An interesting phenomenon has occurred regarding Sarah Palin. The intellectuals of the ‘dust-covered right’, affectionately known as the ‘paleo-conservatives’, have joined the neoconservatives and leftists in heaping scorn on the former governor of Alaska.
One such diatribe appeared today by an otherwise good writer, Paul Gottfried, while many other similar ones have appeared over the past few months in various locations. The crux of the complaint is that Palin is uneducated and revels in her lack of worldly knowledge, and appeals to those equally uneducated and reveling in lack of worldly knowledge, and this is bad because one should aspire to education and knowledge. Objectively, they have a very valid point.
To put this objective analysis in context, a quite interesting study was recently released declaring that “Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ” The study explains that “The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past.” This matches with other studies showing gays to have higher than average IQ. To override natural instincts requires an act of conscious brainpower, and those with greater brainpower are more likely to be able to overcome their natural instincts.
As noted in the article: “The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people.” “Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with,” he said. Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach — looking out for the people around you first — fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. “It’s unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers.” he said.
The study also hypothesized “Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with “unconventional” philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be “ways to communicate to everyone that you’re pretty smart,” he said.”
This explains the obsession with ‘objectively’ which has forever plagued our people. In one sense, it is essential for those at the top of society to maintain some sense of objectivity, in order to prevent society from degenerating into an African-style melee of constantly warring clans, gangs, and mafias. Yet, like many elements of liberalism, it has been elevated to the level of a religion, one which even the ‘anti-liberal’ intellectuals like Gottfried have fallen prey to.
From an unobjective standpoint, Palin and her legions of followers aren’t that bad, as far as white interests go. If every family was like the Palins: 5 children, self sufficient, and proud of both, this would erect a tremendous barrier to the jewish plan to permanently displace whites in America and all other countries. The demographic war on our people would be halted or reversed, and whites would not be so beholden to the Bolshevik style nanny-state.
Obviously Palin and friends have some flaws: support of Israel and the dysgenic ‘culture of life’ policies advanced by the evangelical Christians and embodied in Palin’s flaunting of her Down Syndrome child. However, the most important central, uniting goal of jews has never been support for the state of Israel, but creating a safe haven for the diaspora in the way described by longtime activist Earl Raab in his 1995 book ‘Jews and the New American Scene’: “The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.
We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible ‘and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.”
This ‘American climate of opposition to bigotry’ they have been nourishing is the ‘objectivity as a religion’ to which conservative intellectuals, even iconoclasts like Gottfried, have fallen prey to. This is what we must take in mind when we review the criticism by ‘conservative intellectuals’ of Palin and friends which is most applauded by race realists: that Palin and the ‘Tea Party’ crowd are uneducated and revel in their ‘ignorance’. As noted before, this an objectively valid criticism. But how bad is it?
The average working and middle class white people may not be brimming with intellectual vigor, but neither are they suicidically stupid. Most people note cause and effect in some form, and are aware at some level that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If a series of ships sailing to a particular area disappear, people stop sailing there. If people who get bit by a certain type of snake tend to die, people stay away from snakes that look like that. Rats and the bubonic plague are a prime example: the rats were not actually carriers of the disease, it was fleas on the rats, a fact which few if any of them knew. Yet they figured out if rats appeared, the bubonic plague appeared as well, thus it was best to keep the rats away.
This describes the current situation regarding most middle and working class white Americans and their views of ‘intellectuals.’ They don’t know that 22% of Ivy League students are jewish. They don’t know that a large portion of university professors, much of the ‘mainstream media’, conservative think tanks, and ‘respectable’ conservative pundits such as Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, David Brooks, and Bill Kristol are jewish. They wouldn’t believe it if you told them, and would call you a ‘crazy nazi conspiracy theorist.’ If they did get it into their heads that this was so, they’d insist from the bottom of their hearts that it didn’t matter.
Yet, they know something is wrong. They trusted the liberal elites to run the country of the ‘Great Society’, and the country got screwed up. They threw them out and replaced them with Republicans, who drew on their network of think tanks to staff their administration, and things didn’t get any better. They threw them out and replaced them with smart, sensible, calm, clean, articulate Obama, and things continued to get worse. People of the Palin fan type have figured this out, and concluded that relying on elites and suits has led to the demise, therefore they shall revel in anti-intellectualness and lack nuanced reasoning and worldly knowledge.
As noted by Gottfried in his recent article: “Sarah’s prominence on the American right might seem to some to be disproportionate to what she has shown in terms of verbal facility or knowledge about current events…when she displayed a woeful ignorance of foreign affairs, was not a leftist ambush but a shocking revelation.”
This actually appeals to her fans, as Gottfried finds: “Sarah taps a populist vein, which is peculiarly American. Unlike its European bourgeois counterpart, typified by a movement such as the Lega Nord, American populism equates corniness with anti-elitism.” “Further, her education at a community college and at the University of Idaho renders her even more attractive to those who are already inclined to like her: her lack of impressive educational credentials betokens the lack of the snobbery that is identified with the bearers of Princeton or Harvard degrees.”
Gottfried, like others in the ‘intellectual conservative movement’, reacts with dismay: “If the American Left stresses victimhood, managerial control, and Political Correctness, then the American populist Right exalts PLAINNESS. In a campaign speech I heard the then Republican governor of Wisconsin Lee Dreyfuss give in Madison in 1980, the speaker electrified the crowd by proclaiming: “We’re all descended from the scum and refuse of the Old World.” As Dreyfuss finished this sentence, the ecstatic lady sitting next to me cried out: “That was really rightwing!” That, by the way, was the last time I attended a Republican rally, as a party member or even as an outsider.”
Simply giving up and dismissing these people as worthless is the wrong path to take. For a people to adopt a new way of thinking, they must first throw off the old way of thinking. This is how the radical multiculturalists came into power through cultural Marxism: before the tenents of cultural Marxism could be established as policy, they first had to destroy the old order, which is why they relentlessly attacked Christianity, patriotism, ‘family values’, and everything associated with the old traditional way of thinking. Once these institutions were destroyed, they were able to move in and establish a new order, a Bolshevik style nanny state.
We are now at the stage where the Bolshevik style nanny state is beginning to crumble, insofar as its mental hold on the white masses goes, aided by new forms of communication which make it more difficult for the jewish led elites to conceal the fact that their nanny state can’t deliver on the promises it made. For people to be able to once again adopt a folkish way of life, it is essential that their misplaced trust in the institutions of the Bolshevik style nanny state be destroyed.
Under this analysis, the anti-intellectualism and anti-establishmentism of the Palin fans should be encouraged and embraced, rather than ridiculed and looked upon with disdain. Not because it is facially good at an objective level to mock intellectuals, and not that Palin offers any great alternative plan, but because the current intellectual establishment in charge is fully determined to crush and destroy any chance of a white homeland. Before people will tune in to us, they must first tune out the garbage emitted by the current establishment.
Once we step outside the trap of objectivity, we can analyze the anti-intellectualism of the Palin fans in the light of “is this good for whites?” Clearly it is, as it is combats the demographic war on whites, and blocks the transmissions of the cultural Marxists that currently occupy America’s educational system and ‘inside the beltway’ establishment.
NeoNietzsche, the more of you I read, the more convinced I am of your viewpoint. But I will never be a Nietzsche scholar, so do you have any practical advice on how we can propagandize the military, or otherwise turn at least a significant fraction of the officer corp and troops to our side? You have said a coup is highly unlikely, what is the most plausible path to victory and how can we start taking the first steps?
I get the point. I leave the universalist moral sentiments to women and children, and I do not bother trying to “win any arguments” with the enemy. I’m more interested in substantial victory. How do we take your philosophy and start putting it into practice?
HRW:”This explains the obsession with ‘objectively’ which has forever plagued our people.”
Copyediting – “objectivity,” not “objectively”
An important subject is why is the average white so anti-intellectual?
Knowledge, like money, grows with interest. Early investments pay big dividends.
Jews know that.
Whites love sports, “looking good”, in a sense whites have become the nigger of the Jew.
In a recent discussion a back-handed complimet was paid to “nerds” who love Tolkien, Dungeon and Dragons and other white role-playing games.
While white “elites” spend their after-school hours playing football and cheerleading, these “Beta” whites imagine themselves as ancient aryan (ie pre-christian) heroes fighting the zoroastrian war of good versus evil.
Over the long term, which one is more the nigger of the Jew? Both? I don’t know. But it is worth thinking about the training of the spirit that various forms of play accomplish.
A tie in to the above comment: read “The Nemesis of the Inferior,” a chapter from the important book THE REVOLT AGAINST CIVILIZATION – http://users.mo-net.com/mlindste/revtciv3.html
I get around a rock that stands in my way, till I have powder enough to blast it; I get around the laws of a people, till I have gathered strength to overthrow them.
That is, you stand as helpless before the rock as before the people, and your “own” counts for nothing, Saint Max.
@Greg,
“Democracy requires extraordinary things from ordinary people. That is why it cannot work.”
What system are you advocating? Autocratic and oligarchic do not have many of the problems of democracy, but suffer from some possibly worse ones. For example, a single maniacal autocrat can bring the entire nation and people to ruin. Undemocratic regimes are also inherently unstable, as they are often unresponsive to the populace, who are liable to revolt.
Our democracy seemed to function tolerably well until women received the right to vote. It seems that a democracy with limits similar to ancient Athens (the vote limited to male property owners at least 30 years of age) has a lot to recommend it, especially if paired with a constitution that limited citizenship racially.
@Sam,
“We need to keep organizing the remaining Whites in this country, but should give up on taking back America. The only real hope is a secessionist movement or a mass migration to another less populated country. ”
I agree with you that a secession is probably the most likely outcome of this growing mess. The Northwest seems the most likely land area for a future White ethnostate.
“And both scenarios will very likely only succeed with a war-of-independence.”
I dont think that a war is in the cards. As the US slouches toward Brazil, the nation’s ability to prevent secession will decline, as will Whites’ allegiance. It will be natural for several majority-White states to contemplate secession, particularly for fiscal reasons, as non-Whites are a sizable financial drain (in addition to causing social problems like crime). A secession movement would probably be able to succeed with a long period of civil disobedience, protests and non-violent opposition (such as blocking important roads and doing everything possible to make the national government and economy a disfunctional mess, so they would be well rid of the secessionists). The secession might also take the form of becoming an autonomous region within the US (being part of the nation mostly in name only).
There are several possible scenarios, but I believe the above is the most likely one, and we will see this occur around the year 2050-2060.
Andrew
Agreed
Agree with the last part, but not the first – you can’t blame our current predicament on women. The earliest suffragettes supporting sending non-whites back to their country of origin, voted to stop their husbands from spending the grocery money on hard liquor in saloons, and helping elderly and orphans. None of that brought down white America. You could make an argument that the woman vote turned toxic after mass media/radio and tv, but men’s vote took a turn for the worse as well.
If there is any future for a traditional American republican-democratic Jeffersonian type system, it’s probably going to have to be based on state sovereignty and limited franchise/citizenship.
But as long as the average white American man spends gets his information from the Jew-Tube or Ann Coulter’s website or Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, there’s zero point in bothering with them. Sheeple need a shepherd. Either replace JewTube/FOX/Hannity as the primary brainwashing of white men, or write them off.
This article promotes gay sex, and claims gay men are more intelligent then their heterosexual counterparts, conveniently based on some kind of study, this is absurd. See here from the article above:
“To put this objective analysis in context, a quite interesting study was recently released declaring that “Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ” The study explains that “The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past.” This matches with other studies showing gays to have higher than average IQ. To override natural instincts requires an act of conscious brainpower, and those with greater brainpower are more likely to be able to overcome their natural instincts.”
Right. Right. To override your “natural” instinct would be to override your sexual instinct all together. This is simply promoting gay sex as superior to heterosexual sex and stating that gay men are more intelligent tent then heterosexual men. Great.
In terms of fighting for the interests of Whites, the three best presidents were Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, and James Polk. All three men were sparsely educated, backcountry Democrats. (If someone can think of a more deserving three, feel free to object). Of course, they didn’t have to deal with the Israeli lobby back then.
I’m not saying a political solution will work but there is still time to try one.
Yes, a political solution is still possible, but the proportion of the white vote required for electoral success rises with every election, and even at this point a solid bloc vote is necessary to comprise a majority of the electorate.
In the Fall 2001 issue of The Occidental Quarterly, Richard McCulloch’s article “The Ethnic Gap” ( http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v1n1/TOQv1n1McCulloch.pdf ) discussed ethnicity and the 2000 election. In that election, a North and Central European (NCE) group (“consisting of the ‘Old Americans’ (i.e., WASPs) and those other racially similar groups who have largely assimilated into the ‘Old American’ group and its culture”) comprised about 70% of the electorate.
From the article:
As McCulloch says, “the possibility of creating an NCE voting bloc capable of restoring NCE ethnic interests by electoral means is in a race against time.”
McCulloch also notes that it would still be a major step forward if a majority of NCE voters supported an openly pro-NCE party, even if it was not enough support for an electoral victory.
From the article:
While the article may be an interesting analysis over whether anti-intellectualism is some sort of implicit anti-semetism, Sara Palin is not someone clever enough to manipulate it to get in and set things straigt. I easily see here being another tool like Bush but please people no more of this crank “Sarah Palin is a race-mixer” stuff. It is obvious that her husband is just another fashion conscious white playing up some minor Native blood way back when. Just look at the guy, he doesn’t look like the crazy drunken eskimos I see on National Geographic Channels Alaskan State Troopers show. I can’t begin to fathom just how many times some white has said something to me about “I’ve got some Cherokee in me.” Probably either a way to be fashionable, or to try to resolve themselves innocent of “white original sin” by having some sort of claim to the new PC birthright of minorities.
Let’s grant that Bill Clinton has an IQ of 110. That’s above average, but barely. So Clinton is a mediocrity too, like Palin. In fact, they have a lot in common.
Andrew: The system I think best is the mixed constitution as outlined by Aristotle, which has popular, aristocratic, and monarchical elements all under the rule of law that aims at the common good. The US system was originally designed on this model. For popular government to work, however, there must be a radically limited franchise.
So, all we need is for the women to vote to give up their votes, the blacks to vote to give up their votes, the envious mediocrities of all descriptions to vote to give up their votes, the unemployed, the improvident, the impecunious to vote to give up their votes. The fact that this is never going to happen means that once democracy gets firmly entrenched, it cannot generate the kind of leadership a healthy society needs.
Populist distrust of the intelligent, the gentlemanly, the aristocratic, or even the merely wealthy is part of the problem. It is not part of the solution.
I easily see here being another tool like Bush but please people no more of this crank “Sarah Palin is a race-mixer” stuff. … I can’t begin to fathom just how many times some white has said something to me about “I’ve got some Cherokee in me.” Probably either a way to be fashionable, or to try to resolve themselves innocent of “white original sin” by having some sort of claim to the new PC birthright of minorities.
Whether or not Sarah Palin’s husband has Amerindian ancestry, it is not crankery to quote Palin bragging about how he does and how “diverse” her family is. Palin used her family’s “diversity” as a club with which to attack Harry Reid as “racist” (there is nothing pathetic conservatives love more than to call liberals anti-black “racists.”).
This serves to illustrate how awful Palin is when it comes to race. On this issue, there is no difference between her and your average leftist. She has completely accepted and internalized the anti-white premises which pervade our society.
Sarah Palin is in no way on our side. She is a pro-immigration, pro-multiracial neocon. Implicit whiteness is useless.
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/elsewhere/sarah-palin-pc-purist/
Sarah Palin – PC Purist
the new PC birthright of minorities
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2010/03/02/black-man-demands-10-million-for-being-pulled-over/
Here is a post by James Edwards on how the term “minority” has become a title of nobility while whites are peasants.
Another look at “the ethnic gap”
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2000/americas_tribes
half of the “NCE bloc” supports black and Jewish interests, while the other half has “white ethnic” Catholics, including non-“NEC” types, as allies.
Why not then a pro-white Euro-American bloc?
NeoNietzsche, the more of you I read, the more convinced I am of your viewpoint. But I will never be a Nietzsche scholar, so do you have any practical advice on how we can propagandize the military, or otherwise turn at least a significant fraction of the officer corp and troops to our side? You have said a coup is highly unlikely, what is the most plausible path to victory and how can we start taking the first steps?
1) Speak to military personnel of your own acquaintance regarding your concerns.
2) If they seem receptive, direct them to the IHR for revisionist history in how the GJ military has been used for none but alien purposes for the past century.
3) If they come back to you for more, direct them to “superhuman”.
There are several possible scenarios, but I believe the above is the most likely one, and we will see this occur around the year 2050-2060.
Beautiful – North America will be at its weakest just when the Asian Alliance (Russia-China) will be ready to attack.
The Devil finally collects on his bargain, having been patient for a century.
half of the “NCE bloc” supports black and Jewish interests, while the other half has “white ethnic” Catholics, including non-“NEC” types, as allies.
Why not then a pro-white Euro-American bloc?
If your point is that there is no pro-NCE party and that many NCEs work against their own interests, then of course that is obviously true. What we want to do create an NCE bloc which supports explicit NCE interests.
If your objection is to making a distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans, I recommend Richard McCulloch’s reply to criticism of his article in the Summer 2002 issue of The Occidental Quarterly (“On the European Ethnic Gap: A Rejoinder to Rienzi and Torriani” – http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v2n2/TOQv2n2McCulloch.pdf ).
You may be bringing up the issue of political versus racial trade-offs, a topic McCulloch discusses.
From the article:
If racial interests trump the political, that should have been openly stated in the original essay, instead of questionable assertions of ethnic voting patterns.
Not everyone agrees that the most distinct Nordish types would be eliminated in a more general Euro-American ethnostate; in any case, the ethnostate could be set up to create subracially distinct regions as well (see below).
However, if it is true that the most distinct types would be harmed by a more general Euro-American ethnostate, then there are a number of possibilities that can be considered to deal with this problem, while at the same time appealing to all (racially aware) Euro-Americans. The point is to bring all Euro-Americans “to the table” and see what can be worked out. If you a priori exclude a significant fraction of this population from the conversation, then you create a self-fulfilling prophecy of their opposition.
I agree gaps.
There’s a Euro-American Racio-Cultural Group that has developed and excluding them because they aren’t distinct enough examples of types that evolved for life in another Continent seems foolish to me.
Obviously once an Ethnostate was created policies could be implemented to encourage assortive mating along types of racial stock, so that the more Nordic strains could maintain themselves.
For example, special schools could be set up Nordics proud enough of their specific heritage that they’d want to send their children to a place where they’d only be Nordic students and where the studies would concentrate on things like Nordic History and the Eddas.
Plus with the Cities freed up from Minorities, the Italians will almost certainly prefer to live in more Urban areas (so often Italians were the last Euros to give up the essentially unwinnable fight against Government Empowered Blacks), whereas the Nordics will have a more rural orientation.
“Beautiful – North America will be at its weakest just when the Asian Alliance (Russia-China) will be ready to attack.”
You say that like its a bad thing!
“Better to wear the helmet of a Red Army soldier then live on a diet of hamburgers in Brooklyn!” — Alain de Benoist
In his article today on Geert Wilders, Paul Belien writes:
Wilders regards support for Israel as the litmus test to decide with whom he is willing to cooperate.
Nightowl, it doesn’t matter what her husband looks like, he’s one quarter Inuit. Would you have the same reaction if he was partially negro? Just because the genes are more recessive doesn’t make it any better or more desirable. If you think it doesn’t matter your wrong. It’s obvious from looking at todays 20 somethings that many of their parents didn’t practice racial hygiene. They don’t look the same as they did when I was that age. I see more darker features, darker eyes, shorter bodies, bad skin, odd frames and traces of Amerindian, oriental and negro in their facial features. This pollution is probably one factor why the White race is in decline. Before I stir up any controversy on here let me add that I think if you look White and act White, I consider you White (barring any Jewish DNA). However, your not doing your race any favors by breeding children who aren’t as genetically pure as they should be and you should consider adopting or invitrofertilization with donor egg/sperm. I don’t know the percentage of Whites with at least 1/16 nonwhite DNA but I’m sure it’s significant. We must maintain purity otherwise we fall into our enemies trap of race being a social construct.
Someone help me out here. What has Sarah Palin said or done that would warrant any attention from the White community in the first place???? Like Obama, she’s a media creation being used to manipulate the politically unsophisticated.
Where is the populist distrust of wealth in America? Donald Trumps books are best sellers. Everyone wants to be rich or famous. There is not a populist distrust of wealth or money.
As far as distrust of the hyper elite, who influence the law, it is exactly the opposite, they do not trust the White middle class and have worked feverishly and successfully so far to totally ruin and dispossess Whites. This is a fact, jobs have been sent over seas, then the “elite” blames Whites for their own fate. To them Whites are less then Mexicans and not even allowed free assembly. And Whites should trust this because?
“That is, you stand as helpless before the rock as before the people, and your “own” counts for nothing, Saint Max.”
It does not say stand, it says, “get around”. Is that the best you got Karl Marx?
Lena: the elites that the masses distrust and should distrust are products of giving the masses too much power. This is why we should not rejoice at populist trends. This is why people should not think that Sarah Palin’s current popularity is anything but a bad sign.
I too do not get the Palin phenomenon. Sure I was fascinated with her for 15 minutes, until it became apparent that:
1. She is not too bright.
2. She was an affirmative action baby.
3. She is married to a non-white and has five Mischling children, one of them a retard whom she did not have the good sense to abort. How exactly does that make her pro-white, even implicitly? Her deepest convictions are race-destroying.
4. She is a well-catechized Christian Zionist who has outsourced her thinking to Jews.
5. She is bad on immigration.
What more does one need?
Why are people in our circle still mulling over and trying to find virtues in Sarah Palin more than a year after she came to the national stage? If this were a wine tasting, we would have spat her out immediately and that would have been that.
Greg: I agree with you about Palin, and I am not defending her perverse popularity.
My point above was questioning this notion that average Americans dislike wealth and power, it is not the case. And I was also showing that it is the elite that has worked fanatically against average middle class and poor Whites not visa versa, and has succeeded in rendering them powerless to the point of denying freedom of association. I do not accept that Whites have done this to themselves, and I certainly do not believe White women are the cause. That is cruel and absurd..
“There are several possible scenarios, but I believe the above is the most likely one, and we will see this occur around the year 2050-2060.
Beautiful – North America will be at its weakest just when the Asian Alliance (Russia-China) will be ready to attack.”
There are several problems with the above statement. First, the secession of Whites into a separate ethnostate would not necessarily weaken the US any more than it already was. North American nations would still be likely to work together for national defense purposes. Having 1 Canada, 1 Ethnostate and 1 US would not be substantially different than having 1 Canada and the US, if all are in alliance.
Second, from a strategic perspective, I do not see any reason why China would ever wish to attack the US. China can achieve all of its aims without confrontation. Its resource needs are met fairly easily through African colonization and Asian hegemony. Sub-saharan Africa offers easy conquest and plentiful amounts of everything from arable land to minerals.
Third, I do not see how such an invasion is in Russia’s interests. By 2050, Russia will have lost comparative power. Why would it be in Russia’s interest to have 1 hegemon, China, a neighbor, without the counter-balancing force of the US? Russia shares no border with us, and the disputes we do have are relatively minor (unless you mean that China will conquer Russia).
Fourth, there is a nuclear deterrent to a Russia-Chinese invasion. Do you assume that they will have an anti-missile shield that makes such a move possible? The undertaking would be a very expensive one in any case, and unnecessary to achieve strategic objectives. The Chinese tend to have more of a rational foreign policy that calls for logical expansion rather than recklessness.
Lena, just because average Americans envy people with wealth and power and want it for themselves does not mean that our country is not also seething with egalitarian resentment of the wealthy and powerful.
Lena: In the big picture, I don’t think that the masses really are responsible for their lot.
The masses were generally empowered because of competition within the elites or among elites. If faction X cannot prevail within the elite, it will turn to the masses for support and gain power that way. If faction Y wants to gain the advantage, it will appeal to the masses as well. If there are not enough votes, then faction Y will expand the electorate by enrolling the voters it thinks most supportive. When the people lose faith in the government, the government will elect a new people — as the Communist Bertold Brecht once said.
But the expansion of the electorate means the dumbing down of the electorate and the elites that most appeal to that dumbed down electorate gain the most power. So renegade elements within the elites might initiate the process of democratization, but the elites are corrupted by it as well.
Why do we have a completely unsustainable Social Security system? Because the masses are stupid and greedy enough to elect politicians who are stupid and greedy enough to think only of their own interests rather than the long term common good.
So Bill Clinton is only about 110 on the IQ scale? One thing that made me think he was quite intellegent was his alleged comment to Dick Morris that “White Guilt” was the main motivation fueling the Colin Power for president phenomenon. That is quite an insight very few whites have the ability to see.
Re:#58 – Andrew: great comment. I especially liked the phrase “As the US slouches toward Brazil”…I’ll have to use that one.
“There are several possible scenarios, but I believe the above is the most likely one, and we will see this occur around the year 2050-2060.”
Pro-White American secessionist movements will need to occur far sooner than that…let’s plan for 2012 in order to put the ‘fear of God’ in the ‘authorities’ – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon
And yes, in reference to your comment @ #57, female suffrage has definitely been a major factor in the decline of American democracy — as F. Scrooby likes to say: “clueless [single] women voters” who seem to vote liberal by default
I never saw it. Perhaps minorities “seethe” with egalitarian resentment, hence affirmative action, but not Whites.
As far as Bertold Brecht, we will not see this. We will witness a total loss of faith in the government, and the government/elite will become more despotic to hang on to their status. You think things are ugly today? Just wait twenty years.
Re:Travis @ #61 – “In terms of fighting for the interests of Whites, the three best presidents were Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, and James Polk. All three men were sparsely educated, backcountry Democrats.”
And I’m very proud to say that all three of those pro-White Presidents were North Carolinians.
I was born and still live very close to where both Jackson and Polk were born — the Waxhaws district on the border of NC and SC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waxhaws
“Beautiful – North America will be at its weakest just when the Asian Alliance (Russia-China) will be ready to attack.”
There are several problems with the above statement. First, the secession of Whites into a separate ethnostate would not necessarily weaken the US any more than it already was. North American nations would still be likely to work together for national defense purposes. Having 1 Canada, 1 Ethnostate and 1 US would not be substantially different than having 1 Canada and the US, if all are in alliance.
Do beg another question for us, Andrew.
Second, from a strategic perspective, I do not see any reason why China would ever wish to attack the US. China can achieve all of its aims without confrontation.
You commit the error, that Robert Conquest long ago identified, as manifested, back in that day, in having regarded the bizarre and commercially counter-productive “barracks state” of the Soviet Union as a “normal society” in its form and function. You likewise merely assume that Chinese “aims” are as your own bourgeois objectives, despite fundamental evidence to the contrary.
Third, I do not see how such an invasion is in Russia’s interests. By 2050, Russia will have lost comparative power. Why would it be in Russia’s interest to have 1 hegemon, China, a neighbor, without the counter-balancing force of the US? Russia shares no border with us, and the disputes we do have are relatively minor (unless you mean that China will conquer Russia).
Same problem with this analysis – you are reckoning motives and objectives in classical terms, rather than in terms of the perverse, eschatologically-influenced agendas of Communist regimes.
Fourth, there is a nuclear deterrent to a Russia-Chinese invasion. Do you assume that they will have an anti-missile shield that makes such a move possible? The undertaking would be a very expensive one in any case, and unnecessary to achieve strategic objectives. The Chinese tend to have more of a rational foreign policy that calls for logical expansion rather than recklessness.
You fail to anticipate the use of tactical nuclear weapons emplaced to destroy nuclear and other deterrent in place. The remaining challenge is neutralization of the nuclear sub deterrent – with which Walker was of assistance.
complete men and beasts, in their ability to take by violence that which they coveted of land and slaves, without psychic distress
Do you consider yourself a “complete man and beast” that takes whatever he wants with no conscience, Neo? I think you’re all talk.
because your bourgeois morality demands “objective” validation of your values – of which there can be none.
You obviously haven’t been paying attention and have extremely poor judgment to say nonsense like that. You just want to mischaracterize people to fit into your self-serving arguments. My morality has nothing to do with the bourgeois nor does it require validation, if it did I wouldn’t be a white nationalist. In fact I’m further right of the typical white nationalist.
If the typical European were like me there would be no race problem, furthermore there would be no subrace problem.
NeoNietzsche
And Merkel just delivered a dozen subs to the Zionist Regime in Palestine which no doubt are now on their way to an American or European city near you, at least, the ones that don’t already have forward deployed weapons, perhaps in the embassies.
How crazy are the Zionazis? Will they really nuke Persia?
Who is Walker?
“Do beg another question for us, Andrew.”
If there was a White Ethnostate in North America, it seems very logical that such a polity would wish to repel a foreign invasion of the continent. A Chinese invasion would certainly be seen as a major security threat. Am I wrong about that? In addition, a secession scenario as I have described, with an essentially peaceful separation, North America as a whole would have roughly the same population, GDP and stock of military equipment. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the most likely outcome of such a secession would be no major change to the defense capability of North America (I am speaking probability wise).
“You commit the error, that Robert Conquest long ago identified, as manifested, back in that day, in having regarded the bizarre and commercially counter-productive “barracks state” of the Soviet Union as a “normal society” in its form and function. You likewise merely assume that Chinese “aims” are as your own bourgeois objectives, despite fundamental evidence to the contrary.”
I guess you mean that China operates based on an ideology (Communism), rather than seeking after conventional objectives such as increased security, access to resources and so forth. It is true that in the past, China has been ideologically-driven, with the Cultural Revolution being one such example of irrational behavior. My understanding is that currently the Communist party leadership increasingly consists of Capitalists, and has a decreasing number of traditional hard-liners. For at least the past 20 years, China’s foreign policy has pursued traditional objectives. It is perhaps the case that the Chinese intend to lull the West into a false sense of security, biding their time until there is an opportunity to strike. However, the younger generations of Chinese appear to be less interested in spreading Communism, and more interested in making a fortune, while expanding China’s power through a rational program. These are the individuals who will be in power in the year 2050.
“Same problem with this analysis – you are reckoning motives and objectives in classical terms, rather than in terms of the perverse, eschatologically-influenced agendas of Communist regimes.”
I find it very difficult to believe that Russia should still be considered a Communist regime. For the past 20 years, the Russians have certainly followed a conventional national security program, based on traditional objectives.
“You fail to anticipate the use of tactical nuclear weapons emplaced to destroy nuclear and other deterrent in place. The remaining challenge is neutralization of the nuclear sub deterrent – with which Walker was of assistance.”
Even a single missile that was not disabled could be catastrophic for China (especially if Shanghai or Beijing was hit). That makes an invasion extremely risky and reckless. Even a nation driven by ideology would be very hesitant to make such a dangerous move. Remember that all of the party members who were authorizing an invasion would have many family members that would be endangered by such a move (extended family being very important in Chinese culture).
In the above, I have assumed that China and Russia would be acting on their own. I imagine that you would argue that they would be manipulated by a Semitic oligarchy when launching an invasion. Since I am not qualified to disprove the existence of such an oligarchy, and am ignorant of the inner workings of the Chinese government, I am of course only providing a layman’s view of the situation. I do believe that foreign policy specialists such as Steven Walt would tend to agree with what I have written though.
Not everyone agrees that the most distinct Nordish types would be eliminated in a more general Euro-American ethnostate
Quoting McCulloch (“On the European Ethnic Gap: A Rejoinder to Rienzi and Torriani”):
The point is to bring all Euro-Americans “to the table” and see what can be worked out. If you a priori exclude a significant fraction of this population from the conversation, then you create a self-fulfilling prophecy of their opposition.
Quoting McCulloch again:
“Who is Walker?”
I believe he is referring to the spy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker
When it comes why Chi-coms want to invade the Jew-nited States, well I think they want to take over the Sacramento Valley. That is the BEST FARMING LAND IN THE WORLD and those that growing population of yellow people is going to need it to fill the rice-holes in their heads!
“complete men and beasts, in their ability to take by violence that which they coveted of land and slaves, without psychic distress”
Do you consider yourself a “complete man and beast” that takes whatever he wants with no conscience, Neo? I think you’re all talk.
Yes, all talk.
“because your bourgeois morality demands “objective” validation of your values – of which there can be none.”
You obviously haven’t been paying attention and have extremely poor judgment to say nonsense like that. You just want to mischaracterize people to fit into your self-serving arguments. My morality has nothing to do with the bourgeois nor does it require validation, if it did I wouldn’t be a white nationalist.
Your earlier statement was to the contrary.
In fact I’m further right of the typical white nationalist.
If the typical European were like me there would be no race problem, furthermore there would be no subrace problem.
If the “typical” European were like you, the circumstance would be indistinguishable from the present.
MGLS,
There’s a great deal that could be done via cooperation; there is a range of options that, had someone a magic wand and could implement them on demand, I am firmly convinced many people of many different groups would consider satisfactory (not necessarily perfect, but satisfactory). But that requires a willingness to work with others — as opposed to a desire to kill or deport them. Seems simple enough, but the picture is complicated by the European scene, where because they still (for the time being) have sufficient numbers to vote their way out they don’t feel like playing Mr. Nice Guy. In my opinion, the hardline approach will prove as doomed in Europe as William Pierce’s did in America, because though many people may have racial misgivings about others, but that’s still a far cry from the kind of raw hatred that drives a Pierce or a skinhead or people of that nature; if anything, that level of hatred seems to provoke a reaction among your target audience and drive them into the arms of the opposition.
Now, why don’t you put to the test your own willingness to work with others: if you disagree with anything I said above, come on, let’s hear it. Don’t just withdraw into your cocoon and sit back and spew venom about how much you hate everyone else, how disgusting and stupid and unattractive blah blah blah ad nausem you find them. If you’ve been an Instauration reader you know that 95% of the material in the comments posted by the dickweeds here has been said (and more eloquently) a thousand times before; isn’t it time for something new?
Silver, I don’t really disagree with your comment. I agree that the raw hatred expressed by the hardliners turns people off of racialism. I have no desire for violence against or domination of other races. What I want is to preserve my own race by a partition of the United States, giving each racial group their own territory so they can pursue their own destiny. If by offering various incentives or concessions I could get other groups to agree to a separation, I would be more than happy to do this.
Ethnic confederacy and voluntary segregation are perfectly viable ideas.
They are just extensions of the commonly held rights to pursue happiness and chosen your associations. I think many people of different races would be supportive of the idea, especially if it involved creating small communities along those lines.
Ironically such approaches are also more supportive of true diversity, too.
MGLS,
If by offering various incentives or concessions I could get other groups to agree to a separation, I would be more than happy to do this.
I don’t think it’d be too difficult. Apart from the lacking the means to widely disseminate it as a political option, the other big reason it seems difficult is that it’s an option being offered by racialists, who, because they understand the connection between race and civilization, seem to figure that no one in his right mind would ever allow himself to be separated from the people that created (and yet sustain) this one; or that because, beyond race and civilization, there’s also the question of racial esthetics, which clearly weighs heavily on the minds of many, and that therefore no racial other could possibly psychologically withstand have his shortcomings in this department exposed to the light of day. Yet neither of the two is true, or certainly they are not necessarily true. Love me or hate me you’d have to admit that I’m the furthest thing from a “racial ingenue,” so you should take encouragement from the fact that I feel this way (ie if I can so too might others).
You say you agree that raw hatred turns people off, yet you’re not immune to manifestations of it yourself. To some extent it’s excusable by the fact that you’re angry and distraught and have good reason to be. But surely you’d agree that the validity of those excuses is mitigated by their strategic impact. For instance, of all the things you could have said to ‘rec1man’ on the farm animals thread at HBD (if indeed you had to say anything at all), why ask him why he doesn’t go home to India? What possible good can that do you? Me mighty whitey hear me raw? Please. (I’m only singling you out here because you ‘get it.’ Kmac laments that “no communication is possible” with a Gabriel Schoenfeld but how much communication is possible with a “Junghans” or an “Old Right” or a, heh, “Captainchaos” here?) My answer to the question you posed rec1man is I tried it. But when you go alone it’s very difficult, because even though they’re ‘your people,’ culturally they are quite alien and off-putting, and you’re left with the (numbing, for me) realization that the real ‘your people’ are the anglo-culture-imbued schmucks over in the new world. Of course if we all left together we would have enough numbers to form substantial English-speaking enclaves and our children could neatly slot right into the wider culture there. But as I’ve said, that’s a much, much harder sell than new world separation. I know beggars can’t be choosers, but I’m not yet reduced to begging, so my preference is for some form of separation/segregation/partition.
As for the factors mentioned in the first paragraph. With respect to the first, obviously for most its economics (not ‘culture’) that binds them to the status quo. This requires some education, but hopefully people can be made to appreciate that it’s the preservation of the system and not its present level of performance that is important. As it relates to ‘groupism,’ it’s doing it for ourselves that should provide us with a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, not riding the coattails of others’ economic achievements; in other words, it’s growing wealthier (through productive accomplishment) that is important, not simply ‘being rich.’ (Two men set out to ascend a mountain. The first takes a helicopter to the summit, the other makes the trek on foot; whose experience is the more profound?)
With respect to the second factor, esthetics, we’re really talking about the pinnacle, not the average. Given this, it’s surprising how motivating this factor is for so many racialists, and how often it’s a source of despair. I think this despair stands somewhat apart from race, nevertheless it is racialists among whom I’ve most often encountered it, and implicitly it contends that life is barely worth living unless a woman can be as lovely as a Claudia Schiffer or a man as handsome as a Roger Moore and smart as a James Watson, and certainly one must question having children if there’s no guarantee of their being smart or beautiful. (There was recent TOO thread in which someone who sounded suspiciously like our dearly departed ‘The Admiral’ stated almost exactly this.) Of course, the reality is the vast majority of us rarely even see such people as we go about our lives, and even less often do we experience any interaction with them, and even less often again do we have any form of relationship with them. Taking your stand on esthetics alone then is the practical equivalent of being some environut conservationist who feels relieved and invigorated by the knowledge that somewhere on this earth the Amazonian tree frog lives on.
Silver is a smarmy wog.
“There was recent TOO thread in which someone who sounded suspiciously like our dearly departed ‘The Admiral’ stated almost exactly this.”
Speaking of which, where is the Admiral? Was he banned, or did he simply stop posting as a result of the Roissy silliness?
Anyway, hopefully he’ll show back up.