Elite Status

October 20, 2009 Hunter Wallace Uncategorized 156

Who should rule?

Logging on this morning, I see that this has once again become a burning issue among the commentators. So far, I haven’t had much to say about the topic. I don’t aspire to rule over anyone. Becoming a politician isn’t a good fit with my introverted personality type. It is a task that I would prefer to leave to others. We have already had one commentator storm off the site because of a controversial turn in this discussion. It is better to discuss the matter now (in its own definitive blog entry) than to have it continue to spill over into unrelated threads.

Nietzscheans

As everyone here knows by now, NeoNietzsche is a passionate admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche and subscribes to a peculiar interpretation of his theories. He believes in a caste system (warrior, cleric, peasant) and sees himself as part of the elect few who should rule in a White Nationalist ethnostate. Following Nietzsche, NN believes everyone has an essential orientation, master or slave, dominant or submissive, and that different moral systems correspond to this primordial mammalian division. As an advocate of “master morality,” he would abolish liberal democracy and confer elite status upon the “higher types” who are naturally born to rule.

Jeffersonians

In the United States, Jeffersonians are the most numerous in White Nationalist circles. In their view, the best type of government is the one that governs least. These people don’t see anything essentially wrong with the American system. They believe in state and local government and instinctively oppose the consolidation of power in Washington. Jeffersonians like to attribute our racial decline to the corrupting influence of outside forces, namely the Jews, and argue that racial sanity would quickly return to America after the excise of this cancer. Under the Jeffersonian system, elite status would be conferred through local elections and the private accumulation of wealth in a capitalist economy.

Hamiltonians

Like the Jeffersonians, the Hamiltonians still believe in republican self government, but prefer a strong, centralized state to a weak one. Instead of free trade, they want an America First trade policy. Hamiltonians support a strong public sector and a regulated market economy to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth. They believe a few constitutional reforms will be sufficient to reverse our racial decline. In their ideal White ethnostate, elite status would also be conferred through elections and wealth accumulation in the private sphere.

Libertarians

The libertarians are a subset of the Jeffersonians who believe in a minimal state. They believe the only function of the state is to protect individual rights: military, police, courts. The libertarians would scrap the entire ediface of twentieth century progressive reforms in the name of liberty. In a libertarian White ethnostate, elite status would be conferred through participation in the market economy, as government would be hamstrung by a strict constitution.

Fascists

The fascists (this includes National Socialists and related species of fascism) want an authoritarian state headed by a dynamic leader with near absolute power. They would dispense with liberal democracy entirely and replace it with a racialized bureaucracy. This concentration of power would be used to rid the fascist ethnostate of Jews and other undesirable elements. Elite status would be conferred through rising in the party and pleasing its established leaders.

Platonists

For lack of a better word, the “Platonists” are White Nationalists who advocate rule by a Guardian caste or order. These Guardians would be chosen through breeding and merit. Exemplary Whites imbued with an unusual dedication to their race would enjoy rights and privileges that other citizens would not.

Christian Nationalists

The Christian Nationalists believe a strong, rejuvenated Christianity is a necessary component of a White ethnostate. In essence, they want an ethnostate based on Christian moral values. Some Christian Nationalists want a republic; some a monarchy; some a theocratic dictatorship. In all cases, elite status would be strongly connected to religious piety.

Monarchists

The monarchists want a king and hereditary aristocracy. Elite status would be conferred through the possession of royal blood.

Anarchists

The anarchists want to dispense with government entirely. In their proposed ethnostate, as there would be no government, politics would not exist and there would be no mechanism for selecting elites. In theory, everyone would be equal in this classless society.

Where I Stand

So, after all this, what is my answer to this question?

Politically, I stand between the Hamiltonians and Platonists. I think that government can be a force for good and that White Nationalists will need a strong central state to repel invasions by our multitude of enemies. The republican system is a proven model for ensuring continuity and the peaceful transfer of power. I think we would be unwise to dispense with it in pursuit of some of the more outré, untested ideas discussed above.

The worst aspects of republicanism can be dealt with through constitutional reforms. For one, I don’t believe in universal voting rights. In my ideal republic, the franchise would only be extended after certain conditions are met. Voters would be required to demonstrate they are intelligent, competent, and moral enough to enjoy the privilege of selecting our leaders. I also believe that the Guardian caste should have more sway than the average citizen. A real electoral college could be set up in which the Guardians could exercise a veto over bad popular selections.

Morally, Alasdair MacIntyre has been the major influence on my views. Like MacIntyre, I believe that morality is only logical within the context of established traditions. There are a number of moral traditions out there, each of them with their own history, each of them having different premisses as their starting point. It is impossible to properly reason across these incommensurate traditions.

I believe our moral discourse has been the victim of the catastrophe described by MacIntyre in the Preface of After Virtue : we only possess fragments of a coherent moral framework, terms which have lost the context which once made them plausible, and that rational people are diverted into nihilism by this disarray. There are no universal, objective moral principles analagous to the laws of science. Instead, moral philosophy is a practical science like Aristotle always claimed it was: it is a how-to guide for actualizing some given ideal. In other words, I believe that morality (at some level) is reducible to aesthetics. That’s a topic for another day.

These are only my answers. What are yours?

About Hunter Wallace 12390 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  2. I’m a Silverian. He’s a prick, not really funny or all that clever when not engaged in dialogue, but he keeps his boat close to shore by asking, most realistically, how the existing configuration of society can be modified for the benefit of its disgruntled ethnoi. This is still what I’ve called fantasy — the solipsism of the White Nationalist “desiring machine” irretrievably cut off from all realworld politics — but it’s as close to realism as White Nationalist gets: he doesn’t imagine the whole world bending itself to his desires, no disaster / salvation / Awakenings scenarios, the immense evolutionary processes of history are not expected to screech to a halt, volte face, and restore a fetishized “Old Order”, “Golden Age”, etc.
    Anyway, it’s a nice roster of how we magnify our importance according to preferred ideological trappings.

  4. Using your descriptions, why not a Jeffersonian political system and a Hamiltonian economic system? Protectionism and tariffs and bilateral trade agreements are simple and extremely effective.

    Libertarianism and Anarchism are either too infantile, or too dogmatic to be practical. Monarchism is similar, no official royals in White land are more than figureheads.

    Christian Nationalism; once you reign in the nuttiest of the fundamentalists, regular White middle class Christianity always has and still does a good job supporting White fertility, sexual mores, and family life, and excluding degenerates and Jews.

    Platonism “These Guardians would be chosen through breeding and merit.”

    No, which actual people do the choosing? If everyone, that’s a democracy, if it’s self-selection, that’s an oligarchy, and both have their problems. This is just another politician or priest class, and revolutions would have never happened if it wasn’t for oppressive politicians and priests. There’s no point in that.

    On the other hand, naturally elite figures that earn the trust of the public are instinctively listened to, emulated, and followed. I think the public can choose those people in an informal, but nevertheless definitive way.

  8. Theodemocracy. It will be a mash-up of an indigenous, orderly religious priesthood and our existing constitutional republic. It will be a bit like Iran’s government, which is very intelligently designed. A core of indigenous elites overlooks a generally democratic and limited government, assuring cultural continuity, ethnic integrity, and moral restraint.

  9. I’ve been around right-wing religious types of all sorts and sizes since before you were born. Not one has EVER called for a theocratic dictatorship. None. Zero.

  10. Someone actually left due to this discussion? Another reason to concentrate on real-life interaction, I suppose. Really, the whole thing is putting the cart before the horse.

    (Though having a dog-catcher chasing stray Jack Russells about town dressed as Herman Goering, might be worth a vote in the Fascism category.)

  12. Wikitopian: I don’t advocate violence (which isn’t the same thing as opposing it) but if one of your chosen priesthood wanders into my sites, he’ll be having dinner in hell, where he belongs.

  13. Hey now, what about the “Spenglerians”? Though Nietzsche was of course brilliant and I have drawn from some of his ideas, I’ve always preferred Spengler instead as he was able to ‘keep his wits about him,’ ya dig?

    I draw my views from all of the ideologies you mentioned in the post, taking what I think is best or most helpful from each one and then discarding the chaff. They are all valid in some ways or at least they were back in their own time(s), and we can in some cases still draw on some of their ideas in contemporary times.

    “Jeffersonians” — Pres. John Adams also held similar pro-agrarian/pro-pastoral and local/state’s rights views as Pres. Jefferson, and so did did Pres. Washington. This means that the first three Presidents were all personally inclined toward the aforementioned viewpoints, and their subsequent and consecutive elections set a clear precedent for the young nation via their early domination of the Executive Branch. In their personal lives they also embodied the best qualities of Western man – all three were intellectuals/scholars, warrior-politicians, and agrarianists/pastoralists to some degree or another.

    I guess that’s at least 1 point for the traditionalist agrarian/pastoral White American camp, and 0 for the rampaging Neo-Mongolian ‘Horse Troopers’ side. 🙂

    —

    All that being said, one of the best things about American WNism is that it is heavily syncretic, drawing from multiple ideologies and knowledge-bases. There is no reason why various factions of pro-Whites cannot congregate and cooperate underneath a large WNist tent which is accepting of many different pro-White approaches as long as we all agree on the same overarching goals, including the permanent preservation of White Europeans here in North American, the rational repatriation of non-Whites to their former racial/ethnic homelands, and a reasonable solution to the Jewish Problem in White nations.

    “Who should rule?”

    The Physiocrats! We are all ‘Ruled by Nature’ and/or The Eternal Creative Cosmic Intelligence which set-up said Nature here on Earth.

  15. Also, I wouldn’t associate Jeffersonianism too much with anti-Jewish attitudes. Recent genetic evidence suggests that he quite likely had some Jewish (Sephardic) ancestry of his own, as his Y-DNA line shows up as Haplogroup ‘T’ (formerly ‘K2’), which is very rare amongst native Europeans but instead occurs mostly in the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and even Sub-Saharan West Africa. How the hell did that specific DNA group end up in Wales and then eventually in Jefferson’s veins? From wandering Sephardic Jews who started showing up in Cromwell’s UK, of course.

    That slimy sonofabitch Alexander Hamilton was also a heavily Judaized bastard (how fitting for America’s first Secretary of the Treasury), having been educated whilst young in a private Jewish school which was being run by Jewish slave-traders who were at that time residing heavily in the West Indies and importing endless numbers of Negroid slaves to work on various plantations they had founded all over the New World.

  18. I used to have alot of faith in the ‘common folk’ idealized by Jeffersonians, but as I’ve matured I realize that they are often no better than children or livestock. People need guidance and direction or else they devour all resources in sight, breed uncontrollably, and generally make a mess of things. And this assuming we’re dealing with decent people of average intelligence! Heaven forbid you allow the real dregs of humanity to run amok – your civilization won’t last more than half a century!

    No, it’s Platonism for me. Benevolent dictators and a Guardian class are the way to go. Citizenship will be limited to those who have proven to be mature enough to handle it. And even then, citizenship needs to be a privilege granted to worthy individuals and not simply handed out like candy.

  19. I forgot to include the doomers (uh) and neocons (Jobling, Guy White). I would have included the racialist paleocons, but the existing divisions above (Hamiltonians, Jeffersonians, Christian Nationalists) seemed to encompass all of them. The list will be updated in the morning.

  21. I’ve been around right-wing religious types of all sorts and sizes since before you were born. Not one has EVER called for a theocratic dictatorship. None. Zero.

    That is essentially what the Chalcedon Institute and theonomists call for.

  23. Those who are attracted to white nationalism probably aren’t that concerned about issues like tariffs and internal improvements which are heresy to libertarians.

    But I can think of two issues that Platonists and Hamiltonians might differ with the average WN on, and they’re deal breakers.

    Home schooling and gun control.

    Of the two gun control is by far the most explosive (no pun intended.) I could be persuaded that a white nationalist state would provide decent public schooling, I could not be persuaded to give up mass private gun ownership by whites under any circumstances.

    A disarmed man is a slave.

    Or to put it another way, if guns are outlawed how can we shoot the Nietzscheans?

  24. Dr. Gary North has called for theocracy. He wants adulterers and infidels to be stoned (he is also a libertarian).

  25. I am still recovering from the staggering profundity of your Quality or Quantity essay!

    The leadership question is a complex one. I suspect that a strong benevolent leader is essential, but even a perfect leader dies, which precipitates chaos.

    Elections are not the answer because they attract narcissistic psychopaths who lead us to ruin though ruthless application of the “I’ll be gone” (IBG) management principle. I also have a problem with universal suffrage. Mass literacy degraded literature, just as universal suffrage degraded the United States. Intellectually selective franchise might improve the process, but character trumps intellect and clever psychopaths abound.

    Perhaps a form of monarchy is the answer. The UK survived for 1000 years under a monarchy, until they began experimenting with democracy. Now, Mohammed is the number one name for baby boys in London. Monarchy addresses the leader mortality and IBG management problems, because the monarch passes the throne to his offspring instead of an opponent. The poor heir problem could be circumvented by an arrangement in which the monarch eugenically selects multiple wives and sires many children. The children would be groomed for leadership and a meritorious line of succession could be established by the monarch and a senate as they matured.

    Yes, I realize that such a scenario is highly likely. However, any scenario including the multicultural paradise in which we now live would have drawn laughs in 1950.

  26. He wants adulterers and infidels to be stoned (he is also a libertarian).

    I like to be stoned too, sometimes. Will that be permitted by whoever’s going to rule the inevitable White Nationalist Reich? The Aryans had ganja, yanno.

  27. Okay, after watching the link posted above to the ‘Oath keepers’ video, I realize I am in favor of any system that will rid us of Chris Matthews and that malignant tumor known as Mark Potok.

  28. My political ideal leans toward that of an enlightened aristocracy.

    Voting would be limited to male, gentile, founding stock landholders of at least 35 years of age who have not been convicted of crimes by a legitimate ruling of the ethnostate. Those termed “citizens” would include voters as well as their spouses and children.

    The purpose of the state is surmised in three points: 1. To protect its citizen’s forefathers from defamation. 2. To protect and further its living citizen’s interests. 3. To ensure the survival of its citizen’s progeny. The government and its institutions will be large enough or small enough, as needed, to enforce the three points.

    Citizens would have their own schools, courts of justice, government services, and community functions designed specifically to serve them. Citizens would have some form of garb with which to identify themselves –as the Romans had the citizen’s toga– and which only they can legally wear. It will be as conspicuous or inconspicuous as needed.

    Citizens would be educated from childhood in rhetoric, dialectic, logic, and other the other political arts so that they would be wise enough to argue in their own interests. The classics, as well as Greek and Latin, will be taught, so as to give the citizens a core set of identifying principles and methods of communication that will further separate them from the non-citizen (helot) classes.

    Children will be rigorously drilled in etiquette. By young adulthood protocol and titles will be used instinctively and reflexively by the nation’s young. Women will be respected, children held to account for their actions, and helots shown mercy.

    Honors and titles will be conferred by the acknowledged wisest of the aristocracy to citizens whose bravery and leadership in martial or trade warfare brings fortune to the ethnostate. Such titles will be /very/ lucrative and /very/ selective. The purpose of these honors is to engender an atmosphere of meritocracy in the nation.

    A department of heredity will be formed to catalog the breeding and bloodlines of the families of the state. This department will resolve of many of the state’s litmuses, and will therefore be of core importance. Think of it as a lofty Parthenon sitting above the utopia being described. Many positions in the state will be limited to citizens of X generations. The department of heredity will be consulted in appointments to such positions and their ruling will be obeyed.

    The highest honor a member of the non-citizen helot class could receive is non-voting citizenship. This will be extremely rare act of kindness by the state. The department of heredity will approve or disapprove of the nomination, and if approved, the helot will be granted land by the aristocracy and given his garb.

    Artisans and craftsman will be of prime importance to the state. Works will be built aesthetically and built to last. The abandoning of disposable culture, by whatever method, will create the need for more craftsmen, and therefore, a demand for more labor. Protective tariffs will ensure goods made on the other side of the world are not cheaper than goods made one mile from a citizen.

    For a rough visual approximation of an enlightened aristocracy, look to the BBC’s “Pride and Prejudice” miniseries of 1995. Manners, morals, aesthetics, logical argument, honor, and wisdom are all in evidence. Conspicuously absent are self-pity, histrionics, vague language, and senseless violence.

    This is a needed thread. I hope to see what others say.

  29. Will that be permitted by whoever’s going to rule the inevitable White Nationalist Reich?

    I doubt it. WN tend to be anti-marijuana, although in my opinion it is just posturing.

    The Aryans had ganja, yanno.

    Yes, Scythians and others did use it.

  30. “I also have a problem with universal suffrage. Mass literacy degraded literature, just as universal suffrage degraded the United States”

    I like an idea I saw once: Modified republic, where voting is based on pro-White, moral behaviors.
    Goes like this: Everybody White, breathing and 21 gets a vote. But, the right to cast EXTRA votes can be earned by such things as marrying, having children, owning property. That way, deadbeats are out-voted by responsible people. It would take a huge majority of deadbeats to out-vote the responsibles on any given issue.

    I think Paul Craig Roberts is right: Free trade with countries like China which use, essentially, slave labor, there is no “comparative advantage,” as those slave-labor countries have an absolute advantage.
    Free trade, when conducted with countries composed of non-European derived peoples is just asking the savages to cut our throats. Tariffs on non-White countries. Free trade with White countries.

  31. [i]I doubt it. WN tend to be anti-marijuana, although in my opinion it is just posturing.[/i]

    I’d hope we’d be anti-marijuana. Marijuana is a disgusting and dangerous drug. People who smuggle, sell, distribute, cultivate, possess, or smoke marijuana should be jailed. I strongly favor the Japanese and South Korean attitude for dealing with potheads – jail’em.

    Marijuana is a dangerous drug, though. Use of marijuana damages the bodies chromosomes and results in children with genetic defects. It also, over time, results in brain-damage.

    The myth that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol has been aggressively promoted by the international drug cartels since the 1960s. Teenagers find this easy to believe because they see many adults who drink alcohol without apparent harm (even though many lives have been destroyed by alcohol). So, some teens feel free to experiment by smoking a little pot and drinking a little alcohol.

    In fact, marijuana is radically different from alcohol and far more dangerous. Marijuana is very deceptive and perhaps as harmful as heroin.

    Alcohol is water soluble and so, when it is absorbed into the body, it dissolves in the blood and stays in the blood as it is carried around the body to various organs. It is gradually eliminated, primarily by being metabolized in the liver and, within hours, no alcohol is left in the body. The hangover that lasts a day or so after heavy drinking is caused by poisons generated by alcohol in the body, not by the alcohol itself.

    Marijuana, on the other hand, acts on the body in a very different way. Marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient, THC, is strongly fat soluble but cannot dissolve in water or in blood. THC is stored for many weeks in the fatty tissues of the body.

    THC is extremely slow acting. THC is one million times more potent than alcohol, but appears to be mild because very little reaches the brain during the “high” and, unlike alcohol, doesn’t leave a hangover.

    When marijuana is smoked regularly, THC accumulates in body fat. The THC is slowly fed back into the blood, and the user gradually slips into a state of continual sedation. In time, the steady presence of THC in the blood damages the brain, the lungs, the immune system, the chromosomes, the hormones, the reproductive system, and sexual development. The frequent pot user becomes passive and devoid of personal ambition.

    Most important, the pot user doesn’t realize what has happened to him because he is sedated all the time. The daily marijuana smoker is in a perpetual fog but doesn’t realize it.

    Because THC is continually present, the body rapidly builds up tolerance to it, and so the pot user is led to smoke more and more to regain the original high. Eventually, the high from pot fails to satisfy, and he may turn to other drugs, including alcohol, to achieve a high. Nevertheless, he usually continues to smoke pot as he uses the other drugs, because pot makes him “feel good all the time.”

    When using alcohol, a regular pot smoker typically drinks to excess because he is constantly numb from his steady THC blood level and requires several drinks to feel an effect. Also, pot strongly inhibits nausea and he can drink heavily without getting sick. Normally, a teenager vomits from excessive alcohol, but one who regularly uses pot can easily hold down a lethal alcohol overdose. Since THC insidiously builds up in the body, experimenting with pot often lures a youngster into a trap of escalating drug and alcohol abuse. It is not alcohol that leads to marijuana abuse; it is marijuana that leads to alcohol abuse.

    Withdrawal symptoms are mild when pot use is abruptly ended because THC cannot be withdrawn rapidly; the body has its own supply. It takes one week of abstinence for the THC stored in fat to drop to half, and one month to drop to 5%.

    Data from scientific studies have been analyzed to describe quantitatively the storage of THC in the body. These data show that the steady THC blood level from smoking one “joint” per day, with 2% THC, would evoke a high in a beginning marijuana smoker. The experienced pot smoker does not feel a constant high, but he is continually sedated.

    The THC in marijuana today is up to 25 times more potent than it used to be. In the 1960s, the THC in pot rarely exceeded 1%, but today may be 12% to 25%.

    Landmark research by Dr. Robert Heath, a world renowned brain researcher, shows the drastic effect of marijuana on the brain. He proved that marijuana’s effect on the brain makes it one of the most dangerous drugs available.

    Public attitudes toward drugs are continually clouded by propaganda from the drug cartels, whose profits from illegal drugs are so immense that they nearly equal the annual expenditures of the U.S. Federal Government. The major drug profits come from heroin and cocaine, but the drug kingpins know that marijuana users, in a constant state of sedation, are their prime market for cocaine and heroin. Without marijuana use, the demand for cocaine and heroin would tend to dry up as the addicts die. As long as the severe dangers of marijuana are obscured, they are assured a steady market for cocaine and heroin.

    Of course, all marijuana smokers do not turn to cocaine and heroin, but a large proportion do. This is why the drug cartels want to legalize marijuana — they would give it away if they could. The drug kingpins know that those inclined to experiment with drugs no longer first try cocaine or heroin (as was common in the 1960s); they go first to marijuana, an insidious trap, and then escalate their drug use to get a bigger high. Since pot is stored in the body for weeks, the user is seductively dragged into a state of continual sedation, his mind becomes confused, and in time his brain is permanently damaged.

    Marijuana has no future in any White ethno-state in my opinion.

  33. When a WN thinks we went wrong largely determines where they stand on this. If we went wrong in the 1960s something like paleoconservatism is good enough. If we went wrong with the New Deal libertarianism might be the cure. If we went wrong with the defeat of the South in the War Between the States then Jeffersonianism will fix us up. If we went wrong with the Reformation then Catholic theocracy and maybe even monarchy may be called for. If, however, we went wrong with the Renaissance then Nietzschism is the ticket.

    Now I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t want to fight a white revolution to restore myself to serfdom. So any plan had better be post-renaissance and grant rights to white men or you can count me out.

  34. OK. If the only marijuana available were the old fashioned 1% THC kind, would you change your mind about jailing users & sellers? Personally, I make no distinction between mood-altering illegal drugs (marijuana) and the ones prescribed by criminals called medical doctors. It’s all the same shit, and they’re all sleazy pushers.

    I have known people who smoke mj day after day and they are almost brain dead; they can barely carry on a conversation and they get angry quickly over nothing. And I know people on prozac-type drugs to whom life is just a bowl o’ cherries, everything’s beautiful. But when they try to stop the drug, the feelings are so bad, physically & mentally, that they would prefer to be put through a bark chipper. And so they go back on their happy pills. I wonder what would happen when our economy breaks down and these drugs are perhaps not available any more. Can you imagine 118,000,000 or so of these druggies going without their antidepressants? Sounds like it will be pure hell for the whole population.

  35. Morally, Alasdair MacIntyre has been the major influence on my views.

    Have you read Who’s Morality,Which Rationality by same?
    A great riposte to all of the conservative Allan Bloom enthusiasts.

    In other words, I believe that morality (at some level) is reducible to aesthetics.

    Very beautiful thought.Karl Popper,otherwise worthless,once said “the Platonic philosopher creates cities for beauty’s sake.” Kind of mirrors my philosophy.However,I think aesthetics and morality essentially function at cross purposes.Aesthetics are “beyond good and evil.” At least in the common sense understanding of those terms.

    Europeans should rule.We would be far better off as a province of Europe than as a sovereign entity..As for the type of European,I would say fascists.Of the pan-European variety.Norman Lowell is a good example.(I have not yet read his Imperium Europa.)

    Back to aesthetics.Which European country is famous for being the most aesthetically refined in the world? Hint:it ain’t Sweden.

  37. Good ol’ Mary Jane is a subject that needs to be taken up more often.

    I’m not gonna stop smoking it. Period. Full stop.

    Marijuana has no future in any White ethno-state in my opinion.

    You’re wrong. It is medicine.

  38. Back to aesthetics.Which European country is famous for being the most aesthetically refined in the world? Hint:it ain’t Sweden.

    Are we talking about France?

  39. Have you read Who’s Morality,Which Rationality by same?
    A great riposte to all of the conservative Allan Bloom enthusiasts.

    Do you mean Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

  40. Felim, interesting post. Lots of stuff in there that I knew little about. Do you have any recommended sites for more information?

  41. ‘It is certainly necessary that there be parties to make agitprop. But the important thing is the network…It is not a “withdrawal,” but a general-purpose strategy. One needs parties, publishers, associations, trade unions. It is necessary that there be in civil society a presence of our ideas. But all the forms of action are necessary: it does not do to want to make metapolitics against politics. All actions, political, cultural, should be connected by the same vision of the world. It is not a strategy of withdrawal, but of spreading out, comparable with that which the Trotskyists had — who are today at the head of the State and of the Catholic Church! – from the ’60s. The French national Right is undermined by the culture of defeat, petty bosses, gossip: the different groups of Muslims and Leftists can detest one other, but they have each and all the same enemies against whom they unite. Whereas for many people of our ideas, the enemy is at first his own political friend, for simple reasons of jealousy!’

  42. Do you mean Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
    Oops! Thanks for the correction daniel.

    Are we talking about France?
    Non.But you’re getting warmer.

  43. Good ol’ Mary Jane is a subject that needs to be taken up more often.

    I’m not gonna stop smoking it. Period. Full stop.

    Thank you, danielj.

    Felim, anti-marijuana zealotry is not my cup of tea. I frankly don’t care for moralizing and the use of an herb for smoking is among the more innocuous things a person could do. My personal experience doesn’t match those extreme claims you’ve made about the stuff either. Experience is a better teacher than medical propaganda.

  44. As Derek Vinyard said, weed is for niggers.

    Yeah, a Neo-Nutzi stereotype from a Judeo-Multikult movie. Real fucking credible. Completely ignoring the fact that Indo-Europeans used it.

  47. Dr. North wants infidels/adulterers to be stoned- to death.

    Not just Dr. North, as I previously indicated. Almost all theonomists and various stripes of Christian Reconstructionists would agree to that.

    What is wrong with stoning adulterers anyway?

  48. Are we talking about France?
    Non.But you’re getting warmer.

    Italia!

    Felim, anti-marijuana zealotry is not my cup of tea. I frankly don’t care for moralizing and the use of an herb for smoking is among the more innocuous things a person could do. My personal experience doesn’t match those extreme claims you’ve made about the stuff either. Experience is a better teacher than medical propaganda.

    I don’t even smoke that much. I can’t because of my CDL, but it just isn’t a big deal. Yeah dig? Who cares about a stupid little plant. I bet our zealot would be begging for opiate pain killers under certain circumstances. Some people, not me, but some people are much better people because they smoke a joint every night.

    If they wanna smoke themselves blind or stupid then it is probably a good thing that it will make them infertile. It is herbal eugenics babe.

  49. FFS, smoke pot if you want, cheat on your wife if you want, do whatever, just accept the responsibility for your actions and don’t sell out your fellow whites. Is it that hard? God will judge you.

    God forbid perverts like the neo-nietzscheans ever get their S&M empire of “superhumans” and “slaves” or potheads forget to protect the homeland because they “got high”.

    Instead of some fantasy utopian White Paradise can we all try to come up with practical tactics that can keep us from being race-replaced and genocided?

    I’m half the mind that the Occidental Bullshit-Artists are wasting our time as much as faileocons and Republican FOX News watchers.

    We’re dying here … OldRight is right at least keep your guns.

  50. @OldRight

    >Home schooling and gun control … if guns are outlawed how can we shoot the Nietzscheans?

    Amen

Comments are closed.