Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:44 | #

Watching this guy makes the urge to decapitate accessible to me.

sim88ple

Posted by Ivan on Thu, 10 Feb 2011 04:48 | #

But it is difficult to see from Wilders’ plaints against Islam then against the Dutch and EU elites whether he knows who he is really fighting in that courtroom.  What is the point of attacking Islam except as part of the attack on the elites?  Rather strange. - GW

GW,

When things seem strange and they seem to contradict common sense, almost always there is a little adjustment to be made in one’s own understanding. After that little adjustment has been made, all of a sudden, everything else falls neatly in place, and things start making perfect sense again.

In this particular case, your conscious or unconscious assumptions are:

1. It is highly unlikely that Geert Wilders is a stupid man.
2. Geert Wilders is a white man who has the racial interests of White Europeans as his highest priority.
3. Talking, complaining and targeting the symptoms of the problem, rather than the cause of the problem itself, is not something to be expected from a reasonable man.
4. The problem White Europeans are facing is ultimately a race problem, so why this intelligent man is framing the discourse in terms of religions? Would he be satisfied if all the immigrants, flooding Europe from the rest of the world, were non-Muslim immigrants?
5. There is something wrong in this picture.

I do not wish to insult your intelligence by pointing out to you where exactly is that little switch that needs adjustment in order for the rest to fall in place and start making perfect sense again.

I’ll just give you and your readers a little hint: Geert Wilders is Dutch Thilo Sarrazin, and he knows exactly what he is doing.

As a good illustration of how I use that little technique, I started this comment with, I would like to reproduce a comment I made elsewhere few years back in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib scandal:

Should the torture photos be released or not? Let’s put aside this dilemma for a moment. Let’s ask a few other questions instead. Why the photos have been taken in the first place? Who took the pictures? What was the purpose of taking them?

“This account, as I have said, deals with prisons in Romania, but the procedures used there have been and are used wherever the anti-humans have gained control. Identical procedures, together with such improvements as may have been suggested by their experiments and delights in Romania and other captive nations, will be used everywhere that their power is extended - including, of course, the United States, if that nation reaches the goal toward which it is presently moving at a vertiginous speed. If the Americans succumb, they will remember this book as a prophecy that was completely fulfilled. Apart from its value to Americans as foreshadowing things to come - certain to come, if the operations now in progress in the United States are carried to a successful conclusion - this book, although not couched in the technical terminology of psychology and psychiatry, should be of absorbing interest to everyone who, regardless of his political desires or prognostications, is sincerely interested in study of the human consciousness.”

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:51 | #

2. Geert Wilders is a white man who has the racial interests of White Europeans as his highest priority.

Really? I’ve read numerous allegations that he’s actually a Jewish mulatto from Indonesia, and a bottle-blonde who lied about these issues in his 2008 autobiography.

One way or the other, he gives me the creeps. He perfectly exemplifies the types of guys who were most effective in trying to derail my racialist focus at Pacifica Forum. I’d much rather deal with straight up Jews, Mestizos, Negroes or Whites who have the courage and honesty to debate the real issue; Race.

Posted by Charles Grady on Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:39 | #

2. Geert Wilders is a white man who has the racial interests of White Europeans as his highest priority.

That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in a while.  Geert has jewish interests as his highest priority, not White.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:38 | #

The simplest explanation is that Wilders is a genuine Liberal who opposes muslim immigration because the cultural aspects of that immigration conflict with Liberal values.

He’s never claimed to be a nationalist so i don’t see why people should be any more angry with him than any other politician.

Most genuine Liberals would agree with Wilders if they weren’t so obsessed with proving how non-racist they were. If muslims were all white then 90% of the western liberal establishment would oppose muslim immigration for cultural reasons.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:58 | #

I’m actually somewhat more sympathetic to Wilders after seeing this video.

Same. I don’t think he’s on our side but he’s a brave man.

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:52 | #

The simplest explanation is that Wilders is a genuine Liberal who opposes Muslim immigration because the cultural aspects of that immigration conflict with Liberal values.

That doesn’t work for me. It contradicts assumptions 1 and 3:

1. It is highly unlikely that Geert Wilders is a stupid man.
3. Talking, complaining and targeting the symptoms of the problem, rather than the cause of the problem itself, is not something to be expected from a reasonable man.

There is no such thing as intelligent genuine Liberal. There are destructive ideologies of Liberalism and Individualism pushed by the jews on the gentile societies - the whites are most susceptible to them, while muslims are least susceptible. A person who does not realize such a simple truth cannot be called intelligent without serious reservations.

Liberty means freedom. When it comes to freedom and dignity, today’s decadent western societies have a lot of learning and catching up to do from the Afghan people, from Hamas, from Hesbollah, from Egyptians, from Iranians, from North Caucasus tribes who fought the Russian Empire for centuries to remain free - all muslims.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:59 | #

If muslims were all white then 90% of the western liberal establishment would oppose muslim immigration for cultural reasons.

Yep. And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle! 

But, I get your point, and I’m not entirely sure why Wilders get under my skin as much as he does. I see him as more “slick” than courageous, but that’s a personal issue.

What I’m starting to see, more generally, is that European Nationalism is likely to be at cross purposes with White Nationalism in America because we do not have the luxury of operating under religious proxy. The vast majority of our racial invaders are Christians.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:13 | #

I see him as more “slick” than courageous, but that’s a personal issue.

I started the same way as Wilders, non-racial but opposed to cultural immigration. I’ve since changed but i can understand people like him, Fjordman etc.

(Assuming he’s genuine. He may not be.)

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:18 | #

There is no such thing as intelligent genuine Liberal.

I think there are psychological reasons behind the Liberal mindset. I think they generally need to have grown up in comfortable surroundings and have led relatively sheltered lives but other than that lack of connection with the nastier parts of reality they are intelligent.

Posted by Matra on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:28 | #

What is the point of attacking Islam except as part of the attack on the elites?  Rather strange.

He’s a politician speaking to the masses, not those in the court room. Islam is transparently alien to Europe and young Muslims in the Netherlands are not only pushy, arrogant and upfront in their contempt for the indigenous population, but they are also conspicuous. If Wilders started talking about Jews the average Dutchman would think he had a screw loose as (absent media influence) ordinary people cannot see what is not right in front of their faces.  He’s the only political figure I can think of who has at least got Europeans thinking about repatriation for some non-Europeans.  It’s a start. 

It could be that proxy issues are the only way to motivate some people. The ‘hard stuff’, like EGI, might only ever appeal to a small fragment of our people.

An accumulation of proxy issues, including appeals to economic self-interest, will always work better than the hard stuff.  If anything the EGI idea will be more useful as an ex post facto intellectual justification for repatriation than it will be between now and then.

The simplest explanation is that Wilders is a genuine Liberal who opposes muslim immigration because the cultural aspects of that immigration conflict with Liberal values.

In other words Wilders is like the overwhelming majority of white people. He and they would be either appalled or bewildered by EGI.  So like Donald Rumsfeld he might as well go to war with the army that’s he’s got.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:30 | #

What I’m starting to see, more generally, is that European Nationalism is likely to be at cross purposes with White Nationalism in America because we do not have the luxury of operating under religious proxy. The vast majority of our racial invaders are Christians.

I think that is the point. The problem for me is race-replacement through immigration. A lot of that immigration in Europe is muslim but that’s a separate issue. However there’s other people who don’t have a problem with race-replacement but simply oppose aspects of the immigrant cultures. An analogy in the USA might be a Protestant preacher who was fine with black Protestant immigrants but against Mexican immigration because of their religion.

Nationalists look on Wilders as a fake or weak version of a nationalist but i don’t think he is. I think he’s either a zionist stooge or a Liberal.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:36 | #

If anything the EGI idea will be more useful as an ex post facto intellectual justification for repatriation than it will be between now and then.

And as the basis for blood-clauses in any future constitution after we win.

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:59 | #

I think he’s either a zionist stooge or a Liberal.

Not bad, Wandrin. But remember - the smaller the adjustment, the better it works. With a little help from Father William of Ockham: “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity), why don’t you settle for less: he’s a zionist stooge.

Posted by Alexander Baron on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:59 | #

This fuckwit should open his eyes; does he really think Islam is the enemy?

http://www.archive.org/details/IslamAndTheNewWorldOrder

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:12 | #

why don’t you settle for less: he’s a zionist stooge.

Because the simplest explanation is that he’s a genuine Liberal.

That may not make sense to you if you’ve never known many people like that. I’ve known thousands of them. If there was a white Christian sect that was identical to Islam *all* of those kind of people would oppose immigration from that sect. Similarly if muslim immigrants were all white then Liberals would *all* oppose it.

99% of them abandon their beliefs when they conflict with race because race for them trumps everything else.

Either way my point is there’s no point getting all het up over Wilders in terms of him being a false nationalist. He’s not a nationalist and never claimed to be.

Posted by Armor on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:31 | #

Wandrin: “people who don’t have a problem with race-replacement but simply oppose aspects of the immigrant cultures.”

Apart from race-replacement, the real problem with young Arabs is their violence and aggressiveness (even though Blacks are worse). Whether it is a racial or a cultural thing, it has nothing to do with Islam.

“If muslims were all white then 90% of the western liberal establishment would oppose muslim immigration for cultural reasons.”

They would oppose muslim immigration because they don’t want to be raped, stabbed, mugged, insulted, have their cars stolen or torched, and so on. Maybe rape is a cultural thing, but it has nothing to do with being muslim.

Posted by Alexander Baron on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:38 | #

Geert Wilders

There was a Dutch fuckwit, Geert Wilders
Who said Moslems aren’t empire builders,
But if he thinks Islam,
Is the cause of our harm,
I suggest that he follows the guilders.

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:54 | #

This fuckwit should open his eyes; does he really think Islam is the enemy?

This is a question a nit picking mathematician would call incorrectly stated problem. Whose enemy? The correct answer to Alexander’s question depends on the answer to my admonition to his question.

Geert Wilders not just thinks Islam is his enemy - he knows for a fact Islam is the biggest enemy of Geert Wilders and for the entity he works for.

But Alexander Baron is an excellent student of Father William of Ockham: In short 5 pages he succinctly digested all about Islam and Muslim culture the western world needs to know.

Muslims plus Whites spells death to the Jew
This might be the strategy we need to review
The Jews get it, and we, Muslims, get it too
The question for Whitey: What should you do?

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:56 | #

They would oppose muslim immigration because they don’t want to be raped, stabbed, mugged, insulted, have their cars stolen or torched, and so on. Maybe rape is a cultural thing, but it has nothing to do with being muslim.

Liberals don’t live in the areas where that happens and refuse to accept it happens.

In theory Liberals are very much against religion having any influence in the public sphere. You see it all the time in Liberal attacks on Christianity in the public sphere.

If there was a (white) Christian sect associated with polygamy, honour killings, female circumcision etc and which had a full legal system which they wanted to take precedence over democratic institutions then *all* white Liberals would oppose immigration from that sect. They make an exception for islam because most muslims aren’t white and most Liberals are obsessed with proving they aren’t racist.

The only unusual thing about Wilders is he doesn’t make that exception. If he is mixed race that would likely be the explanation for why.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:01 | #

The question for Whitey: What should you do?

**** **** *** and **** *** ****** ******.

Posted by jimmy Marr on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:16 | #

I been to a lot of nationalist sites
but nowhere have I seen the likes
of what’s happened here
and what’s next I fear
Ivan in kilt, and Baron on pipes?

Posted by Armor on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:36 | #

Wandrin: “If there was a (white) Christian sect associated with polygamy, honour killings, female circumcision etc (...) then *all* white Liberals would oppose immigration from that sect.”

If there was a (white) Christian sect associated with polygamy, honour killings, female circumcision etc (...) AND also associated with street violence against Liberals, then white Liberals would say the problem is street violence. They wouldn’t try to have us believe that they care about honour killings between savages. (PS: I’m no longer trying to make a useful point. Just trying to have the last word.)

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 04:07 | #

Jimmy, you ain’t seen nothing yet
I foresee a storm we won’t forget
Egypt - a warning sign
For the future of Zion
It is coming. Do you want to bet ?

Posted by Guest Lurker on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 20:45 | #

I think there are psychological reasons behind the Liberal mindset. I think they generally need to have grown up in comfortable surroundings and have led relatively sheltered lives but other than that lack of connection with the nastier parts of reality they are intelligent.

So, white racialists employ innate racial/psychological/genetic arguments to critique non-white defects, but sociological ones for white ones? I may not be as erudite as some here, but it seems to me liberalism is more of a temperamental disposition and defect than a sociological phenomenon. Liberalism is to political disposition, what masochism is to sexual. Beyond just blaming single causes like the jew, who exacerbates pre-existent weaknesses,  or sheltered rearing, etc., to me the question is simply, what is it about whites that, as a people, when they are continually pissed upon, they insist on pretending it’s just raining?

As another poster here maintained, Muslims have had a history of resisting encroachments upon them. But the territories of the Muslims he enumerated were all centered in the Caucasus and Middle Eastern regions.  Is it truly Islam which enabled these people to resist, or a certain innate high-spiritedness and honor imperative lacking in European whites that drives them? After all, as with individuals, it might be a case of alpha populations and other more intrinsically submissive populations. Note that the Turks ruled Euros in the Balkans for 5 centuries, and the Arabs ruled Spain for 7 centuries. Have those peoples, Turks and Arabs,  ever been dominated by Europeans for the same amount of time?

As to Islam being a remedy to European decadence, who is to say that within a century of adopting Islam, Whites won’t have developed a European Islamic “light” variant, and once again declined into the same decadent state?  The history of White people seems to be one of jumping from religion to religion, from philosophy to philosophy, and from ideology to ideology. Why does nothing take root permanently in the soul of Western man? Why are White Europeans such an amorphous existential mess?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:03 | #

I like what you’ve said here, G. Lurker. I think there’s probably a great deal of truth in it. That may be the silver lining of White genocide.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:41 | #

So, white racialists employ innate racial/psychological/genetic arguments to critique non-white defects, but sociological ones for white ones?...but it seems to me liberalism is more of a temperamental disposition and defect than a sociological phenomenon.

When i said psychological reasons i meant based on genetics. Liberals have an innate tendency to prefer change, novelty and difference - especially being different to others of their group. This can be useful in some circumstances as they will be early adapters of things like new technology. Liberals are a minority and would not usually become dominant politically. The problem is Liberals and the off-shoots of their ideology became dominant after WWII as a result of the invention of television and the assistance of cultural marxism aka jewish tribal warfare.

Beyond just blaming single causes like the jew, who exacerbates pre-existent weaknesses, or sheltered rearing

The point about sheltered rearing was not that sheltered rearing creates Liberals. The minority Liberal mindset is genetic in my view. My point was that in most cases the instinctive Liberal attitudes to race and immigration can only be maintained with separation. Too much exposure to reality and the attitude becomes too hard to maintain. I was saying poor and wealthy Liberals are born but the poor Liberals get some aspects of Liberal psychology knocked out of them by reality so only relatively wealthy Liberals can maintain the full belief system.

Why does nothing take root permanently in the soul of Western man?

Because freedom, constant change, progress and evolution is what we’re about and why if we disappear the human race will stop dead a hundred or so years later when our momentum wears out.

Why are White Europeans such an amorphous existential mess?

There’s nothing wrong with White people that isn’t a neccessary requirement for also being the most inventive and adaptable.

Posted by Guest Lurker on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 01:47 | #

Because freedom, constant change, progress and evolution is what we’re about and why if we disappear the human race will stop dead a hundred or so years later when our momentum wears out.

Bringing yourself and your people to the brink of extinction doesn’t seem progressive or evolutionarily adaptive to me, and the mass of white lemmings allowing themselves to languish under a Muslim yoke for centuries, or now under a liberal/jewish one quite obviously deliberately leading them to racial oblivion, doesn’t strike me as a people who are any more fond of freedom than any other, and in fact quite a bit less than many.

As to the notion about the human race “stopping dead” without Whites being around, aside from the usual WN rhetoric I see no validity to this statement. Clearly even if we admit that at the higher end of the intelligence spectrum whites have more geniuses statistically than others, it’s obvious people like the Asians for example are capable of making, at the very least, incremental strides, and they have always done so.

Posted by Armor on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 03:20 | #

Wandrin: “I think there are psychological reasons behind the Liberal mindset. I think they generally need to have grown up in comfortable surroundings and have led relatively sheltered lives but other than that lack of connection with the nastier parts of reality they are intelligent.”

I suppose this is true. But the word liberalism is used to describe different things. White people are supposed to have a liberal streak: they tend to be altruistic even with non-whites. But it’s hard to tell if someone acts out of natural liberal tendencies, out of fear and conformism, out of nihilistic, antisocial tendencies…

The Occidental Observer blog recently had an article about the domination of liberalism in academia.

I agree with one commenter who wrote this :

(...) “contemporary “liberalism” in no way resembles the classical liberalism of, for example, America’s overwhelmingly Christian founders, but rather is better described as left-liberalism or doctrinaire statist liberalism;” (...)

“In other words, these fake liberal, fake intellectuals are merely lap dogs trained by Jewry via innately anti-Christian, Marxist indoctrination to loudly yap whenever they encounter the dreaded, “evil” conservatives (Christians).”

Another commenter wrote:

“Kevin sagaciously writes that “The White majority among these social psychologists have been recruited in a war framed in terms of moral abstractions, a war against their own people. It’s a disease that Whites are particularly prone to”. (...) It is a clear cut case of mind poisoning, the surreal ability of many Whites to internalize ludicrous fantasies and delusions, and smugly wallow in them.”

Indeed, many leftist ideologies are absurd. For example, in the education field, the leftists believe in things like the whole word method to teach reading. Even though it doesn’t work, they would like to keep using that method. It is hard to believe that it has anything to do with altruistic tendencies. Actually they hurt those they claim to help. I think that a huge proportion of the leftists are manipulated. The problem comes from the top.

On the same blog, on another thread, you wrote this some time ago :

“the PC superstructure is held together by a very small minority of guards threatening a much larger minority of capos who in turn threaten the very much larger number of sane folks.” (-Wandrin)

At Mangan’s blog, Atbotl had this to say :

“Modern multi-culturalism mostly traces it’s roots to a series of Jewish movements (...). Christian universalism and white hyper-altruism play a role, but without the aforementioned movements, I don’t think liberalism would have such a hard edge.”

Here is how I would describe many of today’s so-called liberals :

- they are suggestible
- they don’t want to use their brains
- they would rather obey authority and go with the flow
- they don’t want to discriminate against third-world invaders
- they don’t want to think about the consequences
- they don’t care about the victims of their policies
- they are hypocrites who don’t believe in self-sacrifice

Unlike fake liberals, real liberals really care about other people and really believe in self-sacrifice. The left-wing coalition is made up of phony liberals, real liberals, and a few people in between. I think the main problem is the pyramidal manipulation, not white hyper-altruism. In fact, if there is something wrong with white people’s brains, it is their ability to believe in absurd theories, not their uncontrolled altruism.

As I see it, part of the problem is that the strong tactics of the left and the Jewish domination of the media have resulted in a situation where public opinion and common sense no longer matter. In a debate, the most outrageous leftist and the most irresponsible politician tend to have the upper hand over their colleagues. As a result, radicals try to outdo each other even though none of them believe in what they say. It isn’t entirely deliberate.

Many pro-white blogs are trying to understand what’s wrong with liberals. I think we need to spend more time setting apart the different types of liberalism.

Posted by Philosopher King on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:03 | #

it’s obvious people like the Asians for example are capable of making, at the very least, incremental strides, and they have always done so.

I’d agree that given enough time this is likely to be true. Unlike the Western Man, however, any progress Asians make in terms of expanding knowledge or technics will merely be an extension of the ground laid by Western Men. I for one think that the future of the West and its ideas ought to continue under those who started it; otherwise future human culture will suffer from an identity crisis.

This is a bit off topic, but I’m so sick of asianphile white nationalists. Are these people suggesting that Asians should displace whites and/or should live among us? It’s so ironic when anti-liberal thinkers make materialistic arguments to quantify a person’s value to society. I’m currently attending an engineering school in the states and am constantly surrounded by Asians. From what I’ve seen of them they are little more than hive-minded automatons, who go through life studying ten hours a day, without deeply comprehending anything they learn.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that perhaps 10-15 percent of the student body at most decent university’s in the states are East Asian females (this might be an overestimate, but this is from my experience at multiple universities). I think this is a perfect reflection of the uselessness of the materialist’s perspective on race, many of these women get 2200+ on their SAT’s, yet what do they ever accomplish? I’ve never heard of a single Asian female doing anything ever, frankly speaking the only Asian female name I know is Amy Tan because I had to sit through a standard PC writing class my freshmen year.

I’m sure there are some very smart Asians out there, but I think that the cultural gap between the Orient and the Occident is too high for whites and Asians to ever assimilate. I don’t believe either of these great cultures is necessarily greater than the other, but if the Occident were to disappear the Orient and the world would undoubtedly be worse off.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:06 | #

I think that a huge proportion of the leftists are manipulated.

Excellent insight.

American evolutionary biologist George Williams:

“Anyone who makes an anonymous donation of money or blood or other resources as a result of some public appeal is biologically just as much a victim of manipulation as the snapper in the jaws of the anglerfish…People can now espouse remote and inclusive ideals far removed from the selfishness that gave rise to the power to do so. It was inevitable that people in the novel civic environments of the last few millenia would develop aspirations for such things as the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the triumph of the master race, or the savings of souls. Because such strivings are beyond the direct action of natural selection, I have some hope that some such cause can provide the humane artifice that can save humanity from human nature”

The default mode for humanity, from an evolutionary standpoint is selfishness, with some exception for closely related kin. However, altruism, if it is to exist, will be the outcome of another cunning plan…a plan so cunning “you can brush your teeth with it!”

Posted by Guest Lurker on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 05:48 | #

It’s so ironic when anti-liberal thinkers make materialistic arguments to quantify a person’s value to society.

I fully agree. That is something I’ve noticed over and over again about your typical WN- it frequently comes down to enumerating inventions. I’m not the one who initiated that train of thought in this thread, though.

This is a bit off topic, but I’m so sick of asianphile white nationalists. Are these people suggesting that Asians should displace whites and/or should live among us?

I’m not sure if you directed that at me, but for what it’s worth, I’ve never suggested displacement by Asians or cohabitation with them. On the other hand, I’m sick of WN with thin skin who get their panties in a bunch anytime somebody mentions any positive attributes of other races, as if they are somehow themselves personally diminished or humiliated by such an appraisal.

Posted by Philosopher King on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 07:04 | #

Guest Lurker I wasn’t attacking you, I was mostly just venting on a trend that’s all too common in WN circles. 

I’m sick of WN with thin skin who get their panties in a bunch anytime somebody mentions any positive attributes of other races, as if they are somehow themselves personally diminished or humiliated by such an appraisal.

Being a nationalist I wish that Occidental culture adopted the collectivist mindset of the Orient, as it would essentially solve our racial problems. I also believe that the Orient secretly wishes it had the individualistic culture of the Occident, which would lead it to greater advancement. I have equal respect for all high cultures, but I only have devotion to one.

Getting back to Mr. Wilders speech, I’m not going to write him off until he becomes the first “nationalist” to obtain power, which is likely to happen due to the fact that ethnic nationalists aren’t as able to make as convincing of argument to most lemmings as civic nationalists. Like it or not most white people encounter non-white’s everyday and won’t have a problem with them until it’s too late. Most people encounter extremist Muslims far less, and have a negative opinion of Islam which make Muslims a good target. It could be that Mr. Wilder’s is using Islam as a proxy and that once his party attains power they will stabilize demographic trends, and curtail most immigration. To me he lets out ethnic nationalist vibes with statements such as: “All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations.”

WN have to realize the differences between talk and action. We already know that most politicians say one thing and do another, what’s to say civic nationalists will be any different? All of us know that BNP only has Jews and raghead’s to put on a good show and to increase its political viability. Do WN’s think “naming the Jew” will do anything at all to advance the credibility of any nationalist party?  Even if Mr. Wilders doesn’t eliminate all forms of immigration, at least he will be eliminating it from one corner of the world which will only reflect that multiculturalism doesn’t work. I don’t trust Mr. Wilders any more than anybody else here, but remember the less ethnic nationalist’s trust him, the more public support he’ll get.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 07:20 | #

Ivan.  February 10, 2011, 03:48 AM

It took quite some time until it finally hit me.

Same with me when I asked myself - Why Immigration?  Although it came to me fairly quickly

With a thud, I realised uncontrolled immigration must be being sanctioned at the highest level of world elite strata. (capitalism) I also realised, continued unchecked, there could be only be one outcome, whether intentionally or by unintended consequences, we would be finished as a nation and as a people.

The next question was why?  And here I am.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 07:24 | #

@Armor

I suppose this is true. But the word liberalism is used to describe different things.

Yes, that does lead to confusion.

I’d say there were at least four separate things:

1) The liberal mentality, which i think is minority genetic, and which could be summed up as a set of traits preferring novelty, change, difference and in particular desiring to be different from the mainstream. These people are emotional or psychological liberals. They take the contrary view to the mainstream whatever the mainstream view is.

2) Ideological Liberals. These are the very much smaller number of people who actually believe in the principles of Liberalism.

3) Convenience liberals. Individuals whose self-interest is served by liberal values i.e homosexuals or drug legalisers. Underneath their flag of convenience their real politics could be anything. This could also include people who need to pretend to be liberals because of the job they do.

4) Left-liberals. Left-liberalism isn’t liberalism at all it’s cultural marxism that uses liberal rhetoric as camouflage.

I think the main problem is the pyramidal manipulation, not white hyper-altruism.

Yes i agree. I think the altruism / liberalism was simply the entry point for cultural marxism.

As I see it, part of the problem is that the strong tactics of the left and the Jewish domination of the media have resulted in a situation where public opinion and common sense no longer matter.

Agree again, hence why i think undermining the power of the media is so critical.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 07:30 | #

The default mode for humanity, from an evolutionary standpoint is selfishness, with some exception for closely related kin. However, altruism, if it is to exist, will be the outcome of another cunning plan…a plan so cunning “you can brush your teeth with it!”

Altruism beyond immediate kin allows wider group co-operation and greater synergy. The seeming irrationality of the faith gene may be adaptive at a group level precisely because it is irrational.

“Give me soldiers who know what they’re fighting for and love what they know.”

Irrationality can be very powerful.

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 07:56 | #

Undermining the power of the media - one small step:

AWM: Anti-White Media

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:00 | #

Bringing yourself and your people to the brink of extinction doesn’t seem progressive or evolutionarily adaptive to me

Well you’d be wrong. The mechanism that makes white people more adaptive can be hijacked and used against us and it has but even without that having openness to new ideas as a trait would automatically be adaptive by trial and error even though error might be more common than not and some of those errors could be near fatal. The white strength is the white weakness. We are the people most likely to get to Mars and we are the people most likely to accidentally destroy ourselves. It’s the same mechanism.

and the mass of white lemmings allowing themselves to languish under a Muslim yoke for centuries

1) The muslim conquests of Spain and Byzantium were brought about by jewish betrayal.
2) The initial invasion of Spain was very rapid - because of the betrayal - and almost all of it was captured quickly apart from the mountainous north, The Spanish then spent 700 years fighting, not languishing, to take their country back and eventually succeeded in driving the muslim invaders out.

3) Our current predicament is based on mass media psychological demoralization techniques. I have no use for people who help the enemy by disparaging white people or who call them “lemmings”.

As to the notion about the human race “stopping dead” without Whites being around, aside from the usual WN rhetoric I see no validity to this statement.

There’s anti-white psychological demoralization oozing out of the media 24/7.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:01 | #

Undermining the power of the media - one small step:

Useful step.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 10:13 | #

Altruism beyond immediate kin allows wider group co-operation and greater synergy.

This is true but Williams, like Armor, is suggesting that altruism is manipulated. And if altruism is manipulated it must arise through other than genetic means. Thus socialism, racism and religion are vying discourses that are driven by self-interest but potentially produce altruistic behaviour. They have no foundation in evolutionary biology. Islam is one such competing discourse and may, as things fold out in Egypt, show its true potential for igniting a powder keg. Here then are your soldiers knowing and loving that for which they fight. Not irrational but manipulated.

Posted by sk on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:13 | #

“I have no use for people who help the enemy by disparaging white people and call them lemmings.”

I agree, and there is no need to despair of widespread ignorance either.  A broad lazy river can be channeled into a raging cataclysm by repeptitious work.  So simple truth can stir up the masses.  Anti-racist means Anti-white and only Anti-white.  The purpose of massive immigration into every white country and only into white countries is to achieve the Genocide of white people.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:54 | #

1) The muslim conquests of Spain and Byzantium were brought about by jewish betrayal.

I didn’t know that. We need to develop a course, “Jewish Studies”, that details such history - based on primary sources not hearsay.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:56 | #

Starting point (what I have atm):

Joe Sobran. “For Fear of the Jews”.

Kevin MacDonald’s work.

John J. Mearsheimer & Stephen M. Walt. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

The Free Congress Foundation. “The History of Political Correctness” video.

Murray Friedman. The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy.

Benjamin Ginsberg. The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State.

Yuri Slezkine. The Jewish Century.

Solzhenitsyn. 200 Years. Vol. 1. Chapt. 1. Also see.

Chesterton. The New Jerusalem.

Henry Ford. The International Jew — The World’s Foremost Problem.

Martin Luther. “The Jews and Their Lies”. Selections.

Posted by Guest Lurker on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 19:45 | #

There’s anti-white psychological demoralization oozing out of the media 24/7.

So, for me not to blindly believe that all of humanity would absolutely stop dead in its tracks without white people is now a manifestation of media-induced demoralization? That’s perverse logic.

Well you’d be wrong. The mechanism that makes white people more adaptive can be hijacked and used against us and it has but even without that having openness to new ideas as a trait would automatically be adaptive by trial and error even though error might be more common than not and some of those errors could be near fatal. The white strength is the white weakness.

Not being able to distinguish between adaptive ideas that advance one’s interests and maladaptive ones that would lead to one’s dispossession and extinction is no strength, and those that have difficulty distinguishing between the two are not long for this world.

1) The muslim conquests of Spain and Byzantium were brought about by jewish betrayal.
2) The initial invasion of Spain was very rapid - because of the betrayal - and almost all of it was captured quickly apart from the mountainous north, The Spanish then spent 700 years fighting, not languishing, to take their country back and eventually succeeded in driving the muslim invaders out.

Far from me to defend jews, but this is the first time I’ve heard this claim with regard to the conquest of Byzantium.

Our current predicament is based on mass media psychological demoralization techniques. I have no use for people who help the enemy by disparaging white people or who call them “lemmings”.

I’m not the one who coined the term. I think it might even have been Dr. Pierce that did. Regardless, given Whites’ malleability, it certainly fits.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:06 | #

The default mode for humanity, from an evolutionary standpoint is selfishness, with some exception for closely related kin. However, altruism, if it is to exist, will be the outcome of another cunning plan…a plan so cunning “you can brush your teeth with it!”

The foundation to your argument doesn’t stand up. At a genetic level altruism is odds-based self-interest. So altruism doesn’t require an exception to the rule. It just requires someone to figure out the mechanism.

This is true but Williams, like Armor, is suggesting that altruism is manipulated. And if altruism is manipulated it must arise through other than genetic means. Thus socialism, racism and religion are vying discourses that are driven by self-interest but potentially produce altruistic behaviour. They have no foundation in evolutionary biology.

No-one has figured out the genetic mechanism yet so they assume it *must* be some other mechanism. All it will take is a evolutionary biologist with enough oxytocin to *know* it is genetic.

as things fold out in Egypt

Egypt isn’t about islam - yet. Although it may turn out to be eventually but in a 1917 type way.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:14 | #

I agree, and there is no need to despair of widespread ignorance either.

Agree. We’re starting to win at a meta-political level and that is the key. You have to push the dominant culture back at the meta-political level first before you can take ground politicially. Bob’s mantra is a prime example of how to do that. GW’s forum wars is another.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 22:16 | #

So, for me not to blindly believe that all of humanity would absolutely stop dead in its tracks without white people is now a manifestation of media-induced demoralization? That’s perverse logic.

True. I’m still undecided on the value of this bit of meme warfare myself. The aim is to counter the media-driven demoralization but at the same time it does help the other side’s divide and rule tactics so it’s currently on trial. I may change it to “only white and east asian could…” and tie it to the east asians being next on the target list of competitors if/when white people are destroyed.

Not being able to distinguish between adaptive ideas that advance one’s interests and maladaptive ones that would lead to one’s dispossession and extinction is no strength, and those that have difficulty distinguishing between the two are not long for this world.

Evolution by trial and error will always involve both adaptive and maladaptive changes but as long as it never strays too far in the maladaptive direction it will always end up adaptive by the law of averages.
So i’m saying the liberal element in white psychology is both a strength and a weakness as long as the larger conservative element is dominant. Our problem is that a suicidally twisted version of that liberal psychology has become dominant through the agency of cultural marxists i.e jews, greatly helped by the invention of television. Our problem is we have a brain parasite that has tipped the balance between liberal and conservative psychology, order and chaos, from adaptive to maladaptive.

I didn’t know that. We need to develop a course, “Jewish Studies”, that details such history - based on primary sources not hearsay.

Far from me to defend jews, but this is the first time I’ve heard this claim with regard to the conquest of Byzantium.

They’re doing exactly the same thing now with mass immigration. No doubt jews are partly driven by the idea of their chosen-ness and all that that entails but i think thousands of years of seeing themselves as effectively living behind enemy lines has led to an evolved paranoia (whether genetic or simply cultural). You can see it most plainly in their attitude to their own history where jews are *always* the victims and *never* the perpetrators. This is neccessary to maintain the level of paranoia required to maintain their group cohesion. This paranoia will *always* lead them to try and weaken the dominant host population by any means they can get away with. Then, if they succeed, whoever is the next dominant becomes the next target and so on forever until they have literally bred the rest of humanity down to the level of cattle or they abandon their warped psychology.

Regardless, given Whites’ malleability, it certainly fits.

The malleability is required for people to conform to an accepted moral authority. This acceptance allows for larger group co-operation and larger group co-operation is the only reason we’re still around because it was that that led to our nations becoming so powerful.

Don’t forget we (as a race) already won. We already took the entire planet.

Our strength allowed us to do that but we didn’t do what others would have done with the conquered terriotory. If the chinese or muslims had taken almost the entire planet it would now be almost entirely full of chinese or muslims. The weak “lemmings” took the whole planet. Then gave it back. Our strength and our weakness are the same thing.

Regardless of that though, even if i agreed with you i’m making a conscious point not to help the enemy demoralization tactics by never attacking white people apart from the ruling traitors.

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 22:51 | #

I’m not the one who coined the term. I think it might even have been Dr. Pierce that did. Regardless, given Whites’ malleability, it certainly fits. - Guest Lurker

Yes, it was Dr Pierce who coined the term ‘lemmings’ - a physicist who, in my judgment, came up not only with the most profound, most uncompromising, and most accurate diagnosis of the malaise at the root of predicament, the Western world finds itself in today, but with just as profound answers to how remedy this next to fatal condition.

It is important to note that, for Dr Pierce, the term ‘lemmings’ is not a curse word, or a substitute for the word ‘stupid’. He introduced that term as a purely scientific concept with a certain and clearly defined meaning. According to the definition by Dr Pierce, the basic characteristic of the ‘lemmings’ is inability to think independently, or to hold any opinion not held by the herd. And as such, the term ‘lemming’ is attributable, by Dr Pierces estimates, to more than 95% of the population of every society and every race. You can find lemmings among professorial class, you can find them among intellectuals, and every other social strata. The corollary statement is also true - you can find non-lemmings among working class people, you can find them among peasants, etc.

Here is a quote from one of the famous ADV broadcasts where Dr Pierce explains the concept behind the term ‘lemmings’:

Face Crime and Anthrax

... I’ve spoken often in these broadcasts about the Orwellian nature of the program to enact more “hate crime” laws. It was largely in connection with the mindless willingness of the public to go along with this trashing of their most fundamental freedoms that I began using the term “lemming” to describe people who believe whatever they are told to believe by their television screens and who then adjust their attitudes and opinions accordingly. Orwell also clearly understood this aspect of human nature. He understood that most people are susceptible to thought control by the media and by the government. He understood that no matter how repressive a government becomes, most people will never think of rebelling or even want to rebel, as long as they believe that most other people approve of the government.

I thought about the implications of that quite a bit, and I finally decided that it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. If the race had evolved that way, then it must have been for a reason. It must have survival value. And, of course, it does. We are able to have stable societies only because most people are lemmings: only because most people think and act only as members of the mass, not as individuals. In a time of war, for example, it is essential for a community or a nation to be united in its thinking. That’s one of the reasons that multiculturalism weakens a nation. That’s one of the reasons I’ve condemned as traitors the people trying to keep America’s borders open to the Third World, trying to bring more “diversity” to America. They are weakening America, damaging America.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 22:51 | #

To tie some of the above points together.

Egypt and the coming collapse of most of the pro-Israel Arab dictatorships is largely due to the weakening of American global power. The weakening of American global power is largely due to jewish pro-immigration activism and jewish support for globalisation (aka the looting and transplanting of America’s industrial capital). I’ve no doubt there’s always been a conspiracy element to it but i believe it’s mostly they simply can’t stop themselves and thereby always end up somehow cutting their own throat.

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 23:07 | #

More on the definition of the concept of ‘lemmings’ by Dr Pierce in the ADV Broadcast of Sept. 29, 2001 “Regaining Control”:

Let me give you one of those little capsule oversimplifications I’m fond of. Although it is an oversimplification and is, therefore, not an exact model of the real world, I find it very helpful in making sense out of what’s happening in the real world.

But with the observers there is hope for doing things now, hope for persuading some of them—perhaps many of them—that it is immoral and irresponsible merely to sit and observe and do nothing while the Jews and the Judases continue to use America, to use our people, for their own purposes and in doing so to bring disaster after disaster down on us and to insure a future of misery and shame for our children and our grandchildren.

For those of you who prefer listening rather than reading, audio version of “Regaining Control” is available at:

http://www.natall.com/internet-radio/ts/092901.ram

Posted by Frank on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 23:10 | #

It’s a shame Pierce never reached the next level beyond reason: tradition. Was he only educated in physics? If so, that might explain his errors in the very different field of political science.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 12 Feb 2011 23:14 | #

It is important to note that, for Dr Pierce, the term ‘lemmings’ is not a curse word, or a substitute for the word ‘stupid’. He introduced that term as a purely scientific concept with a certain and clearly defined meaning. According to the definition by Dr Pierce, the basic characteristic of the ‘lemmings’ is inability to think independently, or to hold any opinion not held by the herd.

Fair point.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:45 | #

Egypt and the coming collapse of most of the pro-Israel Arab dictatorships is largely due to the weakening of American global power. The weakening of American global power is largely due to jewish pro-immigration activism and jewish support for globalisation (aka the looting and transplanting of America’s industrial capital). I’ve no doubt there’s always been a conspiracy element to it but i believe it’s mostly they simply can’t stop themselves and thereby always end up somehow cutting their own throat. - Wandrin

There is something of its own punishment in all Jewish activity - Fyodor Dostoevsky

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:46 | #

It’s a shame Pierce never reached the next level beyond reason: tradition. Was he only educated in physics? If so, that might explain his errors in the very different field of political science. - Frank

Frank, no offence to you personally, but your arrogance sounds very jewish to me. Education has very little to do with innate ability to think independently. In fact, the more ‘educated’ people are, the easier to fool and inflict them with all kinds of ideologies like liberalism, human rights, individualism, feminism, equality, and the rest of jewish mind diseases.

If a person is incapable of independent thinking and does not have the innate disposition to look and estimate everything from the point of view of the ordinary common sense, even reading books like the ones you have enumerated in one of your posts above won’t make much of a difference.

Take for example Alexander Solzhenitsyn (one of the must-read authors you have put in your list), who is looked upon like some kind of great sage in the Western world today. In fact, Solzhenitsyn was politically very naive person, who didn’t even recognize that he has been simply used in the de-Stalinisation process. Awarding him with Nobel in Literature for his “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” was nothing but a politically motivated act. After Gorbachev’s Perestroika, Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia naively believing that Russia was finally liberated itself only to find out that, in fact, the international jewry has simply completed successfully de-Stalinisation process and regained control over Russia that was wrestled away from the jews by Stalin during the period of 1929 - 1939.

Many people today, who think they are capable of thinking independently, know about jewish lies about Hitler, but it never occurred to the same people that Stalin has been lied about by the same entity to no lesser degree than about Hitler. In this particular case, even the great Dr Pierce was to a certain degree a lemming - I have never heard anything from Dr Pierce that would have indicated that he understood the importance of Stalin in preserving Russia’s statehood. His understanding of the legacy of Stalin and Stalinism was as simplistic and distorted as everybody else’s.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 01:36 | #

There is something of its own punishment in all Jewish activity - Fyodor Dostoevsky

Why jews do what they do? The question is an important one. Even though it has been asked and answered numerous times in the past, it still merits asking again and again.

Bob Grant asked Dr William Pierce: I don’t understand. You said that Sumner Redstone and the other Jewish media bosses are deliberately trying to destroy our society. Why would they want to do that? They are rich and powerful and influential. This society has been good to them. Why would they want to destroy it? That doesn’t make sense to me.

A short answer by Dr Pierce: The Scorpion and the Frog

The most comprehensive answer is to be found in the book by jewish author Maurice Samuel: You Gentiles

Dr Pierce’s perspective on Samuel’s book: Odysseus’ Way

Posted by Frank on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 01:51 | #

Ivan,

certainty is not necessarily arrogance. I’m convinced Pierce was a fool who has done immense damage to whites by supporting a similar deconstruction as what Jews have done, but I don’t think I have answers for everything. Following Pierce’s deconstruction of tradition and faith, whites are lost and doomed. He admittedly probably did mean well - most folks do.

I’ve found things at his site of value, though I haven’t studied him in depth. I’ve also found things at the Green Party website that are valuable as well as Lew Rockwell’s site, etc… I personally view Pierce’s religion as nearly 100% opposed to my race, and among his little culture war attacks is this bit that lemmings don’t think for themselves. It sounds very much like he’s telling them to embrace “Reason” and then worship Darwinism and evolution. Thinking for oneself doesn’t mean one must reject tradition and faith, nor does embracing those two mean one must cease thinking.

Others have said what Pierce said. This is very true though:

If a person is incapable of independent thinking and does not have the innate disposition to look and estimate everything from the point of view of the ordinary common sense, even reading books like the ones you have enumerated in one of your posts above won’t make much of a difference.

Chesterton, among many others, has condemned educated folks for not having the ability to reason. Similarly he’s condemned those who only have book knowledge, no real world experience. Since there really aren’t any new ideas in philosophy in politics, you can pretty much pick and choose your authority for most any idea. The ancient Greeks are famous in part because they’re the oldest we remember. One day perhaps they’ll be forgotten, and maybe something you’ve written will be remembered and praised, haha.

I like what you’re saying and how you’re intending to use Pierce.

In Pierce’s defence on Stalin, Pierce was a foreigner. You can’t expect Americans to know about the Soviets. In Solzhenitsyn’s defence, he had some good comments on America.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 02:08 | #

“Chesterton, among many others, has condemned educated folks for not having the ability to reason.”

To be clear, Chesterton meant that “too many” educated folks haven’t learned to reason.

The quote there is:

“When learned men begin to use their reason, then I generally discover that they haven’t got any.” - ILN 11-7-08

It’s from a website.

The other quote is from my reading, and there’s actually another in there that’s related though I don’t have it at hand:

LORD IVYWOOD shared the mental weakness of most men who have fed on books; he ignored, not the value but the very existence of other forms of information.

Chesterton, The Flying Inn, pg 18, Ch 5

Chesterton was racially oriented, though it wouldn’t surprise me were I more so than he. There are different degrees.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 02:14 | #

I know folks at this site like Reason, but they mostly seem to take a different view from Pierce. There are different degrees in this matter as well. Defending race is, in my eyes, a defence of racial heritage and genetic tradition, so in a way folks here are trads, at least by my reckoning.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 02:25 | #

Ivan,

I haven’t read every book on that list yet, but I’m working on it! I’m wanting to take quotes and data from each as well.

We need website courses to organise all our data and arguments. Understanding Jews and having arguments in defence from them is among what’s vitally needed.

Dr. Wilson recently put up a website on NC “Civil War” history. I expect good things from it, and I’m hopeful others follow his example.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 03:20 | #

I’m convinced Pierce was a fool who has done immense damage to whites by supporting a similar deconstruction as what Jews have done, but I don’t think I have answers for everything. Following Pierce’s deconstruction of tradition and faith, whites are lost and doomed. He admittedly probably did mean well - most folks do.

Frank,

Dr Pierce had neither the resources nor the time it takes to bring about, in any degree of significance to speak about, ‘immense damage’ to anything. But I would agree with you that his attempt to create a new religion for Whites was not a very bright idea.

Allow me reproduce a comment I have posted elsewhere on this same subject one year or so ago:

Often times educated people fond to say that this or that religion is “foolish”. I am not a very religious person, but I would say this: Calling a religion “foolish” is what foolish. I am not talking about Christianity or Islam here, I am talking about any religion.

These are not conclusions, these are simple and reasonable questions.

Posted by Guest Lurker on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 03:37 | #

Frank wrote:

I know folks at this site like Reason, but they mostly seem to take a different view from Pierce.

Frank,

It’s true that this site seems to appeal predominantly to hardcore positivists. When you mention tradition, is this referring to THE “Tradition” in the Guenonian sense? Just curious where you yourself are coming from.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 04:25 | #

No, more like Spengler with regard to tradition I think.

Dr. Fleming recently said of Turkey (I think it was?): either leave them with Islam or introduce them to a better religion. They’re worse off being secular.

I generally agree with that. However, I also agree with a piece by Matthew Roberts which essentially calls for a Romulus to give us a new conservative order. I’m aware of the contradiction, but it’s only a partial contradiction I think. When you hit the Iron Age, you’ve got to start anew at the Golden Age; but that doesn’t mean completely fresh.

If, say, we were to found a white state, I’m sure we’d preserve the classics and read the Sagas. Christians would add Christian texts, others would add some Christian texts but avoid most perhaps (one can’t fully reject 2000 years of history). It wouldn’t be a completely clean slate.

However, I also see race as a part of tradition. Not only are nongenetic traditions often inherited, but genetics itself is intertwined with culture and is itself something of a tradition. Some 200 years ago a mutation occurred and one’s tribe is now balding. Such might be unwanted, but it might tie in with a tradition of wearing hats. It’s part of the organic whole. That’s a bad example, but I’m falling asleep.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 06:43 | #

At a genetic level altruism is odds-based self-interest.

It is for immediate family, but even Salter does not advocate this position. His Chapter 5 is entitled “Can Ethnic Altruism be Adaptive?” in which he argues for the affirmative. On page 250 he discusses controlling scientific discourse that may compete with ethnic altruism. In other words Salter is hoping to inspire a socially constructed position that will eventually compete with and dominate the current discourse. Otherwise, it must be conceded that National Socialism has genetic origins because it was a system that allegedly promoted ethnic altruism rather than a social construct that competed with other constructs and eventually dominated discourse in Germany. In theory yes ethnic altruism may possibly dominate discourse, however, ethnic altruism has no foundation in evolution except when genetic interests are incredibly close.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:02 | #

Guest Lurker,

René Guénon sounds like a good read. Thanks.

I actually had never heard of him… I like learning of such things when I post in here.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:09 | #

I think The Reign of Quantity is generally considered to be Guenon’s definitive work. From the few of his books I have read, I would agree.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:09 | #

In theory yes ethnic altruism may possibly dominate discourse, however, ethnic altruism has no foundation in evolution except when genetic interests are incredibly close.

Well i disagree.

Humans are social animals. If the group is stronger through altruism then the individual’s chance of survival and reproduction are enhanced. Traits that are beneficial to the group can be both directly maladaptive to the individual *and* adaptive for that same individual through a feedback loop. All it takes is the right probabilities. If a random mutation is maladaptive to the individual by say 10% but adaptive to the individual (through an improved group cohesion feedback loop) by 15% then that mutation will get passed down to future generations.

All it takes is
a) human individuals unable to survive on their own in the times we are talking about
b) constant conflict between groups over the best water / food / shelter
c) random mutation leading to things like empathy which enhance group cohesion
d) group cohesion giving grop fitness benefits e.g limiting internal disputes, hunting big game, which feeds back into improvements in individual fitness

You see it all the time even when people aren’t related at all i.e in an infantry platoon of strangers, or rather not strangers, as it only works after the men have been in close familial contact for some time. Individuals know that if they risk themselves for their comrades then their comrades will risk themselves for that individual. The benefit from the feedback loop outweighs the disbenefit from the individual point of view.

In reality people can take this behaviour far beyond the point where it makes sense mathematically.

So, the above happens all the time. Empirically it can’t be challenged. It also makes perfect sense logically as long as the probablity of the disbenefit to the individual is outweighed by the probability of the group benefit feeding back to the individual. So evolutionary speaking it would make perfect sense.

However if i understand it correctly the evolutionary come-back to this is that rationally speaking the optimal position for any individual is for everyone else to be altruistic but not the individual himself and this breaks the idea that there could ever be an evolutionary mechanism. And that makes perfect sense to.

So to me, given that there is an increase in individual fitness from an increase in group fitness but that an individual putting group fitness before individual fitness is irrational then the obvious answer is that social animals would select for genes that cause mild levels of irrationality. For instance high enough levels of empathy will *force* people to risk their lives - whether it’s running into a burning building or dragging a comrade out of no-man’s land. They can’t stop themselves. An irrational sense of duty will force people to do things that are bad for them as indiividuals but good for the group. The faith gene can do the same.

If probablity based self-interest makes sense but requires individual irrationality then social animals will select for beneficial types of irrationality.

Lastly, a thing may be good and bad depending on the quantity. Suppose empathy is caused by oxytocin in the blood and empathy enhances group fitness. A small quantity may only extend out to immediate family. A larger quantity could extend out to extended family. A larger quantity again might lead to what i would consider the optimal amount, such that you trade some direct concern for immediate and extended family for the kind of society that provides the indirect benefit of a saturation of ambulances, paramedics and mountain rescue teams. If the chemical exists then you will also have individuals who are born with too much who extend their empathy to the whole world and have no in-group loyalty at all. The same chemical creating different outcomes depending on the quantity in the blood.

The last point is similar to the discussion over liberals. The liberal mindset craving constant change and novelty can be beneficial in the long term through a process of trial and error* as long as society as a whole is dominated by the conservative mindset. In the same way empathy is useful in the right doses and as long as those people who were born with too much don’t become dominant.

*Even if 99% of it is negative and only 1% is positive it will still end up being beneficial if the 99% is all temporary while the 1% is permanent (and none of the 99% is fatal).

Posted by Guest Lurker on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:39 | #

Posted by Jimmy Marr:

I think The Reign of Quantity is generally considered to be Guenon’s definitive work. From the few of his books I have read, I would agree.

That’s a good one, Jimmy. The Crisis of the Modern World is another shorter book, but also gives a good overview of his ideas.

Frank wrote:

René Guénon sounds like a good read. Thanks.

I actually had never heard of him… I like learning of such things when I post in here.

Check his books out. They might be up your alley. Then you might also try Julius Evola’s “Revolt Against the Modern World”.  They viewed modernity and its clinging to concepts like progress, evolution, change, all symptomatic of Western senility and decline. Though racial, they weren’t strictly biological determinists.  You might also be able to find some of these books or parts of them online. Check scribd.com or google books. The Gornahoor website is devoted to this material, but from a Christian perspective.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:15 | #

I just stumbled upon Jefferson’s actual words. It’s often amazing how experts ruin great thinkers. I’d previously thought Jefferson was a loon, but no he’s not. He was also a border-line abolitionist who wanted to separate the whites from blacks, and I don’t buy that he was a miscegenator - must have been a relative.

Jefferson on Natural Aristocracy

Scroll through and read the red parts. America wasn’t founded entirely by morons after all! Ah, the spirit is what I like. I’ve called for similar things. I’m no believer in democracy btw.

I have read Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World. I like parts. Whenever I gather everything together, I’ll be worth rebutting. For now I’m incomplete. I view myself as a Pict or German/Athenian driving back a renewed Rome/Atlantis or a Norseman fending off Ragnarok - that’s the spirit I serve.

Posted by Frank on Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00 | #

Ah, a Christian variant of that I mean. I like pagan stories, but I don’t have faith in them.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 14 Feb 2011 04:59 | #

You see it all the time even when people aren’t related at all i.e in an infantry platoon of strangers, or rather not strangers, as it only works after the men have been in close familial contact for some time.

Don’t you see the trap? What if you throw a brown, black or yellow into the mix? An act of sacrificial altruism is enormously harmful. Either this is a case where altruism is so far developed that you cannot contain it or the platoon of men of mixed race, willing to sacrifice for each other, has been manipulated. Historically, there have been examples of both in-group and out-group altruism which demonstrates that altruism is not evolved but constructed.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 14 Feb 2011 05:48 | #

Don’t you see the trap? What if you throw a brown, black or yellow into the mix?

Yes, adaptive irrationality evolved for a purpose in one situation becoming maladaptive in another because it’s irrational. If the way out of the cheater problem in the evolution of group fitness is selection for certain irrational traits in individuals then it’s not surprising there could be irrational outcomes.

I’m not saying it’s not constructed as well. It may well be. But i know for a fact that if a person has enough oxytocin (or whatever it is) in their bloodstream and someone is trapped in a burning building then they will try and rescue them and it won’t be because they’re being brave or consciously altruistic it will be because the oxytocin (or whatever it is) in their blood *forces* them to behave irrationally.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:54 | #

Ivan,

I understand your point above, but a religion must either be true (or true in parts or in essence) or false. Whether it can (or does) serve as a social “glue” (and is thus evolutionarily adaptive) is finally no longer of interest to the Western mind. The supreme quality of Western Man (the white man at his best) is that he wishes to comprehend reality. Physical facts, furthermore, have philosophical and then social and political implications.

Christians believe their religion to be factually accurate, at least in its essence, which is that a (and only one) God possessed of a personality exists; that this God created our cosmos; that a man named Jesus Christ, uniquely possessed of an aspect of divinity, existed in history, and that He was resurrected from a state of death in real, historical time.

Now you can believe or disbelieve the above. But men, at least the more intelligent and educated portion of modern society, cannot simply willfully return to a prelapsarian state of philosophical ignorance. I cannot force myself to believe what my reason applied to the evidence of my senses informs me is false.

Thus religion can no longer be the “glue” you dismiss it as having once been (I agree with your “glue” metaphor, though the extent of religion’s social “glueness” varies between particular religions; I also disagree with your atheistic implication that every religion is merely a social “glue”, uncorresponding in its cosmological narrative to reality). White men will no more return to a Christianity they believe to be false, than to a re-imagined pre-Christian paganism.

Unfortunately, if religions have been primary social “glues”, and if they are no longer intellectually tenable for whites, then the logical implication is that white societies will become socially “unglued”, as seems to be happening with accelerating force. The only realistic options for those wishing to reverse the “ungluing” process are 1) to develop a new form of non-religious social “glue”; 2) to “re-glue” society by force; or 3) to reestablish the original religious “glue” upon a firmer intellectual (philosophical and scientific) foundation.

GW and his epigones prefer option 1. Less intellectual persons often will advocate option 2. I contend that option 3 is the wisest course.

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:31 | #

Hating One’s Own

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England…

I recently saw a British press release which stated that the head of the West Mercia Police Department in England called for an end to the silence regarding the “tidal wave” of rape and prostitution rings in which thousands of white girls were being passed around by Pakistani gangs and “used as meat.” And along with that edifying little story came a report that 70% of British converts to Islam were white women. I suppose the logic of the female converts is: “Better to become a Muslim wife and be used as meat in one polygamous marriage than to be passed around and used as meat by a whole gang of Muslims. At least Muslim men will stop other men from raping me.”

I don’t have to live in Britain to know how the British establishment will respond to the head of the West Mercia Police Department; they will respond the same way the white liberal establishment always responds to black-on-white crime in America. They will denounce the man who warned Britons about the colored rapists and murderers and call for his resignation. Quite possibly they will add jail time to his resignation. Britain is slightly worse than the United States in terms of jailing alleged ‘racists’. In the U.S. accusations of ‘racism’ often end with the loss of a job. But let us not forget the Rodney King affair, and many others like it, when police officers who had tried to arrest black criminals were found guilty of racism and sent to jail.

The response of British white males to the Pakistani rape squads should be immediate and violent. Every Pakistani even remotely involved in the “white meat” gangs should be killed. And the remaining Pakistanis in Britain who were not involved in the torture-rape squads should be thrown out of Britain. Of course such a sensible and Christian course of action will not be followed because if white Brits had the Christian innards to kill the Pakistani rapists and remove the remaining Pakistanis from their country, they would never have let the Pakistanis in their country to begin with.

The toleration of the rape of their women is not a simple case of cowardice on the part of the British white males, although that most certainly is the assumption of the Pakistani males. Like the jackal, who is a coward himself, the Pakistanis attack only those who are weaker and more cowardly than themselves, and to them it seems obvious that the white Brits are cowards. But it is not because of fear that the British white male does not fight for his own. The British male does not fight for his own kind because he doesn’t believe there is any such thing as kin or kind. There are only generic people, all moving toward a generic, colored utopia. And that’s the main point: the white European male has been told for upwards of fifty years that white people are evil and have no right to exist. So why should he care when white women, mothers of the future, either lose their lives or are ruined for life? By liberal logic he shouldn’t care, and in point of fact he doesn’t care. Walter Scott would care, Rudyard Kipling would care, but the Brits and their European counterparts do not want to live in Scott’s and Kipling’s Europe.

It’s not a case then of no innards; it’s a case of no Christian innards. The British male will fight for a multi-racial Britain, but he will fight against a Christian Britain. And because of that fact, the Brits’ unwillingness to fight for a Christian Britain, the warning of the Mercia Police Inspector will go unheeded. The Chief Inspector was proceeding on false assumptions. He assumed the white British males did not know about the rape of white British girls, and that once they did know, they would want to do something to stop it. But they did know, they do know, and they don’t want to stop it; in fact they approve of the rapes because they regard the white victims as sacrifices to the colored gods. And that is to be expected when a people who once worshipped the God of mercy no longer understand what Christ meant when he said, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.”

more…

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 18 Feb 2011 02:19 | #

The ‘get out the information’ boys of the BNP and the American Renaissance always fail to make a breach in the liberals’ fortress because they think: 1) white people will “wake up” if they get the information about colored atrocities

The information has to come from a respected and trusted source. While the dominant culture is dominant people will reject information that doesn’t fit. If anything, as people are brain-washed to not think bad thoughts about non-white people, this kind of information can be counter-productive.

What needs to be done is similar but psychologically distinct. The information should be used to attack but not the invaders. It should be used to attack the media and politicians for their lies and betrayal. Doing so weakens the dominant culture gradually making them less trusted and respected and replacing them with ourselves.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 18 Feb 2011 03:16 | #

Juxtaposition:

O.J. Simpson was beaten unconscious in a brutal prison yard attack, The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively. Inmates cheered as a muscular young skinhead knocked him to the ground, punching and kicking him to a bloody pulp and inflicting injuries so severe he secretly spent nearly three weeks in the infirmary before he recovered. The humiliating beating left 63-year-old Simpson in agony – and threw him into a spiral of depression so deep that he’s now afraid to venture out of his cell, divulge sources.

Unknown to the former NFL star, The Juice has been a marked man behind bars ever since white supremacists overheard him brag about his sexual conquests of beautiful white women.

Good Christian men?

Mr. Haller,

With respect, you must read your comment, February 17, 2011, 11:54 PM, again for it is contradictory.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:58 | #

Thorn February 18, 2011, 12:31 AM

Hating One’s Own

The toleration of the rape of their women is not a simple case of cowardice on the part of the British white male

What has always puzzled me is why British white women do not object to British white women being raped?

Where is the collective protesting voice of the white woman - ‘Women’s Institute’?

Deafening silence.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:03 | #

Mr. Haller,
With respect, you must read your comment, February 17, 2011, 11:54 PM, again for it is contradictory.
(Desmond Jones)

I see no contradiction. If you will explain what you think is contradictory, I will endeavor to do a better job (if possible) of articulating my point.

BTW, you didn’t actually believe that “report” about a prison beating of OJ?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:57 | #

Mr. Haller,

If you believe that religion (or some religions) are adaptive, meaning there is a reproductive differential that exists between the Christian white world (especially the fundies) and the secular white world, then the conclusion must be that Christianity is on the ascent not in decline.

OJ…who knows what to believe…however, it is interesting, imo, to ponder why it enters the discourse now.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 18 Feb 2011 23:46 | #

Posted by Leon Haller on February 17, 2011, 11:54 PM | #

GW and his epigones prefer option 1. Less intellectual persons often will advocate option 2. I contend that option 3 is the wisest course.

—————————————————————

Mr. Haller,

If you believe that religion (or some religions) are adaptive, meaning there is a reproductive differential that exists between the Christian white world (especially the fundies) and the secular white world, then the conclusion must be that Christianity is on the ascent not in decline. (Desmond Jones)

Mr. Jones,

1) I’m not sure how you derived what you here impute to me from what I wrote in the comment you originally referenced.

2) I do, however, agree with the first part of your new comment, and see no contradiction between what I originally wrote, and what is now imputed to me. That is, I agree that religion can be evolutionarily adaptive, and with the empirical claim that white Christians (as I have noted here at MR on multiple occasions) do have higher fertility than white secularists.

3) Of course, this could mean that Christianity among whites will be ascendant - or not. It depends on, first, the extent to which people follow their parents’ faith (or lack thereof), and this correlation is in fact fairly high; and, second, whether, however, there are stronger countervailing (societal) factors overwhelming this correlation, and pushing white societies towards atheism. Let us recall that the West was once heavily Christian, but is no longer. Obviously, there is no simple causal relationship in any of this. 

4) My real objective in the comment above was to note that blind adherence to religion does not seem to be acceptable to a large and perhaps growing portion of the West anymore. We are no longer philosophical children (as Muslims and Hindus still are), able to accept blind faith. I speak of the broad trend of the West, not various recalcitrant pockets, even if those pockets are disproportionately fecund. Thus, we can no longer rely on religion per se for its (evolutionarily adaptive) “social glue” function (see Ivan’s argument earlier). Religion must now be a much more rational proposition, if it is to survive (obviously, I am speaking in historical terms; this is a long process from the perspective of a single human life).

5) My core argument in response, recall, to Ivan’s comment, was contained in my original last line. If societies cohere and persevere through time by means of a common faith, and if that faith is now in decline (as it clearly has been across the West for centuries), then what will provide the new “social glue”? Either a non-religious ideology, brute force - or, a reformulated version of the earlier traditional faith. I favor the latter.

Posted by anon on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:31 | #

Less intellectual persons often will advocate option 2.

We may be less intellectual on that score—but it does not mean we are wrong. If force is overcome by Twittering bourgeois youth, that force was exhausted and had no business squatting on the seat of power. Otherwise force is always the solution, the very way of existence. And life, recall, is not an intellectual process.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:32 | #

Obviously, there is no simple causal relationship in any of this.

Mr. Haller,

I’ll disagree. The relationship is quite simple. The current age of secularism is nearing its peak, and inevitable reproductive differentials will, over time, see the tide retreat.