|
|
|
White South African voices on the migration question The case of Brandon Huntley, a white South African granted asylum by an Immigration Board in Ottawa, has been in the headlines for a couple of days. The Canadian’s recognition that black violence and South African governmental dereliction can constitute grounds for asylum for fleeing whites has stung both the aforementioned government and the ANC. The moral poverty of both is evident in their reflexive ascription of racism to the decision. But some rather more interesting reactions have surfaced elsewhere … here in the Huffington Post, for example, where Western purveyors of the old anti-apartheid rubric are struggling - and failing - to come to terms with the moral superiority of the white South African victim. Like “sa-Ireland”:
The fact remains, though, that of the 4 million + South African whites well over three-quarters of them have not fled the country, and a substantial number appear to be willing to trade personal security for the benefit of the climate, the beaches, the bars, the upscale metropolitan white lifestyle. It’s hardly news that in South Africa the racial question still preoccupies everyone, whites included. But the old divisions among whites are long gone. Now they are split between optimists who are prepared to keep their head down and take what’s going on one side and, on the other, pessimists like “sa-Ireland”, for whom getting out is only a matter of time, and the realists who will stay but try to create change. Here are two voices, both female, situated right next to one another on a thread at the Daily Mail:
And here is another thread, at a South African optimist’s blog. It is worth a read, not least because one of the commenters actually knows Brandon Huntley and can testify to his victimhood. Here’s a sample of optimism from that thread:
And another:
And my favourite little extract:
Obviously, as someone seeking the destruction of the MultiCult, I find the slow implosion - leading ineluctably to an explosion - of the rainbow nation wonderfully edifying. Or it would be if whites were not paying such a terrible cost. Is the re-education of liberals in Europe and North America really worth so much? Nonetheless, this phenomenon of the optimistic South African needs to be understood because the same type is in London and Vancouver, LA and NY, everywhere the MultiCult is. I’ve heard their grating voices on TV and read their missives in the Guardian and the Indy. I recognise the signs: the narrowness of their interest in self, the dedication to a life of consumption and material values , the lack of enquiry and seriousness in general. Are they just a product of the postmodern life, slaves to the progressive zeitgeist? Or are they, like the poor, always with us - a permanent feature of our lives? Comments:2
Posted by Steven E. Romer on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:17 | # The power of modern media to program the human mind is enormous. On every continent, our people are awash in this. They are being steam-rolled by propaganda which has taken the place of critical thinking and true reason—always the province of the select few anyway. our true leaders, our true voices, have been squelched out in favor of this feel-good ignorance. People take on the culture around them, form their “opinions” on it. Our minds formed in times without recorded words, without even writing. Plato said that the WRITTEN language would be the end of thinking! Now we live mostly contrived lives we get from every angle—schools, magazines, television, movies, etc. We are absolutely defenseless. We need to relize that these things have powerful emotional effects on us. Our brains automatically make this stuff real because in the past everything we experienced emotionally was actually real! These media have become the organs and appendages of the Jewish world view—reaching into our brains and operating us like puppets toward our doom. Seeing what these people wrote is deeply sickening. They should be speaking great and noble truths handed down by our best people and leaders. Instead they parrot this deadly mantra as if it were some religious prayer, and they demonize our best people who really know the importance of race as the criminals of all time. Our best minds are fed to the lions. We need to wake up everywhere. 3
Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:31 | # And a political reaction from the opposition: http://www.vryheidsfront.co.za/english/media.asp?id=3813 Also interesting to remember: http://afrikaner-genocide-achives.blogspot.com/2009/07/security-minister-probes-motiveless.html 4
Posted by PF on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:49 | # I wish I understood these optimists more. Its funny how they chirp in their optimism, obviously against an acknowledged background of general disillusionment and painful reality. One can see in that the pride of anyone working within a belief structure when presented with contrary evidence: ‘well I still believe (in this, that, whatever)’. And since they also have beliefs about the moral implications of their beliefs (i.e. believing them makes them good and dedicated as people, they have conviction, etc.), they believe they are all scoring a massive load of ‘brownie points’ by refusing to change. I’m happy at least that the indoctrinators who got to put their hands deep into the conscious and subconscious minds of these people for the last 40-50 years, were not able to make them murder us, the differently minded. That strikes me as a difference between cultural marxist liberalism and straight communism, in communism these people who are mindlessly praising beaches would be hunting us down and killing us. You can call them ‘zombie-whites’, those that have fully taken the judaic programming of one school or another. In the west, the zombie whites just coquette with their moral glories and accept the fact of demonization of the right-minded in newspapers. They aren’t peasants who’ve been taught about revolution as the first and only non-religious abstract concept they’ve ever grasped - thank ...Odin. The fact that these zombies still exist in 2009 in SA means they will probably be part of the west for a long time yet. It probably requires genuine large-scale disaster of some sort to end the collective trance. 5
Posted by Matra on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:45 | # First a white South African is accepted as a victim of racism, now Canada might even have freedom of speech: It’s a great day for freedom of speech 6
Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:49 | # There’s a video on YouTube with a black and white guy trying to rob a white café owner in South Africa until a white plain clothes cop intervenes and stops them by force. 7
Posted by Q on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:45 | #
I’ve long pondered the thought that liberal traits, like IQ, has more to do with inheritance, i.e. biology, than enviornment. That said there may be another phenomenon at work here; a more simple explanation for why many whites in SA are seemingly dismissive of the obvious danger that surrounds them. It’s this crude analogy: The longer people live in close proximity to a dung heap, the less offensive the stench becomes. Likewise, many whites become desensitized to the savagery in SA. 8
Posted by John on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:00 | #
The example above is too ludicrous. Doesn’t pass the smell test. IMO not a few of the “zombies” who posted there have never set foot in South Africa (in contradistinction to the horror stories, most of which rung true for me). Read them again, this time replacing Johannesburg with Detroit and you’ll see what I mean. 9
Posted by nonracist on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:49 | # There should be more “race” mixing in South Africa, so that the very superstition of “race” (Jacques Barzun) disappears as quickly as possible. 10
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:57 | # nonracist, I hereby socially construct the reality you wish. See? Wasn’t that easy? 11
Posted by torgrim on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:01 | # @ Soren, “You must try to think only happy thoughts.” Oh now, don’t be negative…. 12
Posted by Thunder on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:05 | # nonracist, I hereby socially construct the reality you wish. On another note: The link to the article at the start of this topic has a comment board which I have been enjoying. Has anyone else noticed how pro us these comment boards are getting lately? I have been bashing away for about 15 years on these topics and have been overwhelmingly outgunned but now there seems to be growing support. It is kind of nice to get the support. 13
Posted by Thunder on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:12 | # Sorry, in my above post I was referring to the link to the SBS documentary on the BNP. 14
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:24 | # Nonracist, you little bitch, just what is it you get out of being a race traitor? 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:06 | # Some interesting commentary. Valerian, Your question will answer itself when we have refined and perfected our analysis. I foresee the day, not too distant from now, when we will be able to apply to any political conversation an ideological filter or tool which will have the effect in that moment of changing the dominant liberal presumptions for our Weltanschauung. The choice of who’s in and who’s out will be made automatically by the response to that. Nothing will be forced. I know from applications of material drawn from PF’s Snappy Refutations series (see under Activism on the side-bar) that it is possible to recondition discourse. We will get a lot better at it. Steven, Our minds formed in times without recorded words, without even writing ... Our brains automatically make this stuff real because in the past everything we experienced emotionally was actually real! This is astute. I had not thought of it in those terms. However, our minds evolved with the capacity to discern truth from falsehood, so we cannot be entirely lost. I do believe that if loyal whites had equal media power, the current opinion-forming Establishment would be exposed in short order, and would be destroyed. PF, The fact that these zombies still exist in 2009 in SA means they will probably be part of the west for a long time yet. Yes, that’s my reading. They have been around a long time and will remain around a long time too. To come over all Kundera-like, lightness of being came upon us for the first time with the development of cities, was given impetus by the industrial revolution and the arising of the class system and the pursuit of leisure, really got going with the two Durkheimian 20th century world wars and then was given a twist by the Jewish philosophers of Frankfurt. Lightness of being cannot be cured. People cannot be given depth. Johan, welkom. Keep in touch. Likewise, Matra. Ezra Levant’s report is extremely heartening. Worth a full thread in itself. Richard Warman must be terribly crestfallen. Such a pity! Q, There have been studies showing the heritability of standard right <> left sympathies. I’m not wholly convinced because I don’t accept the psychological validity of right <> left. I suspect that it might be a product of an imposed ideological analysis, and other, more psychologically applicable paradigms exist. I like the dung heap explanation better. 16
Posted by PF on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:52 | # Soren wrote:
There is a difference between censoring your thoughts to make them appear happy (doesnt work) and examining the beliefs and relation to self underlying your thoughts. Thoughts are reflexive and spring from belief structures, in my view. I think its possible to be a bad advocate of the worlds greatest cause (which is surely ours, lol). And every man, regardless of what he says, is first a man, and a white nationalist second. Plus the reiteration of compulsive thinking is ultimately boring. 17
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:29 | #
For a White man of quality a life lived without placing on his shoulders all the burdens it is necessary to carry his people to deliverance is one bereft of meaning. When the moment before his death comes, if he has courage, he will affirm the merits of his sacrifice before no witness but himself. To have loved and lost is truly better than to have never loved at all for we must eventually lose everything but we need not never have truly loved.
Glib and twitish.
So is whining. 18
Posted by Astrid on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:54 | # It seems to me that Whites are for the most part, a peace loving, docile, trusting, decent hearted, optimistic people. These are good traits for creating a society where the gifted, talented and brilliant can rise to the point of making contributions to the society, which is what enabled White civilization. But their docility and trust makes them also easily led, which is good if there are good leaders, but can be fatal if they are being led surrepticiously by their enemies. Their decency makes them fall prey to the well orchestrated establishment of the perenial ‘pitiful’ people who will always be ‘disadvantaged’ compared with them. The tactic of smearing the most charitable race with the reputation of being cruel and exploitative is truly sickening and has actually made many Whites imagine that they are guilty of something, just because they are advantaged. The slow and creeping undermining along with long term and pervasive brainwashing has been like cancer, timed so that there will be no single attack that will provoke a response. 19
Posted by PF on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:50 | # CaptainChaos wrote:
Thats a bit more piety than I can agree to, though it may make you hate me (in text on an internet board). I believe in a dichotomy of value in emotions based on where they originate from. Some are deeply felt, like instincts. There is an instinctual heroism that can be nurtured (i.e. culturally) but doesn’t faire the better for being coerced. Its C<rB which is the basis of this heroism, and I think it is as natural as eating or sex, so there is no reason to lionize it. You defend your family, you deserve about as much commendation as someone who eats peanuts when he is hungry. Even defending your nation, I consider that a given (only, unfortunately, it opens one up to manipulation by governments as to what constitutes a threat and what a proportionate response). When you begin to lionize heroism, coerce heroism out of people, demand and highlight heroism - such as was probably done in every war but very much also in WWI and II - you enter into the territory where pure-heartedness, if one has a sufficiently fine psychological scalpel to dissect it, technically ends and group-control/manipulation/governmental lies begin. This is basically ‘peer pressure’ for which men are dying. Get this: they are dying because they are afraid to be thought traitors or cowards!
Its either glib and twitish or its an epistemological critique based on self-distrust, because I always distrust myself, even in ‘exalted’ and ‘spiritual’ moments I am careful. I believe elements of self-deceit creep into almost every thought that I think, so if I write on this blog about my ancestors, or about Glory, or about anything else, I have another eye open which is wondering about the reality of all that.
Here is the hilarity of life and the world, which should give a zealot pause to consider how far his righteousness will carry him: millions upon millions of European men sacrificed themselves in a horrible cataclysm - for nationalism! (ostensibly and viewed from their own perspectives). They sacrificed themselves for that - and now, in those countries, African men are allowed to prowl around the streets and basically hunt their female descendents. Do you think yourself immune to the same folly? What was their righteousness for? Didn’t they give THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE[tm]! Didn’t they NEVER WAIVER IN THEIR DEDICATION TO THE HOLIEST CAUSE[tm]. Didn’t they BRAVE EVERYTHING FOR KING AND COUNTRY[tm]? Yes I’m writing Trademark after this because they are memes, just ideas which are in this context - by some parties here - viewed as themselves being beyond critique. I would never put an idea beyond critique, even if it made me feel exalted, and even if that idea connected me to all my ancestors and descendents and in one fell swoop made an entire healthy new white nation materialize on my doorstep - I might not tell children the critique, I might not want critique of it in the newspapers, I might not want to build a culture around the critique of sacred essentialist group-vivifying ideals: but inwardly, I might well be skeptical. Because ideas are meant to be treated with skepticism, even when they make you feel fuzzy on the inside, or perhaps especially then. The bottom line is you can’t add to the truth of anything by quaking with passion while you say it, and then saying it again, or abjuring skepticism about it, at best you commit yourself more fully to it, and the error it inevitably contains, seeing as we are men and we understand most things imperfectly and paradigmatically, rather than absolutely. 20
Posted by PF on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:08 | # To make one of my points more clear: Millions died for nationalism - yet their death was folly, from the point of view of nationalism. They bequeethed us a world made dysgenic by their sacrifice, and ideologically rife for leftist conquest. Better they had forebeared and thought more, hesitated more, been more skeptical. But no, they were wildly committed. So they ran into the slaughter, and years later, Eva and Christina and Racquel and Caren are casually hooking up with negr000z, while all their national histories are publically banished and forgotten. The jokes on them, the old soldiers, they played the role of pious fools. They believed. All this is said in defense of using a grain of salt. 21
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:41 | #
Submitting to the overwhelming urge to imbue our existence and this life with grandeur and wielding passion shrewdly are not mutually exclusive.
It is not the spontaneous heroism that may motivate a man to chase down a purse snatcher having seen his helpless old victim pushed to the pavement that can be of much service to us now. True said inclination can be culturally again cultivated as duty to co-ethnics, but it is collective acts of heroism performed in synchronized fashion which I foresee as being called upon from us - some coercion, subordination to the command structure, will be necessary.
To apprehend the fineries of a noble sacrifice as reified via the poetic imagination is for the few. As for descent men willing dying for the man next to them, for their families, for their nation, for that which honor demands, I think you will find cowardly shirkers shall get no kind quarter from them. Are you projecting just a tad here?
Not the very average White men I know.
For our women, for our children, for our old folk, for our land, for our brothers. Don’t give me that horse shit.
That is your inclination, but do you know what your duty is?
They most certainly did not knowingly, willing sacrifice themselves for that. How far will you go in stretching the facts to rationalize your pessimism of the will? Idealistic heroism is not categorically unadaptive, for it can be wielded adaptively. It all depends upon who is wielding it, now doesn’t it?
You mean all of the above wasn’t meant to be prescriptive and of normative import? Sure sounded that way to me.
Well now, a nigger’s dick knows no conscience when it wants some White pussy. How long should White men quibble with their consciences before cutting his balls off - figuratively speaking of course.
See above. Oh yeah, and get your fucking head back in the game. 22
Posted by PF on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:47 | # Reply to CC. For many years I was a militarist, hero-worshipping idealist who believed in the redeeming glory of military sacrifice, and all that jazz. It fit in with comic book fantasies of me bashing the bad guys.
I’m not using the poetic imagination. I was obsessed with military culture for years, because I read Nietzsche as a young teen and imbibed his fawning love of militarism. Also my family was active in the military so they had great respect for that stuff. I’ve read more books than I care to name about military psychology, and I interviewed several Iraq veterans and one Vietnam veteran, trying to ascertain the psychology behind warfare and heroism. I did this in order to vindicate myself because I saw myself as needing to prove myself and could only conceive of that as being accomplished through military service. As a young guy I sought out all the old WWII vets I could find and interviewed them about the war, many were in camps, some were brits and one was a hungarian who was tortured by the communists. I also studied military history on my own for four or five years, particularly the history of England and Prussia, trying to find a clue, but also the history of wars in Africa, Yugoslavia, ancient Holy German Roman Empire, etc. Noble sacrifice? That sounds to me like a kid talking. I’m sorry, what precisely is a noble sacrifice, dying under a mortar attack by advancing German troops? Getting blown up by an IED in Iraq? Lads who go in the service are alright, service makes them harder, and warfare makes them harder still. But there is no metaphysical singularity in warfare - by that I mean there is no point at which one reaches spiritual escape velocity and ascends to a higher plane of meaning as a result of these experiences. Most of it is just bloody butchery, as vets will tell you. It does tend to strengthen bonds between men in a way that probably nothing else can, though. It also alienates them from citizens who haven’t had the same experiences. What else is the glory of war? Unless of course, you actually win and then the enjoyment of conquest is something quite different - and it is probably the metaphysical and cultural ramifications of the act of conquest which Nietzsche lionizes, more than warfare, although he probably thought of these as synonymous, book-loving philology professor that he was.
Willing to die for the man next to them? How about getting killed while fighting with the men along next to them. Nobody willingly decides to let himself die for another man, or rarely, I think most of that stuff happens by accident, in the fog of battle. How in the age of mass armies does one die for one’s family? And fighting for one’s nation, one is subject to manipulations of the governments interpretation of the threat level - something which in almost every historical case I investigated was exaggerated for political ends - probably because politicians don’t do the fighting. If that doesn’t make you want to have a peek behind the heroic mask, what will? A cowardly shirker? Do you think real life is that cut-and-dry? If someone doesn’t have the mental stamina to take war, and shits their pants and runs away, that probably conveys some useful information: they cannot handle war. As in, they will freak out, kill themselves or a fellow soldier (perhaps an officer, in order to escape), rather than continue fighting. Its pointless to judge them and make them lower than you, and ridicule them. A great deal of men probably cant take war, especially nowadays. If they had been raised differently, they might have dealt better with it. This hero and coward stuff is posturing.
Yeah, when you find a nuance thats inconvenient, you string together the pieties hoping to make me bow to the power of your emotionally laden words. By Odin’s raven, I shall not do it! I don’t have children, I don’t have women, I don’t own land, and I don’t have brothers (literally speaking). That isn’t to say I dont believe in solidarity, white pride, 14 words and a future for us. Life will always present itself to men paradigmatically, meaning through different viewpoints, your attempt to keep the aspect of war and military service stuck in the reverential-idealist viewpoint is a posturing, that viewpoint only reflects partial truth. This viewpoint is famously that of those who contemplate war from a distance, it basically seeks to be an unconscious affirmation of a noble lie. That unconciousness entails error.
I said they sacrificed themselves for nationalism. They did sacrifice themselves for that. You’re right - I am pessimistic about the will!
You mean you thought my suggestions were meant for women, children and dullards? Nope.
The game of leaving vitriolic comments on far right message boards? Fuck that game! 23
Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:01 | # Canada appeals controversial refugee case, see http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-09-04-canada-appeals-controversial-refugee-case
Independence of the judiciary? 24
Posted by Frank on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:11 | # PF,
Cowardice isn’t the lowest trait. Indeed bravery can allow a man to commit immoral acts before he’s fully developed his moral character, so it isn’t itself the most important trait. Honour is more important than bravery. I like this passage from Ingo:
I’m no a fan of Nietzsche, but I grew up idolising R. E. Lee, who was very militaristic though in a different way from Nietzsche.
Machiavelli’s ideal elite is both cunning like a fox and honourable like a lion. We might could use more cunning and distrust of strangers (including strangers of our own blood - I mean strangers relative to social familiars whom we have bonded with in fraternity)...
The same way Lee fought for his family: by joining the army when such serves their interests. Anyway, nationalism and particularities (family, community, etc.) should be in harmony not in opposition… We should design our societies to prevent against the manipulation you speak of. Fred Scrooby writes:
Amen brother! And I add to that that I can understand CC’s sentiments somewhat regarding that other war. 25
Posted by Frank on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:21 | #
Patton:
Haha. The goal isn’t to die but to risk dying while pursuing duty… 26
Posted by Frank on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:23 | # Risk dying where such is necessary or otherwise best - not to risk simply in order to risk… 27
Posted by Frank on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:26 | #
Those unable to serve should win lower honours as best they can by service in other areas. Right now for example there’s need of lawyers and money. 28
Posted by nonracist on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:22 | # What’s so hard to understand? The very notion of “race” should be abolished in South Africa and then many of the problems will be solved. The country should be split into several culturally defined nations (Xhosa, Zulu, Khoi, San, Sotho, Swazi, Afrikaners, Anglos), regardless of “race”. Belonging to one of these nations/ethnic groups should be defined by culture (language in primis) and culture only. There should me much “race mixing”. All problems of South Africa will be solved in this way. Can’t you see how simple it is? All you need is to drop the moronic crassly materialistic idea of “race”, which opposes the constructed imaginary entity of “whites” to the other equally artificially constructed monolithical entity of “blacks”. Some say there would be intra-ethnic squabbles in that case, even if the absurd notion of “race” is abolished. Yes, there would be, but they will be easier to solve because there wouldn’t be a quasi-biological theory underlying the assumptions of all participants in conflict, as it is now, a theory claiming an absolute explanatory value of some supposedly “hard and unchanging” facts. I hope the promotion of race mixing by some “celebrities” (among many other things, for sure) might help South Africans to overcome their conflicts. 29
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:51 | # You are mentally ill ... a very sick person. We see it as plain as day in your very sad attempts to goad us into engaging with you. Only you cannot see it. 30
Posted by nonracist on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:14 | # Biologically there are only individuals, not “races” (figments of imagination). Some group of individuals is then grouped around a common cultural or spiritual pattern, which then makes a nation/ethnic group. These are very simple things. Why do you think I am trying to “goad” anyone? 31
Posted by Astrid on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:37 | # Those unable to serve should win lower honours as best they can by service in other areas. Right now for example there’s need of lawyers and money. - Frank Why call them lower? This is unnecessary hierarching. If a man is a brilliant engineer or scientist or lawyer or farmer, he might be MORE useful elsewhere. Why risk his death if it’s not absolutely nec? It’s romanticism to place war in a higher position than other pursuits. More necessary at times, yes, but not higher. Reminds me of the odes to battle of the 14th century. 32
Posted by PF on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:53 | # Hey Frank, Thats a cool rejoinder. I think you spoke the truth and the Patton quote illustrates what really is important - winning and surviving another day. White culture is in such a state, that I distrust any demands the Res publica would make of me. We’ve had centuries of warfare for dynastic posturing, that didnt really have to do with the tribe, but the land claims of nobles. We’ve had warfare for cultural posturing and political/imperialist adventurism, which didn’t really have to do with the tribe (I think of the boer war and WWI). How does one die for the tribe, or risk one’s life for it, when we in the anglo-saxon world have a several hundred year history of military dominance and superfluous aggrandizing conflicts? I don’t want to die so Teddy Roosevelt can think himself an Ubermensch, know what I mean? Now that we are losing power and hegemony, and now that we have lost territorial integrity, perhaps it will become easier to see conflicts in which it actually is about defending the tribe. In which case, I would gladly help out - if military service of that sort is requested within my lifetime. After some years of pondering I think the sly cunning of guerrila fighters, who act like ‘cowards’ but often live to tell the tale, is generally superior to our teutonic tendency to go all out and risk everything on a go. Why? Because its not two men with saxes or maces going against each other anymore, where a bit of fury and dedication will shatter the other man’s life in a burst of superior force. Its a technologically sophisticated game of chance where slight missteps will embarrass you and lead to death - not a glorious death. We are gradually culling this type of straight bravery anyway, as older middle Eastern societies have probably accomplished long ago - because guys who exhibit it tend to be selected against, whereas forebearing cowards who use guerrilla tactics are selected for. In this later approach, you only fight when you either absolutely have to, or when you know you’re guaranteed to win. It makes pitched battles difficult however. 33
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:54 | #
The reason you use the example of WWI and not the example of those that fought for Germany during WWII is that the former tends to bolster your contention while the latter, were Germany victorious (and that is why they fought for Germany, so it would be victorious), would vindicate mine. It is silly to claim romantic nationalism, if wielded towards adaptive ends, is still inherently pathological to our peoplehood. What more powerful tool could there be, if push really came to shove, in securing the existence of our people? It smacks of yes, pious, liberals who rally for the banning of hand guns yet would most likely not hesitate to use one if their life depended on it. The life of your people may well call for the utilization of romantic nationalism, are you so pious as to reject it even if absolutely needed? 34
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:57 | #
Go about it then. And leave here.
Does this sort of drivel even need a comment, what with the mountains of evidence to the contrary at this site (not to mention the findings of Rushton, Salter, Murray, etc)?
You aren’t terribly bright, are you. Where did this “common cultural or spiritual pattern” come from if not shared biology (viz. race), genius?
So much is true: Your mind is simple.
The fact that you bother us with your half-wit sophistry is a hint. 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:03 | # Little rabbit, You are a vessel for Jewish hate-ideology. How this came to be so - by what weakness in your mind - I cannot say with accuracy. I suspect you have many other psychological or personality problems, and they, ultimately, explain your behaviour. In any case, you have a powerful need to project your negative feeling onto others. That is what the hate-idology of anti-white racism enables you to do and why it is attractive to you. That is why you are drawn here - essentially, in search of a cure. You hope to self-heal by creating a class of people - “racists” - who can carry away your issues. This illness is the reason why it is completely pointless for anyone to attempt logical argument with you ... to explain the world to you .... to explain the fantasy genetics which you selected for yourself ... to explain the immorality and genocidalism of what you support ... to explain that other human beings are not immoral or illegitimate for desiring their peoples to live, that all peoples across the world desire this ... None of it is worth explaining to a sick man. You understand, we cannot cure you by argument, and you cannot cure yourself by projection. The difference is that we can note our limitation in that regard and step away from serious engagement. You cannot. You are driven by your condition, which is why you have come back and why you beg engagement with these little digs of yours Now, I don’t propose to entertain your nonsense a second time. I strongly advise you to go elsewhere. I will IP-ban and remove every entry you subsequently manage to plant here if you persist in your puerile goading. 36
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:14 | #
Likewise, dog breeds must also be ‘figments of imagination’. Can you distinguish dog breeds, nonracist? Ethnic groups share common ancestry, not ‘cultural or spiritual patterns’ (I thought you were down on such figments). nonracist (antiracist) is a low-IQ troll who was here a couple of months ago. Rather than address posts which tried to educate him, he disappears for 2 months and then comes back with the same nonsense. 37
Posted by nonracist on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:34 | # OK, just one last message. Just to let you know. I am an ultra-extra-Libertarian. Acknowledging the existence of “race” means the worst insult for an autonomous individual. That is why I reject race as garbage. It is offensive to me. Goodbye! 38
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:38 | # GW, Thank you for banning the troll. Having people like this around really detracts from the quality of your otherwise excellent site. Posters whose energies are better spent constructively are otherwise aimed toward smiting asinine little arguments which better minds have long since refuted. Dasein,
Actually, I get the impression that the same handful of trolls keep coming back to this site under different names. There is a remarkable similarity in language and thought process which manifests in all the anti-whites who wash up here from whatever God-forsaken locale spawns them. In any case they detract from the discussion here and ought to be gotten rid of. 39
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:43 | #
Thank you for proving me right. There have been ultra-libertarian trolls here before - now you admit that it was you doing this, at least implicitly.
Translation: Admitting the scientific fact of race would refute your counter-factual world view.
Because it refutes your counter-factual world view. 40
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:57 | #
41
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:00 | # name: nonracist race: none/constructed gender: none/constructed hair color: none date of birth: since dawn of time place of birth: universe 42
Posted by PF on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:36 | #
Piety towards skepticism is something I dont think you can have, so the question is if I am so impious as to scoff at all manifestations of romantic nationalism. No, I love that stuff. Any white guy who is even capable of romantic nationalism has something good going for him. I think it would be great to see white europeans uniting under a common anything, and acknowledging ties of kinship in whatever form. I think there is room for romantic nationalism. Perhaps romantic tribalism would be still better - something like the Israeli’s have, like that millionaire jewish guy who talked about how he cried to listen to his national music. That type of stuff is brilliant. I like to go to pre-national tribal myths like Beowulf and the norse sagas and such, because the purveyors of politics cannot corrupt that for me. That isn’t the affirmation of anyone’s pet project. But what is a nation - this is something simple that we have problematized by our historical success as Europeans. When your a rag-tag group of people trying to survive, its clear the nation is ‘us’; when you’re successful, the nation distends into all sorts of things, particularly as the elite interests demand it to. Is Hitler’s expansive war machine the same as the German nation, because they appeared in perfect agreement, publicly? That war-machine had a pretty sad impact on that nation, even if one puts responsibility on their enemies and forgives them their lack of foresight - “Hitler couldnt have known his war would destroy Germany”. Interesting how under certain auspices (i.e. if one agrees emotionally with it) one can be extraordinarily lenient towards historical figures, e.g. “it wasn’t for them to foresee the results of their actions” - whereas most political figures without emotional backing are held responsible for the repercussions of the actions they initiate. I don’t see us ever escaping from ‘strategic imperatives’ i.e. the need to produce a good result. There is no motive, or invocation, which will purify a strategically shoddy approach to things. So even if one becomes the abnormal exaggeration of militarist nationalism - thus personifying motives which are seen as being beyond critique - such as men in WWII seem to have been striving to become - the ultimate question is ‘how did it help the nation’ and the ultimate answer is: not much at all. We also have to cooperate with other nations for example, in order to survive. In that situation the paradigm of war-of-all-against-all/nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw/zero-sum conflicts with the self-interest of the group, even while it trumpets itself as the bloodiest and most ultimate articulation of this group interest. These are some of the follies and excesses of romantic nationalism and heroicist/militarist ideology, which is isn’t a denigration of our worth or loyalty to correct for. 43
Posted by Union Jock on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:15 | # Time was when this site rightly derided the lefties of the Guardian and the libertarian loons of Samizdata for banning race realists instead of debating with them. The Sammies lamely claimed that because their site was ‘private property’ they had a right to stop their ears. It’s a pity that Guessedworker, so often a banning victim himself, now feels he must do the same in the opposite direction. Not your finest hour, old fellow. Like it or not, ‘nonracist’ speaks for far, far more of your fellow whites than you do, and if you won’t engage with them, this site will remain a disregarded circle jerk. Disagreement is the spice of life. Yours on the sidelines and unimpressed by censorship,
44
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:48 | #
It isn’t censorship. The mental defectives who come here to repeat the same rubbish time and again always ignore all evidence contra their views and dodge questions put to them, etc. Why do you want to waste your life constantly engaging these insects, only to have them obfuscate, disappear, and reappear weeks later with the same crap? How does allowing this space to become a madhouse advance what we’re trying to do here? 45
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:54 | #
No, he speaks for the libertarian fringe of white folks. Most leftists deride his views as much as we do even though he’s on their side vis-a-vis race. And I’m not so sure that everyone is as ‘race-blind’ today as you posit. Many, many whites shut up their true feelings about race for fear of ostracism. I don’t agree with your post which is why I’m speaking against it, and this behavior contradicts your claim that we engage in “censorship.” If we were censors we’d just tell you to sod off with your opinion and ban you - and that we have not done. 46
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:25 | # Union Jock: It’s a pity that Guessedworker, so often a banning victim himself, now feels he must do the same in the opposite direction. Not your finest hour, old fellow. That is true enough, but Nonracist has run this stunt on us before, as Mark says. He breaks one of two house rules we operate under, which is to post in good faith (the other is to be civil). It’s an unsubtle variety of what Prozium calls “discourse poisoning”. I’ve given Nonracist free rein before, but the point arrives when one has to call a halt. 47
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:48 | # Ultra-extra-Libertarians must allow people to freely associate and exclude upon whatever basis they desire, including race, or they are hypocrites. Discrimination is freedom and ultimately freedom is lost if state coercion is used to ensure non-discrimination. The other problem facing libertarians is evolution. “Only a people such as the English, characterized by the “non-kinship based forms of reciprocity” associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy and companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism could possibly succeed in creating a “society of strangers.” Individualism is an evolved trait and is not found equally in all races of people. 48
Posted by Frank on Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:31 | # PF writes:
Yes, and I detest that reality! Such a life is not fit for us. We’re cursed to live in Ovid’s Iron Age. Perhaps the ideal is to draw off a state of our own that deals with outsiders according to Iron Age rules of conduct but within the Silver Age is allowed to blossom once again. Just as the hunter must use cunning to trap the wild beast, so too must the warrior use cunning to fight Iron Age opponents even though he lives by another code amongst his own. And additionally perhaps some states would be more worthy of trust than others… Perhaps another noble race would arise to stand with us. The ideal is surely to forge an Ouroboros that would stand the test of time, immortal and self-sustaining. Progress need only be made if necessary relative the outside world. The Germans live still in the previous age:
Hope that’s not too lengthy - it’s an insightful poem. Like you I enjoy these ancient tales - what’s left uncorrupted or outright obliterated that is… 49
Posted by Frank on Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:36 | # Oops. In the previous post the first quote is on the Brazen Age and the second is on the (lower) Iron Age. And within the state social ties ought to be forged within decentralised communities which themselves know to distrust the greater state. Figuring how that should be set up is surely the great riddle - that is assuming we’re ever given the opportunity to set such up… 50
Posted by Frank on Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:54 | # nonracist writes:
Are you familiar with true communism? Once nationalism and religion have been obliterated and man thus freed, the state is to wither away and an individualist paradise ensue. Ironic how libertarians who don’t yet understand their faith (and it is a faith) think communism is somehow their enemy. In truth nationalism is the great enemy, and communism the great distraction. Similarly in Europe today, nationalism is the great enemy, and religion (opposing “archaic” Islam and Christianity) the great distraction. Our not being paranoid enough, we fall for it every time, lol. We must defeat Islam to preserve liberal society Europeans are told… just as Americans were told to defeat communism to preserve “capitalism”. Nevertheless one point about individualism: it could only work if the family is destroyed. Otherwise, clans and races and religions would arise once again, and clans are vastly superior when competing with individuals. The state must raise the children for the libertarian dream to come true. And similarly, the state must pull together out of devotion to the libertarian dream to defeat those impious states that reject the libertarian faith and oppose it. 51
Posted by Frank on Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:12 | # nonracist writes:
In attempting such, you largely only manage to abolish it among whites. Whereas Jews, Zulus Xhosa etc, Chinese, Indians, etc. would not drop attachment and loyalty to their races. The result would be defenseless whites exploited by united nonwhite clans and races. The fact that your divisions are largely racial demonstrates that race is vitally important and that only whites are currently able to “abolish” their loyalty to their race. PF writes:
We should teach that in any generation the fate of the nation rests on the virtue of those living, and that one generation is all it takes to reduce everything to ash. We can teach the numerous examples from the 20th-21st centuries… Solzhenitsyn said:
Somehow this riddle* must be solved: to acquire security without the ensuing weakness and corruption. Perhaps we could [openly as opposed to esoterically] design a system where we compete for honour and virtue rather than mere gold.
Ugh, yes.
52
Posted by Frank on Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:31 | # Astrid, 1. the professional soldiers (and there should be voluntary nonprofessional or mandatory service as in Switzerland too) should be bribed with honours to discourage their seeking to exploit their power. At the same time, the soldiers should be trained within an ethos that discourages their acting unlawfully or otherwise immorally. 2. Value to the nation isn’t the sole concern. A degenerate who happens to be a nuclear physicist who solves the nation’s energy needs deserves great honour. But he’s a lower man than another who rises to virtue and serves the nation as best he can. And the highest level of sacrifice, the risking of one’s life when necessary, should be valued as such. It’s merely the right thing - ah it’s a higher truth. Our value as members of society is found in our contributions as you point out, but our value as men is found in the level of virtue we achieve. 3. It’s that rare time of war when states are often tested. States must prepare for the next test. Times of peace shouldn’t allow them to grow soft. A state that grows weak might be taken advantage of. - I’ll probably look back on this post in a couple years and think I’m a moron, but regardless this post reveals what I’m thinking atm. Nearly all of my best ideas are taken from others, so my defense is I haven’t read enough to find the desired answers (or else have allowed the answers I’ve found to grow fuzzy…) I’m certain a better answer could be provided for this. 53
Posted by Union Jock on Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:46 | # Guessedworker writes: “He breaks one of two house rules we operate under, which is to post in good faith (the other is to be civil). “ This is disingenuous. ‘Mark’ above is far ruder in reply. ‘Fred Scrooby’ continually behaves like a boor with encouragement from the moderators. You favour yea-sayers against dissentients. Nor is it in your power to decree whether anyone is posting ‘in good faith’ or not. Answer arguments or ignore them with the scroll bar, but don’t pretend to make a window into men’s souls in order to ease your own conscience in silencing them. No, sir, you have shown yourself to be no better than your opponents, and this site (which was recommended to me as a refreshing change from the preaching-to-the-choir tendency) is off my bookmarks. Your cause will not prosper by talking to yourselves. Farewell.
Union Jock 54
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:02 | # Union Jock, I did not excise the nuisance because he was uncivil but for the reason that I gave: he was posting in bad faith. That is, he was trolling to engage adversaries he could then “expose” in his own imagination as “racists” and “haters”. This is what he seeks, so he can project his own negativities onto them. It is a morbid psychological condition, and there’s no reason why I should allow him to exercise it here. It is, in any case, absolutely in my power to decree who is and who is not posting in bad faith. This is my house. 55
Posted by Texan on Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:24 | # The topic of this blog post is an intriguing one. The situation for white South Africans is nightmarishly bad, and yet it appears that a number of them still defend the status quo. This potentially interesting discussion became hopelessly sidetracked the moment that mouth-breathing troll showed up. Score one for the anti-white racists. And then Union Jock shows up and the discussion devolves further. This is why I’ve always advocated a system of stringent moderation. Trolls don’t make a website like Majority Rights more interesting. And isn’t there something that smells more than a little off about Union Jock? He admits to being a longtime reader, and that in all the time he’s been reading the site, the only thing that’s compelled him to post is to defend an obviously dishonest, time-wasting troll. And now he’s whinging that Mark and Fred weren’t polite enough to the hostile. He’s either an anti-white racist himself, or he needs to stop bending over and spreading his asscheeks for the other side. Grow a pair, Union Jock. BTW, Union, you embarrassingly misread what Guessedworker wrote:
It’s glaringly obvious that Guessedworker said that the troll was guilty of arguing in bad faith, not that he was uncivil. 56
Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:31 | #
I was rude because I’m sick of cretins lecturing me. Cretins like ‘nonracist’ – and you.
Fred is an impassioned servitor of our cause.
I already explained the nuances of this to you above. Did you miss: “The mental defectives who come here to repeat the same rubbish time and again always ignore all evidence contra their views and dodge questions put to them, etc. Why do you want to waste your life constantly engaging these insects, only to have them obfuscate, disappear, and reappear weeks later with the same crap? How does allowing this space to become a madhouse advance what we’re trying to do here?”? ‘Nonracist’ engaged in typical troll behavior. Now he’s axed.
Ah but it is, GW owns this site and the call is his to make.
You don’t seem to understand a simple fact: These people do not want to discuss and debate, they want to belabor and divert. That you cannot comprehend this distinction doesn’t speak well of your intellect.
But wait, now you won’t stay and debate this with us? You won’t answer our legitimate dissent? Maybe you should practice those behaviors you preach. 57
Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:49 | # A new white South-African refugee because of racial discrimination, see the Irish Independent http://www.independent.ie/national-news/woman-fears-for-her-life-if-deported—to-s-africa-1892639.html 58
Posted by Selous Scout on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:27 | # The blog South Africa Sucks, is shutting down this Friday, 13 November: I really enjoyed that blog, and, having lived in SA and travelled around Southern Africa, I could identify with what the bloggers were writing about. However, I bet this isn’t the last we’ll hear from these guys; I suspect the fight is being carried to as yet unnamed battlefields. 59
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:51 | # Indeed, SS. I was also a regular reader and, although, thanks to that blog, I was somewhat apprehensive on a trip to Cape Town this year, nothing personally untoward occurred. Still, I think Whites should leave. Life can only become worse as adverse demographics, the ANC Govt’s decision to treat all Black illegal immigrants like citizens and official anti - White animus will ruin any possible White future. Post a comment:
Next entry: Mortgage Chaos Awaits Next US Presidential Election
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Valerian on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 04:23 | #
GW,
“I recognise the signs: the narrowness of their interest in self, the dedication to a life of consumption and material values , the lack of enquiry and seriousness in general. “
This phenomenon is happening here in America too but add “self-righteousness” to the list of qualities you just mentioned and you have a member of our race that’s no more then a creature that serves Post-modernity and not a Noble Being. This kind of Being makes himself a burden in the end because he/she will weigh down everyone else and the effort just to “rip” his/her mind out of ultra-Individualist thinking requires an enormous amount of energy and activity. The question to all white nationalists in the end is this: do we attempt to unite with the people that have a tacit idea of racial unity only or do we risk our own Fortunes by attempting to bring certain people into our general movement that doesn’t give two shits about the person next door to them and only cares for self-gratification and instant pleasures. I am thoroughly disillusioned with Modern man and just like Ernst Junger I am searching through the forest just in the vain hope to find more people that believe in superior values.