|
|
|
White wealth for white causes I’m shooting the wind a bit here on the subject of financial muscle and political influence, so let me know if any of my assumptions are obviously wrong. Here we go ... One lesson that comes through loud and clear from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign is that small-scale individual funding can compete in the political market. In excess of ninety-nine per cent of Paul’s funds has come from individuals. Forty-seven per cent has been raised from contributions of $200 or less. Now, as these things go, the appeal of a Presidential Campaign is high-voltage, short-term, eyes-on-the-prize stuff. “The Ron Paul Revolution” has to motivate donors only as long as it motivates enough voters to keep Paul in the game. However, while the race for the Republican Nomination obtains, both supporter categories have an inbuilt - though quite generous - limit in terms of numbers. They are drawn from that fraction of the American voting public that can identify institutional politics, and deduce that it serves not them but the institutional interests who fund it. That’s the nature of the Revolution. My guess is that the IQ gateway for that deductive capacity lies somewhere between 105 and 110. Given that voting is itself an IQ filter, maybe two-thirds of the white voting public could, theoretically, be expected to know why they supported Paul in the booth - should they do so. (This is not to say that the votes of others who simply “like Ron Paul” or “agree with him on the war” aren’t just as welcome, but a Revolution has to be a bit more revolutionary than that.) Paul may or may not travel far down the presidential road in 2008. But in shining a light for his brand of strict Constitutionalism he has shone a light for anti-institutionalism. And that, clearly, has some carry-over into the much weightier and vexing question of the future of white America. Now let’s look at the scale of the challenge confronting race-conscious white intellectuals as they contemplate Ron Paul’s already surprising achievement. What does it take to install new political thinking - revolutionary thinking - in the minds of the best 66% of white America? Well, there are precedents, of course. Let’s take as an example the kind of institutional manpower and financial muscle Jewry has put behind promoting its four core objectives of:- 1. Protecting and advancing the interests of Jews in America, 2. Advancing the interests of Israel, 3. Opening the borders and encouraging immigration, 4. Establishing the Holocaust as the defining event of the 20th Century. None of these are in any way majority American interests, yet they are all deeply established in the body politic and, to a lesser and more varying degree, among the electorate. It needs to be said that as they refer to party politics, Jewish political aims have enjoyed the fairest of winds. But they don’t refer at all to the instincts of a European heart, and those inflict the occasional defeat upon over-reaching “egalitarians” even now. No matter, the Jewish bow has other strings, for example, its unity on these four objectives, its extraordinary ethnocentricity, its high mean verbal IQ, its relative invisibility to the American public, its dominance of media ownership and Hollywood, its funding committments to both political parties, its substantial presence in the financial, think tank and non-governmental sectors, etc. But it also has the most impressive array of advocacy bodies anywhere in the world. Here are the leading five:- ? The ADL boasts an annual budget of up to $64 million, and has 29 offices in the United States and three offices in other countries. ? The American Jewish Committee’s annual budget is now about $40 million. It has local chapters in 33 American cities, as well as in 8 countries around the globe. ? AIPAC also has an annual budget in the $40 million range, and offices across the country and a staff of lobbyists and researchers in the capital. ? The Simon Wiesenthal Center reports a membership of more than 300,000 and an annual income of some $30 million. It is headquartered in Los Angeles, with offices in New York, Jerusalem, Paris, Miami, Toronto and Buenos Aires. ? The SPLC is said by Morris Dees to have a $110 million endowment. The center’s current annual budget is about $20 million. So, setting aside all the other Jewish organisations that lend weight to the effort, and ignoring the other, more financial “strings to the bow” I mention above, here are five bodies with a combined annual headline figure of not far short of $200 million. We’ll concentrate on them. Now, MR readers may know that on my little island the Labour Party has been experiencing some difficulties over funding. The story involves a not overly wealthy Jewish gentleman who donated about £650,000 to them over several years. But he did it through intermediaries, which is illegal. During the media coverage, an unnamed Conservative MP ventured the opinion that the Jewish gentleman may not have been the real donor, because the rule of thumb is that donations of that order normally signify a net worth of around £50 million (abt $100 million). He is saying that a donor with that kind of clout can be tapped for £100,000 each year. A few, of course, will give very much more. On that basis, the setting of a political agenda favourable to American Jewry (plus all the peripheral activism and public opinion-forming that flows alongside it) currently takes something equivalent to the financial engagement of a thousand such men. On the same scale of donation, that equates to twenty billionaires. According to Forbes magazine there are nine hundred and forty-six billionaires in America. Close to half of them are said to be Jewish. So, given all that we know of Jewish ethnocentricity, the affordability of this effort is plain to see. Of the remainder of those nine hundred and forty-six billionaires I suppose four hundred could be white Americans. But this is an elite landscape, and the priorities of white elites, unlike the Jewish, are rarely those of their own people. Helping Africans is more popular among these guys. In fact, the very idea that they have a people is probably novel to most of them. So I wouldn’t look to them for the kind of backing that Jewish advocacy receives from its super-rich. However, there could be several thousand or so white Americans who possess the sort of fortune that Conservative MP was talking about. And beneath them are perhaps 4 million net millionaires - a million dollars is game show money, after all. So we have not sunk to trying to repeat the $200 Ron Paul experience just yet. It’s a romantic notion and it’s working so far for Paul, but political advocacy is for stayers. Frankly, if it comes to “democratic funding”, no white advocacy institution could survive. Now, what does a modest but mature and effective advocacy organisation look like? What does it cost, and how many would be needed? A typical specialised think-tank will employ maybe fifty people, forty of them researchers, ten administrative/support. It might have a visiting prof and an intern or two. Its annual budget will be around $6 to 8 million. Something as substantial (and overblown) as the neocon American Enterprise Institute will have a budget of $25 million. Currently, the white American cause is championed by two major benefactors: William Regnery II and John Tanton. Their purchase on public opinion is, I think, slight. But they labour under the grave disadvantage of moral opprobrium - particularly Regnery. A slew of other institutions operating across the white interest spectrum would stand a decent chance of changing that. In my view, lifting the burden of immorality is the first objective for white advocacy (assigning it to its authors is the second). Using the Jewish Big-Five budget total of $200 million dollars as a general indication of the table stakes for this game, the energy and output from as many as twenty-five “modest-mature” institutions may be required, working both sides of the traditional political divide. Over time, some would grow and absorb others. The final shape of white advocacy would be arrived at organically. Is any of this possible? It has to be. Going mainstream is absolutely necessary to white survival, and absolutely impossible without changing the current zeitgeist. If Ron Paul can talk about a Constitutional revolution, how much more important is it that we can talk about a white revolution. Comments:2
Posted by Canada Firster on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:13 | # American Jewry has in its possesion two unmatchable sources: 1. Funding from the U.S. government through back channels. Congressman Paul Findley has spoken on the recycling of Israel’s $3 billion grants back to U.S. Jewish groups. No doubt there are other ways, such as through the CIA’s (entirely black) budget. 2. The handful of Jewish ultra-billionaires who own the Central Bank (a.k.a. Federal Reserve). As a practical these two sources alone can provide unlimited funding. 3
Posted by Canada Firster on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:32 | # Vdare alone probably does better research than the rest of White America, and VDare in combination with Amren more than the rest of the world. VDare’s perhaps the most effective existing “lobby” and their costs run about $500,000 annually. Amren runs a distant second in effectiveness, but easily exceeds the respectability and leadership standard. Their only question mark concerns the very suspicious judeophilia. No doubt either could really “put the hurt on” the other side if outfitted with researchers and lobbyists. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:39 | # Maguire, My presumption here in, obviously, very broad terms indeed is that the grave disadvantages white advocacy faces are counter-balanced by the “instincts” of a European heart and the fact that pro-white arguments are true for Europeans in ways that pro-Jewish arguments are not. The purpose of white advocacy would be to change the prevailing moral, philosophical, political and racial dispensation in America. I considered re-casting this statement as a list of core objectives, but it was getting past my bedtime in England, and I decided to see what emerged on the thread. If nobody else wants to propose objectives I will have a crack at it. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:52 | # Canada Firster, Yes, Brimelow and Taylor have proved that things can be done. Mark Webber, too, although his allotted task is even tougher. My view has always been that this generation (my generation) of “leaders” are, if you will excuse the simile, fated to be John the Baptists calling in the wild. It is to the generation in their college and young professional lives from which real, live leadership has to emerge. The age of most professional researchers seems to be in the 20s and early 30s ... lobbyists perhaps a decade older and more knowing. 6
Posted by ha3ard on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:50 | # I’ve been following for a while the discussions on this site… The burning question seems to be how should the high-iq, cerebral, individualistic, tolerant, wealthy western/northern world should protect against the emotional/instinct-ridden, hot-blooded, extended family, low-iq, poverty ridden eastern/southern world without degenerating into a hate-is-good type of thing (btw where is that recent post about the therapeutic effects of hate?). But is this an objective description? Experince has shown that the crust of civilisation is very thin and the power of reason powerless when it comes to emotional/survival circumstances. Again, how can we guarantee our own specific group genetic instincts with all the goody2shoes neocortex rationals we employ when the others use the tried, old and true dirty lizard tricks of group survival, with all the advantages that come from that, aka power in numbers? Haha, have you guys ever looked in the mirror, I mean, really? The double standards, self-blindness and hypocrisy you guys employ are second to none. For instance, Guessedworker remark that each ethnic group should live in its own country and should not emigrate to other lands. May I ask, since when should we apply this standard? 16th century, 18th century or maybe after the space odyssey 2001? I do agree that the black population tend to have a low-iq (mental power) and thus a more ineffectual barrier against the psyche dark side and capacity to develop wealth, I do agree that the muslim world tends to produce worst individuals statistically, probably because it created a different kind of selection pressure compared to the hindu/christian worlds, pressure that selected for traits such as agression, quickness, non-cooperation, low child investment, low cerebral development. With high cerebral development comes the questioning of the dogma, which is not a too wise for survival. But let’s not fool ourselves, who brought the blacks into the US and employed them in some of the most gruesome conditions? Who enjoyed the gypsy virtually free labour throughout Europe? Who settled and then invaded India, America, Australia, who are the ones that killed, enslaved and/or pillaged entire populations? Who coined the word wog for the southern immigrants that arrived here a few decades ago? Who are the ones that segregated the blacks of South Africa when simple birth controls and a state provided education plus integration would have solved the problem before it was to late? The question is, did anyone cared and if yes, how many were they, the ones that genuinely cared? My point is that the stick has two ends, that mindless discrimination is not the exclusive domain of one ethnic group, that the problem goes deeper than that, that the problem the word racism epitomises is an animal instinct inherited from our distant biological past that proved succesful for its time but which has no place to play in the modern world. That’s why I say, look in the mirror first and see what you see and after that turn your attention to the ‘others’. Also, about genetic distance, there’s a saying: two dogs stop fighting when a wolf arrives… probably if some aliens would suddenly invade Earth all the human wars would stop. The line your following on this site, on a prima facie case, is a dead-end, its only results are hate, war and untold suffering, not that I advocate pacifism and defetism… I’m sure there must be a better way. 7
Posted by mr x on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:27 | # Judaism using the religious ideas such as Kosherness to keep commerce in group. I think you have to go down that path as well, but you will sacrafice some quality of life for better control of your future. I personally think that a system of purchasing all non-essential luxury goods within group, while allowing for essential goods and services to be purchased anywhere is preferred, although counterintuitive. That is, if you wanted to do that type of thing. 8
Posted by captainchaos on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:30 | # The Jews piss me off! Especially Lazar Kaganovich - he was a big-time prick. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:51 | # At MR, even Ukrainians are asked to provide context to a statement like that. 10
Posted by ausnewright on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:20 | # But let’s not fool ourselves, who brought the blacks into the US and employed them in some of the most gruesome conditions? Who enjoyed the gypsy virtually free labour throughout Europe? Who settled and then invaded India, America, Australia, who are the ones that killed, enslaved and/or pillaged entire populations? Who coined the word wog for the southern immigrants that arrived here a few decades ago? Who are the ones that segregated the blacks of South Africa when simple birth controls and a state provided education plus integration would have solved the problem before it was to late? Who gives a damn? We can play historical-grievance-tit-for-tat endlessly. I could rationally argue that the cost of “diversity” over the past 20 years alone has caused more pain than all of those grievances combined. But we are at the here and now. Trying to sell multiracial society and white genocide as some sort of penance we have to pay isn’t going to change our minds or hearts. What do you expect? You got called a wog…therefore we should submit to ethnic destruction? Grow up and get out of the way, fool. 11
Posted by ausnewright on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:47 | # As for Australia, my impression of the majority of people living here is that of good sheep, they obey the good shepherd and are thus well nurtured, not much thinking needed here. They are so stupified by conditioning (via various ways) with their creative, puzzle-solving, questioning powers and independent thinking reduced to almost zilch that sometimes I think there’s a point in keeping them happy white sheep. As for Australia? Who solicited your opinion on Australia? Why are you concerned with our “sheep”? Because you live here? Why the hell do you live in my society? Do you have no self respect? Do you put on your act of faux smugness to cover up the shame of it all? Go tend to your own sheep and stop leeching off mine. The critiqiue of a parasite carries no weight. 12
Posted by Maguire on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:05 | # GW, “I considered re-casting this statement as a list of core objectives, but it was getting past my bedtime in England, and I decided to see what emerged on the thread. It was getting pat my bedtime here when I read it. Before doing this I think we would profit by looking into how the enemy entities you listed really function. One reason is I think the estimate of the net resources available to them as a group is seriously understated. Another reason, which you touched on, is we can’t mindlessly mimick their tactics. We as a race are different. We live differently, our strengths and weaknesses are different. This leads to different strategic goals which cannot be achieved without synchronized tactics. “AIPAC also has an annual budget in the $40 million range and offices across the country and a staff of lobbyists and researchers in the capital.” “AIPAC” is just the visible headquarters of a large network of pro-Jew PACs busy peddling influence, blackmailing politicians and generally promoting treason. AIPAC itself doesn’t make direct donations to candidates. It ‘bundles’ donations from a large network of subordinate PACs to vetted candidates who agree to betray white people (and black and yellow people, too) in exchange for filthy lucre. The direct total for this network is probably closer to $400 million. I would certainly add to this nexus the apostate Zionist rapture cults and their lobbying activities. When we consider the size of the Mega Churches led by closeted homosexual toe-tappers, pederasts and the other biological and moral degenerates the effective total rises well above $1 billion, just in the direct pro-Israel lobbying category. The most important feature is “AIPAC” is the titular head of a larger distributed network with Local presence. The local presence in most instances is quite weak. Obviously it’s very strong in New York City and Miami. It’s very tenuous in most other locales. ADL & SPLC. The first purpose of both these groups is to subvert institutions of self-governance against white people. They both work heavily at ‘educating’ local police and local schools into demonizing legitimate white expression as manifestations of criminal activity. They are nominally 501c3 public interest law firms. The few high-profile cases they actually litigate are for purposes of political theatre. Their second purpose is to serve as editorial policy making offices for local Jewish controlled (not ‘staffed’) media. Anyone who has had contact with their local media is usually struck by the extreme average mediocrity of the local staffs overall. These people give substance to ‘dumb blonde’ and idiot affirmative action negro stereotypes. This is no accident. It’s a practical example of the Shabbas Goy mechanism at work. One internal problem is this morally degenerate multi-racial stew cannot generate a consistent editorial policy on strategic subjects. A common difficulty is they take their multi-racialism and multi-culturalism so seriously they wander off into pro-Palestinian sentiments. ADL/SPLC help correct this by providing boilerplate story lines which higher ownership and management pressures the local media mediocrities into using. What’s the value of this sort of media access? Here again I think we need to multiply the ADL/SPLC staff budget of $84 million by at least ten and maybe one hundred to fairly value the ‘cost’ of this advertising were it bought as advertising. Regards, Maguire 13
Posted by Maguire on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:42 | # “I personally think that a system of purchasing all non-essential luxury goods within group, while allowing for essential goods and services to be purchased anywhere is preferred.” There is no doubt the basic strategy of integrating economics with ‘politics’ and ‘culture’ is sound. It’s essential. In my opinion the failure to do this is the primary reason for many decades of ‘defeat’. Political organization is a very weak reed because elections are such infrequent events. They certainly cannot be used as focal points to cohere groups together. The moment an election passes the stimulus of urgency disappears for a protracted period. The group organized with electoral politics as its core then enters hibernation for a protracted period. “although counterintuitive” It is that. This is what the Jews do. Consider the diamond trade and jewelry, furniture stores and much else. But if we simply copy that strategy the result must be to leave us utterly dependent on some other population for essentials, including essential security services. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:54 | # Maguire, Interesting. I have just a few free moments in which to respond. I’ll do it by admitting my particular weakness, which is that I shill for a total change of the bathwater. With me, it’s always all about that. So I view the present subject of discussion pretty much purely through what it will take to achieve that. I don’t place the media in the equasion as a cost or benefit, because my analysis of them is that are a “fact” which we cannot alter - but, anyway, they will report news if you make it. How do you, as a racialist, make this thing called news? By setting off an intellectual avalanche. That’s how. In your first comment you said, essentially, that “need” should dictate the development of white advocacy. I come at it from the other direction: what will it take to set and fire the explosive? Because that’s the real need. The answer is the same in both cases. A need, for example, for the re-moralisation of modern life (let’s just pretend that this was identified as a useful core objective of white advocacy) won’t develop into anything concrete unless the goddamned suicidalist zeitgeist is really changed. You see, it’s the great historical sweep of liberalism that contains all the destructiveness - including that rooted in Jewish ethnocentrism. Change the course of that, and everything changes. Attack one area only, and nothing will change in the longer run. America presents a particular difficulty in this regard, btw, because in philosophical terms she was, is and, so far as I can see, always will be a profoundly liberal society. We cannot change America for Europe. Still, white Americans are us - I speak as a European - and change in America there must be. Let it be as total as her philosophy of life admits. 15
Posted by skeptical on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:16 | #
I agree. It’s the widespread blanket acceptance of “equality”, “human rights”, and “freedom” (in the worst egalitarian sense) amongst the White masses that frustrates the selling of our message more than almost anything else. This is probably why White advocacy websites harp so much on IQ and other genetic racial differences, as a means to counter the modern liberal notions of “equality” and to revive the 19th century notions of racial hierarchy. Under that regime of discourse the White man did quite well in expanding his territory and making a home for his progeny. Again, imagine what would be possible if every White person thought in terms of racial hierarchy instead instead of modern liberalist “equality”.
Before the second half of the 20th century America’s founding liberal ideas (like civic equality) were only reserved for the White man and almost no one else. Our liberalism has been corrupted and applied in unintentional ways these past few decades. In fact it’s probably due to the prevailing influence of these founding liberalist notions that White Americans are more willing to adopt true counter-culture racially aware perspectives than any other Europid (unless I am mistaken). 16
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:08 | # Any attempt to leverage white wealth without taking into account concentrated wealth as Jewish extended phenotype is a nonstarter. See Jewish Virulence. I should probably point out a key point of control Jews use to divide white populations is the unification of interest between wealthy whites and Jews by shifting tax burden off of non-subsistence property rights and onto subsistence activities. Once that happens, the “white trash” come to hate the the “white elites”, and the increasingly the “elites” are populated by those who are best able to grab control of assets and sit on them in rent-seeking behaviors, while the creators are marginalized into the dumpsters. Its utter human ecological disaster. At present, I would see very little reason to trust any source of “white wealth” that didn’t have a history of actively supporting a shift of the tax base away from activities and to property rights above $500,000 in net assets (subsistence assets in the current bubble economy’s prices). 17
Posted by mr x on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:30 | # It is that. This is what the Jews do. Consider the diamond trade and jewelry, furniture stores and much else. Exactly. Making essential goods ok for purchase out-group allows you to implement the policy without having to create a huge infrastructure overnight. If it is essential, people will need it today. You can’t ask them to wait or buy inferior or overpriced goods. However, if it is not essential, you can wait, providing time to put the pieces in place. Also paying extra is not a killer as it is, by definition, non essential. Non essential items are higher value add, providing the potential to sell outside your group. Entertainment is non essential as well, and that is where a lot of he propaganda is introduced. Within group trade must be competitive within that group. That is, members within the group can compete for the business. This may sound silly, but these ideas came to me a in dream and I think it was GOD who put them inside me. 18
Posted by GT on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:57 | # mr. X, This may sound silly, but these ideas came to me a in dream and I think it was GOD who put them inside me. It doesn’t matter where you found the idea to support the initial production of non-essentials over essentials. I want to hear more from you on this. Develop and lay it out to the best of your ability, please. 19
Posted by mr x on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:52 | # Well, I was thinging about the whole self sufencenty thing - food, shelter, etc, and I realized that you would just end up competing with peasants and you could never sell you food outside the comunity to get hard money, which will always be in short supply. That made me depressed, then I had a dream where people where making jewelry instead of food and it came to me! The whole model was backwards - let go of the essentials, but keep non-essential stuff in group. The constant dialog - the community conversation - will be what is essential and what is a luxury. A whole set of rules need to be defined and these rules will be debated and modified with time creating an intellectual debate that will sharpen the minds of he members of the community. The “wise” ones will be made judges who decide which is which. There also might be a concept of communty buildingservices that are also available elsewhere, but at least a portion of which must be taken from the community. Here I am thinking about news, information and education, but there are probably other goods and services. Items to think about are: entertainment It is an interesting topic for me… 20
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:57 | # James, Does not your theory portend some sort of advantage for elite whites? Are there evolutionary pressures at work? If you believe that genetically superior (high IQ) people become economically successful and are having fewer children, you will reach the 21
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:05 | # That made me depressed, then I had a dream where people where making jewelry instead of food and it came to me! The whole model was backwards - let go of the essentials, but keep non-essential stuff in group. Isn’t that what white elites do now? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8G8BKE83&show_article=1 22
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:31 | # I’m curious, Desmond. Do you think Bill Gates is superior to me? 23
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:51 | # “Isn’t that what white elites do now?” I’m not sure how that list answers your question. 24
Posted by ha3ard on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:14 | # ha3ard: But let’s not fool ourselves, who brought the blacks into the US and employed them in some of the most gruesome conditions? Who enjoyed the gypsy virtually free labour throughout Europe? Who settled and then invaded India, America, Australia, who are the ones that killed, enslaved and/or pillaged entire populations? Who coined the word wog for the southern immigrants that arrived here a few decades ago? Who are the ones that segregated the blacks of South Africa when simple birth controls and a state provided education plus integration would have solved the problem before it was to late? ausnewright: Who gives a damn? We can play historical-grievance-tit-for-tat endlessly. I could rationally argue that the cost of “diversity” over the past 20 years alone has caused more pain than all of those grievances combined. # You must be joking about the cost of diversity being more damaging than all of those grievances combined, right? Or is this maybe a new type of right that I don’t get? I do give a damn and I do care because you people here seem blind to the consequence of your thoughts and feelings, to wit: gruesome suffering, both physical and emotional. And the point is indeed, how can you end a game of tit-for-tat? The same way you end a tug-of-war, perhaps? ausnewright: But we are at the here and now. Trying to sell multiracial society and white genocide as some sort of penance we have to pay isn’t going to change our minds or hearts. # I didn’t advocate that, my position is that multiracial society is as good an idea as communism was (both have their origins in leftist ideology), except that it doesn’t take into account “human nature” and therein lies its fundamental flaw. People are greedy (fuelled by desire) and capitalism provides a valve for that, whereas communism provided a valve for envy, the result being that capitalism generates inequal distribution of wealth while communism generates the equal distribution of poverty. The reason for this is that a ‘cost’ for someone in capitalism is a profit for someone else while a ‘cost’ for someone in communism si a cost for everybody else. Maybe socialism is a better idea, because it would balance the forces of competitiveness and cooperation. Multiracial society, wrongly and maybe intentionally sold as multicultural society(there are both hereditary/genetic and cultural/learned characterstics in a person) is not going to work for the same reasons as communism didn’t work: human nature, altough for different parts of it. There’s also a difference between suspicion/theory/belief and proof/fact, and no better example comes to mind than the jewish conspiracy, as a way to pay back for the hollowcast, to undermine the western societies via the trojan horse of multiculturalism. Here and now, what is your solution? Should all lebanese fly out of Sydney as a way to end the problem? The root of the problem is your identity as a true australian (patriotism is but a mild form of racism), deeper still is your identity as a whiteman, deeper still is your identity as a nordic white, which by any definition is considered superior to all other races/ethnic groups, and from here there’s but a small step to master race. But for a master to thrive there must be an undercalss of servants/slaves otherwise he’s but a master by name only… who do you think will fill this role? My question is, why can’t you treat people on the basis of equality and choose instead to assume a power role? Power is a curse. Maybe we are not born equal, through no fault of our own, but there sure is some room for parity. ausnewright: What do you expect? You got called a wog…therefore we should submit to ethnic destruction? Grow up and get out of the way, fool. # That’s entirely your conclusion, nobody said that you should submit to anything, what I suggested is that maybe is a good time to look in the mirror and see that ‘you’ are part of the problem and not some immaculate white angel fairer than SnowWhite. Everything starts at home you know.
ha3ard: As for Australia, my impression of the majority of people living here is that of good sheep, they obey the good shepherd and are thus well nurtured, not much thinking needed here. They are so stupified by conditioning (via various ways) with their creative, puzzle-solving, questioning powers and independent thinking reduced to almost zilch that sometimes I think there’s a point in keeping them happy white sheep. ausnewright: As for Australia? Who solicited your opinion on Australia? # Nobody, I thought this is an open forum for discussion of all things multi-. ausnewright: Why are you concerned with our “sheep”? Because you live here? Why the hell do you live in my society? # Perhaps this is an apt moment to point out that you seem to have an ethnocentric view of life. There’s life after that you know. To answer your question, I’m concerned with your “sheep” because I live in their midst and because I also do my shopping at woolworths. I live in your society and on the landmass known as Australia because it provides better opportunities for personal and maybe inter-personal development compared to other landmasses. This is but on reason, mind you. ausnewright: Do you have no self respect? # Oh, I do and plenty of it. Not much respect for self though, and if you ask me why, I think it’s the root of the self-inflicted problems that we experience, not that I am some post modern deconstructionist either. ausnewright: Do you put on your act of faux smugness to cover up the shame of it all? Go tend to your own sheep and stop leeching off mine. The critiqiue of a parasite carries no weight. # Beware, stop being a parasite and you become a host. I think it’s from Dune. 25
Posted by DavidL on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:42 | # Maguire I always enjoy the movie ” Quigley Down Under” especially You asked: “what should the goals be?’. ‘What are white people’s needs now?’ We need to spend some time removing the “jewish” flavor from our lives. It’s great to have our own industry, barter systems et al.. But if we do 26
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:00 | # It’s not about you or Bill Gates, James, it’s about proportionality isn’ it? Murray’s the dull, the normal, the bright, don’t all fail or succeed based on IQ, however they are disproportionately likely to be one or the other. 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:04 | # I only looked at the list quickly, Ben, but it appears that those represented made there money, again disproportionately, in the fields, entertainment, banking, insurance etc, that Mr. X suggested. In 1982, Forbes first list of the wealthiest was dominated by oil men and manufacturers. Now 45% are hedge-fund guys. Isn’t that a non-essential? 28
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:19 | # Darwin wrote, in the Descent of Man;
Current research seems to confirm his position. Low IQ, although correlating with higher fertility rates also correlates with increased morbidity and decreased mortality. The general fertility of women with psychosis is significantly lower than the mean. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/159/6/991 Moreover, a Scottish study suggests; “The significant interaction found between IQ and deprivation suggests that IQ in childhood is less important in terms of mortality for people who live in more affluent areas in adulthood than for people who live in deprived areas,” says Carole L. Hart of the University of Glasgow. Not only will elites provide a foundation for success in their more intelligent children, but the same foundation appears to ameliorate regression to the mean. Even with fewer children elites appear to have a greater chance of seeing their genes propagated using a wealth transfer strategy. A betting man will suggest the same applies to elite high IQ blacks. Jared Taylor showed how the offspring of high IQ blacks regressed more significantly than whites however, the bet is that mortality rates are lower in high IQ black families than low IQ black families. Thus Darwin may be correct, low IQs may need to be twice as fertile as high IQs to ensure continuance of their genes to the next generation. 29
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:21 | # Desmond, you are asserting that using myself vs Bill Gates as an exemplar is inappropriate. I beg to differ as does W. D. Hamilton:
Murray thinks its just great if rent-seeking is selected for in the population while the brightest are systematically selected out of the population—just so long as we can see an “average” increase in intelligence in the near term. Never mind the dark ages that eventuallly result. Like I keep telling second rate whites like you: Jews like third or fourth rate whites in charge of things because they are more dependent—and they’re perfectly willing to sacrifice first rate whites while keeping second rate whites in reserve for emergencies. Perhaps you’re bucking for a promotion. 30
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:25 | # “Current research seems to confirm his position. Low IQ, although correlating with higher fertility rates also correlates with increased morbidity and decreased mortality.” That should be “increased mortality”. 32
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:45 | # Which proves that you and I do not belong in the same human ecology because we have different models of eugenics—hence differ in the kind of societies in which we would consent to invest our lives. You believe that observing a current increase in average IQ is sufficient grounds to approve of the selective pressures. I do not. You’re welcome to your experiment but you are not welcome to impose it on me or others who believe we see its fallacy. Think of it like this: Let’s say you insist on subject people like me to an environment in which we are being selected from the gene pool—and we decide to do something like, oh, I don’t know, cease respecting property rights and other rights like, say, your right to live. If we win and the average intelligence increases, is that fine by you? 33
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:48 | # ha3ard - the labour provided by gypsies/roma in Europe was of a very low quality and pretty much useless these days. Youre only one step away from the fact toturing statement that the wealth of Europe is based on their labour. A bit like those who say that the wealth of some British cities is still based on the slave trade even though its been defunct for several generations. Strangely some towns are suffering the ill effects of industries lost only in the last decade but that ol slave wealth it sure lingers on. And Rhodesia and South Africa, their wealth supposedly came from the toil of the abused black people. So now the parasitical white overlords are gone there should plenty of that wealth to go around. Yeah right… Youre living in Australia as that land mass is suitable for you. Of course you would have just as happy to live there, it would be just as convenient, if we, European people, had never colonised it wouldnt it, because thats got nothing to do with it has it.</irony> To answer some of your questions - who invaded and settled India? Muslims from Persia I believe. The British invaded but never settled. And who are the ones that killed, enslaved and/or pillaged entire populations? Again I think you will find our muslim friends are the prime candidates there as well. Or did you have somebody else in mind? 34
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:55 | # DavidL, I’ve said it before many times and I’ll say it again here: In current circumstances, any preacher of any faith that lets the young white men under his ministry reach the age of 18 without having DEBT-FREE ownership of the resources, including skills, to securely support a wife and sire children, is my mortal enemy. I would kill him without blinking an eye if it came down to it. Internal life begins with family and family begins during youth. 35
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:11 | # No, the suggestion is that this elite strategy is adaptive, even though the consensus, Cochran et al, suggest it is not. Evolution cares not what I think. The bigger question is have you, the greater all encompassing you, ever won? And if the answer is yes, then why not employ that strategy? 36
Posted by ha3ard on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:49 | # Lurker: The labour provided by gypsies/roma in Europe was of a very low quality and pretty much useless these days. Youre only one step away from the fact toturing statement that the wealth of Europe is based on their labour. # I never said or implied that the wealth of Europe is based on their (gypsies/roma) labour. What I intended to convey is that the gypsies were accepted into Europe as slave labourers by the inhabitants of that time, inhabitants that were yours and/or mine ancestors. So my point is that the whole gypsy problem was created by the european population (or more exactly by the corporate equivalent landowners), same goes for the africans/blacks brought to America and whose descendants are living in the US as independent people (for clarity I regard ‘freedom’ as being free from inner constraints and ‘independence’ as being free from the constraints of others). These days their (manual) labour is pretty much useless with all the current machinery, but then it was a totally different matter, so they did have a contribution in creating wealth at that time. I should note that wealth is a very perisable quantity, which is a bit counterintuitive and contrary to popular wisdom, and it never lasts more than a generation without needing continual renewal, a point that is also implicit in your remarks below. Lurker: A bit like those who say that the wealth of some British cities is still based on the slave trade even though its been defunct for several generations. Strangely some towns are suffering the ill effects of industries lost only in the last decade but that ol slave wealth it sure lingers on. # That was not my point, my point was that the problem of low iq, high crime, high birth rate poulations living in our midst in the US, Europe and Australia was created by us and should be solved by us. And that was long before 2 million turks were imported into Germany as cheap labour or muslim immigrants (aka workers) were admited into other European countries. What I’m saying is that the curent multiracial/multicultural state policies that draw so much fire on this site are but a natural evolution of a much older trend that started with the slave trade and has at its root the businesses (in whatever form they take) demand for (low cost) labour. It’s notorious that businesses are not much interested in the social consequences of their policies, they are driven by profit. Lurker: And Rhodesia and South Africa, their wealth supposedly came from the toil of the abused black people. So now the parasitical white overlords are gone there should plenty of that wealth to go around. Yeah right… # As I said, wealth is a very perisable quantity and to create it you need not only capital (money and technology), labour (skills, knowledge, medium-high hdi) and land but also a favourable and functioning social/legal system (as free from corruption as possible) which is created and maintained by people. That system is the most important factor in my view as it provides the medium for the safe exchange of goods and services, so what creates prosperity is mostly something that our eyes can’t see and our ears can’t hear, an intangible quantity, in essence the human capital. However, what the black people did provide in Rhodesia/South Africa were factors that at the time were significant, cheap manual labour together with the riches of the land. What the white overlords brought with them was capital, skills and the development of a new type of social/power system. Lurker: Youre living in Australia as that land mass is suitable for you. Of course you would have just as happy to live there, it would be just as convenient, if we, European people, had never colonised it wouldnt it, because thats got nothing to do with it has it.</irony> # There’s a big difference between comfort and happiness. What European colonisation (aka conquest) brought almost everywhere it went, that’s when it didn’t bring war, decimation and disease, is a superior level of creature comforts for some of the local inhabitants and the country as a whole, but never happiness. I do partly live here because of the availability of creature comforts, and more specifically of the time it takes working to afford these comforts, but not because that makes me more happy compared to living in my country of birth. Of course I’m aware that it’s the European colonisation that made this country what it is today, same as North Africa is what it is today because of the muslim conquest. Is that in your view justifing throwing crates of alcohol and small-pox infested blankets out of freight trains? Is killing justified by a higher purpose? Is it not human life in itself the highest one? Lurker: To answer some of your questions - who invaded and settled India? Muslims from Persia I believe. The British invaded but never settled. And who are the ones that killed, enslaved and/or pillaged entire populations? Again I think you will find our muslim friends are the prime candidates there as well. Or did you have somebody else in mind? # It is indeed that most of the muslims have inherited (which is not to say that it is immuable) a way of operating that is based on a win-lose basis, but the british empire was not all milk and honey you know, au contraire… its expansion generated, either directly or indirectly, millions of deaths. So much for good works, eh?... you might break a few eggs to make an omelette but it’s another matter entirely if you end up with egg on your face especially if you’re at a party dressed in a tuxedo. As a sort of conclusion, what I’d like to say is that the resistance to immigration (what this site is all about) is but an offshoot of a deeply ingrained instinctual impulse that manifests itself as a gut reaction of rejection to outside people. This happens in every group when a stranger arrives, be it a building site or a classroom and it’s an automatic reaction. This might have been a good thing in the past, where you had a tribe of 50 people and where, if 5 strangers arrived, it would have been a burden on the whole tribe in terms of the availability of resources, in other words a zero sum game. But in today’s societies, there’s value added and no need to play the old game, yet some of the guys posting on this site are more preocupied with alienating the aliens so-to-speak than to helping them integrate. I’ve also seen lots of logical fallacies here, you’re either a host or a parasite, thinking in black and white, sort of you’re either with us or against us… there are alternatives and I haven’t seen you much eager to explore them. There are brilliant colours, there are symbiotic parasites, there are people that have expunged the virus called religion and its more virulent form, islam (Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes to mind)... I read somewhere that there’s no effective communication if the difference in IQ is above 30 points, maybe that’s the barrier that should be overcome first, increasing it by adequate nurture and education. In my view, you’re in denial and not willing to face the broader facts of human nature, instead of concentrating on the convenient issue of race. Maybe you should try to do something about your own animosity and stop hiding behind the race facade as a rallypoint for ethnic unity and scape-goating… without immigration, islam, jews there will still be conflict, murder, rape, torture, violence, child abuse and corruption going on. In an anglo/nordic only society, peace will still be kept at the point of a gun, make no mistake about it. All humans have a dark side (we’re the killers, not the victims descendants, the walking success story of violence) the only difference is the degree of control we have over our dark side. Can that be eliminated as successfully as one can eliminate religious programming out of one’s head? Without the animal/beast lurking inside each of us there would be no need for morals and guns, simply as that. As I believe in individuality I despise any form of group ideology/thinking/totalit-arianism and the benign masks they assume, all under the aim of herding as many unsuspecting people as possible into usually abysmal adventures. There’s no substitute for individuality and thinking for oneself. Bye. 37
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:07 | # James Bowery’s “oh I dont know” sums up a lot of the pie-in-the-sky, airy-fairy guff we are unfortunately subject to from that ineffably jaundiced quarter. Doesnt he have vegetables or bomb-shelters to tend? Or perhaps the pursuit of another advanced degree from the Venice Beach Burrito Palace and School for the Sciences? 38
Posted by mr x on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:43 | # “Isn’t that what white elites do now?” Ah, where are most of the things you buy made? Who owns or manages the stores you bought them at? How many of them are luxury items? 39
Posted by mr x on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:47 | # Oh, and who produces most of the entertainment and news consumed by the general public and the “white” public? 41
Posted by Maguire on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:05 | # “Or perhaps the pursuit of another advanced degree from the Venice Beach Burrito Palace and School for the Sciences?” Gee whiz, you have to get more specific than this, Al. That describes every on-campus “Institution” (in the original sense of the word) of higher learning in Amerokwa today. Check in, sign up for usury interest student loans, listen to Shakti Butler and Noel Ignatiev for four years, get indicted on the information of known convicted felons and with the school administration leading the anti-white lynch mob, receive an ‘engineering degree’, move back to parents unemployed in the degree field and try for a Wal-Mart or Home Depot job to make the payments on the student loans. Oh yeah. If you have anything left over you can hit the PayPal buttons for nominal 501c3 pro-white groups that are so powerless they can’t even get the Harkers and Butlers fired. 42
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:34 | # mr x, I might agree with your position with a perhaps subtle modification that becomes clear when you consider the additional distinct category of consumer production. In this situation you have three tiers of economic goods: 1) Nonessentials purchased from within the folk society. In this situation the lower price of essentials purchased from the cosmopolitan society is a potentially dangerous addiction which provides the adequately disciplined with an opportunity to capitalize consumer production of essentials. The end point is a situation where households are relatively autonomous within a folk society where money is not a vital fluid of the body politic, but a token used to make the game of life more entertaining. 43
Posted by Maguire on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:22 | # GW, You know, this liberal-commercial identification is so profound the US stars and stripes flag was even modeled on a trading company’s flag. Is the view in the mirror start to get a tad uncomfortable for our British cousins? It should, because the trading company flag in question was the British East India company’s flag. It was their tea that got tossed into Boston Harbor. “Europeans” have long known that not only “America” but also “England” since the Cromwell’s Jewish financed “English Revolution” in the 17th Century were poor fits into the rest of Europe. The rest of “Europe” were either white national states or white military empires. The British Empire was neither. What was the British Empire if not a commercial trading empire? What was all the nonsense about the “betterment of the natives”, “trust” and similar rot if not more commercial liberalism designed to pacify potential customers? Now in America this love of trading profits is so profound that in two wars different regions preferred trading with the Enemy to solidarity with their own kind in expanding “blood and land”. First it was New England during the War of 1812 that was in commercial fornication with the “City of London”. Then we had the 1861-1865 events and their prelude, when Scimitar’s multi-racial Judeo-Confederate elites also developed a great love for commercial fornication with the “City”. However, “change in Anglo-Saxondom” might be more accurate since the same nation-destroying liberal debilities are present in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And there used to be four “white dominions”. But these debilities have already destroyed the dominion of South Africa despite a semi-nationalist attempt at change beginning in 1948. 44
Posted by skeptical on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:20 | #
Exactly! That is the America I grew up in and is precisely the America that is currently under siege intellectually, spiritually, and demographically. Back in Oklahoma I was having a conversation over the recent legal challenges to our current set of immigration enforcement measures when an eavesdropping individual piped up and said something to the effect, “I am tired of arguing with the liberals! Why don’t we just remove them from power with our own hands. It’s not like we elected these attorneys or anything.” Personally I like that mentality. Why engage in intellectual jujitsu with an auto-genocidal White liberal when you can just remove him from power with “your own hands”? 45
Posted by GT on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:26 | # White independence is, understandably, a disquieting concept to retirees and self-employed administrative types securely ensconced within the judeoconomy. Unfortunately, rather than address it from a “How to make it work?” perspective their reaction is to call it a “pie-in-the-sky” concept or “stupid,” and its proponents “jaundiced.” We are not surprised by this. In time many, if not most, of the ‘non-jaundiced’ will change their minds as increasing numbers of fresh, far-sighted young men with the appropriate knowledge and skill-sets join us and develop the concept further. 46
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:33 | # “fresh, far-sighted young men” Experience and polling data shows, not surprisingly, exactly the opposite. It’s the old guys who will slam the door shut on legal and/or illegal immigration. Ever check out the demographics of the Minute Men? 47
Posted by Tommy G on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:34 | # James Bowery asks: “I’m curious, Desmond. Do you think Bill Gates is superior to me?” What the hell has happened to you, James? Have you lost it? Comparing yourself to Bill Gates? Delusions of grandeur perhaps? I used to look forward to reading your posts, but now I wonder about your sanity. Get a grip on it Bowery! 48
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:17 | # It’s a straight forward question, Tommy G: Do you think that a properly designed society would select for Bill Gates’ genes over mine? Is it that hard to try to respond to a simple question that gets to the heart of what an intelligently designed society would do? Stop posturing and answer the question. 50
Posted by Tommy G on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:51 | # “Do you think that a properly designed society would select for Bill Gates’ genes over mine?” No offence, but I wouldn’t select either. Racialism aside; I believe you, James Bowery, embrace a society envisioned by that of Rousseau’s “Social Contract.” Conversely, I find it would be more beneficial for whites to embrace the philosophy of Objectivism and the economic system of lassie-fair capitalism— which was espoused by Ayn Rand. 51
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:16 | # And this handsome gentleman is a “fresh, far-sighted young man”? How about these young ladies? Do they fit your market profile?
53
Posted by Tommy G on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:36 | # “There’s no design in evolution.” That’s right! Because there is no such thing as evolution. 55
Posted by Patriot on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 05:19 | # Ok, start setting up funds, how ? Well, many Blogs have advertising that earn a small amount of revenue, if they all agree to submit 5% of this revenue into a collective pot. secondly by donation, but how much, it’s tempting to think that it should be as much as possible but I disagree. How about a donation by standing order of £1.00 Per Month. If you ask for a donation of £1.00 per month, most folks would almost certainly say yes. I’d say, that’s the way to do it because that way you would get Maximum people involved too. £1.00 Per month is £12 Per year. 1 Million People involved is £12 Million. Give them also the Option of donating just £1.00 Per year, Now who could Not afford that.
Now I think that most of our work can be done on the Internet, We don’t need Money to do what we are doing. I don’t even know why we need the money, I’m sure we could think of things but’s that’s the danger, if we had £200 Million, I’m damned sure we could spend it.but would we achieve more than we are now. So i would advise EXTREME Caution, use the Money, intelligently, because most of our work can be done for free, and if it can be done for free, Why Spend. If the money is raised, DO not go on a spending spree…. If money were raised like this, for this cause it might be that the Authorities would look at ways of confiscating it or deeming it illegal. So spend a month or so deicussion a title for the National / Worldwide cause, then set it up so that any one can latch on and begin contributiing. It seems to me that much of the tactics used against us are the tactics of divide and conquer, so the strategy should be to unite with other causes. Car Stickers, Posters, I’ve sent out hundreds of single page info pages on a different matter, on each One I ask that the reader passes the page on to a neighbour, relative, close friend or collegue, to different parts of the country. if they can copy the info and pass these on, then so much the better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG0oFRGwZEA 56
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:38 | # Well its pretty hard for Desmond Jones and TommyG to, given their stated beliefs, claim anything but that a properly constructed (eugenic) society wouldn’t give the richest man in the world’s genes priority over mine, but they’ve both managed to avoid saying that. TommyG’s invocation of Ayn Rand is particularly predictable. Rand’s philosophy is attractive for a lot of the same reasons Ron Paul’s presidency is attractive, but both are simply purified versions of Jewish extended phenotypics expressing in capitalism: centralize wealth in private rent seekers hands in preparation for grabbing it during the next migratory phase of the Jewish group organism’s life cycle. Its biologically collectivist while pretending to be individualist. The big win with implementing this ideal is that it exposes the extended phenotype in crystalline pure form so it can be better observed. 58
Posted by daveg on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:46 | # If you were going to do this, don’t you think schools would be the most important first step? You need institutions to educate, train and refine the theories under which you operate. BTW, I don’t agree with this stuff for myself, but I don’t see why others should not be able to do it if they want. It is kind of interesting as a thought experiment. 59
Posted by Tommy G on Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:24 | # James, At least consider the fact that Objectivism is a potent countervailing force to that of modern liberalism. IMO, it is modern liberalism that we must defeat if our agenda is to prevail. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs Respectfully, Tommy G 60
Posted by silver on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 07:15 | # Liberals enjoy few things more (we can guess which) than poking holes in Objectivism. Libertarianism is the less dogmatic form of Objectivism, and is thus pragmatically easier to defend—it’s just ‘good idea’ rather than an all-encompassing philosophy of life. Of itself, however, libertarianism does very little to displace the liberal mindset; libertarianism is more or less liberalism without the welfare. If your objective is to overthrow the liberal order, why not just focus on IQ/heredity and/or Islam? Either of these is stronger stick with which to beat liberalism. Liberalism doesn’t even begin to make sense if heredity is true, and Islam makes a mockery of liberalism’s very own tenets. 61
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:49 | # Tommy, Silver is correct in what he says about libertarianism and liberalism, and the need to find something destructive of the latter. But that something must be a philosophical structure which can also replace liberalism. Mere heredity, though destructive, cannot serve to that end. Of course, by liberalism I don’t just mean the liberal-left and all its presumptions. John Stuart Mill opened his intoduction to On Liberty like this:
In those few words the genesis and dynamics of liberalist thought are displayed, drawing in the flight from determinism to free will, human perfectibility and collective responsiblity for the security and welfare of the individual. For us today, the intellectual reach of liberalism is All. Liberalism is not just a part of modern political thought. It IS modern political thought, and has been so for a very long time. So you and I, and all of us here, are driven to search for a serviceable alternative, and one that accords with truth in Nature, and with Man’s natural right and interests. We all struggle with a definition of that, and it’s probably wise to acknowledge from the outset that no one has all the answers at this point (and much less any ideas as to how to effect change to a healthy polity). Opinions are developing, as is only right, and it is entirely possible that we will get nowhere. But we are thinkers and dissidents and, therefore at this end-time, are bound to be searchers too. My present understanding is contained here and in my two “Poles of Helios” podcasts. The thread to the written post has several very interesting contributions which I commend. 62
Posted by danielj on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:22 | # I don’t understand how ‘libertarianism’ is “liberal” anyway since, it will result as James as stated, in one man ruling the rest. I see how it is liberal in its complete acceptance of al things perverse, but don’t they - libertarians - ever think about the end game? After all the market can and will serve he who is most adept and there is nothing in the principles and machinations of a free-market that would inhibit a horrible unipolar despotism. Man is not simply an economic unit and does not always act in his own best interest. 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:00 | # Daniel: I don’t understand how ‘libertarianism’ is “liberal” ... Any philosophy centred on the unfettered will (obviously, what John Stuart Mill called the “Liberty of the Will”) is a liberal philosophy purified of the mundane and ultimately socialistic considerations of state power and citizenship. “... since, it will result as James has stated, in one man ruling the rest ... don’t they - libertarians - ever think about the end game?” The fundamental weakness of liberalism, which catches it out time and again, is that human goodness is arbitrarily ascribed to the liberal self, while evil is acribed to all anti-liberal instincts and opinions. There is insufficient self-questioning among liberals, and so the evil consequent upon their beliefs goes unseen by them. Man is not simply an economic unit and does not always act in his own best interest. Man is suggestible. Therefore, he can be made to act in others’ interests. Politically, his actions serve the power elites. Racio-politically, they serve Jewry. 64
Posted by danielj on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:25 | # GW: Sorry I didn’t properly relay the cause of my confusion clearly enough. I am befuddled as to why liberals, in their libertarian garb, think that the “free-market” will inevitably lead them to their material and psycho-spiritual Canaan where they will be availed of any restraints in their dogged pursuit of being jerked off by Smith’s “Hidden Hand” in an Epicurean playground. Why would a free-market necessarily bring forth freedom rather than tyranny? Sometimes they will rant about the “longings” of the human soul for liberty and some other nonsense, but they are unable to explain why a free-market will make free men. My own observations have human kind have lead me to believe they prefer their soft-totalitarian servitude and high doses of Soma in the form of the Boston Red Sox and MTV. 65
Posted by danielj on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:27 | # GW: Man is suggestible. Infinitely suggestible if MKULTRA, Tavistock and all that mind control stuff is true. And why not? After all, the mind is just an emergent property of matter no? 66
Posted by silver on Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:11 | # GW, An unfettered will is a wildly attractive proposition, isn’t it? If Rand ever figured a way to sneak salvation into Objectivism I don’t think any Objectivist would ever abandon it, no matter the philosophical hammering it receives as a—er, qua—philosophy. Permit me a small digression. It’s precisely the attraction of the unfettered will that had me blurting out every obscenity I could mask as argument when I first encountered this site. I accept who I am in spite of any objections my unfettered will might have—or even my sense of self-preservation. Before Scrooby and tommy feel vindicated by the latter, they might read the following Stormfront post I chanced upon the other day:
That’s a play on Morris Iemma, Premier of the state of New South Wales. Here is Iemma, the wog: 67
Posted by GT on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:28 | # Desmond, Minute Man Jim Gilchrist is throwing his support to “Open Borders Mike” Huckabee. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316452,00.html This sort of treachery is one of many reasons why I believe that the survival of the White race is in the hands of intelligent youngsters with character and leadership potential. I’ll say it again: White independence is, understandably, a disquieting concept to retirees and self-employed administrative types securely ensconced within the judeoconomy. Unfortunately, rather than address it from a “How to make it work?” perspective their reaction is to call it a “pie-in-the-sky” concept or “stupid,” and its proponents “jaundiced.” We are not surprised by this. In time many, if not most, of the ‘non-jaundiced’ will change their minds as increasing numbers of fresh, far-sighted young men with the appropriate knowledge and skill-sets join us and develop the concept further. White independence depends upon alternate systems. The demographic constructing these systems will be young men, not members of the AARP. Post a comment:
Next entry: European “Tea Party” for Ron Paul
|
|
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 Maguire on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:21 | #
GW,
“William Regnery II and John Tanton. Their purchase on public opinion is, I think, slight. But they labour under the grave disadvantage of moral opprobrium - particularly Regnery.”
Moral opprobrium is going to be assigned to anyone of substantial means who would step forward to join them. Worse than that, said individuals and also their families are going to be specifically targeted for moral opprobrium, social ostracism, economic boycott to destruction, legal persecution and outright physical attack by the many entities you listed.
It’s not a level playing field. It’s assymetrical warfare.
In fact the first failure point typically comes from inside the willing white patriot’s immediate family.
“Now, what does a modest but mature and effective advocacy organisation look like. What does it cost, and how many would be needed?”
I think the questions to answer are, ‘what should the goals be?’. ‘What are white people’s needs now?’ The answers to these will go a long ways to pointing toward organizational form.
Maguire.