academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressThis piece makes for an interesting contrast with critiques of libertarianism from leftists who often seem to regard it as a variation of Nazism: “Without the state imposing enlightened, progressive values on the wider society, racism, sexism, fascism, and capitalism will go through the roof!”
Now MacDonald makes exactly the opposite argument: “Without the state upholding white ethnic interests, society will be overrun by Jews and immigrants!”
So which is it going to be? 🙂
 | Anonymous on The Forgotten Legacy of John S… |
 | anarch0re on Holocaust Denial Now More Main… |
 | dystopiandeepdives on An Announcement |
| Anonymous on Autism and anarchy: The import… |
 | Dale Dombkowski on Are EVs Truly the Greenest For… |
| Anonymous on Holocaust Denial Now More Main… |
| Anonymous on It’s Not a “National Divorce.”… |
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson
I like Vichy’s rebuttal, incomplete though it may be.
I’m surprised the worst of the most defiant deMaistrean rhetoric of a certain subset on Stormfront, etc., and from Kevin McDonald doesn’t fall on deaf ears seeing as so many of the types on Stormfront for example are enamored with an idea of an idealized American Constitutional Republic.
Wow! Thanks for the link. I had considered writing a rebuttal to MacDonald but Vichy’s response is as good as anything I could come up with.
“Perhaps MacDonald should look into Europe before the Great War, wherein there were no border controls, no immigration laws and no race-police. Nonetheless one did not find France or Denmark overrun with Turkish drug dealers.”
Right! This is the most important point we anti-statists can make concerning immigration, given that it’s the core issue that separates us from the anti-establishment Right. Pre-war Europe had “open borders” by today’s standards and the Austrian-Hungary empire was an example of a functional multi-ethnic polity. The reason mass immigration was not an issue in those days is because there was no welfare state, no state-created “global economy” (at least not on the level we have now) and no totalitarian humanist ideology dominating institutions.
MacDonald’s ideology is the mirror image of Marxism. In fact, it’s almost a carbon copy of the modern Left’s “racialized Marxism.”
According to orthodox Marxism, conniving top-hatted capitalists are sitting on top of the world trying to find some new and improved ways to screw over the workers, so the solution is to guillotine the capitalists and have a nice, worker-friendly state taking their place. According to “cultural Marxism,” vicious while males are running the show and shitting on everyone else, so the answer is to put whitey out the door and replace him with a darker skinned, feminized, gayized, eco-friendly ruling class. According to “racial Marxism” of the Right, the pesky Jews are out there trying to make life difficult for good, honest white folks, so we need to put the dirty dogs out and have a nice, friendly, white racial state.
All of these philosophies reflect an extreme reductionism, as well as a completely false understanding of the state. The core idea is that the state can be trusted if only the right people enlightened by ideology are put in charge, which ignores virtually all historical experience.
The Indian Reservations I’m familiar with are good examples of open borders with little to no immigration. There are no real incentives for outsiders to move in. If they really wanted to, they could, but it would take some effort on their part to be accepted. Outsiders who marry in are accepted more quickly: maybe after 2 or 3 years?
Faust may ask “why on earth would a white person want to move in with the red skins?” To which my answer would be, “exactly!”
“So which is it going to be?”
Perhaps both. Seriously, if any anti-statist (of right-wing or left-wing cultural background) thinks that the dissolution of a state, means that all ex-citizens will adopt one and the same ideology, je is seriously deluded and wanna be Lenin. After all why rebel against the state, if it means that we’ll have no choice how we’ll live?
Anyway, the fact that these people’s main concern is that without the state, people might choose a different ideology rather than their , or that their fantasy-polity will not become universal, shows that they are religious fanatics and crypto-totalitarians. Instead of trying to rebuild the country in the mold of their chimeric vision of America, it’s certainly more in the interest of “un-PC” people to share its remains, and let those “crazy enough” to be “Cultural Marxists”, be what they will. And of course, like their left-wing counterparts also fear, things they might not like will happen. Some White might choose to racially mix with Blacks (HORROR!) and some workers might participate in “wage slavery” (HORROR!), without a state. But why should you care if you are safe in the knowledge that under pan-archy you can build a community where you can associate with those have the same beliefs with you, without having to be in a state of constant warfare with people you disagree with, which will necessarily happen if you try to impose your views on others? And also why should you care if wage slavery or unlimited “immigration” exists, if it or it’s consequences aren’t enforced by force on you?
“Perhaps both.”
Yes, I agree. See this analysis of my work by Ethel Leona: http://ethelslionessden.blogspot.com/2009/08/decentralism-for-masses-big-sort-and.html
I think that with anarcho-pluralism there would be a proliferation of both ultra-liberal and ultra-conservative communities, along with a lot of in-between and “neither fish nor fowl” stuff. For instance, I think an independent Texas would be multi-ethnic but politically and socially very conservative, with scattered liberal enclaves like Austin. I think an independent northeast would be homogenously white ethnically but culturally and politically leftward. Large cites would be multi-ethnic but politically and culturally liberal. A lot of overwhelmingly black, Hispanic, or Third World immigrant communities might be economically leftist but socially conservative.
“Anyway, the fact that these people’s main concern is that without the state, people might choose a different ideology rather than their , or that their fantasy-polity will not become universal, shows that they are religious fanatics and crypto-totalitarians.”
You nailed it.
The biggest obstacle to building our own movement is the difficulty is convincing the multiple sides to these arguments that decentralization and “pan-separatism” are the solution. Ideological universalism is the common thread to the opposition we run up against.
Tried to post this to TMKC but it won’t take:
MacDonald said … “libertarianism is considered part of the conservative mainstream. It doesn’t ruffle the feathers of the multicultural powers that be.”
This is obviously true. Your selective references to Block and Hoppe mean little. Fox News hosts Judge Napolitano, regularly features friendly interviews of the Pauls, members in good standing of the Republican Party, and Dan Hannan, member in good standing of the UK’s Conservative party. Their libertarianism is so unthreatening to the ‘multicultural powers that be’ that they can use the major propaganda vehicles of the ‘conservative’ establishment, its TV stations, newspapers, major parties, and its in-house policy forums to promote their libertarianism in friendly venues. These same institutions fiercely attack nationalists, hard rightists, and people whose focus is hbd.
MacDonald said … “libertarianism is an ideology of national dissolution that would greatly exacerbate problems resulting from immigration.” To which you replied … “MacDonald and his crew frequently make the mistake of confusing the State … with society.”
Society? A nation is an ethnic group. Either way you proved MacDonald correct when you said that according to libertarian theory … “the boundaries between various gangs do not require anyone to recognize them” and “if you try to prevent a man from having a Mexican worker in his employ or try to prevent a man from Thailand from occupying any of the vast tracts of empty wilderness in the United States you are a criminal thug and may be met with violence, lethal if necessary … he has no business complaining when he finds himself with a bullet in his head, whether it was fired by a white American or a Turkish peasant is immaterial from the libertarian point of view.”
You said … “Libertarianism does not promote ‘open borders’, it denies that borders have any meaning whatsoever.” Sure, libertarians deny borders have meaning or legitimacy, but libertarians do also promote open borders, they even promote open borders simply by arguing that borders have no meaning or legitimacy.
You said … “some libertarians … defend private, exclusionary communities” and [libertarianism contends] “that property owners … have or ought to have control over ingress and egress from their personal property.” So why is a community that’s commonly called a nation on property that’s commonly called a country not permitted private exclusionary property rights according to libertarian theory? Clue: it is.
You said … “libertarianism posits … that the entire functioning of society depends on private property and contract.” Again, not just compatible with ethno nationalism, necessary to it.
You said … “Perhaps MacDonald should look into Europe before the Great War, wherein there were no border controls, no immigration laws and no race-police. Nonetheless one did not find France or Denmark overrun with Turkish drug dealers.”
No, we had another minority moving into power and subverting the state to be used as a weapon against us. You really are committed to making MacDonald’s arguments for him.
You said … “What MacDonald ignores is that it was white, native-born Southern Protestants and Yankees who both enacted and promoted the welfare state and who continue to be its most vocal supporters.”
This is false.
You said … “While foreigners might be socialistic and leftist it is an empirical reality that they are typically less-leftist than native born white Americans.”
Voting patterns are the most obvious empirical measure. They’re not on your side. In fact they kill you stone dead.
MacDonald said .. “Social utility forms no part of the thinking of Libertarianism.”
To which you replied … “And here we see the socialist shining through again. ‘Social utility’ forms no part of the thinking of Libertarianism because ‘social utility’ is mystical garbage.”
But then you said … “libertarianism posits … that the entire functioning of society depends on private property and contract, and that the extent to which these are abridged society – all of it – is endangered.”
An argument for the vital social utility of property rights and contract.
***
Keith Preston said … “The reason mass immigration was not an issue in those days is because there was no welfare state, no state-created “global economy” (at least not on the level we have now) and no totalitarian humanist ideology dominating institutions.”
The state has played an essential part in all that (in the West, but only in the West), but that does not mean the state = race-replacement. MacDonald’s and others’ work better explains that phenomenon. Besides which, the nationalist anti-establishment Right generally agrees with you on these issues without being anti-statist.
“According to ‘racial Marxism’ of the Right, the pesky Jews are out there trying to make life difficult for good, honest white folks, so we need to put the dirty dogs out and have a nice, friendly, white racial state.”
This is your extreme reductionism, as well as a completely false understanding of the nationalists. And it obviously doesn’t equate to “the core idea is that the state can be trusted if only the right people enlightened by ideology are put in charge.” These are quite different questions and no-one, no-one says “EVERYTHING, absolutely everything would be fine without the Jews/ capitalists/ white men, it’s ALL the e.g., Jews fault.”
“The state has played an essential part in all that (in the West, but only in the West), but that does not mean the state = race-replacement.”
Right. If the state were solely to blame, we would be seeing the same phenomenon in Japan, which we are not.
“MacDonald’s and others’ work better explains that phenomenon. Besides which, the nationalist anti-establishment Right generally agrees with you on these issues without being anti-statist.”
I think much of what we’re discussing can be attributed to the influence of the worldview I’ve described as “totalitarian humanism” over the state and over Western elites generally, rather than the state per se. While MacDonald’s work identifying the relationship of Jewish intellectual movements (or intellectual movements which had Jews as their most prominent contributors) to the development of such a worldview is interesting, my view is that he greatly overstates their significance for a wide variety of reasons.
“This is your extreme reductionism, as well as a completely false understanding of the nationalists. And it obviously doesn’t equate to “the core idea is that the state can be trusted if only the right people enlightened by ideology are put in charge.”
I agree that such an outlook is not true of all white nationalists, but it’s certainly true of some, in the sense of holding to a very narrowly constructed racial determinism. This quote from Dr. William Pierce, for instance, is indicative of such an outlook:
“For every nation, the one essential determinant of national health is
the quality of the people who make up that nation: their genetic quality
— which is to say, their racial quality — and their moral quality.
Everything else, including the state of the economy, ultimately depends
on these two elements.”
http://users.mo-net.com/mlindste/adv31800.html
You find the same kind of thinking among, for example, libertarians who believe a Lockean system of property allocation is the foundation of all good things, or Christians who believe without the faith humanity would forever exist in darkness. All of these kinds of ideas are completely contrary to actual historical experience.
“These are quite different questions and no-one, no-one says “EVERYTHING, absolutely everything would be fine without the Jews/ capitalists/ white men, it’s ALL the e.g., Jews fault.”
Well, to my knowledge no one claims that without the Jews, capitalists, evil white males, whatever, that it will be springtime year round and no one will ever again suffer from flatulence, but I’m sure you understand the point I was making.
I think much of what we’re discussing can be attributed to the influence of the worldview I’ve described as “totalitarian humanism” over the state and over Western elites generally, rather than the state per se. While MacDonald’s work identifying the relationship of Jewish intellectual movements (or intellectual movements which had Jews as their most prominent contributors) to the development of such a worldview is interesting, my view is that he greatly overstates their significance for a wide variety of reasons.
Well, of course, your concept of TH and the purview of MacDonald’s research are two distinct things. I have a concept of ‘the world’ and MacDonald’s work explains little of it. To refute MacDonald you deal with his claims, you don’t make different claims about other matters.
“For every nation, the one essential determinant of national health is the quality of the people who make up that nation: their genetic quality – which is to say, their racial quality — and their moral quality. Everything else, including the state of the economy, ultimately depends on these two elements.”
Well, yes. Those do seem like the essential foundations of a successful society. The lack of genetic health is the inevitable presence of congenital sickness; the lack of moral quality is the inevitable presence and growth of moral degeneracy. Pierce does not say that people with the right genetics can not succumb to moral failure or even genetic degradation. It would be rather remarkable if he, of all people, had said that.
Well, to my knowledge no one claims that without the Jews, capitalists, evil white males, whatever, that it will be springtime year round and no one will ever again suffer from flatulence, but I’m sure you understand the point I was making.
No, I really don’t understand your point. There are people who believe, with plenty of evidence, that Jews are hostile to us racially, culturally, religiously, politically, whatever, and so want to live separately from them. Big deal. Why does that viewpoint have to be caricatured at all? Why not just report it accurately? And why, if you know of no-one who blames Jews for everything, did you post without any qualification Andrew Yeoman’s really poor ‘Against Anti-Semitism’ where he sets up and attacks precisely that kind of strawman.
What is all this dishonest smearing and triangulating for? And why do you lose all critical reading ability when reading racialists?
“To refute MacDonald you deal with his claims, you don’t make different claims about other matters.”
Well, I’m not the MacDonald aficionado that you seem to be, but what do MacDonald’s arguments amount to beyond: “Some Jewish religious, political, and intellectual groups are hostile to white, Christian, European culture and have used their influence to pursue policies that are not necessarily in the best interests of European nations?” Duh? No kidding. But how do you explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people pushing such policies are as white as the Pillsbury Dough Boy?
“Pierce does not say that people with the right genetics can not succumb to moral failure or even genetic degradation. It would be rather remarkable if he, of all people, had said that.”
Well, if their genes are so “right” why are they succumbing to moral failure and genetic degradation in the first place? Again, this is a grossly reductionist and overly deterministic argument. Here are some articles with more nuanced views:
http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/race-global.php
http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/straw_man_of_race.htm
http://jkalb.freeshell.org/misc/pareto.html
“There are people who believe, with plenty of evidence, that Jews are hostile to us racially, culturally, religiously, politically, whatever, and so want to live separately from them.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/local-jew-feels-left-out-of-worldwide-jewish-consp,809/
“And why, if you know of no-one who blames Jews for everything, did you post without any qualification Andrew Yeoman’s really poor ‘Against Anti-Semitism’ where he sets up and attacks precisely that kind of strawman.”
Well, far be it from me to ever post anything here that makes a problematical argument, or that I might personally disagree with, or that might offend some readers, without first issuing a qualification? If I did that, I’d have to qualify most of what I post here.
“What is all this dishonest smearing and triangulating for? And why do you lose all critical reading ability when reading racialists?”
Those are rather refreshing charges, considering the bromides that are usually thrown against me.
http://attackthesystem.com/2008/01/30/do-i-believe-jews-control-the-world/
http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=724:keith-preston&catid=16:p&Itemid=3
You will find very few non-WNs who are more willing to give WNs a fair hearing that I am. I agree with your camp on mass immigration, PC, Zionist influence over US foreign policy, and “reverse discrimination.” But I disagree with your racial determinism and reductionist anti-Semitism.
Nick,
Here’s how a correspondent of mine summarizes MacDonald’s ideas:
“On MacDonald’s basic view, I’m gathering from what I read that he
contends that Jews are compelled by their genetics to subvert the
dominant culture in which they find themselves through critique, and
tend to not realize they’re doing it because the Jewish evolutionary
strategy works better if they are in denial. In other words, because
of the will of their selfish genes to continue to exist and replicate,
they really believe the subversive books and articles they write and
really believe in the policy positions they push. And because they’re
so smart, they’re great at subverting dominant cultures.”
Would you agree that this is an accurate summary of MacDonald’s core arguments? If this description is indeed accurate, I’d say it amounts to a lot of pseudo-scientific speculation.
I don’t think it’s necessary to reach that far to explain Jewish support for leftist intellectual ideas and political movements. I lean towards the view that Jewish intellectuals are generally on the Left because most members of the cultural and intellectual elite are on the Left at present, regardless of their cultural or ethnic background. Some Jewish organizations and thinkers may favor immigration in part as a means of increasing the number of minorities which they think will in turn make them less conspicuous and less vulnerable to outgroup hostility. But white liberals generally have this view (i.e. reduce racism by making everyone beige), and research shows roughly half of US Jews oppose mass immigration. So the claim that “it’s in the genes” or that leftism is uniquely Jewish seems a bit far-fetched. Another issue is that a lot of the intellectual ideas that PC is rooted in go back a lot further than Jewish intellectual movements in the 19th and 20th century.
The core ideas of the PC Left are egalitarianism, univeralism, and the linear-progressive view of history, but those views in their modern form began to develop out of the left-wing of Enlightenment or Romantic thought in Europe when Jews were still in their ghettos. I think the ENR critique of this worldview as a secularization of Christian universalism has much to be said for it as well. As you know, Christianity goes back much further than the Frankfurt School or Karl Marx. You find Christian-inspired radical egalitarian communist movements in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance periods. And, no, I don’t consider Christianity to be “Jewish” per se, either. The otherworldly utopianism that much of PC reflects arguably has its initial prototype in Western thought in the ideas of Plato. The linear view of history has it prototype in the ideas of Aristotle on historical interpretation.
I also thought MacDonald’s critique of libertarianism was a bit creepy in terms of what he described his own ideal state as constituting. Case in point:
“However, if a White-advocacy movement gains power, it would be foolish indeed to retain a libertarian political structure of minimal government. As noted by Farnham O’Reilly, the rights of the individual must remain subservient to the welfare of the group. If indeed White interests are worth defending, then furthering those interests must be the first priority. That would mean acting against media-powerful interests that produce messages countering White identity and acting against voluntary associations (such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League) that mete out economic penalties against Whites who identify as White and wish to pursue their interests as Whites.”
Some of this sounds a bit like some kind of racialized theocracy (e.g. banning opposition political organizations, media censorship). WNs are on their strongest ground when they argue that reverse discrimination flies in the face of individual merit, that PC is incompatible with the values of Western liberalism, that Zionism is a form of racial chauvinism and a foreign policy disaster for the US, and that mass immigration from pre-Enlightenment cultures doesn’t add much to Western liberal civilization, and allowing mass immigration by populations with deep seated historical grudges against white Europeans doesn’t bode well for future generations of whites in their historic homelands. I’m with you on all these questions. These are arguments that a lot of Westerners might be inclined to accept. But to most people the talk about Jews as some kind of genetic virus attacking white civilization and all that sounds like warmed over Nazism. Also, if creating a separatist ethnostate is their goal, then WNs need to understand most people identify such ideas with the Third Reich, Jim Crown and apartheid. If an ethnostate is what they want then it would be better to hold up conventional Asian countries like Japan as a model, which is a de facto ethnostate but is a modern “liberal” civilization, or even Denmark and Iceland, countries which are ridiculously PC in some ways but seem to have avoided falling into the immigration trap on the level that other countries in Europe have done.
KP … ‘Well, if their genes are so “right” why are they succumbing to moral failure and genetic degradation in the first place?’
Right for what? The fact Pierce talked for decades about ongoing moral breakdown, demographic replacement and dysgenic trends shows he did not believe European Americans’ genes at any given date were sufficient in themselves to prevent moral breakdown, demographic replacement or dysgenic trends in perpetuity — this is fucking obvious. So what does Pierce say? He simply talks about a minimum genetic and moral endowment for a minimally healthy and moral society. The quote is basically tautological. That’s why you have to add elements (these genetic endowments will guarantee always positive outcomes eternally) to justify disagreeing with him — but why do you want to? If your politics does not discriminate against racialists why construct strawman arguments to attack us?
KP … ‘I lean towards the view that Jewish intellectuals are generally on the Left because most members of the cultural and intellectual elite are on the Left at present, regardless of their cultural or ethnic background.’
What urgent question is this supposed to answer?
Let White liberals provide the benchmark — you could even make White Republicans the liberal benchmark, same difference — and on race and nation issues American Jews are not liberal. American Jews are overwhelmingly racial nationalists regarding Israel and they’re the most active and successful ethnic strategisers in America. They couldn’t be more different to White liberals (including mainline Republicans) who never explicitly act in their ethnic self-interest — or even acknowledge they have ethnic interests. On race and nation issues the ‘liberal’ double standard of the establishment right and left is good for Jews, bad for Whites.
So the question isn’t why Jews go along with this, but how White people were made to go along with it, or,
‘how do you explain the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people pushing policies [hostile to white, Christian, European culture] are as white as the Pillsbury Dough Boy?’ … (KP)
When the culture of White Christian Americans is hostile to White Christian America, the obvious question is ‘who constructs their culture?’ In practical terms it reduces almost to: ‘who makes the TV shows they watch?’ Well, who does?
And seeing as it’s handy we can quote MacDonald from ‘Libertarianism and White Racial Nationalism’ to explain a good part of the rest of the cause:
“In the real world, media-powerful groups and groups able to dominate prestigious academic institutions would indoctrinate people against identifying as Whites bent on pursuing White interests, as they do now. In the real world, there would be financial inducements to avoid White advocacy, including well-paid careers opposing White advocacy and economic consequences meted out by powerful voluntary associations, especially associations dominated by non-Whites hostile to White identity and interests — also the case now.”
Tragically, they are the ‘best’ White Christian Americans, the most observant of ‘their’ culture, the most respectful of ‘their’ group norms, who are most willing to help destroy their tribe. Contrary to your and your pal’s opinion, White Nationalists are horribly aware of the power of culture, and culture distorters, to subvert and redirect biological tendencies, such as ingroup loyalty.
KP … ‘MacDonald’s critique of libertarianism was a bit creepy in terms of what he described his own ideal state as constituting. Case in point: “the rights of the individual must remain subservient to the welfare of the group.”’
This is just another way of saying that “the entire functioning of society depends on … contract, and that the extent to which [this is] abridged society – all of it – is endangered.” You didn’t call Vichy a creep, you said you couldn’t improve on his response to MacDonald. Still, I’m pleased to see you’ve read at least one paragraph of McDonald’s writings, I was beginning to wonder if you didn’t get all your opinion of him from Lawrence Auster or some other ‘interested third’.
WNs are on their strongest ground when they argue that reverse discrimination flies in the face of individual merit, that PC is incompatible with the values of Western liberalism, that Zionism is a form of racial chauvinism and a foreign policy disaster for the US, and that mass immigration from pre-Enlightenment cultures doesn’t add much to Western liberal civilization, and allowing mass immigration by populations with deep seated historical grudges against white Europeans doesn’t bode well for future generations of whites in their historic homelands. But to most people the talk about Jews as some kind of genetic virus attacking white civilization and all that sounds like warmed over Nazism. Also, if creating a separatist ethnostate is their goal, then WNs need to understand most people identify such ideas with the Third Reich, Jim Crown and apartheid. If an ethnostate is what they want then it would be better to hold up conventional Asian countries like Japan as a model, which is a de facto ethnostate but is a modern “liberal” civilization, or even Denmark and Iceland, countries which are ridiculously PC in some ways but seem to have avoided falling into the immigration trap on the level that other countries in Europe have done.
Be serious. Even the most impolitic White Nationalist does little to undermine the idea of ethnic interests for White people and only White people compared to the anti-White regime and its numerous well-funded partners. It’s anti-Whites who do it, 24-7-365 in schools, on TV, in Congress, in movies, from pulpits, in academic journals, on and on, ceaselessly, relentlessly, always finding new variants of Whiteness and potential Whiteness to attack and destroy. They even attack the Tea Party movement for its Whiteness, you dumbass — the same movement that spurned Jamie Kelso for speaking precisely as you advise. And they were doing it before Hitler, Jim Crow and apartheid came along. In fact that’s why Hitler, Jim Crow and apartheid came along.
You’re ill informed on race and nation issues, and when you do approach the subject your mind goes to mush.
So you’re saying that the reason the overwhelming majority of PC liberals and leftists are affluent, educated, white, Westerners is because “Jew TV made them do it.”
That doesn’t really portray white people in a very flattering light.
Nick,
Jesting and ad hominem aside, I would like to respond to your arguments fairly and intelligently, but the problem is that, from my perspective, your arguments don’t seem to amount to much more than the usual “Jews are undermining white people by using the media to brainwash them into accepting ideas that are contrary to their own interests.” You are more literate and articulate than many people who make such arguments, but it’s still the same lowest common denominator bullshit.
“He simply talks about a minimum genetic and moral endowment for a minimally healthy and moral society. The quote is basically tautological. That’s why you have to add elements (these genetic endowments will guarantee always positive outcomes eternally) to justify disagreeing with him — but why do you want to?”
I don’t disagree with that particular statement from Pierce taken on its face. But I would disagree with the direction Pierce would go from this observation. I disagree that “white” genetic endowments are inherently superior to those of other races, which is what Pierce spent virtually his entire adult life arguing. There may be differences among the races, including those with genetic roots, that lead to differences of aptitude in certain generalized ways. But within all races you find a stratified system of “ubermeschen” and “untermenschen” (for lack of better terms) ranked according to natural ability. I also disagree with IQ determinists in the same way I disagree with racial determinists. It has been fairly well-documented, by Thomas Sowell and others, that IQ is more elastic than what the determinists would allow for. The same is true of race. Race is a continuum. It is easy enough to general particular patterns that are distinctive among races. Welf pointed out some of that in his piece. But keep in mind you’re dealing with hundreds of millions if not billions of people when you discuss a “race” including all sorts of ethnic and cultural subgroupings. Not too mention wide disparities between individuals. Among whites, for instance, you have people with IQ in the 170 range and you have those with Down’s Syndrome.
Your arguments imply that the dysgenic effect you claim is taking place is rooted in racial miscegenation. (I know you don’t say that directly, but it’s difficult to interpret your arguments in any other way.) I don’t buy that either, not only for the reasons already stated, but also because there’s simply not enough miscegenation for it to be that big of deal. Study the demographics of Brazil if you want to see a illustration.
“If your politics does not discriminate against racialists why construct strawman arguments to attack us?”
Well, I don’t discriminate against racialists politically in the same sense I don’t discriminate against plenty of other groups politically. For instance, I don’t discriminated against gays politically. That doesn’t mean I agree with every opinion expressed by every individual gay person, and that I don’t disagree with many of the organized gay rights groups on a number of points. The same is true with racialists.
“What urgent question is this supposed to answer?”
I was simply pointing out that the dominance of left-liberal ideas among Jewish intellectuals is part of a much wider pattern of such dominance among modern Western intellectual culture. There are much more complex, expansive, and historic reasons for this beyond cultural antagonism between Jews and white Gentiles over the last century.
“It’s anti-Whites who do it, 24-7-365 in schools, on TV, in Congress, in movies, from pulpits, in academic journals, on and on, ceaselessly, relentlessly, always finding new variants of Whiteness and potential Whiteness to attack and destroy. ”
So “the Jews” are behind all of this? And if all Jews disappeared your perspective would then prevail in all of these institutions? The intellectual culture of the modern West came about by Jews getting off the boat at Ellis Island and moving to the West Coast, opening film studios and conspiring to undermine white racial solidarity with “Roots” and “Schindler’s List”? The utopian universalism espoused by modern liberals has nothing to do with Christian universalism (oh, that’s right, Christianity is a Jewish conspiracy also). The view of human nature as malleable is a Jewish idea as well? Jean Jacques Rosseau was a pawn of the Jewish conspiracy? Jean Calvin? Robespierre? The other-worldly tendencies found in the writings of Plato were no doubt lifted from ancient Hebrew prophets, right?
“Let White liberals provide the benchmark — you could even make White Republicans the liberal benchmark, same difference — and on race and nation issues American Jews are not liberal. American Jews are overwhelmingly racial nationalists regarding Israel and they’re the most active and successful ethnic strategisers in America.”
What about the Christian Zionists? Are they just products of Jew-brainwashing as well? Or are there complex historical and theological reasons why they believe as they do. Also, it’s not true that liberals are always “liberal” on race issues. There are a lot of white liberals and leftists for instance who sympathize with black and other non-white racialism. They simply think these groups are “oppressed” just like you think white people are oppressed.
“And they were doing it before Hitler, Jim Crow and apartheid came along. In fact that’s why Hitler, Jim Crow and apartheid came along.”
So Hitler wouldn’t have started WW2 if the Jews had driven him to it? What the hell do Jews have to do with Jim Crow? Oh, I know, the Civil War, Abolitionism, and Reconstruction were all part of the Jewish conspiracy also. Protestant or English Enlightenment influences were just a ruse, right?
“You’re ill informed on race and nation issues, and when you do approach the subject your mind goes to mush.”
Calling the kettle black, eh?
I don’t think how I myself feel about WN (for want of a better term) has anything to do with Jews or “Jew TV”. Actually I’m quite sickened by the Israel Lobby and how they meddle in US Foreign Policy (for example.) I’m open minded enough to maybe be tolerant of WN as a whole, but my own experiences with Nazi Skinheads (as I stated before) does not help me to appreciate WN in general. Do I support wanton race-mixing or other schemes of racial homogeneity? Not necessarily, but at least I don’t think about shooting race-mixed couples on sight (neither do I think of shooting anybody wearing a Muslim headdress for that matter…) Then again I really have to laugh at anyone who thinks any race is superior, and what do “Whites” have to be proud of? Being dimwitted consumers and herd-conformists for the most part?
LJP,
I don’t like skinheads either, but two points in regard to them have to be made….
(1. They’re not a political movement but a youth subculture defined by aesthetics, music, dress, and sloganeering, with no real coherent ideology, paralleling their equally idiotic “anti-fa” counterparts in this regard.
(2. A distinction has to be drawn between skinheads and nonviolent, plain dressed WN’s, esp. those in intellectualism like Jared Taylor, Tom Sunic and Kevin Macdonald. The hard right is a large and varied milieu, with different factions that cannot be lumped together or conflated w/ each other.
I don’t think WNs necessarily view their race as “superior” to others so much as they identiy with it on an aesthetic level the same way the Left identifies with “humanity”, and neocons with an abstracted and idealized conception of “America”. All social ideologies have a starting concept that serves as their basis from which everything else is derived, and for them it is race. As for its origin, it emerged as a defense mechanism in reaction to percieved bias and discimination against whites via civil rights legislation, demographic overhaul from mass immigration, and anti-white sentiment within political correctness (i.e. whites are to blame for, and therefore obligated to fix everyone else’s problems etc.) I believe they have legitimate concerns in this regard, which will increase as Leftist dogma becomes more entrenched.
As for racial differences, the general consensus among the HBD-race realist crowd is that Asians and Jews on average possess higher I.Q.’s then whites, who in turn have higher I.Q.s than blacks and Arabs, while the scale of the scale for athletic ability is precisely the inverse. They make clear, however, that this is “in general” and does not necessarily apply to all individuals. I’m agnostic on this question. The belief in race-realism could be argued for or against, as could the Leftist dismissal of it as “social construct” but I’m only interested in the aims these formulations are applied to, racial separatism in the case of the race-realists and egalitarian social engineering on the part of the Left.
I wouldn’t say that whites have anything in particular to be proud of, but I wouldn’t say any other race does either. Your description of whites is accurate (though not universal), but it also describes the majority of the North American population as a whole, regardless of race. (I encounter as many drones and mediocrities among minorities that I do among whites.)
As for white accomplishment, many white individuals have made significant contributions in the fields of literature, art, music, theatre, and the sciences, esp. from the Rennassiance through the age of Enlightenment. However, these were all the creations of exceptional individuals and therefore not something their race can collectively take credit for. But again, the same applies equally to other races as well. A white person priding himself on the works of Galileo despite not knowing a damned thing about telescopes is no different than a black person priding himself on the artistic glory of free jazz despite having never picked up a saxaphone in his life. (I’ve encountered, and been perplexed, by both.)
My main problem with WN is that, while raising and addressing legitimate concerns, they point the finger of blame at the wrong source. Instead of confronting the real source of their problems ( the unholy alliance of politically correct liberals in academia and global capitalism) they direct their energies toward an empty abstraction (“Da Joos”) in the form of logically unsustainable conspiracy theories. This makes them more a liability to the Right than an asset (to say the least), and renders it impossible to present legitimate concerns within rational debate. For every Steve Sailer, Tom Sunic, and Jared Taylor, there’s a gazillion bozos whose eccentricity ensures they will never be taken seriously.
Yes, what Michael said! 🙂
As for the race question as a whole, the Left has the issue deadlocked with the use of binary oppositions. In their mind, one is on either of two poles: “racist” and “non-racist”. They define these terms so the former denotes anyone who disagrees with their agenda on race issues, and latter anyone who swallows it whole. Given that their race agenda is detrimental to white’s well being, framing discourse this way allows them to present naturally occuring self interest on the part of whites as race hatred.
For instance, affirmative action at both the state and federal levels institutionalizes anti-white discrimination, something the Left has never acknowledged or addressed. Whites understandably percieve this as a threat to their employment prospects and oppose it as such. The rational response to this would be to hear and evaluate complaints from both sides and work out a compromise solution. Predictably, this does not occur, as the Left immediately dismisses white’s complaints as motivated by race hate. This sort of strawman logic informs their responses to all issues, as it allows them the visage of moral superiority while unobligating them to have to rationally defend their positions.
I can infer two things from this….that liberals believe whites are not entitled to self-interest, or that the zero sum nature of this issue (either one gets the job and the other doesn’t) indicates a design flaw in their multi-culti utopia, and so cannot be acknowledged. As a result, the framework in which they cast the race question self-deconstructs. The fact is that is that thinking of one’s own self interest is not equivalent to “racism” merely because the issue at hand involves race, but denying one this right fundamentally is.
Yeah, I get what yr saying Mike. Of course I don’t really know any serious WN’s personally, so I wouldn’t really know. Nazi Skinheads, well I never thought they were anything more than an embarrassment all around – just a bunch of poseurs who cause trouble at punk and metal shows basically.
LJP, yes exactly. I remain convinced that their actions have nothing to do with promoting their race (as their image and conduct are clearly counter-productive in that regard) but instead serve as an outlet for agression and insecurity on their part. I am fascinated by the paradoxical parallels between them and their anti-fa counterparts. Both define themselves in support of social causes, and yet both engage in only destructive and counter-productive behaviour. I would say that the anti-fa are motivated primarily by subconscious messianic, moralistic, and vigilante impulses.
KP … ‘your arguments don’t seem to amount to much more than the usual “Jews are undermining white people by using the media to brainwash them into accepting ideas that are contrary to their own interests.”’
Where is it the ‘usual’ argument that the entirety of the objectively anti-White culture can be attributed to the Jewishness of the media? Anywhere? Can you provide quotes? If you continually make this and like charges unfairly, who’s really dealing in lowest common denominator bullshit?
KP … ‘So you’re saying that the reason the overwhelming majority of PC liberals and leftists are affluent, educated, white, Westerners is because “Jew TV made them do it.” That doesn’t really portray white people in a very flattering light.’
Is there a good reason you prefer to caricature other people’s viewpoints rather than respond directly, or just the obvious bad reasons?
Politically corrected Whites don’t deserve to be flattered, but I did post a sympathetic comment above, beginning ‘tragically’.
In this thread I’ve cited as additional causes to the observed effect of White people going along with objectively anti-White double standards, the pressures to that end coming from:
the rest of the mainstream media – newspapers, movies, music, radio; the state including schools and universities; all foreign and minority agitation combined; the dominant political movements including the Republican and Democratic parties, the Tea Party and libertarians; mainline Christianity; and professional and voluntary organisations opposing White advocacy and attacking pro-White activism.
But yeah, TV’s the principal vector for these ideas, the primary bender of American minds. Must I really build a case for TV as social-engineer-in-chief? Or for the TV industry as Jewish-run?
By all means let’s throw Plato, Aristotle, Calvin and Rousseau into the mix, but even without them I think we’ve probably identified the vast majority of forces operating on White Joe Blow’s mind when he goes along with the drum-beat, whether he’s a student, a mechanic, a lawyer or a senator.
(And in the far-off days when White Joe Blows in any significant numbers actually did read Plato, Aristotle, Calvin and – even – Rousseau, America was White Nationalist, KP. Their grandkids now read Maya Angelou and Howard Zinn)
Having said all that, and having previously talked about the power of culture to subvert and redirect biological tendencies, it’s very important to note that a large majority of American Whites (and Brits), despite all the endless pressures to make us deny our own group interests, still stand opposed to the most naked assaults on our groups’ interests – mass immigration, affirmative action, being blamed for minority failure and crime, etc. – and are apt to vent about double standards and so on when in ‘safe’ company.
PC is a western phenomena, designed to free people like George Lukacs ‘from Western civilisation’, in his words. So it’s not surprising that in absolute numbers the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the politically correct are White – we are the Westerners, the targeted population. But a majority of us still resist the ultimate ends of PC.
KP … ‘What about the Christian Zionists? Are they just products of Jew-brainwashing as well? Or are there complex historical and theological reasons why they believe as they do.’
Hah … seriously? What proportion do you suppose could defend their ‘Christian Zionist’ contradiction in terms with complex historical and theological arguments? Here I will be emphatic and absolute, ALL of ’em are products of Jew-brainwashing (plus bribery for the leadership) — and most of the world outside America thinks so too! For once I’m happy to stand with the mob and appeal to its authority. — In this case, of course it’s the Jews you damn fool.
KP … ‘I disagree that “white” genetic endowments are inherently superior to those of other races, which is what Pierce spent virtually his entire adult life arguing. There may be differences among the races, including those with genetic roots, that lead to differences of aptitude in certain generalized ways. But within all races you find a stratified system of “ubermeschen” and “untermenschen” (for lack of better terms) ranked according to natural ability.’
Assuming you’re not misrepresenting him again I much prefer Pierce’s straightforward ‘we’re the best’ to your ‘well, aah, um, variety within, much overlap’ drivel. I don’t give a fuck if Japs are good at math, negroes good at running, and Jews good at comedy. We’re the best at being like us, and only we can actually be us, and we’re going to have ensure our survival into future if we want to have a future.
KP … ‘It has been fairly well-documented, by Thomas Sowell and others, that IQ is more elastic than what the determinists would allow for.’
You’re wrong, and not just because the only determinists in the debate are environmental determinists.
KP … ‘Race is a continuum.’
You’re right, but what’s your point?
KP … ‘Your arguments imply that the dysgenic effect you claim is taking place is rooted in racial miscegenation.’
It was Pierce’s concern for the dysgenic effects of modern trends I was recalling, but yea, it goes for me too, and yes, by definition I consider the elimination of human biodiversity represented in specific ethnies and races to be dysgenic. Variety plus competition are evolution’s requirements.
I said … ‘It’s anti-Whites who do it’ (and specified that this included from the pulpit), KP replied … ‘So “the Jews” are behind all of this?’ I don’t need to elaborate my point. Nor am I surprised any more.
I said … ‘anti-Whites’ do more than the worst White Nationalists ‘to undermine the idea of ethnic interests for White people and only White people’ and that ‘they were doing it before Hitler, Jim Crow and apartheid came along. In fact that’s why Hitler, Jim Crow and apartheid came along.’
KP replied … ‘So Hitler wouldn’t have started WW2 if the Jews had driven him to it?’
Hitler didn’t start WWII. Hitler did, however, ‘come along’ – to prominence and eventually power – because the Germans were threatened by an ideology and movement that was hostile to Germans as Germans, and to Germans as a White i.e., European Christian people, and they perceived in him a leader who would defeat that threat to their nation and way of life. The fact of the Jewish character of the movement, in its origins, leadership cadres and funding sources is a secondary matter here and was not an element of my argument.
KP … ‘What the hell do Jews have to do with Jim Crow?’
Again, I said ‘anti-Whites’. Jim Crow legislation was designed to do exactly one thing: preserve in their hands the common goods of certain White Americans. It’s reasonable to suppose that the legislation was believed necessary because there did indeed exist some challenge to the idea that White people as such had legitimate claims to group interests (my point). No other explanation is likely. Do you contend that Jim Crow was the answer to a problem that didn’t exist, KP? But then why did the repeal of Jim Crow come attached with so many assaults on the property rights of European Americans and so many programs to transfer their wealth to negroes and the state? It seems the very fears that prompted Jim Crow were eventually realised as a result of its repeal.
KP … ‘Also, it’s not true that liberals are always “liberal” on race issues. There are a lot of white liberals and leftists for instance who sympathize with black and other non-white racialism.’
Sure, won’t take their own race’s side, but will take the other race’s side against their own: ‘White liberals’.
ljp … ‘I don’t think how I myself feel about WN (for want of a better term) has anything to do with Jews or “Jew TV”.’
White Nationalism is just the idea that a people (that happens to be White) wants to be self-determining. Why you should consciously moderate your ‘feelings’ about that question because of Jews, Nazi skinheads, assassinations, Muslim headdresses, racial superiority, or generalized racial slurs against White people is beyond me. Why you might unconsciously moderate your feelings in that way as a result of TV’s portrayal of normal White people is not such a stretch.
Michael Parish …’ Instead of confronting the real source of their problems ( the unholy alliance of politically correct liberals in academia and global capitalism) they direct their energies toward an empty abstraction (“Da Joos”) in the form of logically unsustainable conspiracy theories.’
This simply isn’t true.
Michael Parish … ‘This makes them more a liability to the Right than an asset’
The ‘right’? The ‘right’ that is allowed to count is opposed to all nationalisms except one.
Michael Parish … ‘For every Steve Sailer, Tom Sunic, and Jared Taylor, there’s a gazillion bozos whose eccentricity ensures they will never be taken seriously.’
Sailer is a civicist, not a nationalist of any tenor. Jared Taylor will say White nationalism is inevitable if other groups keep aggressing Whites, but he prefers to just remove the aggression and let everyone get along in one society by simply allowing free association and disassociation. Sunic wasn’t run out of Croatia or the US academy by nationalists more eccentric than he. No-one’s heard of Bill White, every congressman and network head knows who Abe Foxman is.
Stop blaming t’he people who blame the Jews for everything’ for evrything. Not only are they non-existent, but that rhetoric and meme just empowers whatever aggression Jews do deploy against the rest of us, and hinders a defense against all the people who are aggressing against us. It’s bad strategy to direct your energies toward an empty abstraction (“Da Anti-Semites”) in the form of logically unsustainable conspiracy theories, so to speak.
Nick,
You’re a douchebag.
That is all.
Nick, I really don’t know what you mean. I think maybe when I was young and stupid I swallowed alot of antifa crap until I found out about Israel and their lobby and especially sickening psy-ops such as Protest Warrior. I think both Parish and me have pretty much made our point anyways. Mind you I’m just as proud of being an European as you are, and I’m not against you at all, but don’t you think WN’s have also used TV just to create hysteria? Maybe otherwise WN’s (or nazi skins certainly) wouldn’t be so hated to the point that even a band sitting on a fence like Death In June finds it difficult to play the US anymore without it being secret? (For example?) Or that alot of what constitutes “Rock Against Communism” can’t seem to find a place to play period?
Nick,
Rather than create a thread whose number of posts runs into the triple digits haggling over where we disagree, perhaps it might be more constructive to focus on where we do agree. You said:
“…it’s very important to note that a large majority of American Whites (and Brits), despite all the endless pressures to make us deny our own group interests, still stand opposed to the most naked assaults on our groups’ interests – mass immigration, affirmative action, being blamed for minority failure and crime, etc. – and are apt to vent about double standards and so on when in ‘safe’ company.
PC is a western phenomena, designed to free people like George Lukacs ‘from Western civilisation’, in his words. So it’s not surprising that in absolute numbers the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the politically correct are White – we are the Westerners, the targeted population. But a majority of us still resist the ultimate ends of PC.”
Okay, I would agree with that. So what do you propose to do about it?
Keith,
I wouldn’t expect a great deal of logic from Nick. He seems mired in anachronistic WN and doesn’t understand the complex nuances of the situation. It’s like an inverse of leftism where all of history is seen through the narrow dynamic of “equality” versus “inequality”.