|
|
|
What a University of California professor knows about fascism William I Robinson is a sociology professor at University of California, and a specialist in globalisation, particularly in a Latin American context. However, on 28th January this year he gave a more general talk titled The Crisis in Global Capitalism. He’s a pretty long way left, but he thinks he knows a thing or two about the great enemy ... “fascism”. He talked about it for a little under five minutes in his presentation, starting at 46.24 on the slider. The idea was to answer the question: “What is the ability of the popular classes to resist this transfer of the cost of the crisis onto their shoulders?” Robinson came up with five answers, one of which was the rise of “fascism”. As he says:-
Now, what follows tells us nothing at all about “fascism” but quite a lot about the pitiful ignorance of himself and the left in general. The thing is, they don’t want knowledge. They don’t want to penetrate beyond the usual “resentment and fear” level of analysis of our motivations. They think that’s enough. They are happy with that. Nonetheless, Robinson feels empowered to pass judgement on us. Here he is doing just that:-
Well, alright. This seems like it might be new and interesting. Whatcha got?
Germany? Would that be the Germany. Next to Austria? Nah, can’t be.
Yep, he really said that. He really said that he sees “signs” of nationalists being funded by transnationalists. He does not seem to have worked out, this expert in globalisation, that the process is international, and internationalism is of necessity anti-national. But hey, I’ll take anybody’s money to get a “project” started. I just won’t do a damn thing they want me to.
Above? What above? And heavens forfend that a non-leftist political movement should have a mass base. Whatever next? And do you like that neat little abolitionist turn of phrase - “white-privileged”. Ever wondered what a person who talked genocidal trash like that actually looked like? Well, this one’s not Jewish and not black.
For someone who, a moment ago, was explaining how 21st century “fascism” doesn’t look like 20th century fascism - “And not in the least. Not at all.” - Mr Robinson is certainly keen to sing the old songs ... “scapegoating” ... “militarization”. They’re always the best. But they do leave one with the impression that, actually, this guy knows zip about 21st century “fascism” ... has never engaged with a 21st century “fascist” ... and probably could not bring himself to do so. But he can talk, by golly. Finally, without any warning he switches away from the idea of a mass movement of displaced white folks angry at immigrants, and lets loose the good old Bush-hatred one mo time.
So when it comes down to it, Robinson’s “fascism” is just a word for things he doesn’t like. It has no other meaning at all. Comments:2
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:06 | # I sent the following e-mail to Robinson: Greeting Prof. Robinson, I recently had the pleasure of viewing your talk on “The Crisis of Global Capitalism,” delivered on January 28, 2009; most enlightening. A few quibbles however. In your talk you said: “Secondly, fascism has to have a mass base. The Nazi project had a mass base in a German - historical “Aryan” - working-class that had been displaced in downward mobility and that was its mass base for Nazi fascism. Certainly, in the US the mass base would be a displaced white-privileged sector of the working-class which is being displaced very dramatically downward mobility, and they can respond with resistance and rebellion in a progressive sense in alliance with other popular sectors and with blacks and latinos and so forth, or can align with a fascist mobilisation from above.” Nazism did, as you say, first find traction with working-class Germans. But its vision was one of a volkish, spiritual reunification of the German people, across class, with regard given for the elitism of outstanding persons of quality, who were to be recognized and raised up to serve the German people in their collective palingenetic striving, under the leadership of the Fuhrer, who supposedly was the embodiment of the will of the German people; at least so thought Hitler. Italian Fascism and Nazism were in essence ethno-nationalist. Now, would not a “displaced white-privileged sector of the working-class which is being displaced very dramatically downward mobility,” strive to combat this displacement, for which their alleged ‘privilege’ seems too weak to prevent; in other words to regain said privilege by asserting their strength collectively? After all, you refer to them as “white” and “working-class,” so, the individuals you describe thusly must conform to these group labels in some objectively verifiable sense, no? Just what especial privilege do whites, nay “working-class” whites, enjoy but the fruits of their own labor and their peoplehood? Do you, would you, deny the former and the latter to them? Put it another way, would you deny them freedom of association and the right to self-determination, if they so desired it? Don’t you seek to suppress this impulse in them? Isn’t that what you really fear when you point to your rather nebulous rendering of “fascism”? 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:09 | # Good work, CC. Very nice. I’ve had initial replies from a couple of people I’ve challenged in that way, and posted them here. But once they realised they are dealing with someone hard-core they dropped the correspondence like a stone. This guy looks quite self-confident to me, and I think he might take you up on your offer. If he does I trust we’ll get to hear about it. From a professional standpoint what he should do, of course, is to take the opportunity to learn his subject matter. So if, for example, he is more questioning than explanatory, it might pay you to adopt the role of the gentle educator rather than the scourge of the left. 4
Posted by Frank on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:25 | # If they drop you like a stone, it might be in part due to an error on your part. IOW, there might be a better way to approach the matter if being dropped becomes a problem - it might be possible to get better results via another approach.
WWII Germans took investment money and free trade benefits from England. The investors wanted to make money, and the Germans didn’t mind the investment —- Italian fascism wasn’t as ethnic oriented as Nazism. 5
Posted by Frank on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:26 | # “Raspberry” appeared in my post instead of an emote. Not that it matters, but that’s why the word is there. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:55 | # Frank,
Some of these people are so captured and have antennae so refined to detect “hate” and “ray-cism”, it can be very difficult to approach them from a nationalist direction without setting off alarms. Pavlov’s dogs salivered at the mere ringing of a bell, after all.
Yes, I know. But we aren’t a bulwark against the Soviet foe. It ain’t the same today. 7
Posted by danielj on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:25 | # Good on Captain. I’d like to see the correspondence if he takes up the challenge. Italian fascism wasn’t as ethnic oriented as Nazism. From what I understand, Mussolini wasn’t as honorable or well-intentioned as Hitler. Am I wrong about this? What are the “definitive” texts on Italian fascism, I’d like to wade through them. Gottfried has made some recommendations but I don’t exactly trust his opinion on the subject. Secondly, fascism has to have a mass base… “Mass base” is liberal Newspeak for “democratic majority” but framing an issue on their terms is their strong suit. Besides, they’ll just elect a new “mass base” if they have to and the problem will be solved. I love it. Democracy is good, until it’s bad! Bad democracy! Behave mass base, behave! 8
Posted by REX on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:20 | #
Forget the secondary sources for now because many of them were written by people obviously biased against ‘fascism’ and indeed any political system besides so-called ‘democratic’ capitalism or Marxism/Sovietism - of course many of the texts were written by Jews, liberals, Marxists, and others. ‘Fascism’ is an extraordinarily difficult term to define, because it was put in to practice very differently in all of the countries and by the differing peoples which adopted it in the 20th Century. I recommend starting with the primary sources, those being the major writings, speeches, policy statements, government actions, and so on of various fascist leaders, theoreticians, intellectuals, government officials, and others. After you’ve waded through that information, then consult the secondary sources for various interpretations and to fill in the gaps (again, keeping in mind that they vast majority of secondary sources are biased, written as they were mostly by liberals, Marxists, capitalists, internationalists, Jews, and others intrinsically hostile to ethnonationalistic movements). 9
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:49 | #
I don’t think that will be true most of the time. The marxist left know what they’re doing and they’ll see no advantage in debating with a decided enemy unless that enemy is either dumb enough to be turned or if has trapped in front of an audience and they don’t want to lose face. Having said that, I can see how acting dumb at the start, like Columbo, could be a useful trick.
My take is that there’s always at least some tension between the political elite and masses. A lot of (original) centre left and (original) liberal politics was about trying to ease those tensions through reforms of various kinds. This politics doesn’t aim at increasing division in the nation but at reducing it. The marxist left however was about trying to maximize and exploit tensions in the nation to catapult a small group of people into a position of power. Before WWII they were out in the open and the reaction to them, Fascism, was swift and sharp. I see Fascism as promoting ethno-nationalism to unite the nation as a reaction to the marxist strategy of trying to divide it. On the other hand, if you believe that the driving force behind economic marxism was actually a disguised jewish ethno-nationalist strategy for attaining power then Fascism could be seen as a White ethno-nationalist defense against a jewish ethno-nationalist stealth attack - a bit like white blood cells in the body reacting to a disease. As a mental exercise if you view these conflicts as being a disguised ethnic competition for resources and then apply that outlook to the jewish situation pre WWII and post WWII then it gives two different and interesting results. In a society dominated by hereditary aristocrats e.g Russia pre-1917, there’s no clear path for jewish ethno-nationalism except through a political revolution. So a marxist revolutionary strategy could be seen as the best strategy for jews at that time. That strategy could be greatly assisted by money from a secondary economic strategy where jews had found a niche e.g banking, diamond trade etc but the dominant strategy would be to inject themselves into working class struggles and hijack them for jewish ends. The marxism would be heavily weighted towards the economic angle because jews didn’t have the wealth then. However WWII saw the jewish centre of gravity shift west to America where there was no aristocratic or legal barriers to jewish group tactics and where those tactics have allowed them to amass vast amounts of political, economic and media power. Given that their economic position is now reversed then it would make sense for their main strategy to have reversed also. I think you could easily make a case now for the greatest anti-national forces to be the global capitalist ones who want to create a fully globalized world with open borders and one world government. If this were so then the marxist wing would both become secondary and also shift away from the economic as jews now control much of the wealth. This would fit with how since the end of WWII the bulk of the marxist left has gradually shifted away from the economic sphere to the emphasis on multi-culturalism and anti-racism which, whether by accident or design, are very helpful to the globalisation agenda. If there was any truth in the above and Fascism was at least partly a kind of instinctive genetic reaction to stealth jewish attempts to overthrow host nations then this time around Fascist movements would have to be 2/3 anti-global capitalist and 1/3 anti-marxist as oppose to the 2/3 anti-marxist they were in the 30s. 10
Posted by National Socialism or our racial destruction! on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:04 | # IN MEMORIAM June 19, 1923 — April 9, 2009
HARROGATE, England — Colin Jordan, the elder statesman of At Cambridge Jordan formed the Nationalist Club, from where he After leaving Cambridge, Jordan taught mathematics at a In the 1980s, Jordan revived Gothic Ripples, originally Arnold Leese’s Jordan lived on a small farm estate near Harrogate in the Yorkshire NOW, GOOD AND FAITHFUL WARRIOR, ENTER VALHALLA!
Continuing the fight for a better world — NEW ORDER NOWeb 11
Posted by National Socialism or our racial destruction! on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:19 | # Friday, April 10, 2009 I have just received word that our comrade Colin Campbell Jordan has passed away at his home in Pateley Bridge, Yorkshire. He was 85. Few Americans will know his name, and that is a very great pity, for he was one of our links with a past which, in contrast to the present day, had some moments which approached the glorious. Jordan was a long time racial activist and author in Great Britain, and he was a friend and associate of both the great Arnold Leese and Sir Oswald Moseley. In 1962 he was a founding member of the World Union of National Socialists along with Commander George Lincoln Rockwell. I have no doubt that there will be many eulogies and funeral panegyrics all over the internet now that Comrade Jordan has left us, but I think the most appropriate monument, and possibly the most enduring work of all his writings, would be the Cotswolds Declaration of 1962, which he co-authored with Commander Rockwell. The Cotswolds Declaration of 1962 The Fundamental Statement of the Modern National Socialist World View I. WE BELIEVE that an honest man can never be happy in a naked scramble for material gain and comfort, without any goal which he believes is greater than himself, and for which he is willing to sacrifice his own egotism. This goal was formerly provided by fundamentalist religions, but science and subversion have so weakened all traditional religions, and given man such an unwarranted, short-sighted conceit of his “power over Nature”, that he has in effect become his own God. He is spiritually lost, even if he will not admit it. We believe that the only realistic goal which can still lift man out of his present unhappy selfishness and into the radiance of self-sacrificing idealism is the upward struggle of his race, the fight for the common good of his people. II. WE BELIEVE that society can function successfully, and therefore happily, only as an organism; that all parts benefit when each part performs the function for which it is best suited to produce a unified, single-purposed whole, which is then capable of out-performing any single part, the whole thus vastly increasing the powers of all the cooperating parts and the parts, therefore, subordinating a portion of their individual freedom to the whole; that the whole perishes and all of the parts suffer whenever one part fails to perform its own function, usurps orinterferes with the function of another part, or like a cancer devours all the nourishment and grows wildly and selfishly out of all proportion to its task—-which latter is exactly the effect on society of the parasitic Jews and their Marxism. III. WE BELIEVE that man makes genuine progress only when he approaches Nature humbly, and accepts and applies her eternal laws instead of arrogantly assuming to ignore and conquer Nature, as do the Marxists with their theories of the supremacy of environmental influence over the genetic truth of race, special laws of biological equality for humans only, and their insane denial of the primitive and fundamental human institution of private property. IV. WE BELIEVE that struggle is the vital element of all evolutionary progress and the very essence of life itself; that it is the only method whereby we have won and can maintain dominion over the other animals of the earth; that we must therefore welcome struggle as a means of testing and improving us, and that we must despise weaklings who runaway from struggle. We believe that life itself is awarded by Nature only to those who fight for it and win it, not those who wish or beg for it as a “right.” V. WE BELIEVE that no man is entitled to the services or the products of the labor of his fellow men unless he contributes at least an equal amount of goods or services of his own production or invention. We believe that the contribution by a member of society of nothing else but tokens called “money” is a fraud upon his fellows, and does not excuse a man capable of honest work of his responsibility to produce his share. VI. WE BELIEVE that it is to the advantage of society to see that every honest man has freedom and opportunity to achieve his maximum potentials by preserving his health, protecting him from unforseeable and ruinous catastrophes, educating him to capacity in the areas of his abilities, and guarding him against political and economic exploitation. VII. WE BELIEVE that Adolf Hitler was the gift of an inscrutable Providence to a world on the brink of Jewish-Bolshevik catastrophe, and that only the blazing spirit of this heroic man can give us the strength and inspiration to rise, like the early Christians, from the depths of persecution and hatred, to bring the world a new birth of radiant idealism, realistic peace, international order, and social justice for all men. THESE SEVEN PRINCIPLES are the rock of our faith. with them, we shall move the world. The political party program we adopt, based on these principles, can and will change as events and facts change, as we discover better methods. But these seven principles are fundamental, absolute, and timeless truth. They will not change. We bind ourselves permanently and without reservation to these ideals, and the battle to establish them as the only scientific and realistic basis for human society. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:53 | # the only realistic goal which can still lift man out of his present unhappy selfishness and into the radiance of self-sacrificing idealism is the upward struggle of his race Upward to where, towards what, precisely? Just upwards ad infinitum? How is “upwards” defined? Or is it all just words? struggle is the vital element of all evolutionary progress No, adaptiveness is. “Struggle” merely gives the game away that the lower orders must be enlisted to fight and suffer in the new higher order’s little scheme. we must despise weaklings who runaway from struggle. Translation: We are at war with the European genotype because it expresses in physical and moral forms which we despise. And that’s “run away”, btw. Adolf Hitler was the gift of an inscrutable Providence to a world on the brink of Jewish-Bolshevik catastrophe, and that only the blazing spirit of this heroic man can give us the strength and inspiration to rise ... to bring the world a new birth of radiant idealism The English are far too worldly to buy the cult of the leader. And they are very likely to want to remain Englishmen rather than be reborn - or more likely NOT - as “radiant idealists”. Really, what self-respecting person would swap irony and understatement for that? I don’t mind in the least if Germans seek to revitalise certain aspects of National Socialism in Germany (not the foreign policy, obviously). But hard questions need to asked of non-Germans who think there is anything concrete for them in this message. 13
Posted by Frank on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:40 | # Guessed Worker:
Very true. Have you ever tried sending a letter to Lawrence Auster? I’m not sure if he’s Pavlov or Pavlov’s dog, but he goes berserk frequently. But from a Sun Zhu perspective, a general learns all he can about his opponent (and all he can about himself) and then seeks to respond to the opponent in the most effective way possible. Either the general should not waste his time, or he should figure a way to succeed in his efforts. 14
Posted by Frank on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:32 | # danielj, I’m not an authority on the subject, but I’ll respond shortly as best I can. Guessedworker:
I get the impression they invested the money for profit. They also invested in the Soviet Union, though I don’t know how that divides along true English and Jewish investors. Montagu Collet Norman was the Governor of the Bank of England during that time. 15
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:44 | # Most of the Whites with the “heroic spirit” of old died off in the first two Wars To Kill White People. What we are left with now are these slugly, spineless academic “intellectuals.” Professor Robinson represents the absolute nadir of Euro genes - an intellectually lazy, treasonous, pusillanimous, ass-kiss, slippery bastard. Notice that all of the characteristics that define the leftist academic can also be applied equally well to all modern politicians. We are being lorded over by dysgenic swine who are the inversion of all the things we would consider good about “Whiteness.” Whereas our leaders were once great and courageous, now they are the absolute filth of our race. 16
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:47 | # Filthy, money-grubbing swine who all talk and act the same way, whether they’re in academics, media, politics, or high finance. Soul-sucked automatons, the lot of them. They would almost deserve pity if they weren’t so destructive. 17
Posted by National Socialism or our racial destruction! on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:13 | # Comrades: I was very sorry to learn that this great man had finished his earthly mission and passed into history. It was my honor and privilege to call Colin Jordan my comrade for the past three decades. One of the most memorable occasions in my life was the long afternoon I spent visiting with Comrade Jordan and his wife in Knarsborough, Yorkshire, in May, 2003. In addition to his genius-level intellect, Colin Jordan was a man of courage, vision, and selfless dedication to his Folk and Race. That a man with his abilities and insight was relegated by the Judeophilic British system to the outermost fringes of British politics for the course of his life is a damning indictment of that system. While we mourn his passing, I know that he would not want us to waste time in idle grief, but rather he would urge us to honor him by intensifying the struggle for the Cause to which he devoted his life—that of a worldwide National Socialist New Order. Und er hat doch gesiegt! Heil Hitler! Martin Kerr 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:56 | # Perhaps Mr Kerr should realise that Hull and High Wycombe or wherever he hangs out isn’t Munich in 1923. Und er hat doch gesiegt No, there’s no triumph to be got from posing as big strong Nazi boys. Costume Nazism was weak and ridiculous and substantially the resort of homosexuals in the 1960s when these guys were doing that, and bleating on about “triumph” and Adolf is highly suspicious and irrelevant now. It’s not that the post-war radical right didn’t contain some intelligent people. It’s that they were not intelligent enough to avoid being captives of the reactionary, which, self evidently, led them nowhere. 19
Posted by German National Socialism: Quite Progressive? on Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:33 | # The National Socialist German Workers’ Party was actually more progressive than many realize. Even though their focus on ethnonationalism and race is considered right-wing along with their militaristic and expansionistic policies, their economic policies were A LOT more leftist/progressive than many realize. The German National Socialists opposed plutocratic (Jewish) ‘democratic’ capitalism in all its forms along with Jewish/Soviet communism and Marxism, and especially wanted to provide for a large German middle class and to lift up the German poor and working classes. In this respect their system was actually more ‘democratic’ than many of the systems found in so called ‘democratic’ countries. Read the following points from the 25 Point National Socialist Program:
—- Read the rest of the program, along with the explanation provided; it is a huge diatribe against Jewish economic systems like plutocratic (democratic) capitalism and (Marxist/Bolshevist) communism. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:04 | # My friend, the “reactionary” to which I was referring was not political but hegelian. 21
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:33 | # Has anyone read Colin Jordan? I’ve recently purchased a bunch of old right-wing books via a New Right elist. Some of those books were written by Jordan. I’ve read Tyndall and heard him speak and he sounded like a stand-up guy. A man you’d like to have beside you when going through a dark alley. The type of man who wouldn’t run away and leave you alone if you got attacked. A genuine Aryan. Good blood never lies. Some pics from that era: 22
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:49 | # I’m sure that Friedrich’s assessment of the late John Tyndall is correct. The magazine which Tyndall edited contains some interesting articles which may be read here: 23
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:51 | #
Ha, ha, ha! It may not lie, but it can become pedantic beyond words. You are the quintessential case in point, a boring Europonce. 24
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:25 | # Anonymous Gudmun’s entire intellectual input in this thread is a catalog of taunts and invective. I suppose it’s easier for a feebleminded peasant to express his baffling sense of unhappiness with crudities than with thoughtful arguments—a frustrating task beyond his grasp. Good blood never lies, and neither does bad. 25
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:03 | # So you aren’t anonymous Herr Braun? I’d thought otherwise. But I’ll give you a pass since you are allegedly European and the wrong saying can get you canned there. “taunts and invective” Oh, right you are FB. Mostly aimed at our enemies and not at you. “I suppose it’s easier for a feebleminded peasant to express his baffling sense of unhappiness with crudities than with thoughtful arguments” It felt good to write that, didn’t it? FB, I was one of your supporters at TCP so you’re only making a fool of yourself. If I mocked your output it was only because you err on the side of pedantry. Sandor Petofi did worse damage to you at VNNF than I could ever do. Relax. Peasant? I’d certainly rather be a field-laboring churl than a profit-chasing ZOGling, but that’s just me. “a frustrating task beyond his grasp.” Oh no, sirrah, not beyond my grasp. Beyond my caring though, aye aye! “Good blood never lies, and neither does bad.” Not subtle, but I suppose you’ve made your point. We’ll see whose blood is good and whose is bad when it comes down to it, won’t we? FB, don’t be so thin-skinned. If our race is all we make it out to be, we’ll make it through. 26
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:11 | # LOL! Most of my posts amount to little more than demagoguery in any case! I just want the jews smashed - as do you, Europonce. There’s no reason we can’t be allies, even with the grievances. After all FB, how could I hate a kinsman more than I hate the dastardly Kozar Jew? 27
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:54 | # Oh yes, I may be a feeble-minded peasant, but I still want revenge for the 15 million Germans that were mass-murdered at the end of the SWATKWP. My people (by descent), your people. Murdered in flames by the millions. I want justice, so do you. Don’t lose sight of the true foe, Europedant. We can revert to internecine warfare after the bloody kike is dealt with. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:04 | # Frank: Have you ever tried sending a letter to Lawrence Auster? 29
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:15 | # Gudmund, As far as I’m aware Friedrich isn’t living in Europe, but somewhere less free even than that. And how about rowing back on the Kozars and the kikes. You’ve got Alex’s place for that. This is MR. Here we do things with style and a smidgeon of wit. We speak only of the greatness of the Jewish intellect and the numinosity of the Jewish soul, grateful always for the Rabinically-wise decision to cosmopolitise our most-ingrained wickedness away, so we may be free, free at last. Dead, finally, or Finally. But, hey, that’s the only way we’ll ever be free from our need to go Jew-killing. Which reminds me. 30
Posted by Gudmund on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:30 | # “As far as I’m aware Friedrich isn’t living in Europe, but somewhere less free even than that.” Gracious me, does such a place exist? “And how about rowing back on the Kozars and the kikes. You’ve got Alex’s place for that.” Hoo-ha! Alex’s? I’m bloody honoured! “This is MR.” So, ‘tis. Your good humour is much appreciated. “Here we do things with style and a smidgeon of wit.” But I’m an unsubtle AmeriCunt. What does any yank twerp know of wit? Forgive my “churlishness.” “We speak only of the greatness of the Jewish intellect and the numinosity of the Jewish soul, grateful always for the Rabinically-wise decision to cosmopolitise our most-ingrained wickedness away, so we may be free, free at last.” Let me know how it turns out. I’ll be stupefying myself with liquor and illicit drugs. “Dead, finally, or Finally. But, hey, that’s the only way we’ll ever be free from our need to go Jew-killing. Which reminds me.” I’ll never be free. I feel like a Biblical Gyppo-Joo myself. I’ve lifetime persecution complex (LPC). 31
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:59 | # GW, your ‘letter to Lawrence’ is a gem which I somehow missed. Belated congratulations. 32
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 02:37 | # What’s wrong with today’s Labour Britain, GW? Something is rotten in Britain. Young men are stabbing each other to death at an unprecedented rate, the centres of many towns are no-go areas on weekends as drunks spill out of bars and terrorize passersby, and Britons are obsessed with celebrities such as Jade Goody, whose funeral last weekend led to scenes reminiscent of the death of Princess Diana. 33
Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:07 | # So. In reading this article, after a hiatus of several weeks, I read that a UC Prof knows nothing, when it comes to honest historical analysis. Big deal. I could have told you that thirty years ago. Next, I read a eulogy to someone who died, about whom I know nothing….other than the fact that his ‘platform’ is the same old atheistical evolutionary claptrap about ‘striving toward the light’... which, in most cases, is either ‘science;’ (falsely so-called) or ‘the race;’ (again falsely so-called) or some Asgaardian future that is as mythic as anything thrown at Christianity (again, falsely so-called) by the modern liberals. All of these scenarios are predicated on one flawed (and I mean FLAWED) paradigm- A Universe without God, and an Earth without Christ. Which makes all it so much dung. And which makes it all of a piece. ( a piece of dung?) Evolutionary Jewish scientists, who postulate evolution as the ‘summum bonum’ (Asimov, Gould, etc.) for ‘Man’ (quasi ‘man’) are just as damned as Judas. Evolutionary Aryan folks, who postulate evolution as the ‘summum bonum’ (Well, you fill in the blanks) for “WHITE” Man qua man, are just as damned as the Pharisees, who also sought their justification (in the theological sense) via some sort of ‘race privilege.’ Where does that leave people like myself, who actually see that Christianity is still viable? Ignored, demeaned, and left out of the equation, let alone the solution…. The tediousness of having to point out that those on the left side of the evolutionary ‘faith-paradigm,’ and those on the right side of the evolutionary ‘faith-paradigm’, are merely latter day Janus types, becomes annoying after a while; frankly, there is not an iota of difference between them. (just like those who state that fascism and communism are merely two sides of the same coin… but, God forbid, we should EVER try fascism again!!!) Correspondingly, without a revivified Christendom that has an explicit Christian profession (and mandates that all her citizens confess such)- thus ensuring the exclusion of Jews and other atheists- if we do not seek THIS above all else, then Christendom’s sons and daughters DESERVE to perish, all ‘Aryan supremacist’ rant notwithstanding. Just as you cannot ‘de-baptize’ yourself, so, too, Christendom cannot ‘un-christen’ herself, without assuring her own demise. What, exactly, then, is this website offering, if it is inimical to that POV? The same old tired cliches that didn’t work when Huxley tried them, that didn’t work when Churchill tried them, that didn’t work when Boas tried them, that didn’t work when Hitler tried them, that didn’t work when Mosley tried them, that didn’t work when LBJ tried them, that didn’t work when Reagan/Thatcher tried them, etc. etc. etc. ??? They say that stupidity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Bp. John Robinson (of ‘Honest to God’ fame) -[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._T._Robinson ] at least (at the end of his life) returned to an honest appraisal of his metier- the New Testament, and wrote a book that even conservatives could agree with, in returning the dating of the NT to the era in which the Church had said (all along) that is was written in- prior to the Destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Shouldn’t we also say, “You know, godless capitalism didn’t work, godless marxism doesn’t work, and godless Judaism doesn’t work”? And, while I disagree with the theology posited in the following article, I do see that all this blather about ‘national socialist’ ideals could ONLY have come out of a Protestant Weltanschauung, as this author points out: “If you give up metaphysics, if you give up the attempt to prove the objective existence of God, then all you have left with is the ‘my god’ of personal religion. And the ‘my god’ is non-realist. He is internal to us: ‘my god’ is my goal in life, my spiritual ideal that I am trying to live up to, my dream, my hope. God becomes a function of human religiousness: not a being out there, but rather the ideal towards which my faith orients me, the imaginary focus of my own spiritual project. And because Macintyre assumes that everyone who is not a realist must be an atheist, he deduces that Robinson is an atheist. Now it is certainly arguable that ever since Luther, Protestant faith has been of this kind—a personal religious project, oriented towards an ideal God….” - http://www.sofn.org.uk/theology/robinson.html In short, the pantheistic ‘radiance of self-sacrificing idealism is the upward struggle of his race, the fight for the common good of his people.’ Which is utter bunk. Either one is conformed to the Image of Christ, by the transforming of one’s mind (first - the body comes along for the ride… hopefully! -lol) and thereby: as each Man is revivified in the Imago Dei, via theosis and grace, through the sacraments and obedience to the Church, (and no, I am NOT talking of Rome as ANY kind of ‘Church’) each one then affects the culture around him/her, and thus, Christendom is re-born. This was the ideology espoused by the Christian Reconstructionists of the 1970’s over in the USA; yet you’d never know it, for the atheists said it was ‘an attempt at Theocracy’ (oooh, how ‘horrible’! - yeah, right, as if THEIR form of SATAN-ocracy was better?), while the Baptists sought a ‘this-worldly kingdom’ via the ‘Republican right,’ SAYING they were utilizing the CR paradigm, but, in all actuallity, merely using the strong-arm tactics of a Republic turned Empire. Of Course, the Jews that USED THEIR (Evangelicals) naivete to a degree unheard of since 1933, via their faulty eschatology (Dispensational premillenialism), is somthing that then Jewish Neo-Cons are STILL laughing about… Only until ‘The God out there’ has become the ‘God Incarnate,’ and all attempts to obfuscate that (via the Jews); or assimilate it (via the Multicultis- ‘the Negro is my neighbor/brother/sexual partner’); or downplay it (liberal Xianity - can’t we just be ‘tolerant and inclusive’?) or co-opt it; (evangelicals a la Rick Warren) or deny it altogether (evolutionary atheists- whether scientist or racist) are doomed to failure. In this Easter/Pascha season, I’d at least wish that minds such as I read on this blog, who clearly are seeking to find answers to the evil around us, would at least recognize that, in denying or dismissing Christendom, and Christendom’s God, you fellows are merely using the same playbook as your/our enemies… and that you don’t even realize it, leads me to believe, all this talk is more or less, a clear cut case of ‘the blind leading the blind.’ Arise, you sleepers, and see the light… as the Church states this time of year. 34
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:26 | # That impressively tenacious salvation-peddler, Fr John, is still flogging the intellectually offensive, dead (Jewish) Trojan horse of Christianity, I see. Any gullible suckers recruited for old JC’s social gospel or liberation theology among the MR lost sheep this week then? I look forward to Fr John’s next attack of self-regarding, religious hysteria in which he explains why, when German lands lost more than half their population (a genetic loss of Europe’s best people) to post-Reformation wars of religion, driven by pious Christian, Jew god pleasing blood-lust, the mass carnage was the fault of atheist agents of the Devil. 35
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:44 | #
It’s a very,very sad story, no doubt. Mangan’s postcards from Wales. 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:49 | # Al, Considering that Catholic France aligned with the Protestants a good case can be made, IMO, that it was once more a case of the Nordic penchant for cousin-conflict. 37
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:41 | # True, Desmond. The etiology of religious wars, however, might be more convincingly located in the febrile Christian belief that, regardless of nationality or Clerical admonition regarding theological differences, killing in the sacred name of that detached section of Yahweh known as Jesus Christ, guaranteed the approbation of Heaven with all the concomitant celestial, multi-racial benefits which accrue from admittance within the Pearly Gates. 38
Posted by AntiEuro (Good Mouth) on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:09 | # Friedrich Braun expects that every American will kiss his Euro ass. But I won’t. And anyone who does is just a fucking dupe. We American Whites don’t need a pretentious cuntrag like him to tell us how things work. We American anti-loxists have been standing on our own two feet for years and years. We scarcely need some pretentious shitbag to tell us what’s what. Hey, Friedrich Braun, when you publish something to match the genius of Immanuel Kant, Gottlieb Fichte, GWF Hegel, and the rest - then you’ll be worthy of respect. But until then (and it won’t happen) you’re just a pretentious German-descended fuckstick who isn’t worth paying attention to. I may be a “feeble-minded peasant” but I know shit when I smell it. Fuck off. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Problematic Nature of Assimilation
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:34 | #
“Scapegoating” is when you blame someone who isn’t responsible. This ninny should look at who’s filling the “industrial prison complex” and admit that’s it’s for very good reasons.
“displaced white-privileged”? What kind of privilege does he imagine being displaced is? He’s the one doing the scapegoating.