 50 years ago.” The author proceeds to define the present stage of historical condition by analyzing a myriad of leftist subcultures including: 1] Parasitic Hedonists 2] Social Issues Escapists 3] The Artistic Alienated Class 4] Empty Rebels 5] Narcissistic Elites 6] Leftist Authoritarian Intellectuals He then continues by describing this socialist matrix in more detail. Of particular interest is his discussion of drug use which is germane to understanding the hedonist Birch Barlow: “In a recent online debate, I received protests from one man who has used marijuana daily for nearly 40 years and another constant user for 25 years with no physical side effects. I readily concede that this is both possible and somewhat common among some age and cultural subgroups. In one instance we are looking at a man who has spent the last 40 years in a drug-created and drug-maintained virtual reality and virtual emotionality mental state. Given the persistence of the drug effect, and also the persistence of learned neuronal connective growth patterns under drug use, neither he nor anyone else knows who or what he is—how much of him is drugs versus how much of him is him, or have related to him rather than relating to the virtual person drugs have created. This is not of concern to him. Presumably those around him are in a similar state. Whether his life could survive or what changes he would undergo without the release, the emotional blunting, the artificial emotional intensification, or whatever, from drugs is not a matter of concern or introspection for him. He is fundamentally ready to be plugged into one of the glass tanks in The Matrix and has no personal objection to such a world.” Sound familiar? If Birchy stands a prayer of a chance to discover his true destiny, he must first cleanse his system of the toxic residue of narcotics and liberal theology. No one can deal with the world as it is by attempting to evade the facts of reality via mind-altering drugs or by embracing liberal fantasies which are, by their very natures, completely disconected from reality. Time will tell if Birchy can pull himself up by his boot straps and unplug himself from the libreal-socialist matrix. I would further recommend the many other fine essays found on his site as well: http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/
120
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:08 | # Genetic interests in ethnies are several orders of magnitude higher than that of families. However, even KMac admits that, “The eclipse of European America will certainly result in huge costs for the European majority, but they will be borne mainly by less intelligent and less conscientious whites.” It’s not the first time an ethnic eclipse transpired in America. WASP America was eclipsed and it was the left side of the Bell Curve that also suffered through mass immigration of cheap labour. Now European America will be eclipsed by mass immigration of cheap labour and once again it will have little impact on America’s new “European” elite. It will be borne, overwhelmingly IMO, by low IQ whites. 121
Posted by larch on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:55 | # Just because MacDonald says something, doesn’t make it absolutely true. Actually, I suspect he’s talking mostly about proximate issues, which may be true - but one also suspects that high-IQ treasonous whites will be jettisoned by the new elites once they’ve served their purpose (Raspail’s Camp of the Saints may be instructive here). With respect to genetic interests, those of high-IQ whites are just as damaged as low-IQ. They just do not care. Of course, some do care. That’s why the name “Jared Taylor” caused such upset at GNXP back in ‘03. “Could you expand on that?” If an ethnic group numbers in the millions, then of course, total genetic interests are going to be much higher for that than for the family, even though genetic relatedness would be higher for the family unit (miscegenation excepted). It’s relative genetic distance x numbers of individuals (modified by context). 122
Posted by larch on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:26 | # “Auster - just another would be Jewish cult leader (see MacDonald’s trilogy).” That’s a good insight. Is it wrong to list Sailer as another? Sailer, by the way, actively censors his blog. It would have been better for him to continue not having a comments section (similar to MacDonald) rather than have one and censor it. By the way, Sailer did not coin the verb “watsoned” - that was first used by a Sailer blog commentator. 123
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:15 | #
Practical terms? You are missing the entire point. This is a life or death struggle! It’s not EGI—how I hate these intellectual sounding acronyms—but our genetic heritage, our biology, our DNA, our genes (whichever term you prefer) as manifested outwardly by our race that we seek to defend and protect first and foremost. What you are confusing is cause and effect. You can’t have white culture and white civilization without white people! It’s that simple. It’s just common sense, which admittedly is very uncommon these days. Even if our Western Civilization were destroyed, we could rebuild it provided enough of our genetic stock as represented by our Western people survived. That is why Larch wrote: “Yes, ‘western civilization’ is important….but preserving genetic interests are paramount.” Our genetic heritage is paramount because its the very basis for which our civilization arose! Again, you can’t have white culture and white civilization without white people! What you are doing is decoupling race from culture and civilization and acting as if there is no connection between them. Poppycock! Civilization and culture are ultimately the by-products of race. Quite often we hear pundits talking about “civilization” as though it’s an abstract concept that arose in a vacuum. That is just plain nonsense. Civilization is produced by people. It’s produced not by an individual but a group of individuals. Specifically, a collection of individuals with a shared history, a shared culture and a shared blood line. In other words, a group of individuals united by race. Race is not a “social construct” as the Marxists and Liberals proclaim. It is a biological fact of reality that every non-white person the world over recognizes. It is a given race of people who create and maintain a given civilization. The only people, in the aggregate, who seem not to understand this cause and effect relationship are white people. Indeed, this was something our ancestors understood until just recently. Unfortunately, it appears that far too many of our people today have thrown aside their basic survival instincts—perversely labeled as “racism” by our enemies to instill guilt, paralysis and inaction —and have mindlessly embraced the genocidal death-cult of multiculturalism which itself is driven by a suicidal embrace of multiracialism. The reason we have multiculturalism in the West is because our intellectual and political leaders now embrace multiracialism and force it down the throats of the general public while enforcing it with totalitarian thought control measures known as political correctness. Multiculturalism is nothing more than an assault on our identity as a people and ultimately a form of biological warfare against our race by treasonous whites and non-whites (including Jews) alike. I am an American, a white man of the West. I recognize the obvious fact that Western culture and Western Civilization is white culture and white civilization. Specifically it is the product of Northwest European/Nordic/Germanic peoples (whichever term you prefer) who differ profoundly in temperament, mentality, and ability when compared to the prolific non-white races of the world and even differ, albeit subtly, with other branches of our white race—such as the Mediterraneans and Slavs. I also recognize the existence of an enemy standing before us wishing to destroy my race and culture and hence the civilization to which it belongs. This enemy is a coalition of many different things. Briefly, it consists of the following primary components: 1] NON-WHITES - Their ultimate motivation for swarming into our lands is to take turf. They want what we have—our lands, our farms, our industry, our nations— as decreed by Nature’s Law of Survival. Races must ultimately struggle with one another to survive, grow and prosper. They understand this fact while Westerners prefer to live in a world of make believe where such facts no longer exist. 2] LIBERALS - This includes “do-gooders” who actually believe the absurd notion that “diversity is our strength” and “there is no race but one—the human race” and other psychologically deranged types who hate and wish to destroy their own kind. Examples include the instigators of the French Revolution, American Abolitionists, 1960’s New Left Radicals, post-Christian “Christians” and a plethora of modern day “One World” Socialists. 3] CAPITALISTS - This category includes multinational corporations and international financiers who put profit before nation and are motivated by the “bottom line.” Their motto: “Greed is good.” Hence their insatiable demand for cheap labor via both legal and illegal Third World immigration into our homelands to drive down general wages in order to pad their bank accounts. 4] JEWS - The only international race and the most critical component of the coalition given that they have provided the spiritual sustenance and constitute the organizational nexus of the coalition. They are motivated by several factors including the fact that as an international people they have always existed as alien minorities in our Western nations coupled with a nihilistic lust to destroy that which they could never have created on their own. It is a historic fact that Jews are culture distorters and nation wreckers as demonstrated by the past 2,500 years of history. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this assault lies in a sordid aspect that drives so much of this race war and that is the hatred for our Western people and our civilization not for its flaws but for its virtues. It is ENVY that constitutes the driving psychological force behind this assault. The “minority coalition” including the Pinks [Liberals], the Reds [Communists], the Browns, the Yellows and the Blacks arrayed against us hate us because our cultural and civilizational achievements TOWER over all others in every field of endeavor. While the squalid Congoids of Africa were bathing in cow urine, copulating with monkeys and living in mud huts, members of our race were building sky scrapers, splitting atoms and sending men to the moon. As Joesph Sobran stated years ago: “The concept of envy—the hatred of the superior—has dropped out of our moral vocabulary ... The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn’t occur to us, because it’s not a nice idea. ... Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.” (Sobran’s—April 1997) A hundred years ago, before Jewish subversive ideological movements contaminated our intellectual environment, Westerners could see these facts clearly because they understood that there were irreconcilable differences between them and non-white people in behavior, culture, and degree of civilization—differences that were traced back to their genesis: RACE. Given this, our people naturally segregated themselves from the non-whites in order to protect the very basis of their civilization. Then came along a Jewish subversive and Marxist sympathizer by the name of Franz Boas, who infiltrated the anthropology department at Columbia University and with the help of his fellow Marxist Jews, established the American Anthropological Association with the sole purpose of promoting the idea that race and biology were trivial matters and environment counted for everything. Sound familiar? Thus the entire field of anthropology was subverted and recast so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration, integration, miscegenation and the eventual destruction of the West and the race that created it. What today’s multiculturalism advocates are really pushing is GENOCIDE! Not just the destruction of white culture and civilization, but the complete destruction of the genetic heritage that made it all possible. Destroy Western man’s genetic heritage and you not only destroy his culture and civilization temporarily, but permanently! Sadly, Western man has forgotten the painful lessons of the past thanks to decades of vicious propaganda and induced perversions and will have to relearn it all over again the hard way. But that which does not destroy us shall make us stronger in the long run. ITS TIME TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE WHITE MAN BEFORE ITS TOO LATE! Scipio Americanus 124
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:22 | # GW—Oops. The first time I submitted my post it didn’t appear on the board so I resubmitted it. Please feel free to remove the duplicate. Thanks! 125
Posted by birch barlow on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:55 | # I don’t want to go back into flamewar mode here, but I feel like I have to make a few comments. I will have a hard time letting go of my obsession with East Asian females. The combination of the “hate whitey” culture, my psychological weaknesses (depression, addictive and obsessive behaviors, lack of self confidence, a tendency to look up to and admire “different” people and things), and my desire to not lose too many status points (pro Bell Curve=really bad in this respect, but WN is yet far worse…even admitting that WNs are probably right about some things, like admitting the possibility that Western culture and anything remotely resembling it are a product of white, and especially northwest European genes *shudder shudder* isn’t just third rail, it’s more like 10th rail(the only worse thing than “white” in my mind [and that of the dominant Left culture] is Nordic, NW European, WASP, etc…I can’t f***ing stand my blond hair, light blue eyes, and pink sun damaged skin [she’s a little older than me but you get the idea]...damn just thinking about this makes me think about how superior nice dark, flawless-skinned East Asian females are [don’t click if you don’t want to see an attractive IMO East Asian female] ). 126
Posted by silver on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:46 | # I find it almost impossible to imagine how anyone (any European, at any rate) could consider an East Asian more beautiful than a European. I wouldn’t even look twice at the example you posted, Birch, if I saw her walking down the street. Do me a favor and study some of J Richards’ threads on beauty or just visit his site femininebeauty.info and see if that doesn’t change your mind at all. I can’t f***ing stand my blond hair, light blue eyes, and pink sun damaged skin They’ve done quite a job on you, it seems. Have you always felt this way? Personally, I value the facial morphology of Europeans more than I do the skin color itself—I’m not greatly enthused by ultra-pale white skin at all. Indeed, I consider some Nordic types rather tragic (not just redheads, either). I don’t normally voice this opinion as I dislike insulting people, yet this site has taught me some things require plain speaking. For all that, though, I’m willing to concede your people the right—and obligation, even—to be and remain themselves. As for (latter) western civilization, it is abundantly clear to me that it is a product of the Nordic/Nordish genetic endowment. The purity of the genes required to sustain it may be less than the genes required to create it, but there is a limit here to the amount of foreign genetic material that could be absorbed. To larch, I have no interest in gnxp and have not read more than a couple of articles there (from a Sailer link) and I’m clearly not pursuing any “cognitive elitist” agenda. Why you insist on hounding me is unclear. 127
Posted by birch barlow on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:01 | # This is amazing. That would mean that using Cavalli-Sforza’s (sp?) figures, if I am 99.6% genetically similar to the average person of European descent, I am only 99.4% similar (these figures straddle the average figure for humans as a whole of 99.5% similarity) to a Southeast Asian or south Chinese…this 0.2% difference is 2/15, or about 13% as large as the difference between a human and a chimpanzee! This is probably actually an underestimate, because NW Europeans are probably a little more genetically distant from East Asians than Europeans as a whole. This doesn’t really change my opinion much about substantive issues (other than indirectly suggesting an increase in the possibility that white culture is a product of white genes and white genes only), but it is nevertheless quite large. 128
Posted by skeptical on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:14 | # Birch,
Yeah, that’s probably why the process of becoming sympathetic to the perspectives of WN/EGI is referred to as a “journey” (it involves the deprogramming of multiples layers of socialization). But, to look on the bright side, once you’ve accepted the pan-European perspectives here at MR you’ve at least reached the dialectical end. There is no further “rail” to descend to. Indeed, you have already made some progress along this dialectical path by virtue of the fact that you’ve successfully broken through several layers of socialization to reach the “extreme” views you now have (relative to polite society but not those at MR). As long as you remain open minded to what more articulate posters here write you’ll reach our the “10th rail” in your good time. 129
Posted by birch barlow on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:51 | # “I wouldn’t even look twice at the example you posted.” http://www.flickr.com/photos/ossiehermosisima/470831761/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ossiehermosisima/1136473803/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ossiehermosisima/304194452/ Above are some links to other pics. If you don’t find ANY of these attractive, you probably just don’t find East Asians attractive in general (nothing wrong with that). Though admittedly In fact, I am certain that there are ultra-leftist Ted Kennedy types who would find dating/mating with other races almost as disgusting as I would dating/mating other men (a la Auster’s “unprincipled exception”)...and then come up with some lame-ass excuse like “a white (esp a white male) being in a romantic relationship with a nonwhite is exploitative and smacking of colonialism. Of course this is bullsh**. Even though allegedly black women have little to no interest in white men, and tall, fit, dark women (and really, women in general) allegedly have no interest in short (I’m 5’7.5”, almost 5’9” with my padded running shoes), somewhat out of shape, fair, and pretty boyish men, this does not seem to be true in my experience. And my guess for the reason for this that these females think, probably not inaccurately, I am a pushover “90s man” who could be easily pussy-whipped. This is not to say that women TEND to prefer submissve men, only to state the converse of “overlap does not imply equality,” i.e. that group INequality does not imply lack of overlap…some women have/display some stereotypically male traits and behaviors, and some men have/display some stereotypically female traits and behaviors. 130
Posted by birch barlow on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:27 | # “...Though admittedly In fact…” Oops a typo…that should be stricken from my comment. I was running out of time and hastily clicked “submit” without editing my comment. BTW, here are some other pics (though again you might just find East Asians unappealing in general…and again there is nothing wrong with that) ***IMPORTANT NOTICE*** These links are not here to annoy people here or convert them to Asiaphilia, only to go with my comment…if you don’t want to see pics of (sometimes scantily clad) Asians, DON’T LOOK!!! http://www.flickr.com/photos/up6901965/332684993/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/up6901965/331475564/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevdiggs/33598581/ http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=33598046&size=o http://www.flickr.com/photos/ossiehermosisima/468312711/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ossiehermosisima/468312697/ 131
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:57 | # Oh really, birch, this is too much. Your private predelictions are really not welcome on this page. You are certainly not under any obligation to prove the “rightness” of them here. That you feel you should is, frankly, mildly ridiculous and embarrassing. Look, Asians do not have a claim on our living spaces. They simply don’t. Nature entitles us to discriminate against them and remove them from our presence, should we wish - and should we be free to act accordingly. Note that that is an “our”, an “us”, a “we” - in this case signifying a single entity of European genetic construction stretching through time. If you have a weakness for foreign women go and live in a foreign place, if you are allowed, and sow your seed in the belly of some other ethnic animal. Do not visit change upon that which is “us”. You, like the rest of us, are responsible for its continuity and for the interests in that we hold in common. Ship out if you can’t live up to that responsibility. 132
Posted by skeptical on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:18 | # Birch, If sexual desire is to override every other consideration then you should openly embrace the East Asian other and live amongst them in their own lands (without during further violence to Western genetic integrity). 133
Posted by VLC on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:26 | # David Hamilton:
If the Enlightenment - whatever that is, I’m not sure anymore - was the source of today’s self-destructive ethnomasochism then how come it was followed by a period of real white supremacism in the 19th century with widespread colonialism i.e. the British Empire, the French colonies, the Germans’, the Dutch’s, etc. ?
134
Posted by birch barlow on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:42 | # Guessedworker— The links are in response to this: “I wouldn’t even look twice at the example you posted.” I also do not see how those links do anyone harm…there’s nothing forcing anybody to click them. Do feel free to delete the links though (however I would prefer that you don’t delete the rest of the posts with the links). I did not mean any offense. I figured that people here wouldn’t be interested anyway, other than to prove in their minds that East Asians aren’t attractive. 135
Posted by birch barlow on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:55 | # “a white (esp a white male) being in a romantic relationship with a nonwhite is exploitative and smacking of colonialism”...And my guess for the reason for this that these females think, probably not inaccurately, I am a pushover “90s man” who could be easily pussy-whipped. This is not to say that women TEND to prefer submissve men, only to state the converse of “overlap does not imply equality,” i.e. that group INequality does not imply lack of overlap…some women have/display some stereotypically male traits and behaviors, and some men have/display some stereotypically female traits and behaviors. Another factor here is probably that man darker women see a ticket into integrating into Western society and gaining more of the benefits of Western society in being with a white male. Also, assuming that the white male lives in a primarily white country, Asians and other nonwhites mixing with whites would expand Asian and other nonwhite genetic interests, both by “diluting” white genes (their genes are “diluted” as well, but the nonwhite still has co-ethnics in their native country), and by making whites more sympathetic to nonwhites since whites’ genetic interests become tied with those of nonwhites. In any case, the nonwhite is still getting a better deal than the white…if anything the white is “exploited” in an interracial relationship. Don’t get me wrong though…if I benefit $100,000 from a deal and the other party benefits by $10,000,000, I’m still taking the deal. 136
Posted by Alex on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:37 | # Thanks for the 1860 census chart Scrooby. Interesting stuff. 137
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:56 | # I don’t want to go back into flamewar mode here, but I feel like I have to make a few comments. I will have a hard time letting go of my obsession with East Asian females. The combination of the “hate whitey” culture, my psychological weaknesses (depression, addictive and obsessive behaviors, lack of self confidence, a tendency to look up to and admire “different” people and things), and my desire to not lose too many status points (pro Bell Curve=really bad in this respect, but WN is yet far worse…even admitting that WNs are probably right about some things, like admitting the possibility that Western culture and anything remotely resembling it are a product of white, and especially northwest European genes *shudder shudder* isn’t just third rail, it’s more like 10th rail(the only worse thing than “white” in my mind [and that of the dominant Left culture] is Nordic, NW European, WASP, etc…I can’t f***ing stand my blond hair, light blue eyes, and pink sun damaged skin [she’s a little older than me but you get the idea]...damn just thinking about this makes me think about how superior nice dark, flawless-skinned East Asian females are [don’t click if you don’t want to see an attractive IMO East Asian female] ). Birch, I have one piece of advice for you: Get a physically demanding job; the harder the better. You need a testosterone boost bud. Get a physically demanding job, or work out hard for 4 hours a day. You’ll thank me. As for your deep-seated self-hatred, I can’t make any promises. I suspect that sort of thing is mostly genetic. 138
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:05 | # did you kept your posts in a file on your HD ? I’d like to read that Nah. You’d be underwhelmed anyway; it was typically child’s play; people who insist on living in echo chambers always go down like they’ve been poleaxed. 139
Posted by larch on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:06 | # “Why you insist on hounding me is unclear.” I disagree. “Oh really, birch, this is too much.” Are you surprised, GW? As I’ve told you offlist, and will state here, I’m skeptical of the sincerity of a number of these “contributors.” “Also, assuming that the white male lives in a primarily white country, Asians and other nonwhites mixing with whites would expand Asian and other nonwhite genetic interests, both by “diluting” white genes (their genes are “diluted” as well, but the nonwhite still has co-ethnics in their native country), and by making whites more sympathetic to nonwhites since whites’ genetic interests become tied with those of nonwhites. “ Gee….that sounds real familiar. Did you think that up all yourself, Birch? “pan-European perspectives here at MR” Rnl and wintermute would be real interested in these “perspectives.” Did you post that comment at the wrong blog? “Don’t get me wrong though…if I benefit $100,000 from a deal and the other party benefits by $10,000,000, I’m still taking the deal.” That’s great. How about the costs incurred to others? Free-riding to satisfy your “urges?” “***IMPORTANT NOTICE*** These links are not here to annoy people here or convert them to Asiaphilia, only to go with my comment…if you don’t want to see pics of (sometimes scantily clad) Asians, DON’T LOOK!!! “ The signal to noise ratio here is getting to the point of absurdity - and extreme time wasting. 140
Posted by larch on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:13 | # On the one hand, we have this enlightening “debate” with birch as well as silver/brown. On the other hand, one can invest time promoting the work of Salter, and attempt to have nationalist politicians/leaders incorporate/adopt-adapt, and promote Salter’s work themselves, which has taken root - at least to a small, initial degree - here: Given the choice, the latter seems more productive, no? Then again, we can enjoy, here, pictures of breastless Asiatics with the physiques of 10 year old boys, wearing superfluous bikini tops: the choice is difficult, indeed. 141
Posted by skeptical on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:21 | # larch,
In my opinion the monikers Euroman, Europid, European derived, White man, Euro, or Westerner are nearly interchangeable. Perhaps instead of “pan-European perspective” I should’ve written “pro-White perspective”, but aren’t these just syntactical distinctions without any semantical difference? And besides the “pan-Euro-[derived]” term is particularly apt since the ethnomasochism we’re witnessing is occurring at a racial level and not merely a national one (otherwise it would be confined to a few countries). 142
Posted by larch on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:38 | # I’m not criticizing the terms you are using, or your commentaries. I’m saying your comment is not applicable for this blog: 143
Posted by larch on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:42 | # Looking at some of those pictures birch posted, I’m leaning toward a theory put forth to me by a white woman: that white men interested in oriental women have subconscious desires for children - and thus are attracted to “women” with underdeveloped bodies, other “childlike” features (rounded facial features, high body fat %, extreme body hairlessness), as well as a more childlike behavior. Asiaphilia = sublimated pedophilia? 144
Posted by larch on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:17 | # It’s instructive what barlow is posting elsewhere; for example on the Steve “censor anything that sounds EGIish” Sailer blog: “birch barlow said… I know this sounds nice, but superiority is an issue that cannot be evaded. The fact is, that where it counts, whites and Asians *are*, on average, superior to blacks and Hispanics. The only saving grace is that there are *some* blacks and Hispanics who do possess the kinds of traits that maintain and even build civilization, that is there some blacks and Hispanics who are equal or superior to the average white, and a few who are much superior to the average white. See here, for example [Control F+ “joshua”, Control F + “salinas”]” What about kinship, rather than comments about how some blacks and Hispanics are “superior” to the “average white?” Actually, it’s not even enough to question whether a person obsessed with rankings of proximate traits would trade off their own blood kin family for “superior” strangers. Let’s get even more fundamental. What about self? Why eat any food at all - when that food can instead go to another person who is smarter, better looking, stronger, or whatever? Thus, a white person confronted with a putative “superior” black or Hispanic should give up all necessities of life to their “superior.” After all, as we are told by GNXP, “life has no interests,” so what’s the problem? Proximate traits exist as and end to themselves, right? 145
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:37 | # “I’m saying your comment is not applicable for this blog” JW, sometimes your singular dedication leaves people perplexed. Relax. There is value of a sort in any opinion that offers a leaping-off point for our arguments. Anything that can be turned to debate about sleep and awakening or about the waking man’s measure of right and wrong has utility. As for our friends such as skeptical, there is so much wisdom and goodwill out there, why would we want to preclude any of it from this forum. Let these friends speak their truths - and, for that matter, our enemies their falsehoods. Trust the readers to discriminate aright, and journey along with us. I’m glad, btw, that Norman’s talking a bit about Salter, and trying to contextualise EGI. 146
Posted by birch barlow on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:47 | # What about self? Why eat any food at all - when that food can instead go to another person who is smarter, better looking, stronger, or whatever? This goes back to proximate interests—people want to feel good and they don’t want to fell bad, and (usually) don’t want to die. Even if all of life’s interests are a genetically produced illusion, that doesn’t change the reality that I have interests and that they feel all too real. Indeed, if all I cared about was spreading my genes, I’d by willing to die if it meant that at least 2 clones of me would be conceived, and indifferent to dying in exchange for having a clone of myself made (assuming the clone did not have any cloning-induced defects rendering it less able to reproduce as effectively as myself). Indeed, I would be indifferent between the options of dying a horrible death and living in a Utopian virtual reality “Matrix” where I could live thousands of years or more, everything would seem real, and I would be outrageously happy a la “the hedonistic imperative.” Like I said I only care about the survival of a large and unmixed white race to the extent that Western Enlightenment culture and the high standard of living that come with it depend on European genes, a possibility I consider real and acknowledge but also see as quite distasteful as well. 147
Posted by larch on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:38 | # So, then, you would sacrifice your entire extended family if that would make you ‘feel good?’ And if the Asiatic strangers designated to replace them were taught your family’s history and habits, then nothing would be lost? Or are you going to argue that attachment to family is a proximate value also? And, that this proximate value is an abstract without any adaptive value whatsoever? Here’s an example to combine prescriptive and descriptive arguments. To go around the issue of “familial attachments due to life long experiences,” I formulate it as follows. A man discovers he has a son that he was previously unaware of, from an old love affair. Father and son have never met. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, they are both of the same unmixed ethnicity - for example, Irish, a favorite ethny at MR. The man is the told that, hey, if you agree, your biological son will be killed and his place in America taken by a really, really smart and “superior” Chinaman. The man in question has no other children and will not have any more. Thus, his only offspring will be eliminated and replaced by a racial alien. In compensation though, this really, really smart Chinaman will adopt Irish American cultural practices and celebrate St Patrick’s day and so forth. And the man in question will be given a nice oriental concubine for his “hedonistic pleasure” along with some of the drugs barlow is so fond of. 1. Will the man say yes? If he did, what would society think of him? Would that be considered a “normal” and “moral” decision? This is descriptive - what the man would probably do and what the reaction of others would be if he did otherwise. 2. Would it be adaptive for him to do so - prescriptive? If he sacrifices his genetic fitness for personal proximate gain, and if “nothing is lost” intellectually or culturally - only biologically - is sacrificing his son an evolutionarily sound strategy for the man? Kinship has worth independent of other variables. However, as others have stated, people either care about their genetic interests or they do not. Barlow, apparently, does not, which, along with his other characteristics makes him favored at GNXP (*). Those of us who do care however, object to the fact that your proximate values damage our own genetic interests. *Barlow should consider what it says about GNXP that someone like, for example, Guessedworker, is not welcome there and someone like barlow - with all his own self-confessed failings - is. 148
Posted by birch barlow on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:14 | # So, then, you would sacrifice your entire extended family if that would make you ‘feel good?’ And if the Asiatic strangers designated to replace them were taught your family’s history and habits, then nothing would be lost? Or are you going to argue that attachment to family is a proximate value also? And, that this proximate value is an abstract without any adaptive value whatsoever? Yes, attachment to family is a proximate value—it’s real to me because it feels real to me (also, my relatives give me more and care about me more than strangers do…OTOH, even my stepfamilies care about me and give me stuff, and they are not genetically related to me). And all the rhetoric about “killing” is awfully emotionally laden…there’s a big difference between murder or tragic death and someone not existing in the first place (this goes back to the stupidity of the anti-stem cell research crowd, though at least their argument makes some sense, in the sense that a soul is eliminated even when a single-celled embryo is killed, and the person doing or supporting the killing could be punished in the afterlife…but those are both pretty far-fetched to say the least, even if one is a Christian). Things like murder and rape are so horrendous that I would not do them even if I knew I wouldn’t face any punishment whatsoever, including hell…and this is mostly because my genetic wiring would cause horrible guilt if I ever did commit murder. On the other hand, if I could embezzle $1,000,000 from (say) Paris Hilton, Dick Cheney, or Carlos Slim and know I would never get punished, I’d do it in a heartbeat. I’d say the same for Bill Gates; even though I have no particular negative feelings against him moreso than any other white liberal, he’s got so much money that a million wouldn’t affect him much. 149
Posted by larch on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:11 | # “Yes, attachment to family is a proximate value—it’s real to me because it feels real to me” Brilliant. “Feeling” is reality. Can you take off your dress now and be a bit more manly? “also, my relatives give me more and care about me more than strangers do…OTOH, even my stepfamilies care about me and give me stuff, and they are not genetically related to me” In other words, your family has value to you only insofar as they give you “stuff.” Interesting. Newsflash: the universe does not revolve around you. “And all the rhetoric about “killing” is awfully emotionally laden…” Which doesn’t answer whether it would be adaptive for a man to exchange his biological offspring for a “superior” and “culturally adaptable” stranger. The only value to this comments thread: to clearly delineate the type of white favored by GNXP. From the GNXP perspective, GW bad, barlow good. A white America consisting of barlows is every Asiatic’s dream of “fair ” competition… 150
Posted by birch barlow on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:00 | # ^Ew. It’s not the interracial part, it’s the big ugly d**k and the nasty-looking woman. If it were just an attractive nude female (any race) I wouldn’t be bothered. But that’s just gross. And btw, is that really you Scrooby? Or an impersonator? If it’s from GNXP that’s really low…I thought more highly of GNXP than that. If it’s someone trying to smear GNXP, by making people think its GNXP impersonating Scrooby, that’s bad too. In any case, could you please get rid of that GW???? It’s not worksafe/school-safe/public library safe either in addition to being quite disgusting. At least I was kind enough to only provide links, and not to anything pornographic. 151
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:33 | #
I don’t know what you’re referring to. Sorry, the press of work and other things kept me from logging on yesterday apart from a bit, late in the evening, and right now’s the first time I’ve been able to log on all day today (“now” being half past five in the evening) (I’m almost always able to log on the the morning a little, but I could’t get to it this morning, or at lunchtime). Did someone post something signing as me? All I can say is I didn’t do it (or see it). 152
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:15 | # “Did someone post something signing as me?” Yes, Fred. We have an intruder with a hate complex. 153
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:34 | # Thanks, GW. What did they post in my name — the Sub-Saharan shagging the bleach-blonde “white” whore with the dark roots? (three-way pun intended). I saw that the other day when they first put it up — you mean the desis are still trying to get a rise out of us with that? (no, that one wasn’t). Someone should photoshop Aish’s face onto the whore in that, send the doctored pic back into some GnXp thread, then place bets at Intrade on how fast it would take the super-hip desis to lose their cool. 154
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:56 | #
EGI isn’t reductionism or determinism. You say “conceived,” this wording tells me you probably haven’t thought too hard about it; trading one’s life for two clones “conceived” would be an EGI disater. Two clones mature and viable (adult, relatively healthy, and appropriately SESed) for suicide is a bad deal too, when you consider that we’re flexible strategizers and (historically) normal fertility rates allow for many more than four children.
True enough, but I don’t advocate suicide pacts, just acknowledge that pretty much everything human flows from EGI. 155
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:58 | # And by EGI I don’t mean any specific guy’s specific theory, I’m talking about the fundamental function of life - live/reproduce. 156
Posted by birch barlow on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:42 | #
The question isn’t whether it’s adaptive. People have a natural desire to have their own children, and raising a child unrelated to one or both partners in a relationship generally feels less satisfying (and has more potential for conflict) than parents raising their own biological children. There might not be anything “rational” about these instincts, any more than it is “rational” to want the concentration of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens to be higher or the concentration of norepinephrine in the locus ceruleus to be lower (except when one is in immediate danger, though the unpleasantness of high concentrations of NE in the locus ceruleus aids danger avoidance as well as the handling of a dangerous situation).
What if the deal were sweetened so that you could have two identical copies of yourself (not just genetically identical but the body as a whole being identical)? And doesn’t this argument undermine the argument of equivalent loss of kinship due to immigration? 157
Posted by birch barlow on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:14 | #
Wow. I guess anybody to the left of Attila the Hun is either a Stalinist or a pansy, or a pansy enabling Stalinists. And besides, feelings are real and important, and guide our decision making. Ultimately every decision we make is guided by emotion (see Demasio’s Decartes’ Error). If people like you are the true friends of American/European/white quality of life, then who needs enemies? True, a lot of white liberals and nonwhites, including Asians and other high-IQ nonwhites, might be fascists masquerading as progressives*, but you just seem to be a plain old fascist. The good news is that the most ideological/nasty White Nationalism is ultra-fringe (like I have said over and over, WNs may be right about the difficulties of even high-IQ nonwhites, particularly in this political environment, but I find the idea that even high IQ whites and high-IQ nonwhites are absolutely unable to live with each other both unlikely and incredibly distasteful). I should just go back to attacking the Left, who are by far the biggest danger anyway. *”[T]he world’s fascists just figured out that if you wanted to win, you needed US [more relevant to today’s multi-culti situation, elite Western] backing like Stalin got, and that meant you needed a cleaner line of patter than the Nazis and Japanese used. Those hick Jerries and Japs talked death, skulls, slaughter, suicide—tsk tsk, way uncool. Stalin, on the other hand, talked peace, friendship between peoples, justice for the working class…and not only killed far more civvies than Hitler did but got funded for it by the American taxpayer. It was the original no-brainer.” 158
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:47 | # I should just go back to attacking the Left, who are by far the biggest danger anyway. Not really, no. Left and right is all liberalism, except the former wants to midwife you all the way to the Anarch, and the latter wants you to go directly thence yourself, and do not pass go! Immigrants incidentally, and irrespective of brainery, are a means to elite ends. So is “the left”. Actually, the deal at the level of the political infrastructure (which isn’t very high) is capitalism + progressivism. The left is NOT separate from the neoliberal right. They are siamese twins. Your anti-Salterian contortions are sad to see. They tell me you don’t understand the life of Man in Nature nearly as much as you think you do. We are not specially evolved to have two offspring, but to have as many as we practically can, subject to the required investment in care and, of course, to our capacity to be sexually selected. Nature’s object is not to “run” at a replacement level of EGI but to increase it. Exactly like love, reproductive interest does not have a point of sateity, and Salter is not suggesting that it does. He is merely calculating alien gene-flow by genetic distance, and expressing it in the unusual currency of lost child-units 159
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:38 | #
How long is this “Theatre of the Absurd” going to continue? I was under the impression that this was a serious-minded, pro-Western blog designed to appeal to intelligent, grown-up white people and not self-loathing, white-hating miscreants who wallow in ecstasies of self-abasement while proclaiming the alleged esthetic “superiority” of Asians by promoting photos of tender-aged, run-of-the-mill, meat-market “fuck dolls.” Birch has been masochistically flagellating himself while feigning sincerity ever since Larch delivered a spectacular knock-out blow to the boy’s glass jaw, thus exposing the lad as the mental and moral defective that he is. Indeed, his own words have proven the validity of my earlier remarks regarding this deeply neurotic, psychologically unhinged young man. If he “can’t f***ing stand” his blond hair, blue eyes and “pink sun damaged skin” then it means he can’t stand others’ as well. He hates himself because he is white. Ergo he hates his fellow countrymen because they are also white. It matters little to me as to why this is the case—only that it is the case. For the record, I am one of those blond-haired, blue-eyed Nordics that Birch “can’t f***ing stand!” I did not come here to be insulted nor am I the type to take such insults lightly. While I have always prided myself as being a consummate gentleman and a class act, please note my patience is running thin with this obsequious interloper. What gives Birch Barlow the right to insult our race with impunity? Birch has been waving his middle finger at us for a very long time yet there are those who seem oblivious to this obvious fact. Granted, he does read like a psychiatric case history and he would make a fine subject for a clinical study on the psychological derangement of Western Man, but what purpose does it serve to grant him carte blanche to disrupt on-going discussions with his incessant chatter? Could someone please tell me how is it that continued indulgence of the botched promotes cultivating the best and brightest among us? One thing is absolutely certain—Birch Barlow is a albatross around this site’s neck. Scipio Americanus 160
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:53 | #
Birch, have you ever considered dropping Estrogen supplements and embracing all-out castration instead? The way I see it, you would be doing us a favor by permanently putting an end to the risk of impregnating a woman and thereby sending your botched seed into the future. You really are a bungled piece of work, ya’ know. Scipio Americanus 161
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:13 | # Scipio Americanus, MR threads remain open to all, long past the date of the posting. They are also non-moderated, which means that anyone can post subject to, in the case of Europeans anyway, being able to advance their arguments with some intelligence and civility, and in compliance with the law. Also, they don’t troll. I often hear criticism to the effect that some of the occasional difficult commenters should be banned because that would streamline discussion here, and keep it safe from kidnap. That’s fine, but it has to be weighed against your and my fundamental interest in free speech, since we rely upon that when we express ourselves in more mainstream fora - and we are frequently denied it (I was banned by the Guardian for the third time yesterday!). Now, I agree that birch has, in fact, outlived his usefulness here, and is returning to negative mode. It isn’t in either of our interests to be locked in aimless conflict. So, birch, I propose that we leave the matter there this time. You are not, of course, banned. I hope you have gleaned something productive from this exchange, and can build on that and maybe get past all the negativity that so influences your personal and political choices. 162
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:24 | # So, then, you would sacrifice your entire extended family if that would make you ‘feel good?’ What if sacrificing your extended family, knowing that the probability that those displaced were of a low IQ, enhanced your reproductive fitness? What then? Let’s say you were an “unalloyed” Englishmen, the most favoured ethny at MR, and you lived in a town with other unalloyed Englishmen. You lived on Much Street and your genetically similar countrymen lived on Some Street and None Street. You are a business owner in the town and many of your co-ethnics are employed at your factory. Some one suggests to you that a mass influx of Indians will lower the wages you pay and increase the value of your assets, allowing you to afford more children, who will most likely survive to a reproductive age, a chance to provide a better education for that large family, a chance to move to Much More Street and in all probability, live a long and healthy life. The Indian migrants will not be a threat to you, on a business level, because their mean IQ is lower. Your sons and daughters will marry the offspring of your neighbours on Much More Street, because, in all likelihood, they will attend the same schools. Your fellow townspeople will be displaced, impoverished, intermarry and may even be forced to move to Nothing Street because of the competition for resources. Their standard of living will fall, their health will diminish and generally they will be pushed to the fringe of your town’s society. Again, the same questions. 1. Will the man say yes? If he did, what would society think of him? Would that be considered a “normal” and “moral” decision? Would they even care? 2. Would it be adaptive for him to do so - prescriptive? If he does not sacrifice his genetic fitness and finds a personal proximate gain, and if “nothing is lost” intellectually or culturally - or even biologically - is sacrificing his biologically similar townsmen an evolutionarily sound strategy for the man? 163
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:19 | # What if the deal were sweetened so that you could have two identical copies of yourself (not just genetically identical but the body as a whole being identical)? Then there’d be two of me and I’d be cool with that. And doesn’t this argument undermine the argument of equivalent loss of kinship due to immigration? You’ll have to spell it out for me. I’m tired from a long day at work and my brain isn’t firing all 8 cylinders. 164
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:30 | # Birch, while you have a point in with the proximate vs. ultimate thing in your example, the trouble I have with your dilemma is it’s so cut and dried. How about some real world conflicts? you just seem to be a plain old fascist. How so? The good news is that the most ideological/nasty White Nationalism is ultra-fringe (like I have said over and over, WNs may be right about the difficulties of even high-IQ nonwhites, particularly in this political environment, but <b>I find the idea that even high IQ whites and high-IQ nonwhites are absolutely unable to live with each other both unlikely and incredibly distasteful)<b>. 165
Posted by larch on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:50 | # “Again, the same questions. “ 1. Likely he may say yes - we know what the elites are doing. And society would applaud him for it. 2. No, it is not. How many grandchildren is he going to have - 10,000? The same with Bush et al.; even if you can somehow propose that his open borders policies are personally “adaptive” to him, in reality, it is not possible. The influx cannot be compensated. One argument you *may* use is the “tragedy of the commons” argument. In other words, *each* business owner accepts a small number of “highly skilled” Indian immigrants, of a number so small that it is possible to compensate the loss of genetic interest with a feasibly large *but still unlikely* crop of children and grandchildren. However, although on an individual level such would work, if all the businessmen together made such decisions, the personally adaptive decision would become maladaptive, since each man could not compensate for the actions of all his fellows. This is of course a very contrived situation - similar to David B’s nonsense. Alien immigration is not something a country allows for one businessman and not another. The man making the decision to allow in the Indians - if he is smart enough to start the business to begin with - is going to know that all his fellow businessmen will also avail themselves of this labor source. Therefore, any such person is going to know that his own decison to import Asiatics is going to be part and parcel of a larger societal decision to import such people. thus: “a mass influx of Indians” Therefore, an understanding of long term genetic interests - *in the real world* and not fantasylands - is going to mean that it would be adaptive to use native labor and sacrifice short term financial gain for long term societal homogeneity. Agreed, that most people are short term thinkers - which is why we have the problems we do. But, contrary to the endless repeated assertions of some, the actions of the elites, re: immigration, are *not* adaptive to them. It is impossible. for the same reasons Ziv’s “admixture is adaptive” is impossible: the changes cannot be realistically compensated, particularly when one considers across broad racial lines. That is all besides the point that enhanced economic success in the West today is not positively correlated with reproductive success, at least not to any significant degree. By the way, barlow, yes, I am a fascist. 166
Posted by larch on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:20 | # Fascinating. Razib calls *others* “parasites”: “razib ...well, perhaps i exaggerate a bit, but we (that is, myself & the other contributors) delete very quickly when we see trolls. half a dozen eyes per day with nuke privs is enough to keep the shit off the ground * in the first year or so gc argued for more vicious moderation, while i tended to favor letting the chips fall where they may. i was wrong.” Of interest: and: In other words: barlow’s white “male” feminized, weak, pro-Asian, drug abusing, non-competitive phenotype is allowed to be “extant” at GNXP; while white phenotypes that express their genetic interests are banned/deleted. We don’t, like you know, want us “parasites” to “collapse the ecosystem” at GNXP> The question is: what exactly *is* the GNXP “ecosystem?” 167
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:07 | # what exactly *is* the GNXP “ecosystem?” Little Razibshah’s harem, into which only eunochs and a few kohenim are permitted. By the way, barlow, yes, I am a fascist. Now that would be worth a thread. 168
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:02 | #
GW, there may be less to that than meets the eye: I think what Larch means is “fascist” as used by the other side is a synonym for normal. So, if you’re normal, another way to put it is you’re a fascist, going by the other side’s use of that word. No, we didn’t grow up thinking that was fascist’s meaning but neither did we grow up thinking that to question the government’s brutally enforced genocide of the white race was racist. Now we know better. 169
Posted by larch on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:58 | # No, Fred, I am a fascist in the real sense of the word. However, as fascism is a somewhat changeable beast, with varying permutations, it is not necessarily a rehash of old systems and beliefs. Rather the common threads are the palingenetic mindset, the “ultranationalism” (on a racial rather than “national” level in many modern cases), and a profound distrust of “democracy.” The true palingenetic mindset is one important feature that separates true fascism from the para-fascism that the feebleminded confuse with true fascism (e.g, Franco as a para-fascist - even Mussolini himself devolved into parafascism in the time between the Vatican concordat and the Salo Republic). I believe Soren understands these issues well. 170
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:25 | # In that case, Larch, I agree with GW — it would be worth a thread. 171
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:37 | # All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible. Recognise that, JW? And this:- Our revival would mean, I think, first, saving ourselves physically, and second, a cultural and spiritual revival, retaining the best of the past, jettisoning those memes which have proven destructive, and developing new memes as a focal point around which to revive our long-standing multi-component culture (assuming ancient-modern continuity) or (assuming discontinuity) building a new civilization on the ruins of the old. In the nigh-on three years I’ve been corresponding with you on- and off-list that was, I think, the only time you crossed the palingenetic divide. At the time you were critiquing Yockey. Perhaps it is time you revisited and exended the thinking in that post. 172
Posted by larch on Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:57 | # That’s going to require more time than I have now to give it justice, as well as the appropriate forum. Suffice to say though that if one is suggesting a new “High Culture” of the West that is a fairly serious “palingenetic” undertaking. That’s always been an important topic for me; in one sense it is unfortunate that race deniers and GNXPers like David B require so much time in defending obvious concepts such as race and EGI. So, instead of developing some of these other ideas, particularly a synthesis of Salterism and Yockeyism, one has to continue to argue against “flat earthers.” Although I’m no fan of David Deutsch or Richard Dawkins, Deutsch’s point in “Fabric of Reality” holds: Dawkins has had to spend so much energy refuting hare-brained critics of Darwinism (hello, Larry A.) that this has eaten away time and energy that could have gone into formulating new theses (not that we need more of Dawkins). Likewise, we waste so much energy defending the self-evident that progress is limited. It’s not like EGI is such a difficult concept in its principle, or really controversial to the honest. And I’m not even going to get into the race deniers… 173
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:00 | # ... the appropriate forum. Name one that meets your requirements. Failing that, specify your requirements. I am not much of a dreamer myself. Never understood it. Culture isn’t born from calls to dream. Culture is a good chicken soup. Time and the ingredients are what counts. Admittedly, this attitude might be a peculiarly English vice. Ever since the Restoration we have been suspicious of the grand guignol which passes for politics in continental Europe. It’s why 70% of us want no more of today’s great European adventure. Still, I will listen to all well-intentioned arguments ... test them ... look for virtue in them ... sometimes be persuaded by them, as you should know. Notwithstanding all that you have taken it upon yourself to say against MR in the past (while, JW, acknowledging your gallant rejection of personal attacks upon me), I would be disappointed if you found it impossible to explain yourself somehow here, be it by means of a post or in the threads. You are right that we spend too much time fire-fighting the enemy agenda. Constructive proposals need to be aired. 174
Posted by larch on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:33 | # A forum similar to Kevin MacDonald’s blog which differs in a particularly wise format decision… Unfortunately, as I said, I really don’t have the time now to do it justice, and better wait than go off “half-assed.” However, at the risk of being “half-assed,” a brief off the cuff comment: I don’t think we should underestimate the crisis we find ourselves in. “Patchwork” reform is not going to work. We criticize the value of “reform” with respect to politics, and even that previous champion of aracial “immigration reform,” GC, now admits it would be useless. The same applies, in my opinion, to the broad issue of “cultural” reform. In addition, as has been told to you many times - if we want to talk “semantics” and “image” as well - “conservatism” is not going to “fly” on this side of the Atlantic. Regardless of how you define it, it’s been completely discredited here amongst those who have any worth, as several of your commentators have made clear. This is part of the point I made in the Yockey piece. While the fundamental truths of Salter’s work are apparent to those with honesty, it’s not going to be enough. “Defending your gene frequencies” or “defending the maintenance and expansion of your distinctive genetic information” are not messages of sufficient inspiring quality to motivate in the face of the enormity of the challenges that are faced. What is needed is a revolution of the mind. The crisis that we face is of such magnitude that radicalism is required. That’s why dreaming is required. I don’t see the major cultural changes being that derived wiithout what you call “dreaming.” Even the horror we face today is the result of some whose thoughts of globalism and “equality” and the elimination of the West and its peoples would have seemed a fantastic dream at the height of Western power and colonialism. I often wonder if the end results we desire are really radically different, or is it only the means to achieve these? I’m not sure. But the fact remains that after years reading posts here I still don’t know what you mean, exactly, by your “conservatism” or the “English light model.” It may well be that dreaming is not for all peoples. But then there was Mosely. Yes, fascism never took off among the English (perhaps, partially because it was obviously seen as a foreign import), but the time was not right. There are fundamental problems here. Immigration is inceasingly unpopular in England, yet even those who are embittered about it refuse to support those who make issue of it (e.g., the BNP (*). In America, there was a grass roots anger which sunk the Bush amnesty bill. Today, the Christian evangelical retards in Iowa gave a victory to Mike “state tuition to the children of illegals” Huckabee, and the “Live Free or Die” folks in NH seem really attached to this John “mestizo illegals are god’s children, open borders” McCain. This is all part of a cautious, “conservative,” “reformist” mentality. Electability, a rejection of radicalism and clear thinking, status quo - presented with “conservatism,” “reform” and an absence of “dreams” even the more politically minded of the citizenry will fall into complanency. And among those who wish more radical changes in society, dreams are the fuel for action. This, is, of course, a “written as thought” diatribe with limited value. But, I did state now is not the time or place to discuss this. 175
Posted by larch on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:40 | # The * after BNP was in reference to your other thread about their problems. Included was a claim that the BNP - at least in its current incarnation - is a product or puppet of the British security services. Of course, we need to see solid evidence for that claim before evaluating its truth. It may well be then that the BNP is not the vehicle for proper change, but then, where is it then, with all the dissastisfaction? As well, one wonders what other personages and ideologies - both connected to the BNP in particular and the “movement” in general - are influenced by “the security services?’‘ There is no evidence, only speculation, and “I know things, but can’t say them” type claims, which won’t wash. I do think though that there may be some surprises in the future with respect to this. Well, not a “surprise” to everyone, though. 176
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:32 | # On Gabb and the BNP, the same view is common throughout the thinking right in Britain. The Griffinites are not necessarily presented as agents or even puppets, but quite sincere fantasy-dictators given free rein by the security services for their flawless ability to corral the righteous and abused English into the political mainstream. The Graham faction has correctly divined that this has to be curtailed forthwith, or the status quo will never be challenged. I support them, notwithstanding the fact that they are only nativists, not nationalists in any meaningful sense of the word. As for my philosophy, it is only a work in progress. I am not sure that I will ever complete it. My Conservatism has become less political than ever, and has retreated into the philosophical uplands of an ideal, politically mature and ethnically-sovereign nation. It is a characteristic of the life of the people more than it is a description of the political structure. It might eventually become a political substitute for the scientific “adaptiveness”. “The Light English Model”, which is a phrase coined, I believe, by Alex Linder - a good coiner of political aphorism - merely describes a path to Sovereignty which does no violence to other human beings. It is a recognition of the moral temper of our people. JW, I’ve no illusions about my own insignificance in the scale of things. What I am slowly cooking up inside my head will not be seized upon gratefully by other men. They all want their own versions of the future to be the writ which runs. How is one to tame this Manichean struggle, so that something emerges that is not totalitarianism nor a Tower of Babel? You criticise the pluralism at MR, but you do not offer an answer to this conundrum, notwithstanding the fact that you live in a land area where nothing but ambition marks racial dissidence, and nothing but fracture results. My answer is that today, at least, Babel is preferable to a Dictatorship of the Mind. Tomorrow, perhaps, the extremis will be such that the German Heavy Model is the only available option. If it comes to that, so be it. But, for all its imperfections, MR is an attempt to do something in the public realm to avoid that contingency and the present stasis. It is a place where ideas can be be cooked up in men’s heads - according, at this juncture, to their capacity as free men to think for themselves, and not to have anything dictated from above. I have seen many instances down these few years of exactly that. They haven’t become men of my philosophical persuasion. But I welcome the movement all the same, for movement - acknowledgement of the need for change - is what we most need. 177
Posted by larch on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:15 | # “...merely describes a path to Sovereignty which does no violence to other human beings.” Who is advocating “violence to other human beings” here? However, given that the GNXPers consider separatism (from them) to be “violence,” it’s a matter of interpretation. However, if you are talking about “gas chambers” and “Turner Diaries” - no, I’m not advocating that and I never had. Whether VNN does is another matter; however, MR is not VNN. “You criticise the pluralism at MR, but you do not offer an answer to this conundrum…” I’m not sure what the “conundrum” is. “Babel” in some ways is not much less “totalitarian” than what you may consider “totalitarianism.” I do think Lowell’s ideas - in their broadest perspectives rather than their specifics - are a reasonable start. But I’ll need to look at those specifics. He may, for example, be too “libertarian” for my optimal tastes. On the other hand, I have no doubt that the typical European would be “more free” under Lowellism than they are under the EU and its various Orwellian “hate laws,” “notwithstanding the fact that you live in a land area where nothing but ambition marks racial dissidence…” Well, to start with: ditch the “movement” as it currently exists, with the possible exception of Taylor. The rest is a joke and always has been. Things need to be reconstructed from top down and bottom up. “...and nothing but fracture results.” And to what extent does MR’s “pluralism” contribute to that “fracture?” 178
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:24 | #
I think the Great XXth-Century Jewish Race-Denial Scam can be safely ignored at this point. I don’t think anyone needs to argue against it any more: the Jews have shot their bolt with that one, and are now (privately if not publicly) a laughing stock in the eyes of the “smart money.” No one buys it; it’s passé. Just bypass these Jews (and their Euro dupes) and leave them in the dust as we get on with our agenda. Besides, the Jews don’t believe their own race-denial. They’re playing word games for public consumption. How much do Jewish race-deniers believe there really aren’t races? As much as Jewish show-business magician David Copperfield believes he really made the Statue of Liberty disappear in that TV special. He’s putting on a show and tricking the gullible among the audiences. They’re putting on a show and tricking the gullible among the goys. But as academics aren’t these Jewish professors supposed to conform to standards of professional/scientific integrity? Well ... lots of these Jewish academics seem to come from the kind of very JN (Jewish-nationalist) family where this Talmud thing has been handed down, the one that says it’s OK to trick the goys especially if it’s GFTJ (“good for the Jews”). So, confident of the Talmud’s blessing, it is with clear professional/academic consciences that they play word games in what they view as the service of a Jewish ethno-political agenda — an agenda they see as advanced by whipping up a goy consensus that there aren’t races. Jews are adept at word games for the same reason gypsies are at picking pockets: too often their survival for two thousand years depended on it, so now it’s become second nature. Jewish academics don’t worry about it backfiring by whipping up a Jew consensus that there aren’t races, inadvertantly tricking Jews into marrying Negroes or letting even more Negroes into Israel or something, because they know, as virtually all Jews instinctively know, that among the Jews only the complete schmucks would fall for that kind of word game and actually go out and marry a Negro or some damn thing, and it’s in the Jewish interest to weed out the schmucks anyway, every generation. Getting rid of the schmucks every generation helps keep the Jews as a group in good fighting trim. So no, they don’t worry about inadvertantly tricking the Jews: all Jews worth keeping are born one-hundred-percent immune thanks precisely to the schmucks having gotten weeded out every generation for two thousand years. If any get tricked it only furthers the highly beneficial weeding process: “Good riddance!” Why won’t the same process put the Euros in good fighting trim? Because the Euros are free-standing. They’re complete. The Jews aren’t. The Jews can fit in the niche they’re adapted to by retaining only certain types of individual; we can’t: we need a broader generality of types in order to be free-standing. The Jews, lacking the broader generality, have to stand on us. That’s why we don’t view being allowed to move to Israel as a life-or-death issue but the Jews view being allowed to move to Euro countries as a life-or-death issue. They need to live with us. We don’t need to live with them. The Jews are like someone who has evolved without legs. He has to ride on someone else’s back. The race-denying Jewish academics don’t actually believe their own claim that there aren’t races any more than David Copperfield actually believes his own claim that he walked through the Great Wall of China: in both cases the claims are intended strictly for public consumption. They are put forth in furtherance of ends having nothing to do with “truth”: to wit, a showbusiness magician’s career in one case, and in the other the perceived Jewish ethno-political agenda, an agenda the Talmud says it’s OK to lie to gullible goys for, even if you’re a professor who’s supposed to have standards. And besides, who says they’re lying? Is David Copperfield “lying” when he says he levitated the Empire State Building? No, he’s putting on a show for public consumption, playing word games everyone recognizes as such. Well, the Jewish race-denying professors are no more “lying” than David Copperfield is. They’re only playing obvious word games recognized by all Jews as obvious word games. Is it their fault the goys don’t recognize them as obvious word games? Hardly! So don’t accuse them of lying! Among themselves they tell each other the truth. Among the goys they play word games, as permitted by the Talmud (which, by the way, is the whole schtick of the “Straussians,” to wit, it’s OK to use word games to trick the goys: Straussianism comes straight out of Talmudic tradition, in a direct line). But they never “lie”! Note the different ways the Jews try to rid their world of Euros all come down to getting them to marry (or miscegenate with) Negroes. Prof. Ziv’s technique is simply to tell them outright to do it, falsely explaining their mulatto kids will be smarter, healthier, and better-looking. See above for why he’s not worried about inadvertantly tricking the Jews (Jews are immune, and to the few who aren’t, “Good riddance!”). Ziv doesn’t try to deny races: he knows that won’t fly any more (it still flies with a certain blogger at a particular “race-realist” blog — that’s right, “race-realist” and their star blogger denies race, you read that right ... hey I know it’s weird but don’t look at me, I had nothing to do with it ... the guy thinks “clines” mean there aren’t races or something ... yeah I know: bizarre! ...). Prof. Gould’s technique was to deny race (because, being Jewish, he didn’t “want” races to exist — Jews don’t “want” races to exist, which is a lot like not “wanting” gravity to exist but again, don’t look at me, I had nothing to do with it) — his technique was to deny race by simply refusing to see obvious patterns of difference upon which legitimate categorizations into things called races were inescapable otherwise every other category in the universe had equally to be denied: if there are no races there are no planets, stars, electrons, gravity; there is no matter, no energy; there are no people, trees, animals, birds, rocks; there is no water, air, sunlight; there are no objects of any kind, none. That includes Jews: there aren’t any Jews. The ©Holocau$t®™, therefore, couldn’t have happened: you can’t genocide what doesn’t exist. That last bit, incidentally, is the reasoning the Jewish academics use to justify genocide of Euros: the white race doesn’t exist but is merely an artificial, arbitrary social contruct (and one that happens to irritate the Jews exceedingly), something imaginary, and therefore forcing it out of existence through mailed-fisted race-replacement, government-coerced miscegenation, and so on, isn’t genocide because you can’t genocide what never existed in the first place. So, wiping Euros out is perfectly OK. Prof. Ignatiev’s technique for getting Euros to marry Negroes denies the existence of whites but isn’t the same as Gould’s denial of race. Gould was very simply refusing to “see” obvious patterns. It was as if a dalmatian dog was born with a pattern of spots in its coat that spelled out “Race-deniers are assholes,” everybody who looked at the dog could read those words, but when the dog was shown to Prof. Gould he claimed not to see any words: “Spots spelling out words? What words? I see no spots spelling out any words. Take this dog away!” That was Gould. Ignatiev says if whites choose not to go out of existence by marrying Negroes despite the fact it’s easy given all the Negroes around, whites don’t exist but are an illegitimate social construct, not an actual genetic category. Existence as a genetic category, you see, depends on destroying yourself if you irritate the Jews: if you irritate the Jews and choose not to destroy yourself, you don’t exist and it’s OK for Jews to destroy you. So any group that could theoretically destroy itself but chooses not to is, ipso facto, not a legitimate genetic category provided it irritates the Jews. By Ignatiev’s reasoning Jews exist — aren’t just a social construct — because, although they choose not to go out of existence, they don’t fulfill the other criterion, namely, “If your existence irritates Jews.” So Jews are OK, they exist and aren’t a social construct. As an aside he also talks about “white privilege which has to be gotten rid of,” omitting to mention that the “white privilege” he’s referring to inheres in white genes so can’t be “gotten rid of” except by getting rid of whites, which is therefore his explicit aim. (This guy, never forget, was hired by Harvard University as a professor. That gives an idea of which ethnic group controls Harvard University. Hint: it’s not the Eskimos, the Amish, the ... uhhh, let’s see ... the Uzbek-Americans, or the ... uhhh ... or the Andaman-Island-Americans.) (Gee I dunno about this post-‘60s Jewish hegemony — I’m starting to think I liked better living under the old WASP hegemony ... Any chance of getting back to that, with the entire Bush family subtracted? ...) Anyway, excuse the long ramble, but my underlying point is Jewish academic race-denial can at this point be ignored: no more time need be wasted “refuting” it. Just bypass it. Guys like David B are intellectual non-entities. 179
Posted by larch on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:56 | # “my underlying point is Jewish academic race-denial can at this point be ignored” It cannot be ignored if people believe it, and if such denial can be invoked - usually in mindless soundbites - to delegitimize racial preservation. My belief is that race denial is a delaying tactic. Those that preach race denial figure that, eventually, the overwhelming evidence (as well as plain common sense) for the biological reality and validity of the race concept will win out. However, if race denying tactics can delay, obfuscate, and impede racial preservationist programs for long enough, then the changes will have become essentially irreversible. In addition, the time and energy spent refuting race denial takes away from that which can be productively used to advance preservation. It actually is a reasonably good tactic, and has worked well. Plus - who knows - with every increasing speech laws, perhaps scientific articles like Witherspoon et al. may one day be considered “incitement to racial hatred” (even though “races don’t exist”) and will be censored. But even if things don’t get *that* far, by the time that race denial and genetic “equality” is put to rest, the racial crisis would have advanced so far that the deniers can then say, “well, OK, conceded, race is real, but we’re all mixed up now, so we need to make the best of it.” Then, enter the likes of Ziv, who concede race, but advocate eliminating racial distinctions through admixture. They really do have all these tactics organized in a broad overarching strategic plan for white destruction. Of course, if whites weren’t so stupid, conformist, and gullible, this all wouldn’t be working. Of well, nothing to worry about. Just vote Republican this November and everything will be fine! 180
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:43 | # Here‘s what the post-‘60s Jewish hegemony did for Los Angeles and what it’ll do for every state in the Union and every country in Europe if allowed. (Hat tip) 181
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:56 | # Statement One: What is needed is a revolution of the mind. The crisis that we face is of such magnitude that radicalism is required… What is needed is a revolution of the mind. Statement Two: to what extent does MR’s “pluralism” contribute to that “fracture?” These statements are contradictory. On the one hand, you say you haven’t thought out the over-arching, radical answer to our difficulties - well, it would be something of a surprise if you had. But on the other, you resent MR’s supposed fracturing effect upon the forces of WN. Ergo, you want those forces marshalled behind ... what exactly? Look, JW, I’ve often referred to the notion that a “question” must form in the mind of the waking man. Not an answer, like Alex’s or Peter Brimelow’s. Not an invitation to participate in a closed intellectual loop. A question. It won’t be the same question, of course. It doesn’t have to be a good question, or particularly well-thought out. But a certain state of seeking, of openness to new learning must obtain. If that state becomes sufficiently widespread, then truly learned minds, too, will turn on radical solutions. And that’s the key. Questions of life invite philosophy. MR is, in its perverse way, trying to lead. But towards something as yet unknown, something revolutionary. I do not accept the inditement of your second statement above. 182
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:21 | #
Our present races sprang from relatively tiny populations. Take, I dunno — take the Flemings: there are six million Flemings but in, let’s say, the Elizabethan age for example, there were, what — half-a-million, total? Something like that. Today’s came from that tiny number. Or take England: how many Englishmen were there in all of England during that same epoch — four million? Five? Six? Something like that. Those four or five million generated the Englishmen of today. That’s not bad — I’m certainly not complaining about the outcome, at any rate: it’s a splendid population. Likewise for Frenchmen of centuries ago, the various Spanish, Italian, German, and Slavic peoples, and so on: today’s races came from few and are all fine populations today. At the time of the American Revolution the U.S. population (exclusive of slaves) was three million. If the Jewish-led race-replacement alliance manages to reduce us to a relatively few Euros (genuine Euros, meaning zero percent mystery meat), we can regenerate the same way. Right I know the U.S. grew largely through further Euro immigration after the colonial period but I trust my point is clear. The genetics are for the most part within us. No, every last little genetic nut and bolt may not be there (there will, by definition, have been a bottleneck after all and, as seems tautological, a necessary bottleneck, so that will have been unavoidable) but for the most part the regenerated race will be as good as new. Maybe better than new, in the sense that thanks to the bottleneck the Jews forced on it, it will now have some built-in resistance to tribal attack which it lacked. But by and large it’s like a hologram, where the whole image, not a piece but the whole thing, gets generated by any piece. Pieces of races are like pieces of holograms in that regard: they generate the whole, not merely a part. Look, the above is a worst-case scenario but it’s nice to know even in positively the worst case all is not lost. How do we know the worst case isn’t even worse than the above? Well, one way is the layers of the Euro onion that are easiest for the other side to peel off are peeled off first — guys like Perry de Havilland and David B — then come the layers that are progressively harder and harder for them to peel — guys like MR.com regulars for example, who will never bend, no matter what, meaning the speed and ease of the other side’s success to date aren’t going to last: with each passing year it’s going to get harder and harder for them to advance till a point is reached where their progress will grind to a halt. Low-hanging fruit like de Havilland and David B are nearly all picked. After that comes harder work, then very hard work, then impossible work. That’s Euros like us, the core, the ones who will not bend under any circumstances. The race will be regenerated even if this Jewish-led alliance for Euro genocide manages to do its worst before its strength peaks. But its strength will peak. As dismal as things look — and I agree things look extremely, alarmingly dismal — all is not totally hopeless. Does that mean complacency is OK? Obviously not. Quite the contrary, it means our commitment and resolve will redouble, since we know upon reflection that final victory must inevitably be ours for the taking — once enough of us bestir ourselves to take it! About the other exchange, the one with GW concerning whether this blog would be better without comments threads: I vote no because I learn more from discussions of things than from take-it-or-leave-it statements and declarations. How do others feel? Please comment, any others who have an opinion. 183
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:27 | # I forgot to add, above, that I agree totally with Larch about academic race-denial being a delaying tactic adopted for the reaons he surmises. He’s correct. The Jewish academic race-deniers know perfectly well there are races. They pretend to deny race because they are following a political agenda, part of which is exactly the one he outlines. The jaw-dropping, unfricking believable gullibility of Euro academics such as Prof. See Boring Disgrace is the only mystery. The Jewish professors are no mystery. I for one think I understand them one-thousand percent. It’s the Euros I don’t get. 184
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:15 | # Right I know the U.S. grew largely through further Euro immigration after the colonial period but I trust my point is clear. The point isn’t clear Fred because that is the fundamental nature of the fracture. To grow the US through Euro immigration required a fundamental disconnect be made between blood and soil. The creation of civic nationalism or the propositional nation was required and that’s exactly what was delivered.
There in lies the fracture. WN is founded on civic nationalism which is also the birth place of universal human rights. It can be denied until the cows come home, however, it is there in black and white for all who have eyes to see. 185
Posted by larch on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:25 | # “These statements are contradictory.” No, they are not. First, I said that I don’t have the time to complete my thinking of all the specifics - not that it is necessary to put forth all details at a stage in our crises when “the people” are deciding whether specimens like Obama, Hillary, Huckabee, or McCain will be the next “president” - and more importantly, not the time or forum to lay these things out. I did not say I haven’t thought of these things in some detail. Second, I did tentatively endorse Lowell’s general vision (minus the specifics) - which I note you completely ignore in your reply. Third, and most importantly, your assertion is illogical. It is not “contradictory” to recognize that a certain course of action is counterproductive while at the same time not having a perfectly formed alternative in place. I can tell you that swallowing a lethal dose of cyanide is not “the cure for cancer,” although I cannot tell you what a real cure would entail. “I do not accept the inditement of your second statement above” Whether or not you accept it doesn’t alter it’s legitimacy. Which leads us to: “it is there in black and white for all who have eyes to see. “ My eyes are “seeing” that you are quoting Lincoln, just as you previously quote, endlessly, Darwin, and you believe that these context free quotes somehow justify your position. They do not. Abraham Lincoln’s words of 150 years ago are hardly relevant to our situation today. “It can be denied until the cows come home…” Good rhetorical “argumentation” there. Those who disagree with the Jones/Matra “WN is civic nationalism” mantra are in denial. Not just that we disagree with you. “WN is founded on civic nationalism which is also the birth place of universal human rights” Right…and that is “proved” by a 1858 speech by Lincoln. Got it. Honest Ape as the original white nationalist. “There in lies the fracture.” No, the fracture lies with people like you, and sites like this. Human differences are not purely clinal - and by differences I mean not only genetic but cultural, historic, phenotypic, as well as differences inherent in the contextual situation groups find themselves in (e.g., expanding or threatened, etc.). Making the jump from “the writers of the Declaration” to “other peoples of Europe” does not logically lead to jumping from the latter to Asians, Africans, New Guineans, Latinos, or what have you. It is not “civic nationalism” to make a worldwide distinction between, on the one hand, Europeans/Westerners, and on the other, the peoples mentioned. If it’s discovered that, say, the native population of Cornwall is genetically different from that of the native population of Liverpool, then, therefore, GW’s “Englishness” is “civic nationalism?” You had better shed that English identity, GW, it’s going to lead you from “civic nationalism” to “universalism.” Next thing we know you’ll be divorcing your wife and marrying a Negress. When the Knights Hospitallers fought the Turks and other Muslim NECs, were they manifesting “civic nationalism” because the Knights were composed of men from different nations of (Western) Europe? Did they therefore sink into universalism and embrace Islam? Hardly. Are the types of ethnic mixes found in America (i.e., English-German, Irish-Italian, German-Italian, Irish-German, German-Slav, English-Irish, etc. etc.) the same as a white-black mix? If you think yes, that’s quite a statement about the sorts of commentators this blog attracts. If no, then this is an admission that the clinal theory of nationalism is a poor analogy. 186
Posted by larch on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:41 | # “About the other exchange, the one with GW concerning whether this blog would be better without comments threads: I vote no” I vote yes. But the question is irrelevant, since it’s not going to change. 187
Posted by larch on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:01 | # http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism A “nationalism” that is based on inherent, non-“voluntary” characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, race, and/or historical civilizational derivation) is not, virtually by definition, “civic nationalism”, much less “universalism.” Racial nationalism can be viewed as a special case of ethnic nationalism, not as any form of “civic nationalism.” Racial nationalism has as its basis biological and civilizational identities. One can, if they wish, reject this in favor of narrower (eg., ethnic) nationalisms (although these choices are obviously not incompatible). But don’t conflate “nationalisms” based upon inherent human characteristics with those based on “belief” or legal definitions of citizenship and identity. If you want to accuse someone of “civic nationalism,” address the points to Steve Sailer and his “citizenism.” 188
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:00 | #
The way to find out whether ending comments threads would be an improvement would seem to be to try it, and see if attendance numbers held, rose, or fell. On the other hand (answering my own proposal), what GW is after, presumably, is influence, not attendance (the “it’s-quality-not-quantity-that-counts” idea; the Jews didn’t pull off the 1965 Immigration Bill by successful “blogging” or otherwise demonstrating their bill had broad appeal, but by bypassing anything to do with “appeal” and simply exerting pinpoint pressure on those exact places in government having the power to give them what they wanted: in other words, the all-important “it’s quality not quantity that counts” idea). However there wouldn’t appear to be a way to gauge influence, whether or not the experiment is run, beyond people’s general, admittedly less than fully reliable “impressions” as to the effect the site is (or rather “must be”) having. The alternatives as to comments threads are: 1) zero comments (Steve Sailer previously); 2) a relatively very few, carefully selected high-quality comments only (Lawrence Auster); 3) permitting some scope to commenters but, far from “anything goes,” the posts have to conform to the site’s editorial positions, if not “to the letter” then at least broadly, plus certain other “political” restrictions as may apply (Inverted World, Amren, GnXp); 4) freedom to post any relevant ideas provided the poster is being serious rather than obviously trolling in order to get a rise out of the regulars, and provided of course things remain within universally acknowledged bounds regarding posting of porn, calls for violence, etc. (MR.com). 189
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:16 | # Off the subject of blogging: Does Larch have a quarrel with anything in this? If so, what? 190
Posted by democracyisabluff on Mon, 07 Jan 2008 19:58 | # What I am going to say will perhaps surprise someone, yet I think it’s of extreme importance. I hope you will follow me to the end to see my point. Why on earth should I need to *justify* my wish for a homogeneus white society by means of scientific studies, economic figures or crime statistics? Yes, it’s nice to know that our IQ is higher, our cities safer, our fellow whites more inventive… but all of this can only be of interest to people who already *wants* the survival of white people. Not surprisingly indeed, in spite of all such scientific evidence, many people keep disagreeing with our cause. And here we get at last to our favourite concern: why on earth do I need a justification for my white pride? Do I need to prove my moral choice is right? Excuse me? There is no right or wrong in morality, simply because morality is a matter of choice! I do not need find *any* basis or excuses to uphold my choices, simply because no science can make choices! Morality does. 191
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:58 | # Fortunately I have had the opportunity to talk about some of these issues with my family, and I realize that if anything, I have given white nationalists too much ground. It’s undeniable that Asians and high-IQ blacks and Hispanics vote Left and espouse anti-white views. However, I believe that this is largely because non-whites are more likely to know people who are disadvantaged, and because as numerical minorities, Asians and high-IQ blacks and Hispanics have faced negative treatment from whites. Before you start shouting me down, let me say that no minority has faced negative treatment at the *political* level. At the political level, and amongst conversations of the power elite (e.g. politicians, academics, corporate execs), it’s nothing but PC, PoMo, PoCo, white=evil, and all that sort of garbage. I’m talking more at the schoolyard level—an East Asian kid in a midwestern 90% to 95+% white junior high school is likely to take a lot of s*** for being different. Also, even the most stuck up, peecee member of the overclass may not be so hot on the idea of dating or worse yet, marrying nonwhites. Just because status seeking has pushed the public discourse and even public policy far toward the anti-white side does not mean that there is not a racialist/tribalist strain in the private decisions and thinking of whites. The upshot? As minorities become less of a minority, and increase in IQ and social class, they are likely to shift to the right. Thus mass high-skill immigration of nonwhites is still a good idea even in today’s political environment. I think Godless Capitalist (and certainly myself) have come down with a case of Stockholm Syndrome from reading white nationalists too much. 192
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:38 | # Just above we see a demonstration of diametrical opposites in clarity of thinking: Birch, a complete and seemingly hopeless muddle, and Bluff our friend from Italy, a mind as clear and sparkling as crystal. 193
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:50 | # democracyisabluff, You separate morality from scientific knowledge, which is perfectly normal, of course. But the roots of morality - and religious faith - are in Nature, not at all in some supposed system of higher thought handed ex-tabula to a Jewish Priest by his sky god. Evolutionary adaptiveness is a natural good, ie, it is productive of life’s sole purpose of transmitting itself through time. Hence, adaptive behaviours elicit moral strictures in the social life of all primates. They are where morality comes from. Morality in this sense is another and very direct, universal way of noting what reason discovers through the scientific method. Its language is different and very ancient, but its essence is the same. Now, we live in such times - truly, for our people, end times - that our natural ethical codes have been twisted and tortured into an anti-natural code of self-destruction. How this came to pass is not the subject of this reply. But come to pass it has. Take what help ye may. Science is, for those with the temper to explore it, a means of reasoned resistance. It is also a ground of knowledge from which a philosophical appeal to “our will to live and prosper” might yet be extrapolated. That, I think, is the real prize. 194
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:52 | # birch, Left and right liberalism are the same. Got it? 195
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:15 | # White nationalism is just another religion. The obsession with copies of genes and copies of patterns of genes is silly. Yes genes have important *functions,* like providing the instructions to make neurons in the brain. But it is the function, not the form, that matters. Would you consider it an irrevocable loss if people acted like the best, brightest, healthiest, and best looking whites but were genetically much more distant than Africans are from Europeans, were to be created an increased in the population? Would it make a difference if these people appeared European as well and identified with people of European descent? (continued next post…I am on a time limit) 196
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:31 | # Anybody answering yes to the first question and no to the second is most certainly a kind of religious fundamentalist. Fundamentalist and ideological thinking is a virus. Dawkins is right, but he should have made a more precise formulation about the kind of thought that is so destructive. Yes, it is a type of thought that is often associated with religion. I guess the best way to describe the diseased way of thinking is believing that something exists, or must be done, even when it is useless or gravely harmful by any rational standards, an extreme example being human sacrifice. For low-IQ people this kind of thinking can *sometimes* be beneficial—for example, low IQ people may not realize that it is hugely harmful to society to have kids on welfare, but they might respond to a religious “thou shalt not” edict against fornication. (cont’d next post) 197
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:49 | # Unfortunately, humans seem to have a tendency towards fundamentalist, ideological, and simplistic thinking. And another aspect of religious fundie thinking so often displayed on this site is the idea that no one is ever pure enough, and those who claim to be righteous (pro-hbd) but don’t conform to your ideology are often criticized the most harshly. Godless Capitalist, Razib, Jason Malloy, and others at GNXP are far to the right of public discourse on race and genetics. But they, of course, are wolves in sheep’s clothing, like Christians who don’t agree with the literal interpretation of the Bible. Even guys like Auster who express views in favor of “European America” and the practical importance of ethnic ties aren’t good enough. Auster and Sailer both are canned as “just another would be Jewish cult leader (see MacDonald’s trilogy). Pity most those who swarm him.” Anyway, I can only hope and pray (hopefully there is a God) that people here will become more realistic, practical, compassionate, and tolerant. But I won’t hold my breath. 198
Posted by birch barlow on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:53 | # You have to realize who your friends are. As of now (January 2008), the pro-hbd side is a small minority (at least the openly pro h-bd side is). Like I said, I should not be criticizing white nationalists so much, when the Left is much bigger and more powerful and is more divergent from my thinking and values. 199
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 05:33 | # Talking to Birch about race is like talking to someone about the eleventh dimension. It’s hard for me to imagine the eleventh dimension but I have no difficulty with race. For him race is as hard as the eleventh dimension. He can’t perceive it. Those who have no trouble perceiving race will be surprised that race is apparently extremely hard, even impossible, for lots of people to merely perceive, let alone form some sort of opinion about. It’s very very hard for them. Birch has no conception of what you’re talking about when you talk about race. Therefore talking to him about it at length is like talking at length to a person with red-green colorblindness about red and green. 200
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 05:42 | # What Birch is concerned about is what he calls “the left.” He neither concerns himself with, nor even perceives, race and I dare say that’s “organic”: he lacks the neuronal circuits, or the hormones, or whatever it is, that equip a person to perceive it. 201
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:46 | # “White nationalism is just another religion” Race consciousness is natural. Ask the GNXP commenters to Sepia Mutiny. Ask the Jews at GNXP ... ask any Jews, in fact. But don’t bother to ask them if race consciousness is natural for whites. Because then it’s “just another religion”. “The obsession with copies of genes and copies of patterns of genes is silly.” And we all know, because your colleague David B told us, that “genes are mystical”. Of course, that makes him an anti-scientist. But I guess it is in the cause he obviously values of protecting his own EGI - assuming, as I do, that he went native during one of his British Government diplomatic postings. “Would you consider it an irrevocable loss if people acted like the best, brightest, healthiest, and best looking whites but were genetically much more distant than Africans are from Europeans?” If that people replaced Europeans, yes. If they replaced Africans or subcons, no. But that’s because I am European. “it is the function, not the form, that matters.” So you recognise the function of evolution, but you don’t impute any meaning to its outcome. “Godless Capitalist, Razib, Jason Malloy, and others at GNXP are far to the right of public discourse on race and genetics.” But GC and Razib can safely advance their ethnic interests while being “far to the right”. As soon as a commenter appears who argues for white ethnic interests and against theirs, they metamorphose into multi-racialist martinets. “Auster and Sailer both are canned” Because they argue for one or another form of culturism - essentially multi-racialism - and won’t tolerate white Americans owning their destiny. “I can only hope and pray ... that people here will become more realistic, practical, compassionate, and tolerant.” We people here reserve our realism, practicality, compassion and tolerance for kind, birch. We understand the historical dynamic, and we draw the appropriate lesson from it. We want our people to survive into the future sovereign in our own lands. “the Left is much bigger and more powerful and is more divergent from my thinking and values.” No, you are pursuing the same end-goal as the left, but you cannot understand that. Read up on liberal philosophy. 202
Posted by larch on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:35 | # Sigh…. Frederick, you are not clear if you are asking me about Evolian idiocy (“spiritual race”), about the “Civic Platform” blog, or about both. I’ve been posting at MR for several years now; if you really have to ask my opinions on those subjects, you really haven’t been paying attention. Mr. Bluff: is + values = ought. In other words, yes, values inform what our actions should be, but we need to define what those values are describing. An interest in racial preservation is a value, which leads to the “ought” of acting on behalf of said preservation. But with people denying the reality of race, for example, we are in the position of needing to define what it is we are attempting to preserve. GW, good job answering the trojan horse there. At this point, let us agree that my “offlist” diagnosis of barlow’s insincere “road to damascus” conversion was correct. The only question now is whether it was his own idea, to cool off the heat of his exposure as a drug-addled loser, or, was it suggested to him by his masters? By the way, this does nothing but convince me that I am also correct about some of the other suspicions I’ve expressed as well. 203
Posted by larch on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:53 | # Since GW answered the puppet well, there is no reason for me to waste time doing so in any extended fashion. But, I’d like to express my “values” so to speak here before I come to my senses and realize that there is no value in this, or any other, blog thread. “White nationalism is just another religion.” Just because you say so, must make it true. Is “cognitive elitism” a religion as well? “The obsession with copies of genes and copies of patterns of genes is silly.” More silly is for any white person to be obsessed with having the likes as the founders of GNXP living in America, and accepted as “co-citizens.” Fascinating that even the GNXP hero Ingo Brigandt, in his illogical screed against ethnic nepotism; admitted that it would be an “evolutionarily better strategy” to favor co-ethnics over other, specifically because of closer kinship. Let’s for a moment forget about the ethnic angle and just talk about kinship per se, even just at the familial/close kin level. It is fairly uncontroversial that maximizing your gene copies, in your own offspring or in those of close relatives is “adaptive,” in any reasonable definition of that word. Therefore, looking at the fundamental question as to whether an “obsession” with genetic information is sane or “silly” - we can answer that it are those who deny the importance of genes as an end in themselves who are being “silly” - or in #some# cases, self-serving, as they both deny the importance of genes for *others* while working to maximize *their own* genetic interests. Not that I have any particular blog and its founders in mind with that, of course not. “Yes genes have important *functions,* like providing the instructions to make neurons in the brain.” And what’s the function of the brain? What’s the purpose of the whole phenotype produced by the genes? Answer: to provide (as the GNXP god Richie Dawkins may say) a “vehicle” in which the genes reside, with the phenotypes produced by the genes acted on by selective pressures to alter the representation of different genetic information in the next generation. The phenotypes produced by the genes are not ends in themselves. The genetic information, is. “But it is the function, not the form, that matters.” No, information is paramount, because the function of the “function” is related to genetic replication. You don’t even understand the basics here, not surprising coming from an anti-science blog. Fascinating that Dawkins is worshipped at GNXP, but particular fundamentals of Dawkins are ignored when they conflict with the religious decrees of GNXP. “Would you consider it an irrevocable loss if people acted like the best, brightest, healthiest, and best looking whites but were genetically much more distant than Africans are from Europeans, were to be created an increased in the population?” Yes. “Would it make a difference if these people appeared European as well and identified with people of European descent? “ No. By the way, do you have anyone particular in mind for that last one? Hey, John Doe, we are going to throw your newborn child in the dumpster. But, hey, don’t worry, we’ll replace it with a really good looking and smart stranger’s child, and it will look a lot like you. 204
Posted by democracyisabluff on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:00 | # “You separate morality from scientific knowledge, which is perfectly normal, of course. But the roots of morality - and religious faith - are in Nature, not at all in some supposed system of higher thought handed ex-tabula to a Jewish Priest by his sky god.” GuessedWorker, that’s absolutely right, yet not my point. 205
Posted by Maria on Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:03 | # “Maria” says “I really like your writing style, super information.”
You care about rain forests? endangered species? well honey, we care about that and our co-evolution right along with it.
Post a comment:
Next entry: Strange Occurrence in Germany
|
|
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) |
That’s why I think it’s important that the extreme right (think Stormfront types as one variant, Linder types as another) does well.
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:12 | #
It is interesting to see the history of mainstream resistance to mass immigration laid out in this way. Of course, the reason it has failed is because it is scattered in place and time. What has been lacking is organisation to draw the effort together, to encourage it, and to target the attack upon the weak points of the enemy - their abuse of the rights of the people, and their totalitarianism.
I wonder, though, whether basing opposition on the race issue would ever have been enough. I recall reading some time a passage from one of the books of Andrew Roberts, the neoconnish historian. In it there was a report of one of Churcill’s cabinets towards the end of his final premiership. The subject for discussion that day was opening the valves to let in much larger numbers of immigrants, this time chiefly from Asia.
The discussion in the Cabinet Room was extremely tense and difficult. At the close at least one of the loyal Ministers was brought to the point of tears.
Now, what could it be that reduced a senior Tory politician to tears? Not a technical statement to the effect that Asian immigration would be needed to maintain economic growth and competitiveness. Not a safe, politically anodyne description of a limited intake of specialist workers for the cotton and wool industries. Not that at all, obviously.
My guess, perhaps perfectly wrong, is that other things were said, other things revealed about the future that Britain “must” have ... a future of such dramatic difference to the known world, it came like an earthquake, and with the same irresistible power, to some around that table.
I suppose we will never know.