At Imagine 2050, an anti-racist activist notes the difference between old fashioned white supremacy and White Nationalism. I respond:
I would only dispute the third criterion. White Nationalists don’t necessarily believe that non-Whites are racially and culturally inferior.
Most WNs admire Japan and consider it a model worth imitating. I believe Japan is superior to the United States in almost every way.
Here’s a more accurate list of our key beliefs:
1.) We want to create a White ethnostate in North America. Race would be the basis of citizenship in this republic. All non-Whites would be excluded.
2.) We believe multiracial societies are inherently unstable. Racial diversity is strongly related to social fragmentation. See Robert Putnam’s research. We would rather live in tight knit, homogeneous communities than diverse ones.
3.) We don’t believe in racial or cultural equality. Instead, we believe in a spectrum of racial and cultural differences.
4.) We believe Jews should be excluded from our proposed White ethnostate. For various reasons, their inclusion would be detrimental to our racial ideals.
NN, What, you never heard of a wedge issue? The point is to encourage Balkanization, to maximize Balkanization.
A form of de facto segregation, right?
And you think the GJ FedGov will not financially or forcibly redistribute population to compensate? Where did you get the idea that they are stupid and are not two steps ahead of you?
It is obviously the case that whites are more than capable of governing themselves.
This assertion is so contrary to the history of the case, that it has to be regarded as no more than a vain exhortation.
I mean, even the Italic Roman Senatorial class had the formative guidance of the resident Etruscans in militarizing their otherwise civilian society, so enabling them to create, after great struggle and bloodshed, a workable imperial arrangement that even the Greeks could not sustain in their own day.
But you will innocently argue that we want no empire – we just want to live and let live. Yes, children at play…soldiers in the sandbox.
What kind of person refers to their mother in such a disconnected and derogatory way, as a “shiksa?”
You didn’t refer to your father as a kike, so it’s obvious what your frame of mind is.
Considering phenotype, behavior and the Nuremberg Laws, I’d say 1/8th or less Jewish is acceptable.
(Self proclaimed) White Advocate:
He converted to another religion and married my shiksa mother.
If you call your own gentile mother a whore I can imagine what you think of the rest of us.
I’m wary of half jews because even orthodox jewish law allows half of them (those with jewish mothers) to be members of the tribe. I believe that law exists to facilitate jewish infiltration of gentile elites. What better way to seduce a morally weak gentile than with a beautiful jewess?
Since half jews have frequently worked as agents of jewry they must be excluded from a white ethnostate.
“What kind of person refers to their mother in such a disconnected and derogatory way, as a “shiksa?”
“If you call your own gentile mother a whore I can imagine what you think of the rest of us.”
__
Self-hating SCUM of the first order.
“A form of de facto segregation, right?”
We already have that. Yet one is still free to move to low population density areas that are still vastly majority White.
“And you think the GJ FedGov will not financially or forcibly redistribute population to compensate?”
The government already does that, in the form of refugee and immigrant settlement away from large cities, and by subsidizing the spread of section 8 housing into the suburbs.
First Balkanization must become a state of mind.
First Balkanization must become a state of mind.
Only to be thwarted in the state of reality by the very measures you cite, and other such devices yet to be devised, should the former resort prove insufficient.
You must see the GJ military subverted before you can implement any of what you want. You must have organized force at your disposal superior to that of your opposition. Your popularity amongst disorganized civilians counts for little. Septimius Severus.
“This assertion is so contrary to the history of the case, that it has to be regarded as no more than a vain exhortation.”
Perhaps you live in an alternate universe with an alternate history. You can proclaim yourself “superman,” Pontificus Maximus, or Supreme Warlord of the Great Beyond, but you don’t get to rewrite actual history.
Fact: whites have governed themselves for thousands of years. In the process, they created a civilization. This is (other than by you) an undisputed fact. 2 + 2 = 4. Perhaps in bizarro world Western Civilization, and the barbarian tribes before them, were ruled by Africans or space aliens. Those sorry whites just couldn’t govern themselves, don’t ya know? But sorry brah, not in the real world. Perhaps you have more in common with the guys who claim that blacks were riding around in spaceships several thousand years ago?
“As I said before, you’re not allowed to immigrate to any European country either, not just Israel. And Israelis w/o US Citizenship are not allowed to immigrate to the United States. And Europeans don’t you consider you to be one of their people either.”
You are trying to muddy the waters here, and/or are missing the point. I am of European descent. I think any European would acknowledge that. The immigration policy of any given country is not the issue per se, leaving aside the fact that the policies of all white countries are hopelessly screwed up at present. I hesitated to even bring up Right of Return, but included it as an aside. I figured you would jump on it, and ignore the more fundamental issues.
The real issue is that of identity and kinship. There is a broader European/white identity. This does not mean that individual white ethnic groups should not maintain themselves. I believe that they should. But there is still a broader cultural and racial kinship. The Jews, at the end of the day, are outside of this broader family. In fact, they (as a group) are extremely hostile to it, and seek to undermine and destroy it.
If there was any European ethnic group that was particularly hostile to white survival, I would want to exclude them too. Or, even if not overtly hostile, a given European ethnic group was distinct enough from the broader European family that the sense of common identity was unduly strained.
For example, and I should mention that I haven’t given much thought to it, but at first glance I would be inclined to exclude the Muslim populations of the Balkans from the coming white ethnostate. Again, at first glance, they seem to be racially and culturally distinct enough to question whether they belong amongst the traditional European peoples. With Jews, this is a no brainer. Their non-European origins, their racial difference, and their unique hostility to white/European survival, clearly marks them as being outside of the broader white family.
Point is, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere, and it’s probably going to be somewhat arbitrary where you draw it. Perhaps some borderline groups will be tough calls. In my view, Jews are not a tough call at all. Though, admittedly, it’s a difficult call, as I’ve known any number of decent Jews. But at the end of the day we are dealing with group dynamics here, and as I stated before, it is reasonable to expect that even “good” Jews or their descendants will return to the norm, return to the mean. The Jewish norm is anti-white. That’s not the German norm, or the Swiss norm, or the Austrian norm, or the British norm. It is the Jewish norm.
None of the European ethnic groups behave, as a group, the way the Jews do. Jews behave in a unique manner, and yet you expect us to ignore this. We don’t identify with Jews. We see them as alien. And guess what? They see us as alien too. They don’t identify with us. In fact, as a group, they seek to undermine us at every turn. The way you would tell it, this is a sad case of unrequited love on the part of the Jews. Yet it is not unrequited love, for they surely do not love us.
“Only to be thwarted in the state of reality by the very measures you cite, and other such devices yet to be devised, should the former resort prove insufficient.”
Your arguments to the contrary are beginning to take to the form of dogmatism. It is in fact the case that the more experience Whites have with non-Whites the less sympathetic towards them they are. It is indeed fact that when a critical mass of non-Whites move into a formerly White neighborhood Whites move out. As Joe Sobran observed, even the moving patterns of liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan.
“You must see the GJ military subverted before you can implement any of what you want.”
That will not come sufficiently substantively until there is popular support, and a new philosophic outlook that allows our people to articulate their interests. The days of the mutedly anti-Semitic officer corps is long gone. Now tell me, where are men more free to act and think, and what milieu more dispossess itself to that, the regimented world of the Pentagon, or your local coffee house? The officer corps must first have a place to go.
“Your popularity amongst disorganized civilians counts for little.”
The task then is to organize them, but without the right ideas to organize around any attempt will be stillborn. They must come to know the truth about themselves, to become awake to their Europeanness for perhaps the first time; to become aware to principles that serve the life of their people and of the value of that continued life.
Fact: whites have governed themselves for thousands of years. In the process, they created a civilization. This is (other than by you) an undisputed fact. 2 + 2 = 4. Perhaps in bizarro world Western Civilization, and the barbarian tribes before them, were ruled by Africans or space aliens. Those sorry whites just couldn’t govern themselves, don’t ya know? But sorry brah, not in the real world. Perhaps you have more in common with the guys who claim that blacks were riding around in spaceships several thousand years ago?
So it seems in your indiscriminate mind, where all whites are the same, ancient and modern, warrior and peasant, upper and lower class. You, in your ignorance of any specifics as to the history of “civilization,” have evidently not noticed the decline in the quality of “Whites” since the passing of Classical Civilization. The attendant intrusion of culturally and tribally alien international entities has also foregone your attention where mere bigotry has not drawn it.
I would suggest some remedial instruction but for the evident futility of so doing, given the aptitude reflected in your remarkably primitive remarks.
“I would suggest some remedial instruction but for the evident futility of so doing, given the aptitude reflected in your remarkably primitive remarks.”
You employ the singularly jewish technique of attempting to turn the truth on its head. Whites have governed themselves for thousands of years, during the classical period and since. Yet you, stunningly, deny this. Well, who was governing then? Blacks? Space aliens?
If someone says the sky is blue, you’ll say it is green. If someone says 2+2=4, you’ll say it is five.
“You, in your ignorance of any specifics as to the history of “civilization,” have evidently not noticed the decline in the quality of “Whites” since the passing of Classical Civilization.”
My argument has nothing to do with any supposed decline in quality. Poor attempt at a red herring. Whites have governed themselves regardless of any “decline.” Low brow whites, at this very moment, are governing small towns and villages all over the place. They do o.k.
“The attendant intrusion of culturally and tribally alien international entities has also foregone your attention where mere bigotry has not drawn it.”
It hasn’t foregone my attention, it simply has nothing to do with the reality that whites, demonstrably, can govern themselves. According to the “logic” of your sophistry, the Japanese are incapable of governing themselves because they have been influenced by a foreign culture. Since every country has been influenced by other cultures, “nobody” can govern themselves. I guess that leaves the space aliens. Though perhaps they too picked up a long ago beamed version of Leave it to Beaver, were influenced by it, and therefore can’t govern themselves. Impeccable logic, superman.
The reality is that the Japanese and plenty of others (including whites)are more than capable of governing themselves, have been doing so for a very long time, and the fact that they have been influenced by an alien culture does not change that reality. Here’s a hint: in order for sophistry to be effective, it must be clever. Your brand isn’t, superman. It’s just dogmatic contrarianism.
Your arguments to the contrary are beginning to take to the form of dogmatism. It is in fact the case that the more experience Whites have with non-Whites the less sympathetic towards them they are.
You continue to miss the point that it doesn’t matter. This is not a democracy. Fundamental policy is not guided by its popularity.
It is indeed fact that when a critical mass of non-Whites move into a formerly White neighborhood Whites move out. As Joe Sobran observed, even the moving patterns of liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan.
Excellent point – the implication of which is that GJ FedGov will not mistake the implications of what you hope to facilitate and will not shrink from taking the most drastic measures there-against.
“You must see the GJ military subverted before you can implement any of what you want.”
That will not come sufficiently substantively until there is popular support, and a new philosophic outlook that allows our people to articulate their interests. The days of the mutedly anti-Semitic officer corps is long gone.
Indeed. Which means that a discussion with related members of the military must proceed on the basis of first principles, not predisposition. You make assumptions as to support, outlook, and interests that have no foundation in the population (as “uh” has tried to explain to you in terms of your mere projection of these things onto those who are not of your “race” in vital respects.)
Now tell me, where are men more free to act and think, and what milieu more dispo[]ses[] itself to that, the regimented world of the Pentagon, or your local coffee house? The officer corps must first have a place to go.
I propose that the “coffee-house” participants go forth and take the message to the prisoners in the Pentagon and stop wasting time preaching to the choir and performing for the gallery.
“Your popularity amongst disorganized civilians counts for little.”
The task then is to organize them, but without the right ideas to organize around any attempt will be stillborn. They must come to know the truth about themselves, to become awake to their Europeanness for perhaps the first time; to become aware to principles that serve the life of their people and of the value of that continued life.
You mean organize them like the Sturm Abteilung? Unless they are a counter-weight to the military, their “organization” will have as much effect as the Birch Society, or AmRen, at best – whatever their number. You, and others, continue to suffer from the democratic delusion that Jewry cultivates in your unrefined minds.
“It’s a quasi-religious, psycho-sexual thing – we seek purity at all costs. You are impure. We racial Puritans, on the other hand, are pure, and we pride ourselves on our purity.”
I’m actually sympathetic to the notion of Aryan purity. But I don’t think America is the place to seek its preservation, at least not on a large scale. Aryanism as far as I can tell involves the Nordic and Alpine subraces. You already have so much Slavic and Mediterranean (in addition to Jewish) mixing with Aryans here in America that there is already a significant Asiatic and Northern African mixture with whites. I think my own kids (50% Nordic, 25% Alpine, 25% Jew) are probably no less pure than your typical Portugese or Greek or southern Italian — all of whom I would suppose would be allowed in your ethnostate. Due to 19th and 20th Century immigration decisions, America must have a looser standard of whiteness. Let the stricter standard remain in place in Northern Europe and Iceland and perhaps Canada.
“You, and others, continue to suffer from the democratic delusion that Jewry cultivates in your unrefined minds.”
Not at all. Any revolutionary movement requires support (obvious, denied only by a contrarian sophist). This is not a “democratic delusion.” The sky is blue, by the way.
You employ the singularly jewish technique of attempting to turn the truth on its head. Whites have governed themselves for thousands of years, during the classical period and since. Yet you, stunningly, deny this. Well, who was governing then? Blacks? Space aliens?
Some instruction in elementary attention-paying is called for here. My “denial” was and is not as you characterize it, as is evident even from your own recognition that a “supposed decline” was critical to my point. Is misrepresenting opposing argument a Jewish technique? I think that you would say so.
If someone says the sky is blue, you’ll say it is green. If someone says 2+2=4, you’ll say it is five.
How strikingly childish of you to say so.
“You, in your ignorance of any specifics as to the history of “civilization,” have evidently not noticed the decline in the quality of “Whites” since the passing of Classical Civilization.”
My argument has nothing to do with any supposed decline in quality. Poor attempt at a red herring. Whites have governed themselves regardless of any “decline.” Low brow whites, at this very moment, are governing small towns and villages all over the place. They do o.k.
I appears, then, that you now concede, or have not paid attention to, symptoms of decline. And you are correct as to the scale of demonstrable White capability. As before, you now make concessions to my point, after much preliminary bluster.
“The attendant intrusion of culturally and tribally alien international entities has also foregone your attention where mere bigotry has not drawn it.”
It hasn’t foregone my attention, it simply has nothing to do with the reality that whites, demonstrably, can govern themselves. According to the “logic” of your sophistry, the Japanese are incapable of governing themselves because they have been influenced by a foreign culture.
No, we are dealing with the distinction between being “influenced’ and being governed by tribal/cultural aliens, as in the days of Innocent III and FDR.
Since every country has been influenced by other cultures, “nobody” can govern themselves.
And, as above, that is your formulation and not mine.
I guess that leaves the space aliens. Though perhaps they too picked up a long ago beamed version of Leave it to Beaver, were influenced by it, and therefore can’t govern themselves. Impeccable logic, superman.
How old did you say you were?
Here’s a hint: in order for sophistry to be effective, it must be clever. Your brand isn’t, superman. It’s just dogmatic contrarianism.
I smile with mild contempt at your journeyman’s attempts to assume a posture in argument of which you are incapable in confronting a master.
I think my own kids (50% Nordic, 25% Alpine, 25% Jew) are probably no less pure than your typical Portugese or Greek or southern Italian — all of whom I would suppose would be allowed in your ethnostate.
I would exclude the Portugese. They have many negroid features as a result of interbreeding with their slaves.
Any revolutionary movement requires support (obvious, denied only by a contrarian sophist). This is not a “democratic delusion.” The sky is blue, by the way.
Let’s try some instruction in Logic, too.
My point has not involved denying that a revolutionary movement requires “support,” since my point, for those who have been paying attention with elementary logic at their disposal, has been that even a popular (“supported”) revolutionary movement would not succeed where an intact GJ military opposed it (this, rather, was the premise for adjudging your opposing view as (democratically) “delusional”). And that, even were your cause unpopular, you would ultimately triumph with the military at your disposal. Septimius Severus.
Trainspotter, the troll feeds on replies.
“I appears, then, that you now concede, or have not paid attention to, symptoms of decline.”
I was neither conceding nor disputing. I stated, quite clearly, that your argument was a red herring, and not germane to the particular issue at hand. You could not refute my position, so you attempt to change the subject. With your juvenile antics, you give sophists a bad name. They should file a class action lawsuit against you.
“I smile with mild contempt at your journeyman’s attempts to assume a posture in argument of which you are incapable in confronting a master.”
LOL! It’s hard out there for a superman.
Worse, he responds to comments not directed to himself. (See #39, above, with which NN introduced himself to this thread.)
Thus, T., there is no hope of escaping correction for imbecilic contributions, whatever their direction.
[Oldright cultivates false hopes out of inattention to evidence, yet again.]
“My point has not involved denying that a revolutionary movement requires “support,” since my point, for those who have been paying attention with elementary logic at their disposal, has been that even a popular (”supported”) revolutionary movement would not succeed where an intact GJ military opposed it (this, rather, was the premise for adjudging your opposing view as (democratically) “delusional”). And that, even were your cause unpopular, you would ultimately triumph with the military at your disposal. Septimius Severus.”
Again, this has nothing to do with a “democratic delusion,” as you falsely claim. A revolutionary movement requires support (obviously), and whether or not it will be defeated by an intact military depends on the particular circumstances at hand. Its defeat is not pre-ordained, as you falsely suggest, but is certainly possible.
NONE of this requires a “democractic delusion,” or even a belief in democracy at all. A successful revolutionary movement may in fact be strongly anti-democratic. It’s simply about mobilizing one’s power and attempting to reduce your opponent’s power. So, once again, your position is revealed as nothing more than sophomoric b.s. You make ludicrous claims, and then fail to back them up. On the rare occasions when you do try, your statements are easily refuted, not just by elementary logic, but by innumerable historical examples. Now time for a subject change, I know.
I was neither conceding nor disputing. I stated, quite clearly, that your argument was a red herring, and not germane to the particular issue at hand.
You implicitly, if unintentionally, conceded that it was germane by observing that, “Low brow whites, at this very moment, are governing small towns and villages all over the place. They do o.k,” without showing that “high-brow” whites succeed at larger scales. You are at liberty to retract your concession by dealing forthrightly with the latter consideration. You amusingly, “state, quite clearly,” and then proceed to clumsily contradict yourself.
There is no contradiction. My mention of the success of even low brow whites in self-government merely establishes that the broad range of whites can, well, govern themselves. So even if there has been a decline in white quality (which I’m not addressing either way, your silly claims aside), whites are demonstrably, provably capable of governing themselves just fine. Which was the whole point, superman, and it easily refutes your silly assertions.
Hint: if you didn’t make such imbecilic and ludicrous claims, you would find much less need for grasping at straws.
NONE of this requires a “democractic delusion,” or even a belief in democracy at all. A successful revolutionary movement may in fact be strongly anti-democratic. It’s simply about mobilizing one’s power and attempting to reduce your opponent’s power. So, once again, your position is revealed as nothing more than sophomoric b.s.
If you will review the discussion, I did not specify “success” (of anything) as dependent upon popularity.
You argue, rather, not against myself, but against the Captain, to whose remarks I was responding as against *his* emphasis upon popularity:
“That will not come sufficiently substantively until there is popular support, and a new philosophic outlook that allows our people to articulate their interests.” [Captainchaos]
“Your popularity amongst disorganized civilians counts for little.”
[NN]
“The task then is to organize them, but without the right ideas to organize around any attempt will be stillborn. They must come to know the truth about themselves, to become awake to their Europeanness for perhaps the first time; to become aware to principles that serve the life of their people and of the value of that continued life.” [Captainchaos]
“You mean organize them like the Sturm Abteilung? Unless they are a counter-weight to the military, their “organization” will have as much effect as the Birch Society, or AmRen, at best – whatever their number. You, and others, continue to suffer from the democratic delusion that Jewry cultivates in your unrefined minds.” [NN]
The Captain should be pleased with your remark about “b.s.”. I, on the other hand, would endorse the following, consistent with my own position:
“A successful revolutionary movement may in fact be strongly anti-democratic. It’s simply about mobilizing one’s power and attempting to reduce your opponent’s power.” [Trainspotter]
You make ludicrous claims, and then fail to back them up. On the rare occasions when you do try, your statements are easily refuted, not just by elementary logic, but by innumerable historical examples.
Do try to pay attention, and so avoid embarrassing yourself and the Captain with future performances for which you are not equipped.
More sophomoric drivel, superman. I was not disagreeing with the Captain. I seriously doubt that the Captain would disagree that a revolutionary movement requires support. I also don’t think he would disagree that the sky is blue, or 2 + 2 = 4.
I was pointing out that your claims are false. They are. But now the obfuscator attempts to sow dissent, the next stage in his maniacal plan! LOL! Keep trying, superman.
My mention of the success of even low brow whites in self-government merely establishes that the broad range of whites can, well, govern themselves.
We now understand that to have been your intention, but your failure to “establish” its putative implication, then and now, was and is telling of our reasons for believing that implication to be false.
More sophomoric drivel, superman. I was not disagreeing with the Captain.
Do we really need to rehearse the whole conversation again to show that you were disagreeing with him and agreeing with me?
I was pointing out that your claims are false. They are. But now the obfuscator attempts to sow dissent, the next stage in his maniacal plan! LOL! Keep trying, superman.
I smell haste and desperation in these latter remarks. They have the scent of one’s having been caught out and then trying to pull up one’s pants in time.
But let us not be cruel. Let us rather reflect upon a common perspective having emerged amidst this unpleasantness.
“We now understand that to have been your intention, but your failure to “establish” its putative implication, then and now, was and is telling of our reasons for believing that implication to be false.”
The sky is blue, superman. Have at it. One cannot reason with ignorance and dishonesty.
“I smell haste and desperation in these latter remarks. They have the scent of one’s having been caught out and then trying to pull up one’s pants in time.”
LOL? WTF? Caught out on what? Superman, I’ll give you one thing, you’ve got a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for sophomoric trolling. I mean, damn. Costume clown sans costume, and what have you got?
Caught out on what?
Addressing the Captain’s remarks under the mis-impression that they were mine – and then deriding said remarks as “nothing more than sophomoric b.s.”
But you will, of course, not own up to having done so.
And I am, nevertheless, trying to let you leave your awkward position behind by rejoicing in the convergence of viewpoints I quoted, wherein you and I agree on the very criticism of the Captain that you misdirected at me. Take a hint.
BIG TUFFEE
BREAK U ALL
LOL @ junk-food Nietzsche, bogged down in clumsy schtick…
“I BIG JEW SOOPERMAN!
I SMARTER THAN U ALL!
I BUY MANY CHIMICHANGAS AT COSTCO FOR CHEEP!”
BORGOM NO LIKE FAIRY IMITADER
BORGO SMASH!!!!
HE BIG TUFFEE
B R A K E U
Please cut out the silly comments. Also, I don’t want to shut down another thread.
White Advocate:
@69, Old Right: thanks for your answer. I keep having to reformulate the question I keep trying to get answered but never do. One more try. Why are anti-white views more dangerous when they are held by Jews, or half-Jews, or quarter-Jews, than when they are held by white Gentiles?
Two good answers to that. One, because they’re genetic. That’s my answer. Two, jews are not just opposed to whites, because of their religion and culture they’re fanatically opposed. They spend far more time and money working against white interests than most white liberals do.
As Hunter has been proving jews are the spearhead of the left in the United States. Remove jewish power and the movement to destroy whites would quickly disintegrate.
Anti-white whites just aren’t that common, and their children are likely to revert to the white norm. The offspring of jews are likely to revert to the jewish norm, which is criminal, anti-white and anti-social.
Re: uh: He didn’t lie when he said he was a Silverian, once having expended his bag of rhetorical tricks, he is a spent force. Let it be noted, Silver is certainly the more talented troll, to my eye a better writer, and a man who engages our issues with more courage and sincerity despite his serious misgivings.
NN,
The present day Big Brass are less warriors and leaders of men than they are politicians who one day hope to make it to the Big Leagues of punditite talking-heads on 24/7 news channels; or to one day be addressed as Senator, Congressman, even perhaps President.
I see no contradiction in asserting that a potential mass movement be ‘popular’, in the sense that it enjoy popular support and be populist in character, yet also be undemocratic in its structure. Was this not true of National Socialism? Yes.
The present day Big Brass are less warriors and leaders of men than they are politicians who one day hope to make it to the Big Leagues of punditite talking-heads on 24/7 news channels; or to one day be addressed as Senator, Congressman, even perhaps President.
I understand this to be increasingly so, if not completely so.
So time is of the essence in getting to friends and relatives in the military – it may well be too late already. In which worst case one best brush up on survival skills, for the last hope for a civilized solution is passed.
I see no contradiction in asserting that a potential mass movement be ‘popular’, in the sense that it enjoy popular support and be populist in character, yet also be undemocratic in its structure. Was this not true of National Socialism? Yes.
Yes. But you seem to have issues with T. over whether an *unpopular* movement can succeed. And issues with me over whether a merely *popular* movement can succeed. I do not recall the issue as that of your having contradicted yourself.
“But you will, of course, not own up to having done so”
I would be more than happy to “own up,” I’m just not aware of any particular disagreement in this thread. Rather than repeating ad nauseum how much I disagree with the Captain, why not provide the exact quote (or better yet, post #), not taken out of context, that you imagine me to disagree with? Most recently, the Captain said this:
“I see no contradiction in asserting that a potential mass movement be ‘popular’, in the sense that it enjoy popular support and be populist in character, yet also be undemocratic in its structure. Was this not true of National Socialism? Yes.”
In my view, this is absolutely correct. So what do I need to own up to?
“Please cut out the silly comments. Also, I don’t want to shut down another thread.”
I don’t know. I’m inclined to believe that comments 132-134 were the best in the thread. The Costco line was pure genius. “Big Tuffie” has also grown on me.
For someone as intelligent as NN professes to be, there seems to be a gigantic blind spot in his thinking. To wit: Jewry is all powerful, and likewise “Greater Judea,” no small part of which comes from its monolithic and conscious will, from all people and at all levels involved in the System, to exterminate our people. And what is more, our people are too hopelessly obtuse and lacking in ethnocentrism to even be considered a people as such. That is delusional. Talking with average White people about these things will dispel his doubts, as it does mine, when they creep in.
Junk-food Nietzsche’s schtick is less than impressive. We’ve heard it a thousand times before from more persuasive and subtle trolls: “We Jews are all-powerful! We have already won! Your people have always been our pawns; you have never built a civilization of your own! Beethoven was a Jew! So was Mozart! Give up! Give up! MUAHAHAHAHA!”
We’ve heard it all before, evil-Jew-genius-dude. You just missed Halloween.
So what do I need to own up to?
Nothing with which you have yet been reproached, now that I finally understand the basis of your disturbance of the discussion with the Captain, to wit:
You failed to understand that which was obvious, from reading my exchange with the Captain, that by “democratic delusion” was meant the expectation, and anticipated success, of popular support for WN, rather than advocacy of democracy.
Mischaracterizing my argument thus, in your own mind, you went on to say:
NONE of this requires a “democractic delusion,” or even a belief in democracy at all. A successful revolutionary movement may in fact be strongly anti-democratic…So, once again, your position is revealed as nothing more than sophomoric b.s.
Not then realizing your understanding of “democratic delusion” as other than I clearly represented it, I took your use to be my own, and thus as an argument aligned with my own, contra the Captain.
So your initial failure to grasp the argument, combined with considerable animus and an eagerness to seize upon a misstep that was in fact your own, led you to a “sophomoric” misconstruction and mischaracterization of my position, as above.
The issue as it originally stood – “the expectation, and anticipated success, of popular support for WN” – has thus not been advanced by your clumsy intrusion into the discussion with the Captain.
The issue of popular support for a revolutionary movement is not necessarily either/or. There are plenty of historical examples of revolutionary movements that succeeded with a very small cadre of dedicated supporters. Others have succeeded with broader support. There is no one size fits all, and there are legitimate arguments for both approaches. Or combining the approaches, if possible.
Of course, there is the issue of finite resources, and one may have to choose: put the energy into developing a small but highly motivated Vanguard, or invest in developing a broader base. Ideally, one can do both. Right now, at the current stage of our development, I’m more swayed by the Vanguardist school. We need a head, with the hope that the body will follow.
However, especially with the ability to cheaply produce and disseminate propaganda over the internet, some targeting of the masses also seems to be in order. In our current situation we can work on each of these objectives without unduly hampering the other.
Ideas take time to percolate through the body politic. As I’ve mentioned before, I was active in libertarian circles during my misspent youth. Back then (almost twenty years ago), seemingly nobody called themselves a libertarian. To meet someone who even had a substantial familiarity with libertarianism was unusual. Most people, if they had heard about it at all, just thought it meant smoking pot, and maybe being an atheist.
These days, it is frankly weird for me to see how far those ideas have spread into the broader masses. It is now normal to hear people say, “Well, I’m a libertarian…but I usually vote Republican.” Something like that. These aren’t intellectuals, either. Again, twenty years ago, you would just never hear something like that. Now it happens all the time.
None of this changes the reality that libertarianism will not succeed, because ultimately it is deaf, dumb, and blind. There are huge and growing demographic blocs that will never accept libertarianism, and the libertarians are too politically correct to attempt to break off from those blocs. Therefore, failure is baked into the cake. Government is, if anything, far more intrusive than it was twenty years ago.
And yet the ideas have spread. It is worth examining how this has been done, and how we can replicate the spread of our own ideas, while not falling into the dead end that libertarianism has. Almost twenty years ago, I was confident that libertarian ideas would spread substantially over time. They have.
Today, I am equally confident that the ideas of white nationalism will spread. My prediction is that there are going to be a helluva lot more of us in the years to come. The problem we have, that libertarians don’t (or at least are too politically correct to admit), is that we are running out of time. Hopefully we can speed this process up by at least a few years. I’m hopeful that the internet can help us do that.
Talking with average White people about these things will dispel his doubts, as it does mine, when they creep in.
Would you characterize “NeoMachiavelli” as below, at, or above average, as a “white person”?
Think carefully about your answer, as the dispelling of doubts otherwise well-founded, depend thereupon.
“You failed to understand that which was obvious, from reading my exchange with the Captain, that by “democratic delusion” was meant the expectation, and anticipated success, of popular support for WN, rather than advocacy of democracy.”
In other words, your repated claims that I was in disagreement with the Captain were false. Further, perhaps you should strive for more clarity in your writing. It was quite clear in my post on the issue (which you quote above) what my interpretation of “democratic delusion” was. Such a phrase can mean any number of things; there is no one definition carved in stone. If my interpretation was other than you meant it, you could have easily clarified the situation. It would have taken a competent writer approximately one sentence to do so. But could you do that? Of course not. That would have been too clear, too substantive. Instead you’ve got to go on a long parade of bungled assertions and fallacious posts, all as part of the show.
Clarity is a virtue, NN. But costumers prefer the show, as form is worshiped over substance.
Old Right, are you saying that you believe that while Jewish behavior is genetically determined, non-Jewish behavior is not? That Jewish behavior is innate, while white behavior is learned?
Do you have any scientific or physical evidence for these beliefs?
For someone as intelligent as NN professes to be, there seems to be a gigantic blind spot in his thinking. To wit: Jewry is all powerful, and likewise “Greater Judea,” no small part of which comes from its monolithic and conscious will, from all people and at all levels involved in the System, to exterminate our people. And what is more, our people are too hopelessly obtuse and lacking in ethnocentrism to even be considered a people as such.
Please quote me to the effect of any of this, that I might revise such statements, or please retract this summary in preservation of your dignity. And please do not, as seemingly is the case above, attribute to me the statements of uh, whose extreme statements I find closer to the truth than the alternatives generally expressed in this venue, but which, nevertheless, do not represent my own assessments as to the measure of things.
That’s where leadership comes it, man. Have as many chiefs as you want, but without enough Indians ain’t shit gonna get done.
“Please quote me to the effect of any of this,”
But if that isn’t your position then why all the doom and gloom?