The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Kevin MacDonald Archive
Justin Murphy’s “The Psychology of Prohibiting Outside Thinkers”
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_639672952
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Here is Justin Murphy describing his background, research, and activism:

Why is there not more rebellion against status quo institutions? How have economic and political processes pacified our capacity for radical collective action? As a political scientist, I am interested in the roles played by information, communication, and ideology in the pacification of political resistance and conflict. Before joining the faculty of Politics and IR at the University of Southampton in the UK, I did my PhD at Temple University in the US. There I was active in Occupy Wall Street, some civil disobedience and shutting down of things, some longer-term campaigns against the big U.S. banks, and sundry other works and deeds, including a radical warehouse project where I lived for nearly three years.

So Murphy is an academic on the left. He is therefore part of the establishment, a card-carrying member of the institutional structure that dominates intellectual discourse in the West. But, unlike the vast majority of his academic brethren, he is quite aware that the left is now the status quo and that it is doing everything it can to preserve its elite status — and that its self-preserving tactics are at base nothing more than irrational assertions of power and privilege. Murphy makes these claims in a blogpost: “The psychology of prohibiting outside thinkers.” Part of the subtitle says it all: “The real motivation of respectable progressivism is managing guilty conscience and conserving bourgeois privileges.”

What’s so refreshing about this is that instead of “exclud[ing] independent right-wing intellectual work on moral grounds,” he would actually “enjoy thinking” with intellectuals on the right. Indeed, moral indictments have become the stock in trade of establishment intellectuals — as noted in my three-part “Moralism and Moral Arguments in the War for Western Survival.” Moral condemnations are easy. No intellectual heavy lifting required. All one need do is appeal to conventional moral intuitions as shaped by the the same institutions that are now the status quo — the media and academic culture. As I note, those who dissent from the status quo are “not only misguided, [they are] malevolent … consumed by hatred, anger and fear towards non-Whites, gays, women and the entire victim class pantheon, or so goes the stereotype And that’s the problem. Being cast as evil means you are outside the moral community. There’s no need to talk with you, no need to be fair, or even worry about your safety. You are like an outlaw in Old Norse society — ‘a person [who] lost all of his or her civil rights and could be killed on sight without any legal repercussions.’”

Back to Murphy:

Very simply, [“institutional intellectuals”] are imposing a cordon sanitaire that is instrumentally necessary to the continuation of their unjustified intellectual privileges in the institutional order. I am increasingly convinced there is simply no other public function to this political repetition compulsion. The reason this is important, from the left, is that this cordon sanitaire is straightforwardly a mechanism to conserve the status quo, everything progressives pretend to be interested in overthrowing. This is why neo-reactionary intellectuals speak of the status quo political order as dominated by a left-progressive “Cathedral.” …

The religious analogy is quite apt. Like moral pronouncements, religious dogmas are not refutable and need not be justified empirically. They are nothing more than intellectually shoddy ex Cathedra pronouncements that take advantage of a pre-existing intellectual consensus.

First, it seems to be a fact that the genuinely intellectual wings of the alt-right or neo-reaction (NRx) or whatever you want to call it, are probably too intelligent and sophisticated for bourgeois intellectual workers to engage with, let alone compete with. … So if those essays are actually pretty smart and a legitimate challenge to your institutional authority as a credentialed intellectual—you are functionally required to close ranks, if only with a silent agreement to not engage.

Now, as soon as anyone from this non-institutional world produces effects within the institutional orbit, it is actually a really serious survival reflex for all institutionally privileged intellectuals to play the morality card (“no platform!”). If all these strange, outside autodidacts are actually smart and independently producing high-level intellectual content you don’t have the time to even understand, let alone defeat or otherwise control, this is an existential threat to your entire livelihood. Because all of your personal identity, your status, and your salary, is based directly on your credentialed, legitimated membership card giving your writings and pontifications an officially sanctioned power and authority. If that door is opened even a crack by non-credentialed outsiders, the whole jig is up for the respectable bourgeois monopoly on the official intellectual organs of society.

This comment really strikes home with me. I wrote three books on Judaism from an evolutionary perspective, the first of which was reviewed positively in academic journals; the second was less widely reviewed, and the third was basically ignored apart from a favorable review by Frank Salter in the Human Ethology Bulletin. Instead I was subjected to a vicious witch hunt spearheaded by the SPLC, joined by a great many of the faculty in the College of Liberal Arts, especially the Jewish faculty. In all of the exchanges on faculty email lists there was never any attempt to deal with the academic soundness of these books. Labels like “anti-Semitic” sufficed. So now, nearly 20 years after publication, Culture of Critique remains ignored by the academic establishment even as it gains traction on the Alt Right.

The same can be said about Murray’s The Bell Curve. It is referenced at times but almost always with the adjective ‘discredited’ even though the data are rock solid. I know a liberal academic who commented, “I don’t have to read Mein Kampf to know it is evil. Same with The Bell Curve.”

Murphy:

An interesting question is, because respectable intellectuals are often pretty smart and capable, why are they so fearful of outside intellectual projects, even if they are as evil as some fear? They are smart and capable intellectuals, so you’d think they would embrace some interesting challenge as an opportunity for productive contestation. Why don’t they? Well, here’s where the reality gets ugly. The reason respectable intellectuals so instinctively close ranks around the moral exclusion of NRx intellectuals is that currently working, respectable intellectuals privately know that the intellectual compromises they have made to secure their respectability and careers has rendered most of their life’s work sadly and vulnerably low-quality.

I suspect this is quite true. There is a replication crisis centering on psychology and particularly in social psychology, the most blatantly politicized field within psychology. This is my summary of Prof. Jonathan Haidt’s comments on the topic:

when scholarly articles that contravene the sacred values of the tribe are submitted to academic journals, reviewers and editors suddenly become super rigorous. More controls are needed, and more subjects. It’s not a representative sample, and the statistical techniques are inadequate. This use of scientific rigor against theories that are disliked for deeper reasons is a theme of Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique where it was also noted that standards were quite lax when it came to data that fit the leftist zeitgeist.

Whole areas of education and sociology doubtless have similar problems. For example, in education, there have been decades of studies “discovering” panaceas for the Black-White academic achievement gap — without any success. But, as Prof. Ray Wolters notes (“Why Education Reform Failed,” The Occidental Quarterly [Spring, 2016]), hope springs eternal because there are always new wrinkles to try. Fundamentally the field fails to deal with IQ or with genetic influences on IQ and academic performance.

The same is likely true of huge swaths of the humanities where verbal brilliance, post-modern lack of logic and rigor, and leftist politics have created wonderlands of inanity. All this would be swept away if the outsiders triumphed. I strongly suggest following @RealPeerReview on Twitter to get a feeling for what is now going on in academia. Remember, these people are getting jobs and students are paying exorbitant tuition to hear them lecture.

Murphy:

To convince status-quo cultural money dispensers to give you a grant, fourr instance, any currently “successful” academic or artist has to so extensively pepper their proposal with patently stupid words and notions that knowingly make the final result a sad, contorted piece of work 80% of which is bent to the flattery of our overlords. But we falsely rationalize this contortion as “mature discipline” which we then rationalize to be the warrant for our privileged status as legitimate intellectuals.

And then, twisting the knife:

Because we know deep down inside that our life’s work is only half of what it could have been had we the courage to not ask for permission, if there ever arise people who are doing high-level intellectual work on the outside, exactly as they wish to without anyone’s permission or money, then not only are we naturally resentful, but we secretly know that at least some of these outsiders are likely doing more interesting, more valuable, more radically incisive work than we are, because we secretly know that we earn our salary by agreeing to only say half of what we could.

Can’t think of a better way to end it. What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging this regime from within the academic world is vanishingly rare. Or perhaps it’s not so surprising given the above. But what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really get interested in a field? Why don’t professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural selection works when there is an invasive species or sub-species — why don’t these White people become vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?

This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Academia, Alt Right, Political Correctness 
    []
  1. AaronB says:

    “This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests.”

    Both are selfish materialistic interests.

    You will never be able to understand why Whites are committing suicide if this is all you can see.

    You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.

    You yourself admit you cannot understand it – i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises. One would think when one has reached the limits of one’s premises explanatory power, its time to think beyond them.

    Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to break free.

    Yet to anyone who isn’t a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonHUN
    Can you elaborate? You mean they aspire to be saints, and sacrifice themselves or to repent for the sins of their fathers? (by going extinct?) Well true, Christianity introduced this kind of nutjobs to the world who aimed to die without resisting "evil" and expecting to win that way on the metaphysical plane. Progressives don't believe in such things though.
    , @BozoB
    Okay, I guess I'll be the one to bite: Why are Whites committing suicide?
    , @William
    AaronB, Do you understand? Do you see what you claim is so obvious? If so, then clearly state your point or position.

    You do not make any statement in your comment, you only attempt to belittle the author. Is belittling the author your central premise? Does this mean you in actuality have nothing to add?

    If you have some insight, then let's hear it! I'm curious. Why are Whites so obviously committing suicide?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You are being too cute. Trolling? Or maybe you can't spell out your case without showing it up as dealing with something not relevant to KM's careerism v. genetic/evolutionary conundrum.

    KM is dealing with the attitudes of academics to what other people are doing or allowing (and finding that their career interests prevent them seeing and speaking honestly about what fellow whites are doing and failing to do).

    You, I suspect are suggesting that nearly everyone is putting petty materialism of the crass or everyday variety ahead of having children and of relying on fellow citizens to do many mundane things for us, including our care in old age, that we materialistically encourage immigrants to do for lower wages.

    , @Santoculto
    I agree absolutely, no doubt it's more and more ''spiritual'' than just ''evolutionary''. Yes, existentialism is one of the ''plague'' that is destroying west BUT existentialism should be a good thing, a emancipation from childish belief systems, less for people who hasn't been selected to be mature, so instead a clear evolution of ''spirit'' be beneficial, it's become maladaptative. '''They''' create a moral game that is impossible for those who can't think in ''multiple' perspectives to win.
    , @utu
    I would never put Kevin MacDonald in the same bag with Derbyshire and Sailer. Unlike them MacDonald had courage to tackle the ultimate subject of the Jews. And he did it very thoroughly w/o holding any punches. He did it the way his training as a evolutionary sociologist permitted him which was by putting more emphasis on genes then cultural memes. This is unfortunate because cultural memes dominate. But writing about genes is a bit safer than about memes because one can fall on and hide behind presumably objective scientific narrative. That's why also Derbyshire and Sailer rather yap about genes than cultural memes.
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Yet to anyone who isn’t a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.
     
    Seeing as how the future of Western civilization is at stake, now may not be the best time to be keeping us in suspense.
    , @Anonymous
    Have you been under the illusion that all that 'genetic/evolutionary' BS is anything else than a diversionary tactic?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/justin-murphys-the-psychology-of-prohibiting-outside-thinkers/#comment-1882928
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. joe webb says:

    The left used to call the intellectual enablers of capitalism “bourgeois intellectuals.” This included various professions like economics, political science, etc.

    Since Sociology was the Revolution Party led by Jews, it got a pass.

    Today, with commies like the handsome negro Van Jones, at one of the major networks, and these networks nothing more than Pravda Dem Party hackworks, we need a new term for the media-Left-Revolutionary minority-racist-jewish-liberal-anti-fa, academic , etc. cultural revolution.

    The fact that , per this article, it has become so trendy as to attract opportunists of many colors, it arguably is in danger of strident internal divisions, like the LGBTxyz, loonies that have self-destructed. Something that denotes the internal instability of the Dem coalition would be useful.

    The bizarre connection with international capital as a theoretical vehicle for inauguration of the great Age of Globalism and One World of racial group-groping should be captured in any such term of the cultural revolution II that we are experiencing.

    Dunno, but the Brave New World needs a catchy term. Liberal Opportunism also must be compassed in the term. Liberal World Equality Trashniks, etc.
    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @Captain Willard
    "The bizarre connection with international capital as a theoretical vehicle for inauguration of the great Age of Globalism and One World of racial group-groping should be captured in any such term of the cultural revolution II that we are experiencing."

    How is this "bizarre" or "theoretical"? I would politely suggest instead that it's "logical" and "intended". Where you see culture, tradition and Western values, the Globalist Hierarchy sees a competitive ideology to its hegemonic project. You see a nation or tribe, they see cheap labor and "customers".

    Meanwhile, it is essential that, per Murphy, the independent Left be subjugated and/or co-opted. They cannot leave any Trotskys around to mess things up. They have correctly judged that the Right can be mopped up later.
  3. Wally says: • Website

    The world’s largest fraud must be addressed before anything changes.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    [MORE]

    from “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg:

    “In 1976, I went to a small town in Bavaria, Ludwigsburg, which has the headquarters for investigations of so-called National Socialist crimes, an office maintained by the provinces of the Federal Republic of Germany. About thirty prosecutors were housed in that particular building, and I went there to study court records, various affidavits, and other materials. But one afternoon, they said, “We’re having a party today, would you join us?” Why, yes. They said, “we have one bottle of wine for each person.” (laughter from the audience). And after a while I chanced to talk to the deputy chief of that office, and I said to him this: I’ve been troubled by one question. And I’m afraid that I went into print with something that isn’t entirely accurate. And that is the role of Adolf Hitler himself in the annihilation of the Jewish people in Europe. Now, I know that you are only concerned here with live individuals, and that you do not investigate the dead.”
    “But still … what do you think?
    “Ach,” he said, “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    at: http://takimag.com/article/fear_of_a_gray_planet_david_cole/print#ixzz3TxrfJenl

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the ’6,000,000′ lie since at least 1869?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Even more important to me seems the question 'who wanted WWII ?'.

    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946

    A J P Taylor, 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961, 1967, Londen
  4. Yup. careerism is spiritual whoredom.
    As somebody once said, “I was only following orders”.

    Read More
  5. Randal says:

    Excellent stuff. The hard truths that our society refuses to listen to and tries its best to suppress.

    This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests.

    Not hard to understand – genetic interests are not individual interests unless the individual chooses to make them so.

    Many of these people are childless, as a result of lifestyle choices – choosing to engage in homosexual or recreational activity instead of reproductive for hedonist reasons, postponing childbirth until too late for career materialist reasons. Such people have turned away from the instinctive objective of reproduction in the most fundamental way, and have no direct interest in the future beyond their own brief lives. No wonder they are free to engage in the profound selfishness of destructive altruism.

    Others think their children will be sheltered from the consequences by their own establishment status, or genuinely believe the dogmas they have repeated for so long.

    Read More
    • Agree: TelfoedJohn
    • Replies: @iffen
    instinctive objective of reproduction

    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    There is an instinct to have sex.
  6. Being cast as evil means you are outside the moral community. There’s no need to talk with you, no need to be fair, or even worry about your safety. You are like an outlaw in Old Norse society — ‘a person [who] lost all of his or her civil rights and could be killed on sight without any legal repercussions.’”

    Projection of such an incredible amount of animus directed at one individual must be an indicator of a huge lacking in our culture. Common decency aside, the simple repetition of such hostility must be masking other ills. S.H.I.T. Happens! Self. Haters. Impugning. Trump. Happens! Examined here:

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/s-h-i-t-examined/

    Read More
  7. One wonders if psychologists are ignorant of history.
    Some 300 years BCE a Greek calculated the circumference of the earth at 39.000 km, the right figure is 40.000.
    Yet Columbus’ sailors were afraid to fall of the earth.
    For some 1600 years the christian church prevented all independent thought, in 1600 the pope had Giordano Bruno burned alive, for heretic thoughts, about the universe, about the holy trinity.
    At about the same time Calvin burned Servetius, the man who discovered blood circulation, alive to death, also about the trinity.
    So Servetius was unable to tell the world about the blood circulation.
    Galileo got away with house arrest.
    Even around 1860 the pope declared that philosophical thinking not controlled by the church was illegal.
    So there is nothing special in the christian culture about no independent thought.
    On top of that, as Chomsky states: in any culture there is a standard truth, if this truth is not considered, no debate is possible, but between those who know better.
    We see this right now, much wailing about the indeed horrible carnage in Manchester, that the USA, Predators with Hellfire, causes such carnage every week three or fout times, it cannot be said.
    Terrorism is caused by the Islam, not by the west.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "JFK at 100" by Paul Craig Roberts: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/24/jfk-100-paul-craig-roberts/
    "The assassination of President Kennedy was an enormous cost to the world. Kennedy and Khrushchev would have followed up their collaboration in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis by ending the Cold War long before the military/security complex achieved its iron grip on the US government. Israel would have been denied nuclear weapons, and the designation of the Israel Lobby as a foreign agent would have prevented Israel’s strong grip on the US government. In his second term, JFK would have broken the CIA into a thousand pieces, an intention he expressed to his brother, Robert, and the Deep State would have been terminated before it became more powerful than the President."

    "The Globalization of War, America’s “Long War” against Humanity " by Michel Chossudovsky: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-globalization-of-war-americas-long-war-against-humanity-michel-chossudovsky/5427720
    "Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations."

    "Israel: the original terrorist state:" http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/189264/israel-original-terrorist-state
    , @Alden
    You're too intelligent to keep repeating Calvinist and enlightenment propaganda. Columbus and his sailors knew that the earth was round and if they just keep sailing west they would eventually run into Asia about 5,000 miles from The coast of Spain.

    What Columbus didn't know was that the Americas are between Europe and Asia.

    Why is the calendar used today called the Georgian calendar? Because the calendar needs to be adjusted every 1, 500 years. It was adjusted around 40 BC when Juluus Cesear was Emperor. By 1500AD it needed further adjustment. That adjustment was done in the best observatory in the world at the time by the beat astronomers and mathmeticians in the world. The work was done in the Vatican observatory. The astronomers and mathematicians were Vatican priests.

    I very heard of the scientific method? It was created around 1100 AD by priests and monks at the Roman Catholic University of Paris Sorbonne.

    Your own country the Netherlands was under the North Sea in 500 AD. It was Roman Catholic monks who settled on the beaches and began a thousand year process of land reclamation that literally built the land now called the Netherlands.

    Every university established in Europe before 1800 was established by the church. During those 1600 years you cite the only libraries in Europe belonged to the church

  8. @Wally
    The world's largest fraud must be addressed before anything changes.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    from “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg:


    "In 1976, I went to a small town in Bavaria, Ludwigsburg, which has the headquarters for investigations of so-called National Socialist crimes, an office maintained by the provinces of the Federal Republic of Germany. About thirty prosecutors were housed in that particular building, and I went there to study court records, various affidavits, and other materials. But one afternoon, they said, “We’re having a party today, would you join us?” Why, yes. They said, “we have one bottle of wine for each person.” (laughter from the audience). And after a while I chanced to talk to the deputy chief of that office, and I said to him this: I’ve been troubled by one question. And I’m afraid that I went into print with something that isn’t entirely accurate. And that is the role of Adolf Hitler himself in the annihilation of the Jewish people in Europe. Now, I know that you are only concerned here with live individuals, and that you do not investigate the dead."
    "But still … what do you think?
    “Ach,” he said, “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    at: http://takimag.com/article/fear_of_a_gray_planet_david_cole/print#ixzz3TxrfJenl
     
    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    Even more important to me seems the question ‘who wanted WWII ?’.

    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946

    A J P Taylor, ‘The Origins of the Second World War’, 1961, 1967, Londen

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Nothing like recent, cutting-edge research to support your viewpoint.
  9. anonHUN says:
    @AaronB
    "This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    Both are selfish materialistic interests.

    You will never be able to understand why Whites are committing suicide if this is all you can see.

    You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.

    You yourself admit you cannot understand it - i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises. One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time to think beyond them.

    Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to break free.

    Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.

    Can you elaborate? You mean they aspire to be saints, and sacrifice themselves or to repent for the sins of their fathers? (by going extinct?) Well true, Christianity introduced this kind of nutjobs to the world who aimed to die without resisting “evil” and expecting to win that way on the metaphysical plane. Progressives don’t believe in such things though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    As you probably realize, the West isn't engaged in altruistic self-sacrifice, but in suicide. There is a big difference. One is good, the other bad.

    One is based on love and compassion, the other on self-disgust. If we were capable of love we would defend our way of life, not destroy it - if we could love, our life would have some meaning, and some happiness. Love is a transcendent, non-materialist, value.

    What the West is doing is motivated by hate, not compassion.

    This isn't Christian, either. Suicide is forbidden in Christianity, nor can one force others to sacrifice themselves, as in forcing entire unwilling nations to self-destruct.

    Also, our policies are obviously increasing misery, hatred, and bloodshed, in the long run, and the short run. If we were motivated by compassion, we could send money, aid, entire teams, to other countries. But that would not serve our true purpose.

  10. @joe webb
    The left used to call the intellectual enablers of capitalism "bourgeois intellectuals." This included various professions like economics, political science, etc.

    Since Sociology was the Revolution Party led by Jews, it got a pass.

    Today, with commies like the handsome negro Van Jones, at one of the major networks, and these networks nothing more than Pravda Dem Party hackworks, we need a new term for the media-Left-Revolutionary minority-racist-jewish-liberal-anti-fa, academic , etc. cultural revolution.

    The fact that , per this article, it has become so trendy as to attract opportunists of many colors, it arguably is in danger of strident internal divisions, like the LGBTxyz, loonies that have self-destructed. Something that denotes the internal instability of the Dem coalition would be useful.

    The bizarre connection with international capital as a theoretical vehicle for inauguration of the great Age of Globalism and One World of racial group-groping should be captured in any such term of the cultural revolution II that we are experiencing.

    Dunno, but the Brave New World needs a catchy term. Liberal Opportunism also must be compassed in the term. Liberal World Equality Trashniks, etc.
    Joe Webb

    “The bizarre connection with international capital as a theoretical vehicle for inauguration of the great Age of Globalism and One World of racial group-groping should be captured in any such term of the cultural revolution II that we are experiencing.”

    How is this “bizarre” or “theoretical”? I would politely suggest instead that it’s “logical” and “intended”. Where you see culture, tradition and Western values, the Globalist Hierarchy sees a competitive ideology to its hegemonic project. You see a nation or tribe, they see cheap labor and “customers”.

    Meanwhile, it is essential that, per Murphy, the independent Left be subjugated and/or co-opted. They cannot leave any Trotskys around to mess things up. They have correctly judged that the Right can be mopped up later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    This article, & your comment captain, are "spot on".
    There is a name for the so-called left addressed in this article: they are the "pseudo-left."
    These "progressives" have been largely complicit with the neoliberal take over of western democracy over the last 40 years. They have actively degraded working people to a mere aggregation of identity groups: gay ? (tick) female ? (tick) black/minority ? (tick) white ? ( ...um?) male ? (...oppressor, tick)
    They have turned their backs on the economic interests of working people -- whatever their "identity" -- & usually given support to whatever insane imperialist military escapade the ruling class has concocted. (That Assad, he's a DESPOT ! so if Syria gets destroyed...well it's "worth it" (M. Albright's famous reference to half a million victims of Iraq sanctions)
    Capitalist elites have supported all this nonsense. Anti-racism = unconditional immigration = weakening of labour.
    Identity politics ? Wonderful. All issues confused. Workers split. Accuse anyone who wants to alter the status quo as "fascist" (ie Trump, Le Pen, Brexit).
    And the theoretical underpinning of the pseudo-left ? Post Modernism -- the most intellectually & spiritually poisonous ideas to emerge from universities in the history of the West.
    , @joe webb
    I was limiting my comment to the Left character of the general insanity. There is of course the liberal component which, like Fox News type conservatives, agree with the liberals about the Jews as holy, and go on to embrace globalism, and internationalism in general.

    This the Left does not completely embrace, given the Bernie Sanders type relative pro-labor orientation. Still, because the Left Believes in racial equality, their opposition to globalism is limp, as they Believe in Open Borders and One World. Any opposition to such is Racist! in their eyes and accounts for the Sanctuary cities, states, and soon the whole country will be promoted by the Left, just as it opposes Israel's Apartheid character, as a Sanctuary Country.

    That is what is happening in Europe and the nationalist Right is starting the counter-revolution in protest. This will probably end in lots of bloodshed as the liberals are fundamentally communist...Trotsky variety...world revolution or Pimping little sisters of communism, per Wilmot Robertson...The Dispossessed Majority.

    The Left has abandoned its defense of the white working class. That is the historically fundamental truth about the Left.

    The Left has become essentially an anarchist force...with its championing of Social Justice for All the low-life of the planet. Social Justice means Equality for all...socially. Political equality in the West has never meant anything more than equality before the law.

    Social justice is impossible. There is no possibility of any Standard or Principle to measure Social Justice...just leveling, and theft, and resentment of anybody more competent, better looking, smarter, etc. Social Justice movements are totalitarian and can only lead to anarchy.

    The Left is dead as a legitimate political force, dead in the sense of a rational and reality-based politics. It is totalitarian and will die, either a natural death, or a violent death, at the hands of more rational people.

    Joe Webb
  11. BozoB says:
    @AaronB
    "This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    Both are selfish materialistic interests.

    You will never be able to understand why Whites are committing suicide if this is all you can see.

    You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.

    You yourself admit you cannot understand it - i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises. One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time to think beyond them.

    Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to break free.

    Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.

    Okay, I guess I’ll be the one to bite: Why are Whites committing suicide?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Quick answer: indoctrinated guilt.

    Guilt for things that Gentile whites didn't do.
    ex.: '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'

    All but two of the Germans [on trial at Nuremberg], in the 139 cases that we investigated, had their testicles kicked in beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators:" 23.1.49, The Sunday Pictorial (quoted in For Those Who Cannot Speak (ref. 27), p.21.The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses.
    - American judge, van Roden
     
    Notice that Jews are doing the opposite.
    They support strict Israeli immigration laws which specify Jews Only, while they demand massive low IQ, criminal 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.
  12. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @jilles dykstra
    Even more important to me seems the question 'who wanted WWII ?'.

    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946

    A J P Taylor, 'The Origins of the Second World War', 1961, 1967, Londen

    Nothing like recent, cutting-edge research to support your viewpoint.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Were those sources discredited after they appeared?
  13. William says:
    @AaronB
    "This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    Both are selfish materialistic interests.

    You will never be able to understand why Whites are committing suicide if this is all you can see.

    You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.

    You yourself admit you cannot understand it - i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises. One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time to think beyond them.

    Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to break free.

    Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.

    AaronB, Do you understand? Do you see what you claim is so obvious? If so, then clearly state your point or position.

    You do not make any statement in your comment, you only attempt to belittle the author. Is belittling the author your central premise? Does this mean you in actuality have nothing to add?

    If you have some insight, then let’s hear it! I’m curious. Why are Whites so obviously committing suicide?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I thought it was obvious from my last line.

    A society that becomes materialist, loses contact with the spiritual and transcendent, loses the will to live.

    A society that becomes mechanistic, individualistic, and rationalistic creates a life not worth living. Responding to an obscure inner need, humans rebel against it, seek to destroy it, and yearn for the "other".

    This has been going on since the late 18th century, if not earlier. First a trickle, then a flood. At first a few adventurers rejected the West for exotic climes - Sir Francis Burton, Rimbaud, etc, writing about their disgust with life in the West.

    By the 19th century dozens of writers, perhaps the majority, are writing about their disgust with life in the modern West. Flaubert, Baudelaire, Schopenhauer, Dickens, etc. Countless others.

    Jews exploit weaknesses, but they do not create them.
  14. iffen says:
    @Randal
    Excellent stuff. The hard truths that our society refuses to listen to and tries its best to suppress.

    This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests.
     
    Not hard to understand - genetic interests are not individual interests unless the individual chooses to make them so.

    Many of these people are childless, as a result of lifestyle choices - choosing to engage in homosexual or recreational activity instead of reproductive for hedonist reasons, postponing childbirth until too late for career materialist reasons. Such people have turned away from the instinctive objective of reproduction in the most fundamental way, and have no direct interest in the future beyond their own brief lives. No wonder they are free to engage in the profound selfishness of destructive altruism.

    Others think their children will be sheltered from the consequences by their own establishment status, or genuinely believe the dogmas they have repeated for so long.

    instinctive objective of reproduction

    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    There is an instinct to have sex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Most people like kids, and it's comforting for most people to know that they have many descendants. It's also deeply dissatisfying to know that you have no descendants, or just very few of them. Have you not heard of old parents begging their adult kids to settle down and produce grandkids for them? (An example would be Hillary Clinton, who, according to Chelsea, was begging her daughter to have kids.) I know of grandparents who were even trying to make their kids have a second child (and so an extra grandkid for the grandparents). (Over two kids there is usually no pressure, but I'd bet most grandparents would be happy to have more grandkids. Especially since they don't have much downside, since the grandkids are not their responsibility.) I think it's largely hardwired.
    , @Randal

    There is no instinct for reproduction.
     
    Seems pretty unlikely to me, based upon simple observation.

    The evidence for an instinct to reproduce seems to be obvious in the widespread desire for children/grandchildren of one's own. Any reason to deny the obvious presumption?

    Though of course it's not really relevant to the point I was making, since "instinct for reproduction" could as easily have been written "genetic imperative for reproduction" without affecting the point.
    , @MarkinLA
    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    Tell that to the average woman. She may have no instinct for sex but having a baby is another thing altogether.
    , @dfordoom

    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    There is an instinct to have sex.
     
    I think women have an instinct for reproduction. It can be suppressed and a lot of women these days do suppress it. That's one of the reasons they're so messed up.
  15. @AaronB
    "This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    Both are selfish materialistic interests.

    You will never be able to understand why Whites are committing suicide if this is all you can see.

    You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.

    You yourself admit you cannot understand it - i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises. One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time to think beyond them.

    Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to break free.

    Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.

    You are being too cute. Trolling? Or maybe you can’t spell out your case without showing it up as dealing with something not relevant to KM’s careerism v. genetic/evolutionary conundrum.

    KM is dealing with the attitudes of academics to what other people are doing or allowing (and finding that their career interests prevent them seeing and speaking honestly about what fellow whites are doing and failing to do).

    You, I suspect are suggesting that nearly everyone is putting petty materialism of the crass or everyday variety ahead of having children and of relying on fellow citizens to do many mundane things for us, including our care in old age, that we materialistically encourage immigrants to do for lower wages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    But why are people putting career interests above their genetic interests?

    Both are selfish, but career interests are short term, and genetic interests are long term.

    In fact, genetic interests - nationalism - can only be a transitional stage between religion and nihilism. Necessarily so.

    As a society moves away from transcendent values - religion - nationalism is the first stage in the transition towards complete materialism, and complete selfishness.

    Nationalism is long term selfish materialism, and it also retains some concern with people other than yourself - i.e it retains the faint echo of a transcendent value, love.

    But as materialism advances, short term selfish materialism must come to predominate and become the mainstream attitude. Complete materialism cannot tolerate even the trace of a non-materialistic transcendent value.

    Careerism is merely the second to last stage in the transition away from religion. The last stage is self-disgust, weariness of life, and suicide. Nihilism.

    Nationalism - long-term genetic interests - cannot replace religion, nor serve as the long term basis for a healthy society on its own. It can only make sense within a religious context, as one element.
  16. This is a fascinating take on the true Establishment, if not the ‘counter-culture’; both of which are politically correct and engineered to be self-perpetuating.

    The progressive Trojan Horse has penetrated the kingdom’s walls.

    Tolerance! (Do not resist.)

    These progressive movements are also censorious, authoritarian and highly exclusive.

    ‘We are all One’. Bigotry will not be tolerated!

    At their core, these liberal movements and their rainbow collection of accompanying values represent the subversive interests of an invasive species.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    When used by leftists, "progressive" is the PC mask word for "regressive". Regressive is what they truly are. Just like the fascist ant-fa are actually what they claim to be against. Stop helping them hide behind leftist lies.
  17. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @iffen
    instinctive objective of reproduction

    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    There is an instinct to have sex.

    Most people like kids, and it’s comforting for most people to know that they have many descendants. It’s also deeply dissatisfying to know that you have no descendants, or just very few of them. Have you not heard of old parents begging their adult kids to settle down and produce grandkids for them? (An example would be Hillary Clinton, who, according to Chelsea, was begging her daughter to have kids.) I know of grandparents who were even trying to make their kids have a second child (and so an extra grandkid for the grandparents). (Over two kids there is usually no pressure, but I’d bet most grandparents would be happy to have more grandkids. Especially since they don’t have much downside, since the grandkids are not their responsibility.) I think it’s largely hardwired.

    Read More
  18. benjaminl says:

    Like moral pronouncements, religious dogmas are not refutable and need not be justified empirically. They are nothing more than intellectually shoddy ex Cathedra pronouncements that take advantage of a pre-existing intellectual consensus.

    This is a bit unfair to religious dogma. From Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to Augustine and Aquinas, many theologians did their most notable work, precisely in arguing against people who did not share their views.

    Read More
  19. AaronB says:
    @William
    AaronB, Do you understand? Do you see what you claim is so obvious? If so, then clearly state your point or position.

    You do not make any statement in your comment, you only attempt to belittle the author. Is belittling the author your central premise? Does this mean you in actuality have nothing to add?

    If you have some insight, then let's hear it! I'm curious. Why are Whites so obviously committing suicide?

    I thought it was obvious from my last line.

    A society that becomes materialist, loses contact with the spiritual and transcendent, loses the will to live.

    A society that becomes mechanistic, individualistic, and rationalistic creates a life not worth living. Responding to an obscure inner need, humans rebel against it, seek to destroy it, and yearn for the “other”.

    This has been going on since the late 18th century, if not earlier. First a trickle, then a flood. At first a few adventurers rejected the West for exotic climes – Sir Francis Burton, Rimbaud, etc, writing about their disgust with life in the West.

    By the 19th century dozens of writers, perhaps the majority, are writing about their disgust with life in the modern West. Flaubert, Baudelaire, Schopenhauer, Dickens, etc. Countless others.

    Jews exploit weaknesses, but they do not create them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold
    They're not materialist, they get a spiritual, transcendent joy from their PC ideology.
    , @TelfoedJohn
    Adam Curtis makes a convincing case that Individualism has destroyed any hope for the future, since mass individualism means that people cannot join up to make the world better. It also has knock-on effects, like people cannot fall in love anymore, because to be in love you have merge your soul with someone else. And the unhappy individualist cannot do that.

    https://youtu.be/B4n7L-DQOlY
  20. @AaronB
    "This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    Both are selfish materialistic interests.

    You will never be able to understand why Whites are committing suicide if this is all you can see.

    You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.

    You yourself admit you cannot understand it - i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises. One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time to think beyond them.

    Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to break free.

    Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.

    I agree absolutely, no doubt it’s more and more ”spiritual” than just ”evolutionary”. Yes, existentialism is one of the ”plague” that is destroying west BUT existentialism should be a good thing, a emancipation from childish belief systems, less for people who hasn’t been selected to be mature, so instead a clear evolution of ”spirit” be beneficial, it’s become maladaptative. ”’They”’ create a moral game that is impossible for those who can’t think in ”multiple’ perspectives to win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    But man cannot live without metaphysics - if he tries, we get what we have now in the West. We are metaphysical creatures.

    So "existentialism" may have liberated us from childish beliefs, many of them pernicious, but at the same time it has grounded us in the dead weight of materialism ("physics", not metaphysics).

    As for "them" creating a game we cannot "win", I believe we are actively cooperating with "them" - willing our own destruction. We do not wish to live the life we have created for ourselves.
  21. AaronB says:
    @anonHUN
    Can you elaborate? You mean they aspire to be saints, and sacrifice themselves or to repent for the sins of their fathers? (by going extinct?) Well true, Christianity introduced this kind of nutjobs to the world who aimed to die without resisting "evil" and expecting to win that way on the metaphysical plane. Progressives don't believe in such things though.

    As you probably realize, the West isn’t engaged in altruistic self-sacrifice, but in suicide. There is a big difference. One is good, the other bad.

    One is based on love and compassion, the other on self-disgust. If we were capable of love we would defend our way of life, not destroy it – if we could love, our life would have some meaning, and some happiness. Love is a transcendent, non-materialist, value.

    What the West is doing is motivated by hate, not compassion.

    This isn’t Christian, either. Suicide is forbidden in Christianity, nor can one force others to sacrifice themselves, as in forcing entire unwilling nations to self-destruct.

    Also, our policies are obviously increasing misery, hatred, and bloodshed, in the long run, and the short run. If we were motivated by compassion, we could send money, aid, entire teams, to other countries. But that would not serve our true purpose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    What the West is doing is motivated by hate, not compassion.
     
    Yeah, hate by the globalist elite for the mass of mankind (aka what Bill Clinton's history mentor, Carroll Quigley called the Money Power), which is rather different from self-hatred, although self-hatred or at least the lust for what is self-destructive is what a mass-hating elite seeks to instill in the masses.

    Societies don't live or die according to the minds of the mass, but according to the wisdom and ambitions of the leadership. So let's forget the BS about a lack of spirituality, let's recognize who are the bastards driving the West to destruction and how they and their agents are to be exposed and destroyed.

  22. Ace says:
    @Anon
    Nothing like recent, cutting-edge research to support your viewpoint.

    Were those sources discredited after they appeared?

    Read More
  23. AaronB says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You are being too cute. Trolling? Or maybe you can't spell out your case without showing it up as dealing with something not relevant to KM's careerism v. genetic/evolutionary conundrum.

    KM is dealing with the attitudes of academics to what other people are doing or allowing (and finding that their career interests prevent them seeing and speaking honestly about what fellow whites are doing and failing to do).

    You, I suspect are suggesting that nearly everyone is putting petty materialism of the crass or everyday variety ahead of having children and of relying on fellow citizens to do many mundane things for us, including our care in old age, that we materialistically encourage immigrants to do for lower wages.

    But why are people putting career interests above their genetic interests?

    Both are selfish, but career interests are short term, and genetic interests are long term.

    In fact, genetic interests – nationalism – can only be a transitional stage between religion and nihilism. Necessarily so.

    As a society moves away from transcendent values – religion – nationalism is the first stage in the transition towards complete materialism, and complete selfishness.

    Nationalism is long term selfish materialism, and it also retains some concern with people other than yourself – i.e it retains the faint echo of a transcendent value, love.

    But as materialism advances, short term selfish materialism must come to predominate and become the mainstream attitude. Complete materialism cannot tolerate even the trace of a non-materialistic transcendent value.

    Careerism is merely the second to last stage in the transition away from religion. The last stage is self-disgust, weariness of life, and suicide. Nihilism.

    Nationalism – long-term genetic interests – cannot replace religion, nor serve as the long term basis for a healthy society on its own. It can only make sense within a religious context, as one element.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Genetic interests can be more morally acceptable if people start to perceive on themselves certain psychological features that is preditive to good behaviors or a higher frequency of that, and start to breed among themselves, if they understand the basic principles of genetics. Genetic interests is not always selfish.
  24. @Captain Willard
    "The bizarre connection with international capital as a theoretical vehicle for inauguration of the great Age of Globalism and One World of racial group-groping should be captured in any such term of the cultural revolution II that we are experiencing."

    How is this "bizarre" or "theoretical"? I would politely suggest instead that it's "logical" and "intended". Where you see culture, tradition and Western values, the Globalist Hierarchy sees a competitive ideology to its hegemonic project. You see a nation or tribe, they see cheap labor and "customers".

    Meanwhile, it is essential that, per Murphy, the independent Left be subjugated and/or co-opted. They cannot leave any Trotskys around to mess things up. They have correctly judged that the Right can be mopped up later.

    This article, & your comment captain, are “spot on”.
    There is a name for the so-called left addressed in this article: they are the “pseudo-left.”
    These “progressives” have been largely complicit with the neoliberal take over of western democracy over the last 40 years. They have actively degraded working people to a mere aggregation of identity groups: gay ? (tick) female ? (tick) black/minority ? (tick) white ? ( …um?) male ? (…oppressor, tick)
    They have turned their backs on the economic interests of working people — whatever their “identity” — & usually given support to whatever insane imperialist military escapade the ruling class has concocted. (That Assad, he’s a DESPOT ! so if Syria gets destroyed…well it’s “worth it” (M. Albright’s famous reference to half a million victims of Iraq sanctions)
    Capitalist elites have supported all this nonsense. Anti-racism = unconditional immigration = weakening of labour.
    Identity politics ? Wonderful. All issues confused. Workers split. Accuse anyone who wants to alter the status quo as “fascist” (ie Trump, Le Pen, Brexit).
    And the theoretical underpinning of the pseudo-left ? Post Modernism — the most intellectually & spiritually poisonous ideas to emerge from universities in the history of the West.

    Read More
  25. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Ace
    Were those sources discredited after they appeared?

    Yes

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Proof?
    None.

    recommended:
    WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20&sid=27d79dacb20ae3a55893358c9982f39e
    and:
    WWII Asia / Pacific Theater Revisionist Forum
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=26&sid=27d79dacb20ae3a55893358c9982f39e

    'holocaust historian' Raoul Hilberg:

    "In 1976, I went to a small town in Bavaria, Ludwigsburg, which has the headquarters for investigations of so-called National Socialist crimes, an office maintained by the provinces of the Federal Republic of Germany. About thirty prosecutors were housed in that particular building, and I went there to study court records, various affidavits, and other materials. But one afternoon, they said, “We’re having a party today, would you join us?” Why, yes. They said, “we have one bottle of wine for each person.” (laughter from the audience). And after a while I chanced to talk to the deputy chief of that office, and I said to him this: I’ve been troubled by one question. And I’m afraid that I went into print with something that isn’t entirely accurate. And that is the role of Adolf Hitler himself in the annihilation of the Jewish people in Europe. Now, I know that you are only concerned here with live individuals, and that you do not investigate the dead.”
    “But still … what do you think?
    “Ach,” he said, “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    at:
    http://takimag.com/article/fear_of_a_gray_planet_david_cole/print#ixzz3TxrfJenl

    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Well, that settles it, I guess.
  26. Agent76 says:

    Dec 7, 2011 Council on Foreign Relations – The Power Behind Big News

    One version says that the CFR is an organization sister to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Britain), both founded in 1921 right after World War I when the League of Nations idea failed. The sole purpose of such organizations is to condition the public to accept a Global Governance which today is the United Nations.

    Read More
  27. Randal says:
    @iffen
    instinctive objective of reproduction

    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    There is an instinct to have sex.

    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    Seems pretty unlikely to me, based upon simple observation.

    The evidence for an instinct to reproduce seems to be obvious in the widespread desire for children/grandchildren of one’s own. Any reason to deny the obvious presumption?

    Though of course it’s not really relevant to the point I was making, since “instinct for reproduction” could as easily have been written “genetic imperative for reproduction” without affecting the point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    There is no genetic imperative for reproduction.

    There is a genetic imperative to have sex.
  28. AaronB says:
    @Santoculto
    I agree absolutely, no doubt it's more and more ''spiritual'' than just ''evolutionary''. Yes, existentialism is one of the ''plague'' that is destroying west BUT existentialism should be a good thing, a emancipation from childish belief systems, less for people who hasn't been selected to be mature, so instead a clear evolution of ''spirit'' be beneficial, it's become maladaptative. '''They''' create a moral game that is impossible for those who can't think in ''multiple' perspectives to win.

    But man cannot live without metaphysics – if he tries, we get what we have now in the West. We are metaphysical creatures.

    So “existentialism” may have liberated us from childish beliefs, many of them pernicious, but at the same time it has grounded us in the dead weight of materialism (“physics”, not metaphysics).

    As for “them” creating a game we cannot “win”, I believe we are actively cooperating with “them” – willing our own destruction. We do not wish to live the life we have created for ourselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I don't think like that, THEY just re-organized social structures to favor the destroyers/ left-retards. It's just like in the Terminator III, when the infamous Terminator was reprogrammed by T-X to kill its original protected, ''kill itself, its own sense to exist''.

    Meta-physical is a escapism from reality, a confusion with ultimate beauty of existence. We can dream with stars without gross and ridiculous fairy-tale stories. We can create them, but without confuse them with reality, something has been fatal for us, in direct or indirect ways.

    But yes, without someTHING forward guide us, we become more individualistic. But still is not a problem be individualistic expressing our individualities, it's a problem when we become selfish individualistic expressing our individualisms or lack of empathy.
  29. utu says:
    @AaronB
    "This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    Both are selfish materialistic interests.

    You will never be able to understand why Whites are committing suicide if this is all you can see.

    You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.

    You yourself admit you cannot understand it - i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises. One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time to think beyond them.

    Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to break free.

    Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.

    I would never put Kevin MacDonald in the same bag with Derbyshire and Sailer. Unlike them MacDonald had courage to tackle the ultimate subject of the Jews. And he did it very thoroughly w/o holding any punches. He did it the way his training as a evolutionary sociologist permitted him which was by putting more emphasis on genes then cultural memes. This is unfortunate because cultural memes dominate. But writing about genes is a bit safer than about memes because one can fall on and hide behind presumably objective scientific narrative. That’s why also Derbyshire and Sailer rather yap about genes than cultural memes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    You are right - Sailer in particular seems to admire Jewish "success" - which shows he does not understand what it is based on.

    Kevin deserves admiration, but his analysis is vitiated by his materialism. He does not understand White vulnerability - because as a materialist, he cannot.

    His materialism also limits his ability to understand Jews.

    Genetic determinism has severe limits in explaining history - the idea that Whites are uniquely altruistic is historically ignorant, for instance. Also, it is a serious misunderstanding to describe current White behavior as altruistic.

    Further, there can be no evolutionary logic for a group to preserve itself under pressure - survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating - a fact, by the way, which seems easily grasped by our current-day White materialists.

    Group-survival can only be a non-materialist transcendental value. But then, the identity of the group - not its genetic material, which will survive anyhow - must bee felt as worth preserving.

    These, and other defects, must be swept under the rug if one is to be an extreme materialist.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    You unfairly snipe at SS and JD for some reason. My tecollection is that Steve was brought up Catholic but his genetic father is Jewish. But i can't see in any case why he should be expected to write to your prescription.
    Also you seem to have missed the Derbyshire piece about the Jews in America who still mrntally live in 1880 Russia hiding from the Cossacks.
  30. @AaronB
    But why are people putting career interests above their genetic interests?

    Both are selfish, but career interests are short term, and genetic interests are long term.

    In fact, genetic interests - nationalism - can only be a transitional stage between religion and nihilism. Necessarily so.

    As a society moves away from transcendent values - religion - nationalism is the first stage in the transition towards complete materialism, and complete selfishness.

    Nationalism is long term selfish materialism, and it also retains some concern with people other than yourself - i.e it retains the faint echo of a transcendent value, love.

    But as materialism advances, short term selfish materialism must come to predominate and become the mainstream attitude. Complete materialism cannot tolerate even the trace of a non-materialistic transcendent value.

    Careerism is merely the second to last stage in the transition away from religion. The last stage is self-disgust, weariness of life, and suicide. Nihilism.

    Nationalism - long-term genetic interests - cannot replace religion, nor serve as the long term basis for a healthy society on its own. It can only make sense within a religious context, as one element.

    Genetic interests can be more morally acceptable if people start to perceive on themselves certain psychological features that is preditive to good behaviors or a higher frequency of that, and start to breed among themselves, if they understand the basic principles of genetics. Genetic interests is not always selfish.

    Read More
  31. Wally says: • Website
    @Anon
    Yes

    Proof?
    None.

    recommended:
    WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20&sid=27d79dacb20ae3a55893358c9982f39e

    and:
    WWII Asia / Pacific Theater Revisionist Forum

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=26&sid=27d79dacb20ae3a55893358c9982f39e

    ‘holocaust historian’ Raoul Hilberg:

    “In 1976, I went to a small town in Bavaria, Ludwigsburg, which has the headquarters for investigations of so-called National Socialist crimes, an office maintained by the provinces of the Federal Republic of Germany. About thirty prosecutors were housed in that particular building, and I went there to study court records, various affidavits, and other materials. But one afternoon, they said, “We’re having a party today, would you join us?” Why, yes. They said, “we have one bottle of wine for each person.” (laughter from the audience). And after a while I chanced to talk to the deputy chief of that office, and I said to him this: I’ve been troubled by one question. And I’m afraid that I went into print with something that isn’t entirely accurate. And that is the role of Adolf Hitler himself in the annihilation of the Jewish people in Europe. Now, I know that you are only concerned here with live individuals, and that you do not investigate the dead.”
    “But still … what do you think?
    “Ach,” he said, “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”
    at:

    http://takimag.com/article/fear_of_a_gray_planet_david_cole/print#ixzz3TxrfJenl

    Read More
  32. AaronB says:
    @utu
    I would never put Kevin MacDonald in the same bag with Derbyshire and Sailer. Unlike them MacDonald had courage to tackle the ultimate subject of the Jews. And he did it very thoroughly w/o holding any punches. He did it the way his training as a evolutionary sociologist permitted him which was by putting more emphasis on genes then cultural memes. This is unfortunate because cultural memes dominate. But writing about genes is a bit safer than about memes because one can fall on and hide behind presumably objective scientific narrative. That's why also Derbyshire and Sailer rather yap about genes than cultural memes.

    You are right – Sailer in particular seems to admire Jewish “success” – which shows he does not understand what it is based on.

    Kevin deserves admiration, but his analysis is vitiated by his materialism. He does not understand White vulnerability – because as a materialist, he cannot.

    His materialism also limits his ability to understand Jews.

    Genetic determinism has severe limits in explaining history – the idea that Whites are uniquely altruistic is historically ignorant, for instance. Also, it is a serious misunderstanding to describe current White behavior as altruistic.

    Further, there can be no evolutionary logic for a group to preserve itself under pressure – survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating – a fact, by the way, which seems easily grasped by our current-day White materialists.

    Group-survival can only be a non-materialist transcendental value. But then, the identity of the group – not its genetic material, which will survive anyhow – must bee felt as worth preserving.

    These, and other defects, must be swept under the rug if one is to be an extreme materialist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    there can be no evolutionary logic for a group to preserve itself under pressure
     
    Wrong.
    , @CanSpeccy

    survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating – a fact ...
     
    Oh sure!

    Just what a globalist shill for European genocide would say.

    The truth, however, is quite the opposite.

    Thus, if in a territory of fixed carrying capacity, indigenous females are impregnated by alien settlers, then in the next generation, the proportion of indigenous genes in the gene pool will be diminished.

    Some survival strategy!

    That that is a strategy for self-genocide is why Jews won't "marry out" and insist on having a Jewish state.

    And the genocidal effect is the same if you merely have mass immigration, especially when combined with below replacement birth rates as have been engineered throughout the West by government policy on abortion, divorce, toleration of immigrant polygamy, and the promotion of sexual perversion under the guise of sex "education." Under those circumstances, it doesn't matter who the indigenous people mate with, their genes in the gene pool will be diluted, eventually to extinction.

    Even if the indigenous mate only with one another, the frequency of their genes in the gene pool will be diminished both proportionally and in total, unless the population grows without limit.

    Then there is the cultural genocide, better known as multi-culturalism. First you invite in the adherents of the religion of love, next thing you know is the bastards are yelling Europe is the Cancer, Islam is the Answer, and terror bombing indigenous kids.

    , @FKA Max
    I personally believe in -- based on my personal experience and research -- and support the ``Northern Europeans are uniquely altruistic/idealistic'' hypothesis http://www.unz.com/article/two-cheers-for-trump-advisor-mike-anton-he-has-the-right-enemies/#comment-1771264 , but there is an interesting study, which hypothesizes the opposite, namely that Northern Europeans are less altruistic than other races/cultures. I believe, that the author of this study mistakens clannishness/tribalism for altruism/emotional intelligence, so his conclusion/understanding is flawed, in my opinion, but the study is still well worth a read:

    Correlation of the COMT Val158Met polymorphism with latitude and a hunter-gather lifestyle suggests culture–gene coevolution and selective pressure on cognition genes due to climate Piffer (2013)

    https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/correlation-of-the-comt-val158met-polymorphism-with-latitude-and-a-hunter-gather-lifestyle-suggests-culturee28093gene-coevolution-and-selective-pressure-on-cognition-genes-due-to-climate.pdf
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/sex-differences-in-intelligence-in-nigeria/#comment-1866670

    Excerpt:


    The hypothesis of the present study is that ethnic groups start as hunter-gatherers in their respective geographical locations. The populations with a higher genotypic level of WM or fluid intelligence (thanks to a high frequency of the Met allele) were initially advantaged in their quest for technological progress and the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle requiring planning, such as that of agriculturalism. The behavioral inflexibility and lower emotional intelligence/altruism associated with Met allele carrier status favored the development of a hierarchical society, where resources were not shared but were concentrated in the hands of a few and formal rules governed human relationships. This first gave rise to city-states, ancient empires, and eventually the modern Western economy and society, based on monetary profit and scientific progress. Conversely, ethnic groups characterized by very low frequencies of the Met allele, but high Val frequencies, were predisposed to form deeper bonds based on reciprocity and altruism. Their higher behavioral and cognitive flexibility made it harder for them to accept the rule of formal rules or an impersonal bureaucracy.
    An additional mechanism of gene–environment interaction can be included, which involves the addition of a feedback loop, with culture acting back on genes via selective pressure, which eventually increased the initial genetic differences between different, isolated populations.
     
  33. Wally says: • Website
    @BozoB
    Okay, I guess I'll be the one to bite: Why are Whites committing suicide?

    Quick answer: indoctrinated guilt.

    Guilt for things that Gentile whites didn’t do.
    ex.: ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’

    All but two of the Germans [on trial at Nuremberg], in the 139 cases that we investigated, had their testicles kicked in beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators:” 23.1.49, The Sunday Pictorial (quoted in For Those Who Cannot Speak (ref. 27), p.21.The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses.
    - American judge, van Roden

    Notice that Jews are doing the opposite.
    They support strict Israeli immigration laws which specify Jews Only, while they demand massive low IQ, criminal 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Anon
    More Jews marry non-Jews than marry Jews. That's hardly the opposite of "suicide," given the strict rules under which they define themselves. The only place they're not doing this is in Israel. But I thought ethnic states protecting their populations against immigrants was good? And who are these Jews who "demand massive low IQ, criminal 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe." Got a source for that?
  34. iffen says:
    @Randal

    There is no instinct for reproduction.
     
    Seems pretty unlikely to me, based upon simple observation.

    The evidence for an instinct to reproduce seems to be obvious in the widespread desire for children/grandchildren of one's own. Any reason to deny the obvious presumption?

    Though of course it's not really relevant to the point I was making, since "instinct for reproduction" could as easily have been written "genetic imperative for reproduction" without affecting the point.

    There is no genetic imperative for reproduction.

    There is a genetic imperative to have sex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    People love having grandkids, even feminist Hillary Clinton (who otherwise didn't care much for reproduction) begged her only daughter to produce grandkids for her. Childless spinsters are often quite bitter, and most folk psychologists give at least two reasons why, with one of them being bitter about not having children. What makes you think it's not hardwired?
    , @Randal

    There is no genetic imperative for reproduction.
     
    Seems pretty unlikely to me, based upon simple observation.

    The existence of a genetic imperative to reproduce seems to be inherent in the theory of gene selection and the consequence that the only reason people (or any species) exist is precisely in order to reproduce their genes. Any reason to deny the obvious presumption?

    Though of course it’s not really relevant to the point I was making, since “genetic imperative for reproduction” could as easily have been written “human urge to reproduce” without affecting the point, or indeed left out completely.
  35. MBlanc46 says:

    So academic Leftists are now what pass for professional revolutionaries. V.I. Ulyanov would be appalled.

    Read More
  36. @utu
    I would never put Kevin MacDonald in the same bag with Derbyshire and Sailer. Unlike them MacDonald had courage to tackle the ultimate subject of the Jews. And he did it very thoroughly w/o holding any punches. He did it the way his training as a evolutionary sociologist permitted him which was by putting more emphasis on genes then cultural memes. This is unfortunate because cultural memes dominate. But writing about genes is a bit safer than about memes because one can fall on and hide behind presumably objective scientific narrative. That's why also Derbyshire and Sailer rather yap about genes than cultural memes.

    You unfairly snipe at SS and JD for some reason. My tecollection is that Steve was brought up Catholic but his genetic father is Jewish. But i can’t see in any case why he should be expected to write to your prescription.
    Also you seem to have missed the Derbyshire piece about the Jews in America who still mrntally live in 1880 Russia hiding from the Cossacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Here is the real reason the Jews fled Russia in the 1880s. It was draft evasion.

    I forget the exact date, but around 1880 Jews got their full civil rights. Unfortunately that included civil
    obligations such as conscription. That's why the Jews left, not programs, not affirmative action for the goyim, not crackdowns on usury.

    In the foreign affairs/ state department archives of every country in Europe and the Americas are reports from diplomats stationed in Russia that there was no persecution and that the stories about programs were just stories intended to get sympathy so as to facilitate immigration to other countries.
    That's why the Russian Jews swarmed England, the USA and Latin American countries that did not have the draft.

    They didn't go to Germany, Austria, France, Italy or Spain because all those countries had conscription.

    Russia's draft was for 25 years which is horrible to contemplate unless one is down and out and desperate for 3 hots and a cot. But the other European countries had just a few years draftee enlistment and the Jews didn't go to those countries, they went to draft free England and America.

    That's why they left.
  37. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging this regime from within the academic world is vanishingly rare.

    It’s not incredibly pathetic, it’s just disgustingly pathetic. As you’ve said, they’re all intellectual whores. That’s what the public sector has always been comprised of. I know. I worked for three governments (briefly) and I devoted an even shorter part of my one and only life to appointments at three universities, including two of the World’s top 30 (according to the Times Higher Ed) research schools.

    But what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really get interested in a field?

    The idealism remains, but those young idealistic scholars, realizing what a degraded, sordid, bureaucratic world the university has become, went out into the real world, whether to drop out, make money, or pursue the intellectual life with real, personally paid for, freedom.

    Why don’t professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural selection works when there is an invasive species or sub-species — why don’t these White people become vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European genes?

    They are far from the brightest of the bunch and they are, as we already said, intellectual whores.

    How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?

    How many kids does Frau Merkel have? How many kids does Frau Theresa May have? Why would they care about the future of their own people. Same problem with a lot of female quota academics.

    There’s no solution other than to tie the feminists in bags and dump them in the Bosphorus, and the same with the academic eunochs, the scoundrel academic deans, and the slimebag university presidents and vice presidents. Screw the whole dirty lot of them.

    Trump could make a start by ending all Federal support for universities.

    Read More
  38. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Why do blacks cause so much trouble:

    Bammama, or Blacks are more muscular and more aggressive.

    Read More
  39. @AaronB
    But man cannot live without metaphysics - if he tries, we get what we have now in the West. We are metaphysical creatures.

    So "existentialism" may have liberated us from childish beliefs, many of them pernicious, but at the same time it has grounded us in the dead weight of materialism ("physics", not metaphysics).

    As for "them" creating a game we cannot "win", I believe we are actively cooperating with "them" - willing our own destruction. We do not wish to live the life we have created for ourselves.

    I don’t think like that, THEY just re-organized social structures to favor the destroyers/ left-retards. It’s just like in the Terminator III, when the infamous Terminator was reprogrammed by T-X to kill its original protected, ”kill itself, its own sense to exist”.

    Meta-physical is a escapism from reality, a confusion with ultimate beauty of existence. We can dream with stars without gross and ridiculous fairy-tale stories. We can create them, but without confuse them with reality, something has been fatal for us, in direct or indirect ways.

    But yes, without someTHING forward guide us, we become more individualistic. But still is not a problem be individualistic expressing our individualities, it’s a problem when we become selfish individualistic expressing our individualisms or lack of empathy.

    Read More
  40. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    As you probably realize, the West isn't engaged in altruistic self-sacrifice, but in suicide. There is a big difference. One is good, the other bad.

    One is based on love and compassion, the other on self-disgust. If we were capable of love we would defend our way of life, not destroy it - if we could love, our life would have some meaning, and some happiness. Love is a transcendent, non-materialist, value.

    What the West is doing is motivated by hate, not compassion.

    This isn't Christian, either. Suicide is forbidden in Christianity, nor can one force others to sacrifice themselves, as in forcing entire unwilling nations to self-destruct.

    Also, our policies are obviously increasing misery, hatred, and bloodshed, in the long run, and the short run. If we were motivated by compassion, we could send money, aid, entire teams, to other countries. But that would not serve our true purpose.

    What the West is doing is motivated by hate, not compassion.

    Yeah, hate by the globalist elite for the mass of mankind (aka what Bill Clinton’s history mentor, Carroll Quigley called the Money Power), which is rather different from self-hatred, although self-hatred or at least the lust for what is self-destructive is what a mass-hating elite seeks to instill in the masses.

    Societies don’t live or die according to the minds of the mass, but according to the wisdom and ambitions of the leadership. So let’s forget the BS about a lack of spirituality, let’s recognize who are the bastards driving the West to destruction and how they and their agents are to be exposed and destroyed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    You are right, and it is the Western intellectual elite that had turned against itself by the time of the late 19th century. Precisely the ones who engage most deeply with Western ideas, and are most affected by them.

    In the 19th century, a Baudelaire and a Rimbaud may have been horrified at the banality and dreariness of life in a mechanized society, but the masses, though obscurely suffering, were not so deeply affected.

    But today, the masses have caught up - obesity, the opioid epidemic, etc.

    The "bastards" who are responsible - unfortunately, you can't hunt down materialism.

    If you don't see the significance of our lack of spirituality, you will never be able to break free.

    Santoculto - but you see, "beauty" is a metaphysical concept - it transcends mere matter. Materialism has no use for beauty. We see this today - with the loss of metaphysics, our architecture, our art, has become ugly. Beauty is "useless".

    We have some "thing" driving us forward - selfish materialism. If you don't like it, and wish to escape it, then what drives you forward cannot be a "thing".
    , @annamaria
    What the West is doing is motivated by greed (and the superiority complex).
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com
    "... Muslim fundamentalism is such a strong growth that it needed no Western provocation to set it in motion. We have not only removed or weakened the regimes that inhibited, more or less, that growth. What we have done is to encourage Jihad to flourish on an immensely greater scale. That increased scale increases its glamour and its pull for our English Muslims many times over.
    ... Western countries have been arming and training Muslim fighters knowing full well that those fighters were Jihadis, and were more than likely to join even more extreme Jihadi units. Knowing full well also that some of those Jihadis, but now trained in killing and invigorated by contact with other true believers, would return to their countries of origin and do what harm they could.
    ... We see ragged groups of thugs using, often inexpertly, the deadly equipment we give them or the supply of which we facilitate. ... For there is now no doubt that the flood of foreign Jihadis that have wreaked such havoc in Syria and neighbouring countries was released by us or with our active complicity. It could not have happened but for Western assistance. We do not acknowledge it."
  41. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Meantime, if you want to take a kick at the crooks in academic administration, go over to the blog of Professor John McAdams — booted from the Marquette U, supposedly a Christian institution, for the terrible crime of standing up for a student who wished to make a case against gay marriage in a philosophy class — and give him your encouragement and support.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    And to be quite clear:

    It was not a gay marriage, but the case the student wished to make against gay marriage that was in a philosophy class.
  42. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy
    Meantime, if you want to take a kick at the crooks in academic administration, go over to the blog of Professor John McAdams — booted from the Marquette U, supposedly a Christian institution, for the terrible crime of standing up for a student who wished to make a case against gay marriage in a philosophy class — and give him your encouragement and support.

    And to be quite clear:

    It was not a gay marriage, but the case the student wished to make against gay marriage that was in a philosophy class.

    Read More
  43. annamaria says:
    @jilles dykstra
    One wonders if psychologists are ignorant of history.
    Some 300 years BCE a Greek calculated the circumference of the earth at 39.000 km, the right figure is 40.000.
    Yet Columbus' sailors were afraid to fall of the earth.
    For some 1600 years the christian church prevented all independent thought, in 1600 the pope had Giordano Bruno burned alive, for heretic thoughts, about the universe, about the holy trinity.
    At about the same time Calvin burned Servetius, the man who discovered blood circulation, alive to death, also about the trinity.
    So Servetius was unable to tell the world about the blood circulation.
    Galileo got away with house arrest.
    Even around 1860 the pope declared that philosophical thinking not controlled by the church was illegal.
    So there is nothing special in the christian culture about no independent thought.
    On top of that, as Chomsky states: in any culture there is a standard truth, if this truth is not considered, no debate is possible, but between those who know better.
    We see this right now, much wailing about the indeed horrible carnage in Manchester, that the USA, Predators with Hellfire, causes such carnage every week three or fout times, it cannot be said.
    Terrorism is caused by the Islam, not by the west.

    “JFK at 100″ by Paul Craig Roberts: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/24/jfk-100-paul-craig-roberts/
    “The assassination of President Kennedy was an enormous cost to the world. Kennedy and Khrushchev would have followed up their collaboration in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis by ending the Cold War long before the military/security complex achieved its iron grip on the US government. Israel would have been denied nuclear weapons, and the designation of the Israel Lobby as a foreign agent would have prevented Israel’s strong grip on the US government. In his second term, JFK would have broken the CIA into a thousand pieces, an intention he expressed to his brother, Robert, and the Deep State would have been terminated before it became more powerful than the President.”

    “The Globalization of War, America’s “Long War” against Humanity ” by Michel Chossudovsky: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-globalization-of-war-americas-long-war-against-humanity-michel-chossudovsky/5427720
    “Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations.”

    “Israel: the original terrorist state:” http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/189264/israel-original-terrorist-state

    Read More
  44. Tulip says:

    There is an interesting point in the life of any maturing intellect when one discovers the gap between how the Academy insists on “explaining” how the world works and how the world really works. It is very hard to resist the urge to talk about it. [Even harder to look at the raw scientific data "no platformed" out of the dialogue.]

    Unfortunately, Mr. Murphy’s new enemies already know how the world works, and will only double down on their “explanation” because it serves their group interests. Further, Murphy will likely face professional backlash for discussing the Emperor’s attire. This will be exciting for a young scholar, but likely will sour with time. Cordelia was the youngest of Lear’s daughters, and Socrates probably got the fate he deserved.

    Read More
  45. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    What the West is doing is motivated by hate, not compassion.
     
    Yeah, hate by the globalist elite for the mass of mankind (aka what Bill Clinton's history mentor, Carroll Quigley called the Money Power), which is rather different from self-hatred, although self-hatred or at least the lust for what is self-destructive is what a mass-hating elite seeks to instill in the masses.

    Societies don't live or die according to the minds of the mass, but according to the wisdom and ambitions of the leadership. So let's forget the BS about a lack of spirituality, let's recognize who are the bastards driving the West to destruction and how they and their agents are to be exposed and destroyed.

    You are right, and it is the Western intellectual elite that had turned against itself by the time of the late 19th century. Precisely the ones who engage most deeply with Western ideas, and are most affected by them.

    In the 19th century, a Baudelaire and a Rimbaud may have been horrified at the banality and dreariness of life in a mechanized society, but the masses, though obscurely suffering, were not so deeply affected.

    But today, the masses have caught up – obesity, the opioid epidemic, etc.

    The “bastards” who are responsible – unfortunately, you can’t hunt down materialism.

    If you don’t see the significance of our lack of spirituality, you will never be able to break free.

    Santoculto – but you see, “beauty” is a metaphysical concept – it transcends mere matter. Materialism has no use for beauty. We see this today – with the loss of metaphysics, our architecture, our art, has become ugly. Beauty is “useless”.

    We have some “thing” driving us forward – selfish materialism. If you don’t like it, and wish to escape it, then what drives you forward cannot be a “thing”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    What I find interesting is that, even if one buys the full materialistic/scientific/mechanistic nonsensical metaphysical ball and chain as a worldview, the writings of such as Gustave Le Bon demonstrate quite clearly the uselessness of such a reason/matter based ideology amongst a people.
    A people must have a ritual, something that hits them at a deeper level than the mind to function, to unite, and to thrive. Rationality only works with an individual. When more than one person combine together, they enter into a group conscience that is far less intelligent than any individual, ruled by the passions, and easily swayed by the contagion of thought, will and feeling.

    Without a given ritual, they fall easily to manipulation and to whatever random ideology springs from their midst or is imposed from without. The result is the madness of the crowd.

    So the materialistic viewpoint is intellectually a dead end even when evaluated from within its own philosophical context.

    , @Santoculto
    Beauty is a physical harmony, it's not meta-physical. Beauty can be expressed via form or shape, for example, a beautiful person or a beautiful landscape, and it's can be expressed via behavior or expression, and always is correlated in its partiality or totality to balance/harmony/symmetry.

    ''Our'' arts is also used by malevolent purposes. A beautiful vatican has represented the evil of christendom in many ways, for example, for its adoration of material [gold,etc] over sencient goods.

  46. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    What the West is doing is motivated by hate, not compassion.
     
    Yeah, hate by the globalist elite for the mass of mankind (aka what Bill Clinton's history mentor, Carroll Quigley called the Money Power), which is rather different from self-hatred, although self-hatred or at least the lust for what is self-destructive is what a mass-hating elite seeks to instill in the masses.

    Societies don't live or die according to the minds of the mass, but according to the wisdom and ambitions of the leadership. So let's forget the BS about a lack of spirituality, let's recognize who are the bastards driving the West to destruction and how they and their agents are to be exposed and destroyed.

    What the West is doing is motivated by greed (and the superiority complex).

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com

    “… Muslim fundamentalism is such a strong growth that it needed no Western provocation to set it in motion. We have not only removed or weakened the regimes that inhibited, more or less, that growth. What we have done is to encourage Jihad to flourish on an immensely greater scale. That increased scale increases its glamour and its pull for our English Muslims many times over.
    … Western countries have been arming and training Muslim fighters knowing full well that those fighters were Jihadis, and were more than likely to join even more extreme Jihadi units. Knowing full well also that some of those Jihadis, but now trained in killing and invigorated by contact with other true believers, would return to their countries of origin and do what harm they could.
    … We see ragged groups of thugs using, often inexpertly, the deadly equipment we give them or the supply of which we facilitate. … For there is now no doubt that the flood of foreign Jihadis that have wreaked such havoc in Syria and neighbouring countries was released by us or with our active complicity. It could not have happened but for Western assistance. We do not acknowledge it.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    We have not only removed or weakened the regimes that inhibited, more or less, that growth. What we have done is to encourage Jihad to flourish on an immensely greater scale. That increased scale increases its glamour and its pull for our English Muslims many times over.
     
    Who are "we"? Not me, not the average voter, and perhaps, even, not one in ten voters. It is a treason party in power, not "we" the people, that is driving the European nations to extinction.

    Few people can actually think through a political, moral or religious problem. The people need guidance. But for guidance we have a bunch of shills for the Money Power globalists: people such as the scoundrel and war criminal Blair and the scoundrel and war criminal Dubya Bush. And now Merkel, May and Macron. Wow, what a deadly line-up.

    We the people did not set out to destroy ourselves and our posterity. It was the elites, backed by people like Aaron B who pretends that the elite are some kind of Will-o-the-Wisp that it would be futile to attempt to finger, who are destroying the Western nations.

    And the people, many of them do understand what is being done to them and to their children. That's why Trump won the election. Not because Trump will necessarily, or even probably, do what he promised to do, but because of he did promise to reverse the evil that has been perpetrated against the people.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your opening two lines are certainly not supported by the blog to which you link as you clearly imply.

    Your blogger says I told them so, I knew and know how this home grown terrorism is the product of western foolishness, and worse, in making armed jihadism against tough but stabilising forces in ME possible and not realising that sad young local Muslims would get carried away by it.

    Not a word about greed or superiority complexes.
  47. Sean says:

    I think liberals would disagree with a lot of this post. They see themselves as protecting the individual to live as they choose within a principle of no harm, whereby a problem of groups in competition does not arise, which is fair enough within a state, but falls apart if applied across borders and separate polities.

    The intellectual consensus against heterodox thinkers, especially those of Prof. MacDonald’s ilk, is due to the principle of no harm, taken as mandating an open society and global utility. But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point of view.

    What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging this regime from within the academic world is vanishingly rare. Or perhaps it’s not so surprising given the above. But what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really get interested in a field? Why don’t professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural selection works when there is an invasive species or sub-species — why don’t these White people become vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?

    This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests.

    Be that as it may, I think phrasing opposition in terms of anything pertaining to genes is disastrous. And the proof of that is the virtually open borders advocates constantly try to bring up genetic and related arguments as what lies behind all calls for immigration restriction. They want us to make the hereditary/ genetic/white/ nordic argument. All these terms denote supremacy and are identified with a philosophical error ( essentialism).

    Border security is self-defence for the national state communities that aspire to protect their polity (sovereign country), but liberals are assuming a global delimited polity (one world ) with a principle of no harm; they have to save the immigrants. The case for immigration restriction should be put as relating to a democratically ratified state’s borders. A citizen’s right to cross the border has a corollary in relation to foreigners having no such right.

    “I don’t have to read Mein Kampf to know it is evil. Same with The Bell Curve.”

    Kampf has a bit where Hitler talks of the conquest and colonisation of space, but predicts the globe will spin through space devoid of life if Jews are allowed to direct its development. I wonder, liberalism and nation speaking peace toward nation is going to make the open and technologically innovative Western counties a mulch cow for the world, one can imagine a much more internationally cooperative spirit becoming de rigueur, and progress harnessed to the hypercapitalism as foreseen by Nick Land. At which time pursuit of a technological singularity will be brought well within striking distance for that generation.

    The great silence from the Universe (we’re all alone) and it seeming that, contrary to what evolutionist say, evolution does seem to have an upward direction to it (nervous systems having evolved twice) plus we now we know that bacteria can survive meteorite crash landings all points toward life forms being self exterminiting by getting a little too advanced.

    Perhaps his expectation of the aforementioned advances in globalism and invention (or rationalist morality and inteligence) is why Professor Stephen Hawking thinks life on Earth will be extinguished within a century. As Yoda, or was it Revilo Oliver, said “night must fall”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    A case in point - Libya: http://theduran.com/hillary-clinton-bears-responsibility-for-the-manchester-atrocity/
    "The illegal NATO war against Libya was Hillary Clinton’s war above all others. It was her who took a stable, prosperous, secular socialist country and turned it into a failed state and a terrorist playground. Gaddafi warned that he was the rampart holding back al-Qaeda from Europe, but Hillary Clinton did not care. She even laughed about Gaddafi’s inhumane, barbaric execution at the hands of terrorists.
    Had Hillary Clinton not been able to convince Barack Obama and his useful war propagandists David Cameron in Britain and Nicholas Sarkozy, the dead children in Manchester might be with us today.
    Hillary Clinton famously said of Gaddafi’s illegal execution, “We came, we saw, he died”. Indeed, she came, she saw, he died and now thousands of more have died in Libya, many others have died in Europe because of this, including those who recently perished in Manchester."
    , @CanSpeccy

    But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point of view.
     
    Except, as you forgot to mention, the survival of the European people. But liberals, of course, are always ready to sacrifice European people for whatever depraved cause they may have in mind.
  48. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @AaronB
    You are right - Sailer in particular seems to admire Jewish "success" - which shows he does not understand what it is based on.

    Kevin deserves admiration, but his analysis is vitiated by his materialism. He does not understand White vulnerability - because as a materialist, he cannot.

    His materialism also limits his ability to understand Jews.

    Genetic determinism has severe limits in explaining history - the idea that Whites are uniquely altruistic is historically ignorant, for instance. Also, it is a serious misunderstanding to describe current White behavior as altruistic.

    Further, there can be no evolutionary logic for a group to preserve itself under pressure - survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating - a fact, by the way, which seems easily grasped by our current-day White materialists.

    Group-survival can only be a non-materialist transcendental value. But then, the identity of the group - not its genetic material, which will survive anyhow - must bee felt as worth preserving.

    These, and other defects, must be swept under the rug if one is to be an extreme materialist.

    there can be no evolutionary logic for a group to preserve itself under pressure

    Wrong.

    Read More
  49. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    You are right - Sailer in particular seems to admire Jewish "success" - which shows he does not understand what it is based on.

    Kevin deserves admiration, but his analysis is vitiated by his materialism. He does not understand White vulnerability - because as a materialist, he cannot.

    His materialism also limits his ability to understand Jews.

    Genetic determinism has severe limits in explaining history - the idea that Whites are uniquely altruistic is historically ignorant, for instance. Also, it is a serious misunderstanding to describe current White behavior as altruistic.

    Further, there can be no evolutionary logic for a group to preserve itself under pressure - survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating - a fact, by the way, which seems easily grasped by our current-day White materialists.

    Group-survival can only be a non-materialist transcendental value. But then, the identity of the group - not its genetic material, which will survive anyhow - must bee felt as worth preserving.

    These, and other defects, must be swept under the rug if one is to be an extreme materialist.

    survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating – a fact …

    Oh sure!

    Just what a globalist shill for European genocide would say.

    The truth, however, is quite the opposite.

    Thus, if in a territory of fixed carrying capacity, indigenous females are impregnated by alien settlers, then in the next generation, the proportion of indigenous genes in the gene pool will be diminished.

    Some survival strategy!

    That that is a strategy for self-genocide is why Jews won’t “marry out” and insist on having a Jewish state.

    And the genocidal effect is the same if you merely have mass immigration, especially when combined with below replacement birth rates as have been engineered throughout the West by government policy on abortion, divorce, toleration of immigrant polygamy, and the promotion of sexual perversion under the guise of sex “education.” Under those circumstances, it doesn’t matter who the indigenous people mate with, their genes in the gene pool will be diluted, eventually to extinction.

    Even if the indigenous mate only with one another, the frequency of their genes in the gene pool will be diminished both proportionally and in total, unless the population grows without limit.

    Then there is the cultural genocide, better known as multi-culturalism. First you invite in the adherents of the religion of love, next thing you know is the bastards are yelling Europe is the Cancer, Islam is the Answer, and terror bombing indigenous kids.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @AaronB
    You're not thinking it through.

    First, you have misunderstood me badly if you think I support European genocide. I am offering my analysis out of a desire to avoid just that. I just think your analysis is badly superficial.

    You are badly conflating "group identity" with "genetic group" - if the indigenous group agrees to assimilate to the invaders identity - religion, etc - then the indigenous group need not suffer any loss of genetic frequency.

    Even today, if you convert to Islam - assimilate - you will be provided a wife in many places. Your genes will most certainly not perish. Rather the opposite, for many young Western males.

    There can be no genetic, materialist reason to resist Islam - many low-status Western males will have improved chances of reproduction, and elite Western males will compose a valued intellectual and technocratic class, as happened historically. Genetically, females will be in no way worse off.

    To retain our distinct group identity we need a metaphysical reason - our distinct identity must be felt as worth preserving. This fact is implicitly admitted by our materialist Western elites, by their behavior.

    Historically, if you merged with your neighbor tribe, you became larger and stronger - the optimum strategy was for tribes to merge into "hordes", which happened in many cases. A tribe that wanted to retain its distinct identity had to have a reason - it did not make genetic sense.

    Consider, also, that females of conquered tribes frequently despise the conquerors and refuse to mate with them, which makes no genetic sense. Take Israel - attractive Palestinian women should be rushing into the arms of Israeli men in droves. They are a conquered nation. Israeli men of Arab descent would love to pair with them. There is an interesting film on youtube called "checkpoint", where you see Israeli soldiers of Arab descent hitting on (boderline sexually harrassing), young Palestinian women crossing their military checkpoint, and talking about how attractive they find them. Yet the women scorn them.

    European colonialists in Asia also did not typically have to fend off high-quality local women - both groups felt their own identity was worth preserving, for the most part.

    Yes - Jews retain a distinct identity, but it is highly obvious that the genetic survival of individual Jews is not served by this. This is why "assimilation" is so deplored by the Rabbis, who strive to provide a metaphysical reason for avoiding it - they know no materialist explanation can suffice. It is also why the Torah makes such strict and severe rules against Jews associating with gentiles - it understands well that every genetic imperative promotes assimilation, and only metaphysical considerations have a chance of providing a countervailing tendency. And the 50% intermarriage rate of secular Jews strongly illustrates this point.

    In Europe for most of history, Jewish genes would obviously have done far better by converting to Christianity and assimilating.

    And so on and so forth.

    Once you liberate yourself from the straitjacket of materialism, it is amazing the vistas that open up before you. So much that is puzzling to people like Kevin Mcdonald slip nicely into place.
  50. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @iffen
    There is no genetic imperative for reproduction.

    There is a genetic imperative to have sex.

    People love having grandkids, even feminist Hillary Clinton (who otherwise didn’t care much for reproduction) begged her only daughter to produce grandkids for her. Childless spinsters are often quite bitter, and most folk psychologists give at least two reasons why, with one of them being bitter about not having children. What makes you think it’s not hardwired?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    What makes you think it’s not hardwired?

    No scientific evidence.

    I think it would have turned up by now.

    In 2-3 generations, people go from having 10-12 kids to having 0,1,2.

    How would that work genetically?

  51. FKA Max says:
    @AaronB
    You are right - Sailer in particular seems to admire Jewish "success" - which shows he does not understand what it is based on.

    Kevin deserves admiration, but his analysis is vitiated by his materialism. He does not understand White vulnerability - because as a materialist, he cannot.

    His materialism also limits his ability to understand Jews.

    Genetic determinism has severe limits in explaining history - the idea that Whites are uniquely altruistic is historically ignorant, for instance. Also, it is a serious misunderstanding to describe current White behavior as altruistic.

    Further, there can be no evolutionary logic for a group to preserve itself under pressure - survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating - a fact, by the way, which seems easily grasped by our current-day White materialists.

    Group-survival can only be a non-materialist transcendental value. But then, the identity of the group - not its genetic material, which will survive anyhow - must bee felt as worth preserving.

    These, and other defects, must be swept under the rug if one is to be an extreme materialist.

    I personally believe in — based on my personal experience and research — and support the “Northern Europeans are uniquely altruistic/idealistic” hypothesis http://www.unz.com/article/two-cheers-for-trump-advisor-mike-anton-he-has-the-right-enemies/#comment-1771264 , but there is an interesting study, which hypothesizes the opposite, namely that Northern Europeans are less altruistic than other races/cultures. I believe, that the author of this study mistakens clannishness/tribalism for altruism/emotional intelligence, so his conclusion/understanding is flawed, in my opinion, but the study is still well worth a read:

    Correlation of the COMT Val158Met polymorphism with latitude and a hunter-gather lifestyle suggests culture–gene coevolution and selective pressure on cognition genes due to climate Piffer (2013)

    https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/correlation-of-the-comt-val158met-polymorphism-with-latitude-and-a-hunter-gather-lifestyle-suggests-culturee28093gene-coevolution-and-selective-pressure-on-cognition-genes-due-to-climate.pdf

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/sex-differences-in-intelligence-in-nigeria/#comment-1866670

    Excerpt:

    The hypothesis of the present study is that ethnic groups start as hunter-gatherers in their respective geographical locations. The populations with a higher genotypic level of WM or fluid intelligence (thanks to a high frequency of the Met allele) were initially advantaged in their quest for technological progress and the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle requiring planning, such as that of agriculturalism. The behavioral inflexibility and lower emotional intelligence/altruism associated with Met allele carrier status favored the development of a hierarchical society, where resources were not shared but were concentrated in the hands of a few and formal rules governed human relationships. This first gave rise to city-states, ancient empires, and eventually the modern Western economy and society, based on monetary profit and scientific progress. Conversely, ethnic groups characterized by very low frequencies of the Met allele, but high Val frequencies, were predisposed to form deeper bonds based on reciprocity and altruism. Their higher behavioral and cognitive flexibility made it harder for them to accept the rule of formal rules or an impersonal bureaucracy.
    An additional mechanism of gene–environment interaction can be included, which involves the addition of a feedback loop, with culture acting back on genes via selective pressure, which eventually increased the initial genetic differences between different, isolated populations.

    Read More
  52. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @annamaria
    What the West is doing is motivated by greed (and the superiority complex).
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com
    "... Muslim fundamentalism is such a strong growth that it needed no Western provocation to set it in motion. We have not only removed or weakened the regimes that inhibited, more or less, that growth. What we have done is to encourage Jihad to flourish on an immensely greater scale. That increased scale increases its glamour and its pull for our English Muslims many times over.
    ... Western countries have been arming and training Muslim fighters knowing full well that those fighters were Jihadis, and were more than likely to join even more extreme Jihadi units. Knowing full well also that some of those Jihadis, but now trained in killing and invigorated by contact with other true believers, would return to their countries of origin and do what harm they could.
    ... We see ragged groups of thugs using, often inexpertly, the deadly equipment we give them or the supply of which we facilitate. ... For there is now no doubt that the flood of foreign Jihadis that have wreaked such havoc in Syria and neighbouring countries was released by us or with our active complicity. It could not have happened but for Western assistance. We do not acknowledge it."

    We have not only removed or weakened the regimes that inhibited, more or less, that growth. What we have done is to encourage Jihad to flourish on an immensely greater scale. That increased scale increases its glamour and its pull for our English Muslims many times over.

    Who are “we”? Not me, not the average voter, and perhaps, even, not one in ten voters. It is a treason party in power, not “we” the people, that is driving the European nations to extinction.

    Few people can actually think through a political, moral or religious problem. The people need guidance. But for guidance we have a bunch of shills for the Money Power globalists: people such as the scoundrel and war criminal Blair and the scoundrel and war criminal Dubya Bush. And now Merkel, May and Macron. Wow, what a deadly line-up.

    We the people did not set out to destroy ourselves and our posterity. It was the elites, backed by people like Aaron B who pretends that the elite are some kind of Will-o-the-Wisp that it would be futile to attempt to finger, who are destroying the Western nations.

    And the people, many of them do understand what is being done to them and to their children. That’s why Trump won the election. Not because Trump will necessarily, or even probably, do what he promised to do, but because of he did promise to reverse the evil that has been perpetrated against the people.

    Read More
  53. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    survival on the genetic level would seem most assured by assimilating – a fact ...
     
    Oh sure!

    Just what a globalist shill for European genocide would say.

    The truth, however, is quite the opposite.

    Thus, if in a territory of fixed carrying capacity, indigenous females are impregnated by alien settlers, then in the next generation, the proportion of indigenous genes in the gene pool will be diminished.

    Some survival strategy!

    That that is a strategy for self-genocide is why Jews won't "marry out" and insist on having a Jewish state.

    And the genocidal effect is the same if you merely have mass immigration, especially when combined with below replacement birth rates as have been engineered throughout the West by government policy on abortion, divorce, toleration of immigrant polygamy, and the promotion of sexual perversion under the guise of sex "education." Under those circumstances, it doesn't matter who the indigenous people mate with, their genes in the gene pool will be diluted, eventually to extinction.

    Even if the indigenous mate only with one another, the frequency of their genes in the gene pool will be diminished both proportionally and in total, unless the population grows without limit.

    Then there is the cultural genocide, better known as multi-culturalism. First you invite in the adherents of the religion of love, next thing you know is the bastards are yelling Europe is the Cancer, Islam is the Answer, and terror bombing indigenous kids.

    You’re not thinking it through.

    First, you have misunderstood me badly if you think I support European genocide. I am offering my analysis out of a desire to avoid just that. I just think your analysis is badly superficial.

    You are badly conflating “group identity” with “genetic group” – if the indigenous group agrees to assimilate to the invaders identity – religion, etc – then the indigenous group need not suffer any loss of genetic frequency.

    Even today, if you convert to Islam – assimilate – you will be provided a wife in many places. Your genes will most certainly not perish. Rather the opposite, for many young Western males.

    There can be no genetic, materialist reason to resist Islam – many low-status Western males will have improved chances of reproduction, and elite Western males will compose a valued intellectual and technocratic class, as happened historically. Genetically, females will be in no way worse off.

    To retain our distinct group identity we need a metaphysical reason – our distinct identity must be felt as worth preserving. This fact is implicitly admitted by our materialist Western elites, by their behavior.

    Historically, if you merged with your neighbor tribe, you became larger and stronger – the optimum strategy was for tribes to merge into “hordes”, which happened in many cases. A tribe that wanted to retain its distinct identity had to have a reason – it did not make genetic sense.

    Consider, also, that females of conquered tribes frequently despise the conquerors and refuse to mate with them, which makes no genetic sense. Take Israel – attractive Palestinian women should be rushing into the arms of Israeli men in droves. They are a conquered nation. Israeli men of Arab descent would love to pair with them. There is an interesting film on youtube called “checkpoint”, where you see Israeli soldiers of Arab descent hitting on (boderline sexually harrassing), young Palestinian women crossing their military checkpoint, and talking about how attractive they find them. Yet the women scorn them.

    European colonialists in Asia also did not typically have to fend off high-quality local women – both groups felt their own identity was worth preserving, for the most part.

    Yes – Jews retain a distinct identity, but it is highly obvious that the genetic survival of individual Jews is not served by this. This is why “assimilation” is so deplored by the Rabbis, who strive to provide a metaphysical reason for avoiding it – they know no materialist explanation can suffice. It is also why the Torah makes such strict and severe rules against Jews associating with gentiles – it understands well that every genetic imperative promotes assimilation, and only metaphysical considerations have a chance of providing a countervailing tendency. And the 50% intermarriage rate of secular Jews strongly illustrates this point.

    In Europe for most of history, Jewish genes would obviously have done far better by converting to Christianity and assimilating.

    And so on and so forth.

    Once you liberate yourself from the straitjacket of materialism, it is amazing the vistas that open up before you. So much that is puzzling to people like Kevin Mcdonald slip nicely into place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Your genes will most certainly not perish.

    I do not like the BS about gene survival. But if you have 1 child only only 50% of your genes survive if you mate with dog. But if you mate with random person from Africa more than 50% of your genes will survive because probably you share some genes with Africans. But even more of your genes will survive if you mate with somebody from your ethnic/racial group. But if you want to really maximize your gene survival try incest.
    , @CanSpeccy

    First, you have misunderstood me badly if you think I support European genocide.
     
    I didn't say what I thought you support. I said that what you were saying was consistent with the objective of those who do seek European genocide.

    if the indigenous group agrees to assimilate to the invaders identity – religion, etc – then the indigenous group need not suffer any loss of genetic frequency.
     
    That's a clever piece of bullshit. What your saying is, as long as the indigenous Europeans agree to become part of some other group then the loss of their genes does not matter because, hey, they agreed in advance to merge and be submerged and ultimately eliminated.

    As for

    You are badly conflating “group identity” with “genetic group”

     

    More clever bullshit, since it is you who are doing the conflating.

    Even today, if you convert to Islam – assimilate – you will be provided a wife in many places. Your genes will most certainly not perish. Rather the opposite, for many young Western males.
     
    So you are crassly advocating conversion of Europe to Islam on the preposterous falsehood that it will increase European genes in the European gene pool, which is mathematical nonsense. If a European turns Muslim in Europe, it's most likely that he will marry a European or several, and if it is several, so much the worst for the genes of those European males who might otherwise have married but who will have to make do without a wife at all.

    Consider, also, that females of conquered tribes frequently despise the conquerors and refuse to mate with them
     
    Bollocks. Tell that to the 40 million living descendants of Ghengis Kahn.

    Take Israel
     
    Please do.

    There can be no genetic, materialist reason to resist Islam – many low-status Western males will have improved chances of reproduction, and elite Western males will compose a valued intellectual and technocratic class, as happened historically.
     
    I've already exploded that idiotic fallacy in an earlier comment (see #52, above). I'm not engaging in a 'tis 'tisn't dispute.

    To retain our distinct group identity we need a metaphysical reason
     
    Any group thinking the way you want the Europeans to think will be wiped from the page of history in very short order.

    attractive Palestinian women should be rushing into the arms of Israeli men in droves. They are a conquered nation. Israeli men of Arab descent would love to pair with them.
     
    The Palis haven't surrendered yet. They want to kill everyone of you Jews or at least drive you back wherever the Hell you came from.

    Historically, if you merged with your neighbor tribe, you became larger and stronger
     
    You certainly pack a lot of BS into one comment. The optimum strategy depends greatly on circumstances. Genocide, as practiced by the Jews of old against the original inhabitants of Israel, involving slaughter of the males and post menopausal females, and impregnation of the females is often the optimum strategy, but circumstances alter cases in a vast number of different ways, so your comment is, frankly, fatuous.

    European colonialists in Asia also did not typically have to fend off high-quality local women
     
    There was no European colonization of Asia, so what are you talking about?

    Yes – Jews retain a distinct identity, but it is highly obvious that the genetic survival of individual Jews is not served by this.
     
    There is no such thing as the genetic survival of individual Jews or anyone else. All that counts, in the evolutionary sense, are genes, and the share of your gene in the gene pool, and what is apparently "highly obvious" to you is not the case.

    In Europe for most of history, Jewish genes would obviously have done far better by converting to Christianity and assimilating.
     
    "Obviously"? Usually a sign of bunk to be asserted. You have no arguments at all. Mere ridiculous and uninformed comment that happens to conform exactly with the globalist project for the destruction of the independent, sovereign, democratic, and by tradition Christian, European states.

    And so on and so forth.
     
    Yes, very good. That typifies the deficiency in fact and logic of your entire spiel.

    Once you liberate yourself from the straitjacket of materialism, it is amazing the vistas that open up before you.
     
    And once you open yourself up to unadulterated bullshit, it's amazing how quickly you can inadvertently destroy your own people and posterity.
  54. annamaria says:
    @Sean
    I think liberals would disagree with a lot of this post. They see themselves as protecting the individual to live as they choose within a principle of no harm, whereby a problem of groups in competition does not arise, which is fair enough within a state, but falls apart if applied across borders and separate polities.

    The intellectual consensus against heterodox thinkers, especially those of Prof. MacDonald's ilk, is due to the principle of no harm, taken as mandating an open society and global utility. But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point of view.


    What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging this regime from within the academic world is vanishingly rare. Or perhaps it’s not so surprising given the above. But what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really get interested in a field? Why don’t professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural selection works when there is an invasive species or sub-species — why don’t these White people become vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?

    This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests.
     

    Be that as it may, I think phrasing opposition in terms of anything pertaining to genes is disastrous. And the proof of that is the virtually open borders advocates constantly try to bring up genetic and related arguments as what lies behind all calls for immigration restriction. They want us to make the hereditary/ genetic/white/ nordic argument. All these terms denote supremacy and are identified with a philosophical error ( essentialism).

    Border security is self-defence for the national state communities that aspire to protect their polity (sovereign country), but liberals are assuming a global delimited polity (one world ) with a principle of no harm; they have to save the immigrants. The case for immigration restriction should be put as relating to a democratically ratified state's borders. A citizen's right to cross the border has a corollary in relation to foreigners having no such right.

    “I don’t have to read Mein Kampf to know it is evil. Same with The Bell Curve.”
     

    Kampf has a bit where Hitler talks of the conquest and colonisation of space, but predicts the globe will spin through space devoid of life if Jews are allowed to direct its development. I wonder, liberalism and nation speaking peace toward nation is going to make the open and technologically innovative Western counties a mulch cow for the world, one can imagine a much more internationally cooperative spirit becoming de rigueur, and progress harnessed to the hypercapitalism as foreseen by Nick Land. At which time pursuit of a technological singularity will be brought well within striking distance for that generation.

    The great silence from the Universe (we're all alone) and it seeming that, contrary to what evolutionist say, evolution does seem to have an upward direction to it (nervous systems having evolved twice) plus we now we know that bacteria can survive meteorite crash landings all points toward life forms being self exterminiting by getting a little too advanced.

    Perhaps his expectation of the aforementioned advances in globalism and invention (or rationalist morality and inteligence) is why Professor Stephen Hawking thinks life on Earth will be extinguished within a century. As Yoda, or was it Revilo Oliver, said "night must fall".

    A case in point – Libya: http://theduran.com/hillary-clinton-bears-responsibility-for-the-manchester-atrocity/
    “The illegal NATO war against Libya was Hillary Clinton’s war above all others. It was her who took a stable, prosperous, secular socialist country and turned it into a failed state and a terrorist playground. Gaddafi warned that he was the rampart holding back al-Qaeda from Europe, but Hillary Clinton did not care. She even laughed about Gaddafi’s inhumane, barbaric execution at the hands of terrorists.
    Had Hillary Clinton not been able to convince Barack Obama and his useful war propagandists David Cameron in Britain and Nicholas Sarkozy, the dead children in Manchester might be with us today.
    Hillary Clinton famously said of Gaddafi’s illegal execution, “We came, we saw, he died”. Indeed, she came, she saw, he died and now thousands of more have died in Libya, many others have died in Europe because of this, including those who recently perished in Manchester.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    There is a theory that Hildabeast attacked Libya on orders from the bankers because Ghaddafi took Libya out of the international monetary system.

    America needs a leader like Ghaddafi, a leader who cares about his own people and nation.
    , @Sean
    It is as natural for countries to have dissatisfied groups and sometimes uprisings as it is for individuals to experience inner conflict. Of course countries blame outsiders for their troubles, just as individuals blame others when unhappy. Anyone who thinks the life of a nation is naturally peaceful should look in the mirror and ask if their life is like that.
  55. nickels says:
    @AaronB
    You are right, and it is the Western intellectual elite that had turned against itself by the time of the late 19th century. Precisely the ones who engage most deeply with Western ideas, and are most affected by them.

    In the 19th century, a Baudelaire and a Rimbaud may have been horrified at the banality and dreariness of life in a mechanized society, but the masses, though obscurely suffering, were not so deeply affected.

    But today, the masses have caught up - obesity, the opioid epidemic, etc.

    The "bastards" who are responsible - unfortunately, you can't hunt down materialism.

    If you don't see the significance of our lack of spirituality, you will never be able to break free.

    Santoculto - but you see, "beauty" is a metaphysical concept - it transcends mere matter. Materialism has no use for beauty. We see this today - with the loss of metaphysics, our architecture, our art, has become ugly. Beauty is "useless".

    We have some "thing" driving us forward - selfish materialism. If you don't like it, and wish to escape it, then what drives you forward cannot be a "thing".

    What I find interesting is that, even if one buys the full materialistic/scientific/mechanistic nonsensical metaphysical ball and chain as a worldview, the writings of such as Gustave Le Bon demonstrate quite clearly the uselessness of such a reason/matter based ideology amongst a people.
    A people must have a ritual, something that hits them at a deeper level than the mind to function, to unite, and to thrive. Rationality only works with an individual. When more than one person combine together, they enter into a group conscience that is far less intelligent than any individual, ruled by the passions, and easily swayed by the contagion of thought, will and feeling.

    Without a given ritual, they fall easily to manipulation and to whatever random ideology springs from their midst or is imposed from without. The result is the madness of the crowd.

    So the materialistic viewpoint is intellectually a dead end even when evaluated from within its own philosophical context.

    Read More
  56. @AaronB
    You are right, and it is the Western intellectual elite that had turned against itself by the time of the late 19th century. Precisely the ones who engage most deeply with Western ideas, and are most affected by them.

    In the 19th century, a Baudelaire and a Rimbaud may have been horrified at the banality and dreariness of life in a mechanized society, but the masses, though obscurely suffering, were not so deeply affected.

    But today, the masses have caught up - obesity, the opioid epidemic, etc.

    The "bastards" who are responsible - unfortunately, you can't hunt down materialism.

    If you don't see the significance of our lack of spirituality, you will never be able to break free.

    Santoculto - but you see, "beauty" is a metaphysical concept - it transcends mere matter. Materialism has no use for beauty. We see this today - with the loss of metaphysics, our architecture, our art, has become ugly. Beauty is "useless".

    We have some "thing" driving us forward - selfish materialism. If you don't like it, and wish to escape it, then what drives you forward cannot be a "thing".

    Beauty is a physical harmony, it’s not meta-physical. Beauty can be expressed via form or shape, for example, a beautiful person or a beautiful landscape, and it’s can be expressed via behavior or expression, and always is correlated in its partiality or totality to balance/harmony/symmetry.

    ”Our” arts is also used by malevolent purposes. A beautiful vatican has represented the evil of christendom in many ways, for example, for its adoration of material [gold,etc] over sencient goods.

    Read More
  57. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Quick answer: indoctrinated guilt.

    Guilt for things that Gentile whites didn't do.
    ex.: '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'

    All but two of the Germans [on trial at Nuremberg], in the 139 cases that we investigated, had their testicles kicked in beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators:" 23.1.49, The Sunday Pictorial (quoted in For Those Who Cannot Speak (ref. 27), p.21.The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses.
    - American judge, van Roden
     
    Notice that Jews are doing the opposite.
    They support strict Israeli immigration laws which specify Jews Only, while they demand massive low IQ, criminal 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.

    More Jews marry non-Jews than marry Jews. That’s hardly the opposite of “suicide,” given the strict rules under which they define themselves. The only place they’re not doing this is in Israel. But I thought ethnic states protecting their populations against immigrants was good? And who are these Jews who “demand massive low IQ, criminal 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.” Got a source for that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    And who are these Jews who... Got a source for that?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

    I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.
     
  58. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    People love having grandkids, even feminist Hillary Clinton (who otherwise didn't care much for reproduction) begged her only daughter to produce grandkids for her. Childless spinsters are often quite bitter, and most folk psychologists give at least two reasons why, with one of them being bitter about not having children. What makes you think it's not hardwired?

    What makes you think it’s not hardwired?

    No scientific evidence.

    I think it would have turned up by now.

    In 2-3 generations, people go from having 10-12 kids to having 0,1,2.

    How would that work genetically?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    In 2-3 generations, people go from having 10-12 kids to having 0,1,2.

    How would that work genetically?
     
    If I paid you $10,000 and gave you a day, could you come up with a rough back-of-the-envelope model where people would have a hardwired genetic predisposition to wanting to have many kids yet end up having a different number of kids under different circumstances?

    Actually, I could come up with such models for free.
    , @Alden
    Don't forget about reliable birth control.
  59. utu says:
    @Anon
    More Jews marry non-Jews than marry Jews. That's hardly the opposite of "suicide," given the strict rules under which they define themselves. The only place they're not doing this is in Israel. But I thought ethnic states protecting their populations against immigrants was good? And who are these Jews who "demand massive low IQ, criminal 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe." Got a source for that?

    And who are these Jews who… Got a source for that?

    I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    So one Jew speaks for the whole group? Does Ted Bundy speak for you?
  60. AaronB says:

    @ FKA Max – thanks, that sounds interesting. I don’t know if Europeans are less altruistic than others, but I do know that the Muslims whom the Crusaders came into contact with considered Europeans to be especially ethnocentric.

    In my view, genetic determinism is simply a limited view – nations change their character, often dramatically, over time. Examples are numerous – dishonest Germans, lazy Chinese, etc, etc.

    To ignore this, truly one must do violence to one’s mind.

    @Nickels – yes, but that is the materialist trap. One cannot simply choose not to be a materialist for prudential reasons – as prudence itself is a materialist value. Materialism certainly undermines itself in many ways, though. It is, even, self-contradictory (if our minds are evolutionary, we can’t assume it produces truth – but then our minds produced the theory of evolution, which we then have no basis to believe in, and so on. It’s circular, and self-undermining.)

    – but beauty is not a physical thing – it is a relation between things, a certain proportion, an arrangement of things. Therefore, it is metaphysical – i.e above physics.

    Agree with you about the Vatican – though beautiful, it represent power and wealth, values utterly foreign to Christianity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Nickels??

    I think you're just playing with words, sorry. "Above" physics in terms of value maybe but "still" physical, something that is impossible to avoid.

    We are arrangement of things we are physical.
  61. utu says:
    @AaronB
    You're not thinking it through.

    First, you have misunderstood me badly if you think I support European genocide. I am offering my analysis out of a desire to avoid just that. I just think your analysis is badly superficial.

    You are badly conflating "group identity" with "genetic group" - if the indigenous group agrees to assimilate to the invaders identity - religion, etc - then the indigenous group need not suffer any loss of genetic frequency.

    Even today, if you convert to Islam - assimilate - you will be provided a wife in many places. Your genes will most certainly not perish. Rather the opposite, for many young Western males.

    There can be no genetic, materialist reason to resist Islam - many low-status Western males will have improved chances of reproduction, and elite Western males will compose a valued intellectual and technocratic class, as happened historically. Genetically, females will be in no way worse off.

    To retain our distinct group identity we need a metaphysical reason - our distinct identity must be felt as worth preserving. This fact is implicitly admitted by our materialist Western elites, by their behavior.

    Historically, if you merged with your neighbor tribe, you became larger and stronger - the optimum strategy was for tribes to merge into "hordes", which happened in many cases. A tribe that wanted to retain its distinct identity had to have a reason - it did not make genetic sense.

    Consider, also, that females of conquered tribes frequently despise the conquerors and refuse to mate with them, which makes no genetic sense. Take Israel - attractive Palestinian women should be rushing into the arms of Israeli men in droves. They are a conquered nation. Israeli men of Arab descent would love to pair with them. There is an interesting film on youtube called "checkpoint", where you see Israeli soldiers of Arab descent hitting on (boderline sexually harrassing), young Palestinian women crossing their military checkpoint, and talking about how attractive they find them. Yet the women scorn them.

    European colonialists in Asia also did not typically have to fend off high-quality local women - both groups felt their own identity was worth preserving, for the most part.

    Yes - Jews retain a distinct identity, but it is highly obvious that the genetic survival of individual Jews is not served by this. This is why "assimilation" is so deplored by the Rabbis, who strive to provide a metaphysical reason for avoiding it - they know no materialist explanation can suffice. It is also why the Torah makes such strict and severe rules against Jews associating with gentiles - it understands well that every genetic imperative promotes assimilation, and only metaphysical considerations have a chance of providing a countervailing tendency. And the 50% intermarriage rate of secular Jews strongly illustrates this point.

    In Europe for most of history, Jewish genes would obviously have done far better by converting to Christianity and assimilating.

    And so on and so forth.

    Once you liberate yourself from the straitjacket of materialism, it is amazing the vistas that open up before you. So much that is puzzling to people like Kevin Mcdonald slip nicely into place.

    Your genes will most certainly not perish.

    I do not like the BS about gene survival. But if you have 1 child only only 50% of your genes survive if you mate with dog. But if you mate with random person from Africa more than 50% of your genes will survive because probably you share some genes with Africans. But even more of your genes will survive if you mate with somebody from your ethnic/racial group. But if you want to really maximize your gene survival try incest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    lol, so incest makes most sense from a genetic perspective :)

    But seriously, I do not see why more of *my* genes will survive if I mate with someone of my own ethnic group, with whom I share genes?

    Do you mean the phenotypic expression of a gene will more likely occur when combined with compatible genes (blond hair might get canceled out if I mate with an African)?

    Or that redundancy - if both parents share a gene - might ensure a better environment for transmitting that gene?

    Since genes aren't intelligent, and this entire process is "blind" - genes that confer a survival advantage get selected for, but don't themselves choose - then those genes which are peripheral to survival, like hair color, probably do not exert strong selective pressure.

    That being said, yes, merging of two distinct ethnic groups definitely alters the phenotypic expression of differing genes - and yes, it does alter the "frequency" of your genes being expressed - i.e the relative expression of that gene - but not the absolute presence of that gene.

    I think what changes is the phenotypic expression of genes in the resultant population - which population will indeed look different and have different attributes than either parent population.

    However, this is of concern only for metaphysical reasons - on the genetic level, as long as survival is ensured, it matters not at all.

    I am reminded again, of how hard it is to discuss genes without giving them agency, will, and intelligence, "souls" - which they do not have - and to retain the proper perspective of a vast impersonal process that does not care about the outcome.

    With the proper perspective kept in focus, it is easier to see why metaphysics is primary, and the roles we attribute to genes are false.
    , @CanSpeccy

    I do not like the BS about gene survival.
     
    Genes do not survive, they replicate. Your genetic posterity, if you have one, will be yours because your genes are replicated in succeeding generations. That is not BS.

    An interesting consequence of that fact is that you can enhance your own genetic posterity without progeny of your own, by enhancing the reproductive success of those whose genes most closely resemble your own, hence nepotism and why JBS Haldane remarked, "I would die for two brothers, or four cousins."

    But if you want to really maximize your gene survival try incest.
     
    That's what royalty does or used to do, more or less, with somewhat mixed results, including hemophilia and madness. There must be some trade off between increased representation of one's own genes in the next generation and the increased risk of homozygosity of detrimental recessive genes that reduce the chance of your immediate successors having successors of their own.

    In a closed community, however, where everyone is inbred, the inbreeding keeps a lid on the frequency of lethal of sub-lethal recessive genes. That is why outbreeding of inbred groups leads to hybrid vigor — homozygosity of detrimental genes is reduced, although the genetic load is thus allowed to grow.
  62. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @iffen
    What makes you think it’s not hardwired?

    No scientific evidence.

    I think it would have turned up by now.

    In 2-3 generations, people go from having 10-12 kids to having 0,1,2.

    How would that work genetically?

    In 2-3 generations, people go from having 10-12 kids to having 0,1,2.

    How would that work genetically?

    If I paid you $10,000 and gave you a day, could you come up with a rough back-of-the-envelope model where people would have a hardwired genetic predisposition to wanting to have many kids yet end up having a different number of kids under different circumstances?

    Actually, I could come up with such models for free.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    could you come up with a rough back-of-the-envelope model where people would have a hardwired genetic predisposition to wanting to have many kids yet end up having a different number of kids under different circumstances?

    No.

    That's my point.
  63. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    You're not thinking it through.

    First, you have misunderstood me badly if you think I support European genocide. I am offering my analysis out of a desire to avoid just that. I just think your analysis is badly superficial.

    You are badly conflating "group identity" with "genetic group" - if the indigenous group agrees to assimilate to the invaders identity - religion, etc - then the indigenous group need not suffer any loss of genetic frequency.

    Even today, if you convert to Islam - assimilate - you will be provided a wife in many places. Your genes will most certainly not perish. Rather the opposite, for many young Western males.

    There can be no genetic, materialist reason to resist Islam - many low-status Western males will have improved chances of reproduction, and elite Western males will compose a valued intellectual and technocratic class, as happened historically. Genetically, females will be in no way worse off.

    To retain our distinct group identity we need a metaphysical reason - our distinct identity must be felt as worth preserving. This fact is implicitly admitted by our materialist Western elites, by their behavior.

    Historically, if you merged with your neighbor tribe, you became larger and stronger - the optimum strategy was for tribes to merge into "hordes", which happened in many cases. A tribe that wanted to retain its distinct identity had to have a reason - it did not make genetic sense.

    Consider, also, that females of conquered tribes frequently despise the conquerors and refuse to mate with them, which makes no genetic sense. Take Israel - attractive Palestinian women should be rushing into the arms of Israeli men in droves. They are a conquered nation. Israeli men of Arab descent would love to pair with them. There is an interesting film on youtube called "checkpoint", where you see Israeli soldiers of Arab descent hitting on (boderline sexually harrassing), young Palestinian women crossing their military checkpoint, and talking about how attractive they find them. Yet the women scorn them.

    European colonialists in Asia also did not typically have to fend off high-quality local women - both groups felt their own identity was worth preserving, for the most part.

    Yes - Jews retain a distinct identity, but it is highly obvious that the genetic survival of individual Jews is not served by this. This is why "assimilation" is so deplored by the Rabbis, who strive to provide a metaphysical reason for avoiding it - they know no materialist explanation can suffice. It is also why the Torah makes such strict and severe rules against Jews associating with gentiles - it understands well that every genetic imperative promotes assimilation, and only metaphysical considerations have a chance of providing a countervailing tendency. And the 50% intermarriage rate of secular Jews strongly illustrates this point.

    In Europe for most of history, Jewish genes would obviously have done far better by converting to Christianity and assimilating.

    And so on and so forth.

    Once you liberate yourself from the straitjacket of materialism, it is amazing the vistas that open up before you. So much that is puzzling to people like Kevin Mcdonald slip nicely into place.

    First, you have misunderstood me badly if you think I support European genocide.

    I didn’t say what I thought you support. I said that what you were saying was consistent with the objective of those who do seek European genocide.

    if the indigenous group agrees to assimilate to the invaders identity – religion, etc – then the indigenous group need not suffer any loss of genetic frequency.

    That’s a clever piece of bullshit. What your saying is, as long as the indigenous Europeans agree to become part of some other group then the loss of their genes does not matter because, hey, they agreed in advance to merge and be submerged and ultimately eliminated.

    As for

    You are badly conflating “group identity” with “genetic group”

    More clever bullshit, since it is you who are doing the conflating.

    Even today, if you convert to Islam – assimilate – you will be provided a wife in many places. Your genes will most certainly not perish. Rather the opposite, for many young Western males.

    So you are crassly advocating conversion of Europe to Islam on the preposterous falsehood that it will increase European genes in the European gene pool, which is mathematical nonsense. If a European turns Muslim in Europe, it’s most likely that he will marry a European or several, and if it is several, so much the worst for the genes of those European males who might otherwise have married but who will have to make do without a wife at all.

    Consider, also, that females of conquered tribes frequently despise the conquerors and refuse to mate with them

    Bollocks. Tell that to the 40 million living descendants of Ghengis Kahn.

    Take Israel

    Please do.

    There can be no genetic, materialist reason to resist Islam – many low-status Western males will have improved chances of reproduction, and elite Western males will compose a valued intellectual and technocratic class, as happened historically.

    I’ve already exploded that idiotic fallacy in an earlier comment (see #52, above). I’m not engaging in a ’tis ’tisn’t dispute.

    To retain our distinct group identity we need a metaphysical reason

    Any group thinking the way you want the Europeans to think will be wiped from the page of history in very short order.

    attractive Palestinian women should be rushing into the arms of Israeli men in droves. They are a conquered nation. Israeli men of Arab descent would love to pair with them.

    The Palis haven’t surrendered yet. They want to kill everyone of you Jews or at least drive you back wherever the Hell you came from.

    Historically, if you merged with your neighbor tribe, you became larger and stronger

    You certainly pack a lot of BS into one comment. The optimum strategy depends greatly on circumstances. Genocide, as practiced by the Jews of old against the original inhabitants of Israel, involving slaughter of the males and post menopausal females, and impregnation of the females is often the optimum strategy, but circumstances alter cases in a vast number of different ways, so your comment is, frankly, fatuous.

    European colonialists in Asia also did not typically have to fend off high-quality local women

    There was no European colonization of Asia, so what are you talking about?

    Yes – Jews retain a distinct identity, but it is highly obvious that the genetic survival of individual Jews is not served by this.

    There is no such thing as the genetic survival of individual Jews or anyone else. All that counts, in the evolutionary sense, are genes, and the share of your gene in the gene pool, and what is apparently “highly obvious” to you is not the case.

    In Europe for most of history, Jewish genes would obviously have done far better by converting to Christianity and assimilating.

    “Obviously”? Usually a sign of bunk to be asserted. You have no arguments at all. Mere ridiculous and uninformed comment that happens to conform exactly with the globalist project for the destruction of the independent, sovereign, democratic, and by tradition Christian, European states.

    And so on and so forth.

    Yes, very good. That typifies the deficiency in fact and logic of your entire spiel.

    Once you liberate yourself from the straitjacket of materialism, it is amazing the vistas that open up before you.

    And once you open yourself up to unadulterated bullshit, it’s amazing how quickly you can inadvertently destroy your own people and posterity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    You know, if we adopt the genetic perspective, then none of this matters at all.

    Behaviors get selected for in a vast impersonal process that doesn't care about the outcome.

    I do not see why the conscious *I* should give one whit about my genes.

    If someone has inherited a concern with his genetic transmission, or if someone has not, is a neutral fact with no significance from this point of view. If that person's genes don't make it to the next generation, that is a fact - it is without value. We have banished value, and created a world of impersonal facts.

    There can be no discussion, because there are no values, there are no reference points - it is all a vast impersonal process that is utterly blind.

    You cannot derive value from fact - and your attempt to do so is merely the metaphysical instinct hard at work, trying to derive meaning from the concepts available to you, even if those concepts cannot yield meaning.

    Such is the strength of man's metaphysical instinct (the search for value and meaning) - finally, after much toil and effort, we arrive at a world view which banishes all metaphysics, yet we try immediately to sneak it in through the back door.

    Tell me, why *should* I care about my genes? Ah, but with that word "should", we are back into metaphysics, and out of the genetic world-view.

    These double-binds and knots that Western thinking has finally tied itself into - if we cannot untie these knots, we are doomed to death.

    Because this talk of genetic transmission will not give us the motivation to save ourselves.

  64. Jason Liu says:

    This is exactly why “neoreaction” should have been the face and force behind the Alt-Right, not the Stormfront types. You can tell by just how afraid the academic left is when equality is questioned on an ideological level — the immediate reaction to accuse their opponents of moral sin indicates an insecurity in their ideas.

    Barring all-out, society-wide nationalism, it’s the Dark Enlightenment nerds who will produce the cultural change necessary to bring down the left. Pepe and beating up Antifa will only get you so far.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Depends. I agree Moldbug and Nick Land are more fun for techies to read, but memes like Pepe and Based Stick Man are catchier and can reach more people. If they form a large counterculture some of them could eventually filter into people who might assume positions of power. One of Trump's (or more accurately, Bannon's) problems now is he doesn't have populist-nationalists with any experience in government to carry out his plans, so he's stuck with neocons and Obama holdovers.
    , @MarkinLA
    Except the left redefines "equality" to suit their argument. They want equality of opportunity when they think that I all that is necessary and when that doesn't work equality is related to results.
  65. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @utu
    And who are these Jews who... Got a source for that?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

    I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.
     

    So one Jew speaks for the whole group? Does Ted Bundy speak for you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    So one Jew speaks for the whole group? Does Ted Bundy speak for you?
     
    No, there's Aaron B, too.
    , @Alden
    Anon, if you want to know what atheist secular Jews, extremely to mildly orthodox, religious and non religious Jews think about unlimited legal and illegal immigration I suggest you subscribe to the largest circulation Jewish publication in America, the Jewish Journal. The address is 3250 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles Ca. 90010.

    It's a weekly publication. Every issue has articles advocating massive, expanded legal and illegal immigration. I've never read anything against immigration. For about a month after the San Bernardino massacre the Journal had numerous articles about the horrors of racism against Muslims and how most Muslims just live secular America and are harmless.

    Same thing after a Muslim army captain slaughtered 14 soldiers at Fort Hood. " "Prejudice against Muslims is far far more evil than slaughtering 14 American soldiers " preached the Jewish Journal.

    9/11, same thing, Orlando night club same thing.

    Go ahead, subscribe.
  66. @AaronB
    @ FKA Max - thanks, that sounds interesting. I don't know if Europeans are less altruistic than others, but I do know that the Muslims whom the Crusaders came into contact with considered Europeans to be especially ethnocentric.

    In my view, genetic determinism is simply a limited view - nations change their character, often dramatically, over time. Examples are numerous - dishonest Germans, lazy Chinese, etc, etc.

    To ignore this, truly one must do violence to one's mind.

    @Nickels - yes, but that is the materialist trap. One cannot simply choose not to be a materialist for prudential reasons - as prudence itself is a materialist value. Materialism certainly undermines itself in many ways, though. It is, even, self-contradictory (if our minds are evolutionary, we can't assume it produces truth - but then our minds produced the theory of evolution, which we then have no basis to believe in, and so on. It's circular, and self-undermining.)

    @Santoculto - but beauty is not a physical thing - it is a relation between things, a certain proportion, an arrangement of things. Therefore, it is metaphysical - i.e above physics.

    Agree with you about the Vatican - though beautiful, it represent power and wealth, values utterly foreign to Christianity.

    Nickels??

    I think you’re just playing with words, sorry. “Above” physics in terms of value maybe but “still” physical, something that is impossible to avoid.

    We are arrangement of things we are physical.

    Read More
  67. AaronB says:
    @utu
    Your genes will most certainly not perish.

    I do not like the BS about gene survival. But if you have 1 child only only 50% of your genes survive if you mate with dog. But if you mate with random person from Africa more than 50% of your genes will survive because probably you share some genes with Africans. But even more of your genes will survive if you mate with somebody from your ethnic/racial group. But if you want to really maximize your gene survival try incest.

    lol, so incest makes most sense from a genetic perspective :)

    But seriously, I do not see why more of *my* genes will survive if I mate with someone of my own ethnic group, with whom I share genes?

    Do you mean the phenotypic expression of a gene will more likely occur when combined with compatible genes (blond hair might get canceled out if I mate with an African)?

    Or that redundancy – if both parents share a gene – might ensure a better environment for transmitting that gene?

    Since genes aren’t intelligent, and this entire process is “blind” – genes that confer a survival advantage get selected for, but don’t themselves choose – then those genes which are peripheral to survival, like hair color, probably do not exert strong selective pressure.

    That being said, yes, merging of two distinct ethnic groups definitely alters the phenotypic expression of differing genes – and yes, it does alter the “frequency” of your genes being expressed – i.e the relative expression of that gene – but not the absolute presence of that gene.

    I think what changes is the phenotypic expression of genes in the resultant population – which population will indeed look different and have different attributes than either parent population.

    However, this is of concern only for metaphysical reasons – on the genetic level, as long as survival is ensured, it matters not at all.

    I am reminded again, of how hard it is to discuss genes without giving them agency, will, and intelligence, “souls” – which they do not have – and to retain the proper perspective of a vast impersonal process that does not care about the outcome.

    With the proper perspective kept in focus, it is easier to see why metaphysics is primary, and the roles we attribute to genes are false.

    Read More
  68. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    First, you have misunderstood me badly if you think I support European genocide.
     
    I didn't say what I thought you support. I said that what you were saying was consistent with the objective of those who do seek European genocide.

    if the indigenous group agrees to assimilate to the invaders identity – religion, etc – then the indigenous group need not suffer any loss of genetic frequency.
     
    That's a clever piece of bullshit. What your saying is, as long as the indigenous Europeans agree to become part of some other group then the loss of their genes does not matter because, hey, they agreed in advance to merge and be submerged and ultimately eliminated.

    As for

    You are badly conflating “group identity” with “genetic group”

     

    More clever bullshit, since it is you who are doing the conflating.

    Even today, if you convert to Islam – assimilate – you will be provided a wife in many places. Your genes will most certainly not perish. Rather the opposite, for many young Western males.
     
    So you are crassly advocating conversion of Europe to Islam on the preposterous falsehood that it will increase European genes in the European gene pool, which is mathematical nonsense. If a European turns Muslim in Europe, it's most likely that he will marry a European or several, and if it is several, so much the worst for the genes of those European males who might otherwise have married but who will have to make do without a wife at all.

    Consider, also, that females of conquered tribes frequently despise the conquerors and refuse to mate with them
     
    Bollocks. Tell that to the 40 million living descendants of Ghengis Kahn.

    Take Israel
     
    Please do.

    There can be no genetic, materialist reason to resist Islam – many low-status Western males will have improved chances of reproduction, and elite Western males will compose a valued intellectual and technocratic class, as happened historically.
     
    I've already exploded that idiotic fallacy in an earlier comment (see #52, above). I'm not engaging in a 'tis 'tisn't dispute.

    To retain our distinct group identity we need a metaphysical reason
     
    Any group thinking the way you want the Europeans to think will be wiped from the page of history in very short order.

    attractive Palestinian women should be rushing into the arms of Israeli men in droves. They are a conquered nation. Israeli men of Arab descent would love to pair with them.
     
    The Palis haven't surrendered yet. They want to kill everyone of you Jews or at least drive you back wherever the Hell you came from.

    Historically, if you merged with your neighbor tribe, you became larger and stronger
     
    You certainly pack a lot of BS into one comment. The optimum strategy depends greatly on circumstances. Genocide, as practiced by the Jews of old against the original inhabitants of Israel, involving slaughter of the males and post menopausal females, and impregnation of the females is often the optimum strategy, but circumstances alter cases in a vast number of different ways, so your comment is, frankly, fatuous.

    European colonialists in Asia also did not typically have to fend off high-quality local women
     
    There was no European colonization of Asia, so what are you talking about?

    Yes – Jews retain a distinct identity, but it is highly obvious that the genetic survival of individual Jews is not served by this.
     
    There is no such thing as the genetic survival of individual Jews or anyone else. All that counts, in the evolutionary sense, are genes, and the share of your gene in the gene pool, and what is apparently "highly obvious" to you is not the case.

    In Europe for most of history, Jewish genes would obviously have done far better by converting to Christianity and assimilating.
     
    "Obviously"? Usually a sign of bunk to be asserted. You have no arguments at all. Mere ridiculous and uninformed comment that happens to conform exactly with the globalist project for the destruction of the independent, sovereign, democratic, and by tradition Christian, European states.

    And so on and so forth.
     
    Yes, very good. That typifies the deficiency in fact and logic of your entire spiel.

    Once you liberate yourself from the straitjacket of materialism, it is amazing the vistas that open up before you.
     
    And once you open yourself up to unadulterated bullshit, it's amazing how quickly you can inadvertently destroy your own people and posterity.

    You know, if we adopt the genetic perspective, then none of this matters at all.

    Behaviors get selected for in a vast impersonal process that doesn’t care about the outcome.

    I do not see why the conscious *I* should give one whit about my genes.

    If someone has inherited a concern with his genetic transmission, or if someone has not, is a neutral fact with no significance from this point of view. If that person’s genes don’t make it to the next generation, that is a fact – it is without value. We have banished value, and created a world of impersonal facts.

    There can be no discussion, because there are no values, there are no reference points – it is all a vast impersonal process that is utterly blind.

    You cannot derive value from fact – and your attempt to do so is merely the metaphysical instinct hard at work, trying to derive meaning from the concepts available to you, even if those concepts cannot yield meaning.

    Such is the strength of man’s metaphysical instinct (the search for value and meaning) – finally, after much toil and effort, we arrive at a world view which banishes all metaphysics, yet we try immediately to sneak it in through the back door.

    Tell me, why *should* I care about my genes? Ah, but with that word “should”, we are back into metaphysics, and out of the genetic world-view.

    These double-binds and knots that Western thinking has finally tied itself into – if we cannot untie these knots, we are doomed to death.

    Because this talk of genetic transmission will not give us the motivation to save ourselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I do not see why the conscious *I* should give one whit about my genes.
     
    Doesn't matter whether you see why or not. The genes of those who do care are more likely to be represented in succeeding generations than the genes of those who do not. Caring about such things is largely a cultural matter. Hence, as
    Raphael Lemkin who coined the term genocide explained, genocide can be achieved by:

    a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort.
     
    That is exactly what the European peoples are exposed to now. In arguing for the Islamification of Europe, through mass immigration you are promoting genocide of the Europeans, for whatever reasons, maybe hatred of Europeans, or maybe it pays — for you to raise a family and thus increase the representation of your genes in the gene pool.
  69. Agent76 says:

    May 22, 2017 The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party

    Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party.

    Read More
  70. @AaronB
    "This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    Both are selfish materialistic interests.

    You will never be able to understand why Whites are committing suicide if this is all you can see.

    You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.

    You yourself admit you cannot understand it - i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises. One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time to think beyond them.

    Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to break free.

    Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.

    Yet to anyone who isn’t a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.

    Seeing as how the future of Western civilization is at stake, now may not be the best time to be keeping us in suspense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Seeing as how the future of Western civilization is at stake, now may not be the best time to be keeping us in suspense.

    We don't believe in Jesus anymore. That's all there is.
  71. SFG says:
    @Jason Liu
    This is exactly why "neoreaction" should have been the face and force behind the Alt-Right, not the Stormfront types. You can tell by just how afraid the academic left is when equality is questioned on an ideological level -- the immediate reaction to accuse their opponents of moral sin indicates an insecurity in their ideas.

    Barring all-out, society-wide nationalism, it's the Dark Enlightenment nerds who will produce the cultural change necessary to bring down the left. Pepe and beating up Antifa will only get you so far.

    Depends. I agree Moldbug and Nick Land are more fun for techies to read, but memes like Pepe and Based Stick Man are catchier and can reach more people. If they form a large counterculture some of them could eventually filter into people who might assume positions of power. One of Trump’s (or more accurately, Bannon’s) problems now is he doesn’t have populist-nationalists with any experience in government to carry out his plans, so he’s stuck with neocons and Obama holdovers.

    Read More
  72. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anon
    So one Jew speaks for the whole group? Does Ted Bundy speak for you?

    So one Jew speaks for the whole group? Does Ted Bundy speak for you?

    No, there’s Aaron B, too.

    Read More
  73. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    Your genes will most certainly not perish.

    I do not like the BS about gene survival. But if you have 1 child only only 50% of your genes survive if you mate with dog. But if you mate with random person from Africa more than 50% of your genes will survive because probably you share some genes with Africans. But even more of your genes will survive if you mate with somebody from your ethnic/racial group. But if you want to really maximize your gene survival try incest.

    I do not like the BS about gene survival.

    Genes do not survive, they replicate. Your genetic posterity, if you have one, will be yours because your genes are replicated in succeeding generations. That is not BS.

    An interesting consequence of that fact is that you can enhance your own genetic posterity without progeny of your own, by enhancing the reproductive success of those whose genes most closely resemble your own, hence nepotism and why JBS Haldane remarked, “I would die for two brothers, or four cousins.”

    But if you want to really maximize your gene survival try incest.

    That’s what royalty does or used to do, more or less, with somewhat mixed results, including hemophilia and madness. There must be some trade off between increased representation of one’s own genes in the next generation and the increased risk of homozygosity of detrimental recessive genes that reduce the chance of your immediate successors having successors of their own.

    In a closed community, however, where everyone is inbred, the inbreeding keeps a lid on the frequency of lethal of sub-lethal recessive genes. That is why outbreeding of inbred groups leads to hybrid vigor — homozygosity of detrimental genes is reduced, although the genetic load is thus allowed to grow.

    Read More
  74. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sean
    I think liberals would disagree with a lot of this post. They see themselves as protecting the individual to live as they choose within a principle of no harm, whereby a problem of groups in competition does not arise, which is fair enough within a state, but falls apart if applied across borders and separate polities.

    The intellectual consensus against heterodox thinkers, especially those of Prof. MacDonald's ilk, is due to the principle of no harm, taken as mandating an open society and global utility. But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point of view.


    What its really incredibly pathetic is that really challenging this regime from within the academic world is vanishingly rare. Or perhaps it’s not so surprising given the above. But what happened to all that idealism that young scholars have when they really get interested in a field? Why don’t professors in evolutionary science, who know well how natural selection works when there is an invasive species or sub-species — why don’t these White people become vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?

    This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests.
     

    Be that as it may, I think phrasing opposition in terms of anything pertaining to genes is disastrous. And the proof of that is the virtually open borders advocates constantly try to bring up genetic and related arguments as what lies behind all calls for immigration restriction. They want us to make the hereditary/ genetic/white/ nordic argument. All these terms denote supremacy and are identified with a philosophical error ( essentialism).

    Border security is self-defence for the national state communities that aspire to protect their polity (sovereign country), but liberals are assuming a global delimited polity (one world ) with a principle of no harm; they have to save the immigrants. The case for immigration restriction should be put as relating to a democratically ratified state's borders. A citizen's right to cross the border has a corollary in relation to foreigners having no such right.

    “I don’t have to read Mein Kampf to know it is evil. Same with The Bell Curve.”
     

    Kampf has a bit where Hitler talks of the conquest and colonisation of space, but predicts the globe will spin through space devoid of life if Jews are allowed to direct its development. I wonder, liberalism and nation speaking peace toward nation is going to make the open and technologically innovative Western counties a mulch cow for the world, one can imagine a much more internationally cooperative spirit becoming de rigueur, and progress harnessed to the hypercapitalism as foreseen by Nick Land. At which time pursuit of a technological singularity will be brought well within striking distance for that generation.

    The great silence from the Universe (we're all alone) and it seeming that, contrary to what evolutionist say, evolution does seem to have an upward direction to it (nervous systems having evolved twice) plus we now we know that bacteria can survive meteorite crash landings all points toward life forms being self exterminiting by getting a little too advanced.

    Perhaps his expectation of the aforementioned advances in globalism and invention (or rationalist morality and inteligence) is why Professor Stephen Hawking thinks life on Earth will be extinguished within a century. As Yoda, or was it Revilo Oliver, said "night must fall".

    But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point of view.

    Except, as you forgot to mention, the survival of the European people. But liberals, of course, are always ready to sacrifice European people for whatever depraved cause they may have in mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    We have the force of attraction and the force of repulsion, the first is conservative, the second is dispersive, ''illibs'' are the second group. Usually the attraction force is in the nuclei of the ''entity'' as well in the its boundaries, this days dispersive forces are in the place where traditionally are the places of the attractive forces.
    , @utu

    restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates
     
    I think it would be useful to go through all possible arguments in favor of controlling immigration. Why does it seem so that so many arguments are stigmatized and have negative connotations? Different argument will work with different people. Some arguments will fall on deaf ears in the US but might be persuasive in some European countries.

    Cultural arguments (destruction of cultures of both of the host and that of the immigrant, irreconcilable religious and cultural differences)

    Economic arguments (group and individual impact of immigration, who benefits and who does not)

    Legal arguments (sovereignty, ownership of land and country, national home, who can live in it and who can decide if every citizen is a part owner of the country, rule of reciprocity and 1st categorical imperative: what if everybody did this)

    Biological arguments (irreversibility of miscegenation, loss of natural biological diversity)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfxL_wuYtSg
    , @Sean
    I meant to say that advocating restriction of immigration on the grounds MacDonald does is a terrible mistake from every point of view, because if immigration is severely restricted, who cares what the rationale is? My point is it won't actually get done if it is advocated on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests. The open borders lobby WANT ethnic genetic interests to be the reason, and in fact they always bring that up as the real motivation.
  75. Alden says:
    @jilles dykstra
    One wonders if psychologists are ignorant of history.
    Some 300 years BCE a Greek calculated the circumference of the earth at 39.000 km, the right figure is 40.000.
    Yet Columbus' sailors were afraid to fall of the earth.
    For some 1600 years the christian church prevented all independent thought, in 1600 the pope had Giordano Bruno burned alive, for heretic thoughts, about the universe, about the holy trinity.
    At about the same time Calvin burned Servetius, the man who discovered blood circulation, alive to death, also about the trinity.
    So Servetius was unable to tell the world about the blood circulation.
    Galileo got away with house arrest.
    Even around 1860 the pope declared that philosophical thinking not controlled by the church was illegal.
    So there is nothing special in the christian culture about no independent thought.
    On top of that, as Chomsky states: in any culture there is a standard truth, if this truth is not considered, no debate is possible, but between those who know better.
    We see this right now, much wailing about the indeed horrible carnage in Manchester, that the USA, Predators with Hellfire, causes such carnage every week three or fout times, it cannot be said.
    Terrorism is caused by the Islam, not by the west.

    You’re too intelligent to keep repeating Calvinist and enlightenment propaganda. Columbus and his sailors knew that the earth was round and if they just keep sailing west they would eventually run into Asia about 5,000 miles from The coast of Spain.

    What Columbus didn’t know was that the Americas are between Europe and Asia.

    Why is the calendar used today called the Georgian calendar? Because the calendar needs to be adjusted every 1, 500 years. It was adjusted around 40 BC when Juluus Cesear was Emperor. By 1500AD it needed further adjustment. That adjustment was done in the best observatory in the world at the time by the beat astronomers and mathmeticians in the world. The work was done in the Vatican observatory. The astronomers and mathematicians were Vatican priests.

    I very heard of the scientific method? It was created around 1100 AD by priests and monks at the Roman Catholic University of Paris Sorbonne.

    Your own country the Netherlands was under the North Sea in 500 AD. It was Roman Catholic monks who settled on the beaches and began a thousand year process of land reclamation that literally built the land now called the Netherlands.

    Every university established in Europe before 1800 was established by the church. During those 1600 years you cite the only libraries in Europe belonged to the church

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    The anti Catholic propaganda was particularly strong in The Netherlands: "Liever Turks dan Paaps"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liever_Turks_dan_Paaps
    , @res

    Why is the calendar used today called the Georgian calendar? Because the calendar needs to be adjusted every 1, 500 years. It was adjusted around 40 BC when Juluus Cesear was Emperor. By 1500AD it needed further adjustment. That adjustment was done in the best observatory in the world at the time by the beat astronomers and mathmeticians in the world. The work was done in the Vatican observatory. The astronomers and mathematicians were Vatican priests.
     
    You left out a key aspect of the Gregorian calendar. In addition to the shift to remove accumulated error it was changed so it no longer has to be adjusted every 1500 years. This was done by removing 3 leap days every 400 years. For more detail see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

    Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar which has a nice summary:

    The Julian calendar gains against the mean tropical year at the rate of one day in 128 years. For the Gregorian the figure is one day in 3,030 years.[2] The difference in the average length of the year between Julian (365.25 days) and Gregorian (365.2425 days) is 0.002%.
     
    The change by Caesar beginning the Julian calendar was much more dramatic. The Gregorian calendar just added a small tweak.

    Current reality is a bit more complex with irregularly spaced and unpredictable leap seconds being added (27 since 1972): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
  76. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor

    In 2-3 generations, people go from having 10-12 kids to having 0,1,2.

    How would that work genetically?
     
    If I paid you $10,000 and gave you a day, could you come up with a rough back-of-the-envelope model where people would have a hardwired genetic predisposition to wanting to have many kids yet end up having a different number of kids under different circumstances?

    Actually, I could come up with such models for free.

    could you come up with a rough back-of-the-envelope model where people would have a hardwired genetic predisposition to wanting to have many kids yet end up having a different number of kids under different circumstances?

    No.

    That’s my point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    That's an argument from incredulity.

    You just claimed people have an instinct to have sex. How come people have way more recreational sex now than a hundred years ago, if that instinct is genetic?
  77. @CanSpeccy

    But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point of view.
     
    Except, as you forgot to mention, the survival of the European people. But liberals, of course, are always ready to sacrifice European people for whatever depraved cause they may have in mind.

    We have the force of attraction and the force of repulsion, the first is conservative, the second is dispersive, ”illibs” are the second group. Usually the attraction force is in the nuclei of the ”entity” as well in the its boundaries, this days dispersive forces are in the place where traditionally are the places of the attractive forces.

    Read More
  78. Alden says:
    @iffen
    What makes you think it’s not hardwired?

    No scientific evidence.

    I think it would have turned up by now.

    In 2-3 generations, people go from having 10-12 kids to having 0,1,2.

    How would that work genetically?

    Don’t forget about reliable birth control.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Don’t forget about reliable birth control.

    Why would you use birth control if you have an 'instinct" to reproduce?
  79. iffen says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Yet to anyone who isn’t a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.
     
    Seeing as how the future of Western civilization is at stake, now may not be the best time to be keeping us in suspense.

    Seeing as how the future of Western civilization is at stake, now may not be the best time to be keeping us in suspense.

    We don’t believe in Jesus anymore. That’s all there is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

    We don’t believe in Jesus anymore. That’s all there is.
     
    I still believe in Jesus, but that's no longer the norm, alas.
  80. Alden says:
    @annamaria
    A case in point - Libya: http://theduran.com/hillary-clinton-bears-responsibility-for-the-manchester-atrocity/
    "The illegal NATO war against Libya was Hillary Clinton’s war above all others. It was her who took a stable, prosperous, secular socialist country and turned it into a failed state and a terrorist playground. Gaddafi warned that he was the rampart holding back al-Qaeda from Europe, but Hillary Clinton did not care. She even laughed about Gaddafi’s inhumane, barbaric execution at the hands of terrorists.
    Had Hillary Clinton not been able to convince Barack Obama and his useful war propagandists David Cameron in Britain and Nicholas Sarkozy, the dead children in Manchester might be with us today.
    Hillary Clinton famously said of Gaddafi’s illegal execution, “We came, we saw, he died”. Indeed, she came, she saw, he died and now thousands of more have died in Libya, many others have died in Europe because of this, including those who recently perished in Manchester."

    There is a theory that Hildabeast attacked Libya on orders from the bankers because Ghaddafi took Libya out of the international monetary system.

    America needs a leader like Ghaddafi, a leader who cares about his own people and nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I just think Hillary was looking to her Presidential run in 2016 and saw an opportunity to burnish her "foreign policy" bonafides. She thought it would be a cake walk and successful and could then brag in 2016 how she was head and shoulders above everybody else in foreign policy. Benghazi happened and everything was supposed to go down the memory hole.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You can't mean what you say in your last par. Or, on reflection on what Ghaddafi's character and actions were and the way he treated large numbers of "his own people" i.e. ordinary Libyans who weren't in fact his people because of tribal or other ethnic or socisl differences, do you think Americans would benefit from being led by anyone like him?
  81. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point of view.
     
    Except, as you forgot to mention, the survival of the European people. But liberals, of course, are always ready to sacrifice European people for whatever depraved cause they may have in mind.

    restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates

    I think it would be useful to go through all possible arguments in favor of controlling immigration. Why does it seem so that so many arguments are stigmatized and have negative connotations? Different argument will work with different people. Some arguments will fall on deaf ears in the US but might be persuasive in some European countries.

    Cultural arguments (destruction of cultures of both of the host and that of the immigrant, irreconcilable religious and cultural differences)

    Economic arguments (group and individual impact of immigration, who benefits and who does not)

    Legal arguments (sovereignty, ownership of land and country, national home, who can live in it and who can decide if every citizen is a part owner of the country, rule of reciprocity and 1st categorical imperative: what if everybody did this)

    Biological arguments (irreversibility of miscegenation, loss of natural biological diversity)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfxL_wuYtSg

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I think it would be useful to go through all possible arguments in favor of controlling immigration.
     
    Since all of the European majority nations are democratic, the people should surely decide for themselves how much of their living space they wish to share with economic migrants, rape-culture refugees, and settlers intent on imposing their legal, political and religious tradition on the country to which they migrate.

    How much of their living space are people willing to give up for the benefit of foreigners, most of whom, after all, have a homeland of their own?

    How many of their school places, maternity hospital beds are people willing to give up for the benefit of foreigners?

    How much in additional taxes are people willing to pay to cover the cost of the new infrastructure that mass immigration necessitates?

    How much of their taxes are people willing to have spent on the maintenance of unemployed immigrants?

    How much are people willing to see wages fall as a result of the increase in labor supply due to mass immigration?

    How much are people willing to see the cost of housing rise as the result of the increase in demand due to mass immigration?

    How willing are people to tolerate transformation of the religious, political, and legal traditions of their country to meet the demands of settlers from an alien, and highly authoritarian culture?

    Not every community will give the same answers. Countries like Canada and Australia have vast territories and it may thought that they need people in a hurry to secure the territory, although even so, they will surely not want to secure the territory at the cost of losing their religious, political and legal traditions.

    In fact, in most European majority countries, the democratic answer to the question of immigration is totally at odds with the policy followed. How many of the English, for example, would have voted to have their capital city, London, their second city, Birmingham, and sundry other cities and major urban areas taken over by a majority of foreigners, many of whom openly express their aim is conquest? A very small minority, as multiple opinion surveys over many years prove.

    Thus the process of mass immigration to most, if not all, European majority nations has been a betrayal of the democratic will of the people: a betrayal of the people opposed to self-destruction, a betrayal, in fact, of a value, a value that Aaron B says the European people cannot possibly have.

  82. AaronB says:

    So iffen mocks me, and CanSpeccy fumes in silence, with his back to me.

    I get the sense committed materialists really do not like being challenged….

    Its unfortunate. If we cannot even tolerate challenges to materialism, we are without hope.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the world, full of faith, replaces us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I get the sense committed materialists really do not like being challenged….

    I love a challenge, more than most.

    Faith failed.

    Case closed.
    , @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy fumes in silence...
     
    You call the thousand or so words I've addressed to you thus far "silence." LOL
  83. iffen says:
    @Alden
    Don't forget about reliable birth control.

    Don’t forget about reliable birth control.

    Why would you use birth control if you have an ‘instinct” to reproduce?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    There are two instincts at play - the instinct to reproduce and the instinct too make sure your child survives to adulthood as healthy as possible. When children don't survive the first instinct takes priority. When children can be assured of survival the second one does.
    , @Alden
    I had only 4 children, unlike all the commenters who urge other people to have big White families. But if I had not used birth control I could have had 15 to 20 kids between 20 and 45.

    For all you guys who don't have kids and don't seem to do what is necessary to conceive kids, birth control is the major reason for low fertility and low birth rates and 1 or 2 child families.

    For about 6 days a month a woman can conceive a baby. If she has sex without birth control in those days there is a good chance she will conceive. If she uses mechanical means such as diagrams and rubbers there is still a good chance she will conceive. If she uses the pill or an IUD there is a 95 percent chance she will not conceive.

    It's difficult for me to understand how grown adult men don't know that birth control prevents conception.

    Speaking of IUDs, there was something on Drudge about a month ago. A baby was born with the Mother's IUD in its hand.
  84. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Classic case of how PC can make white psychology stupid and gullible.

    https://altright.com/2017/05/24/blacks-mastermind-criminal-uses-white-guilt-to-steal-iphones-from-unsuspecting-liberals/

    Fact is blacks are more likely to lie, cheat, steal, and rob.

    They have less conscience and inhibition.

    Evolution made them that way. They had to survive in a world of competition with hyenas, leopards, crocodiles, and hippos.

    Read More
  85. utu says:
    @Alden
    You're too intelligent to keep repeating Calvinist and enlightenment propaganda. Columbus and his sailors knew that the earth was round and if they just keep sailing west they would eventually run into Asia about 5,000 miles from The coast of Spain.

    What Columbus didn't know was that the Americas are between Europe and Asia.

    Why is the calendar used today called the Georgian calendar? Because the calendar needs to be adjusted every 1, 500 years. It was adjusted around 40 BC when Juluus Cesear was Emperor. By 1500AD it needed further adjustment. That adjustment was done in the best observatory in the world at the time by the beat astronomers and mathmeticians in the world. The work was done in the Vatican observatory. The astronomers and mathematicians were Vatican priests.

    I very heard of the scientific method? It was created around 1100 AD by priests and monks at the Roman Catholic University of Paris Sorbonne.

    Your own country the Netherlands was under the North Sea in 500 AD. It was Roman Catholic monks who settled on the beaches and began a thousand year process of land reclamation that literally built the land now called the Netherlands.

    Every university established in Europe before 1800 was established by the church. During those 1600 years you cite the only libraries in Europe belonged to the church

    The anti Catholic propaganda was particularly strong in The Netherlands: “Liever Turks dan Paaps”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liever_Turks_dan_Paaps

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Better Turks than Papists? That must be why the Netherlands revolt against the Spanish Empire occurred just in time to distract the Spanish from the very important naval war against the Turks which culminated in the Catholic victory of Lepanto which made the Mediterranean and Atlantic safer for Europeans.

    I don't know why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes against the Catholic Church. None of his allegations are true, just 400 yr old enlightenment propaganda. Columbus consulted the priests at the university of Salmonacca. The priests calculated the distance between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right. That's quite an achievement for an anti science religion.

    Once Columbus realized that he could sail that distance he was able to raise funds from the Spanish crown. Of course Dysktra will heap scorn on the scientists of Salmonacca for not realizing the Americas were between Spain and Asia.

    Even American fundamentalists and Jews have ratcheted down the anti Catholic Calvinist rhetoric in the last 80 years.
  86. MarkinLA says:
    @iffen
    instinctive objective of reproduction

    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    There is an instinct to have sex.

    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    Tell that to the average woman. She may have no instinct for sex but having a baby is another thing altogether.

    Read More
  87. iffen says:
    @AaronB
    So iffen mocks me, and CanSpeccy fumes in silence, with his back to me.

    I get the sense committed materialists really do not like being challenged....

    Its unfortunate. If we cannot even tolerate challenges to materialism, we are without hope.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the world, full of faith, replaces us.

    I get the sense committed materialists really do not like being challenged….

    I love a challenge, more than most.

    Faith failed.

    Case closed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB

    Faith failed.

    Case closed.
     
    Tell that to the Muslims, the Chinese, the Indians, the Jews.

    And then, look at the West - I think it is rather that materialism failed. Case closed.
  88. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    You know, if we adopt the genetic perspective, then none of this matters at all.

    Behaviors get selected for in a vast impersonal process that doesn't care about the outcome.

    I do not see why the conscious *I* should give one whit about my genes.

    If someone has inherited a concern with his genetic transmission, or if someone has not, is a neutral fact with no significance from this point of view. If that person's genes don't make it to the next generation, that is a fact - it is without value. We have banished value, and created a world of impersonal facts.

    There can be no discussion, because there are no values, there are no reference points - it is all a vast impersonal process that is utterly blind.

    You cannot derive value from fact - and your attempt to do so is merely the metaphysical instinct hard at work, trying to derive meaning from the concepts available to you, even if those concepts cannot yield meaning.

    Such is the strength of man's metaphysical instinct (the search for value and meaning) - finally, after much toil and effort, we arrive at a world view which banishes all metaphysics, yet we try immediately to sneak it in through the back door.

    Tell me, why *should* I care about my genes? Ah, but with that word "should", we are back into metaphysics, and out of the genetic world-view.

    These double-binds and knots that Western thinking has finally tied itself into - if we cannot untie these knots, we are doomed to death.

    Because this talk of genetic transmission will not give us the motivation to save ourselves.

    I do not see why the conscious *I* should give one whit about my genes.

    Doesn’t matter whether you see why or not. The genes of those who do care are more likely to be represented in succeeding generations than the genes of those who do not. Caring about such things is largely a cultural matter. Hence, as
    Raphael Lemkin who coined the term genocide explained, genocide can be achieved by:

    a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort.

    That is exactly what the European peoples are exposed to now. In arguing for the Islamification of Europe, through mass immigration you are promoting genocide of the Europeans, for whatever reasons, maybe hatred of Europeans, or maybe it pays — for you to raise a family and thus increase the representation of your genes in the gene pool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I am not at all arguing for the Islamization of Europe - quite the opposite!

    I was merely pointing out that if we remain self-interested materialists, we will have no really compelling reason to make the necessary self-sacrifice to resist.

    "The genes of those who do care are more likely to be represented in succeeding generations than the genes of those who do not. Caring about such things is largely a cultural matter. "

    So is it genetically determined, or a cultural attitude, subject to change? Since you distinguish between the two, I assume you do not think culture is genetically determined - otherwise the two sentences are identical.

    If it is genetically determined, then the European population is clearly composed of people who do not possess the gene that makes one care about the survival of one's group - and then, what are you hoping for?
  89. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    So iffen mocks me, and CanSpeccy fumes in silence, with his back to me.

    I get the sense committed materialists really do not like being challenged....

    Its unfortunate. If we cannot even tolerate challenges to materialism, we are without hope.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the world, full of faith, replaces us.

    CanSpeccy fumes in silence…

    You call the thousand or so words I’ve addressed to you thus far “silence.” LOL

    Read More
  90. MarkinLA says:
    @Alden
    There is a theory that Hildabeast attacked Libya on orders from the bankers because Ghaddafi took Libya out of the international monetary system.

    America needs a leader like Ghaddafi, a leader who cares about his own people and nation.

    I just think Hillary was looking to her Presidential run in 2016 and saw an opportunity to burnish her “foreign policy” bonafides. She thought it would be a cake walk and successful and could then brag in 2016 how she was head and shoulders above everybody else in foreign policy. Benghazi happened and everything was supposed to go down the memory hole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Could be right. What horrible people the Clintons are. It's good that they only had one child, a woman who seems more interested in living the life of a rich lady than ruling the world. What if there were 2 or 3 Clinton boys. They'd be like the Kennedys.
  91. MarkinLA says:
    @Jason Liu
    This is exactly why "neoreaction" should have been the face and force behind the Alt-Right, not the Stormfront types. You can tell by just how afraid the academic left is when equality is questioned on an ideological level -- the immediate reaction to accuse their opponents of moral sin indicates an insecurity in their ideas.

    Barring all-out, society-wide nationalism, it's the Dark Enlightenment nerds who will produce the cultural change necessary to bring down the left. Pepe and beating up Antifa will only get you so far.

    Except the left redefines “equality” to suit their argument. They want equality of opportunity when they think that I all that is necessary and when that doesn’t work equality is related to results.

    Read More
  92. Alden says:
    @utu
    The anti Catholic propaganda was particularly strong in The Netherlands: "Liever Turks dan Paaps"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liever_Turks_dan_Paaps

    Better Turks than Papists? That must be why the Netherlands revolt against the Spanish Empire occurred just in time to distract the Spanish from the very important naval war against the Turks which culminated in the Catholic victory of Lepanto which made the Mediterranean and Atlantic safer for Europeans.

    I don’t know why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes against the Catholic Church. None of his allegations are true, just 400 yr old enlightenment propaganda. Columbus consulted the priests at the university of Salmonacca. The priests calculated the distance between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right. That’s quite an achievement for an anti science religion.

    Once Columbus realized that he could sail that distance he was able to raise funds from the Spanish crown. Of course Dysktra will heap scorn on the scientists of Salmonacca for not realizing the Americas were between Spain and Asia.

    Even American fundamentalists and Jews have ratcheted down the anti Catholic Calvinist rhetoric in the last 80 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes

    I think he genuinely believes it. Several centuries of incessant propaganda and brain washing. In England it was not much better.
    , @MarkinLA
    The priests calculated the distance between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right.

    Uh, no. The Atlantic is about 3000 miles, the Continental US is about 3000 miles and the Pacific is about 5000 miles.
    , @jilles dykstra
    The pope did not burn Giordano Bruno to death in 1600 in Rome ?
    A pope did not in 1860 or so declare that philosophy outside the church was wrong ?
    The pope was not declared infallible in 1880 or so ?
    Galileo did not get house arrest ?
    Servetius was not burned to death by Calvin ?
    Pietro Redondi, ´Galilei, ketter, De politieke machtsstrijd rond het proces tegen Galileo Galilei, 1633’, 1989, Amsterdam (Galileo eretico, 1983, 1989, Turin).
    Anacieto Verrecchia, ‘Giordana Bruno, Nachtfalter de Geistes’, 2009 Wien
    Giordano Bruno, ‘Über das Unendliche, das Universum und die Welten’, Stuttgart, 1994 (Venetia 1584).
    Goldstone, Lawrence & Nancy, ‘Out of the Flames, The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World’, New York, 2002
  93. dcite says:

    “Childless spinsters are often quite bitter, and most folk psychologists give at least two reasons why, with one of them being bitter about not having children. ”

    You sure understand more about the person using certain vocabulary, than the subject they are opining about. Chuckling at the images he’s conjuring up. To judge from what I’ve seen, those “spinsters” probably got more action than most properly married and childed women.
    There are lots of other reasons to be bitter than not having kids. Like having kids you wish you’d never had. Some of the bitterest people I’ve ever met have been parents. Both kinds.
    It is common to overestimate the desire of women to reproduce. I was flabbergasted at the young women I met years ago who declared with absoluteness, they wanted no children. That seemed so final and I couldn’t get why they didn’t see the potential in raising super-kids. They said it with absolute conviction and awareness that they would probably not die young and would be old without kids. Today, most are just fine. Most do not seem bitter. Maybe they should…for the good of society you want high quality people to reproduce. But these are the very types least concerned, and by and large they are just fine with the situation. What is convenient for the individual is not always good for society; but it does make for a happy individual.

    Read More
  94. MarkinLA says:
    @iffen
    Don’t forget about reliable birth control.

    Why would you use birth control if you have an 'instinct" to reproduce?

    There are two instincts at play – the instinct to reproduce and the instinct too make sure your child survives to adulthood as healthy as possible. When children don’t survive the first instinct takes priority. When children can be assured of survival the second one does.

    Read More
  95. Alden says:
    @iffen
    Don’t forget about reliable birth control.

    Why would you use birth control if you have an 'instinct" to reproduce?

    I had only 4 children, unlike all the commenters who urge other people to have big White families. But if I had not used birth control I could have had 15 to 20 kids between 20 and 45.

    For all you guys who don’t have kids and don’t seem to do what is necessary to conceive kids, birth control is the major reason for low fertility and low birth rates and 1 or 2 child families.

    For about 6 days a month a woman can conceive a baby. If she has sex without birth control in those days there is a good chance she will conceive. If she uses mechanical means such as diagrams and rubbers there is still a good chance she will conceive. If she uses the pill or an IUD there is a 95 percent chance she will not conceive.

    It’s difficult for me to understand how grown adult men don’t know that birth control prevents conception.

    Speaking of IUDs, there was something on Drudge about a month ago. A baby was born with the Mother’s IUD in its hand.

    Read More
  96. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I do not see why the conscious *I* should give one whit about my genes.
     
    Doesn't matter whether you see why or not. The genes of those who do care are more likely to be represented in succeeding generations than the genes of those who do not. Caring about such things is largely a cultural matter. Hence, as
    Raphael Lemkin who coined the term genocide explained, genocide can be achieved by:

    a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort.
     
    That is exactly what the European peoples are exposed to now. In arguing for the Islamification of Europe, through mass immigration you are promoting genocide of the Europeans, for whatever reasons, maybe hatred of Europeans, or maybe it pays — for you to raise a family and thus increase the representation of your genes in the gene pool.

    I am not at all arguing for the Islamization of Europe – quite the opposite!

    I was merely pointing out that if we remain self-interested materialists, we will have no really compelling reason to make the necessary self-sacrifice to resist.

    “The genes of those who do care are more likely to be represented in succeeding generations than the genes of those who do not. Caring about such things is largely a cultural matter. ”

    So is it genetically determined, or a cultural attitude, subject to change? Since you distinguish between the two, I assume you do not think culture is genetically determined – otherwise the two sentences are identical.

    If it is genetically determined, then the European population is clearly composed of people who do not possess the gene that makes one care about the survival of one’s group – and then, what are you hoping for?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I am not at all arguing for the Islamization of Europe – quite the opposite!

    I was merely pointing out that if we remain self-interested materialists, we will have no really compelling reason to make the necessary self-sacrifice to resist.
     

    What is this self-sacrifice?

    What sacrifice is there in closing the door to rape-culture refugees?

    What sacrifice is there in closing the door to H1b visa entrants to the US who take decent jobs from Americans?

    What sacrifice is there to closing the door to people from Asia, Africa and the Middle-East — perfectly fine people for the most part, I am sure — who will take any job that a European has and do the work for a lower wage?

    The only sacrifice you are saying "we" have to make is actually the sacrifice that the greedy globalist shysters such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and all the other billionaire globalist bastards have to make. No more off-shoring of jobs to maximize profits, no more trade deals that override national law, and no more mass immigration either as a source of cheap labor or as a genocidal instrument of national destruction to make way for an undemocratic global governance regime.

    It is the greed and unconstrained ambition of the plutocracy and their paid agents, the Clintons, the Blairs, and all the other bought "representatives of the people," not the materialism of the people themselves that is driving mass immigration and the destruction of the European peoples both racially and culturally. Indeed, it is only through the exploitation of the generosity of a gullible population that the crime of national genocide by mass immigration has been taken to the point of no return in many parts of the formerly European world.

  97. utu says:
    @Alden
    Better Turks than Papists? That must be why the Netherlands revolt against the Spanish Empire occurred just in time to distract the Spanish from the very important naval war against the Turks which culminated in the Catholic victory of Lepanto which made the Mediterranean and Atlantic safer for Europeans.

    I don't know why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes against the Catholic Church. None of his allegations are true, just 400 yr old enlightenment propaganda. Columbus consulted the priests at the university of Salmonacca. The priests calculated the distance between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right. That's quite an achievement for an anti science religion.

    Once Columbus realized that he could sail that distance he was able to raise funds from the Spanish crown. Of course Dysktra will heap scorn on the scientists of Salmonacca for not realizing the Americas were between Spain and Asia.

    Even American fundamentalists and Jews have ratcheted down the anti Catholic Calvinist rhetoric in the last 80 years.

    why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes

    I think he genuinely believes it. Several centuries of incessant propaganda and brain washing. In England it was not much better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I know but the English stopped the anti Catholic nonsense when they stopped attending their Protestant churches. But Dykstra just keeps posting the same old same old.
    , @Seraphim
    To much brain washing results in brain damage. It flattens the brain circonvolutions which starts behaving like a broken record. Now wonder they believe the myth of the 'Flatten Earth' or that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because of his ' Copernicanism' and not for heresy: his utterances that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
  98. AaronB says:
    @iffen
    I get the sense committed materialists really do not like being challenged….

    I love a challenge, more than most.

    Faith failed.

    Case closed.

    Faith failed.

    Case closed.

    Tell that to the Muslims, the Chinese, the Indians, the Jews.

    And then, look at the West – I think it is rather that materialism failed. Case closed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Tell that to the Muslims, the Chinese, the Indians, the Jews.

    I will take the US, even in this decline and fall, with or without religion, over any of those.
  99. Alden says:
    @MarkinLA
    I just think Hillary was looking to her Presidential run in 2016 and saw an opportunity to burnish her "foreign policy" bonafides. She thought it would be a cake walk and successful and could then brag in 2016 how she was head and shoulders above everybody else in foreign policy. Benghazi happened and everything was supposed to go down the memory hole.

    Could be right. What horrible people the Clintons are. It’s good that they only had one child, a woman who seems more interested in living the life of a rich lady than ruling the world. What if there were 2 or 3 Clinton boys. They’d be like the Kennedys.

    Read More
  100. MarkinLA says:
    @Alden
    Better Turks than Papists? That must be why the Netherlands revolt against the Spanish Empire occurred just in time to distract the Spanish from the very important naval war against the Turks which culminated in the Catholic victory of Lepanto which made the Mediterranean and Atlantic safer for Europeans.

    I don't know why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes against the Catholic Church. None of his allegations are true, just 400 yr old enlightenment propaganda. Columbus consulted the priests at the university of Salmonacca. The priests calculated the distance between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right. That's quite an achievement for an anti science religion.

    Once Columbus realized that he could sail that distance he was able to raise funds from the Spanish crown. Of course Dysktra will heap scorn on the scientists of Salmonacca for not realizing the Americas were between Spain and Asia.

    Even American fundamentalists and Jews have ratcheted down the anti Catholic Calvinist rhetoric in the last 80 years.

    The priests calculated the distance between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right.

    Uh, no. The Atlantic is about 3000 miles, the Continental US is about 3000 miles and the Pacific is about 5000 miles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Columbus made three mistakes that compound to about 50% error. He thought that Asia keeps going further East but his main error was wrong definition of mile from some Persian writings:
    Here is interesting article:
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/columbuss-geographical-miscalculations

    Italian cartographer Fra Mauro (died 1464) estimated circumference 22,500 or 24,000 miglia.
    The globe with a map was ordered by Vatican already in 1477.
    http://www.crossingtheoceansea.com/OceanSeaPages/OS-55-ColumbusCalculations.html
    , @Alden
    Whatever it is they got the distance between Spain and Asia right and Columbus didn't start planning until the priest geographers assured him he could make it to Asia in a reasonable time. The Catholic Church preserved the science of the ancient Greeks who knew the earth was round and correctly estimated the circumference.

    Yet Dykstra keeps posting that Columbus and his sailors thought the earth was flat and that they would fall off if they went too. far. Dykstra is a weird combination of anti Catholic Puritan and leftist anti Catholic.
  101. Alden says:
    @utu
    why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes

    I think he genuinely believes it. Several centuries of incessant propaganda and brain washing. In England it was not much better.

    I know but the English stopped the anti Catholic nonsense when they stopped attending their Protestant churches. But Dykstra just keeps posting the same old same old.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Various prejudices and misconceptions function in popular culture. Nobody really question them. You can find them in Monty Python.

    Arriving in England, I went from a country where religion was everywhere, but of little interest to me, to a country that had little interest in religion, but still defined me by my purported beliefs. Modern Britain is a country founded in large part on anti-Catholicism.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/22/pope-visit-catholic-prejudice

    And then you have this:

    Although there is a popular perception in Scotland that Anti-Catholicism is football related (specifically directed against fans of Celtic F.C.), statistics released in 2004 by the Scottish Executive showed that 85% of sectarian attacks were not football related. Sixty-three percent of the victims of sectarian attacks are Catholics, but when adjusted for population size this makes Catholics between five and eight times more likely to be a victim of a sectarian attack than a Protestant. (wiki)
  102. Alden says:
    @Anon
    So one Jew speaks for the whole group? Does Ted Bundy speak for you?

    Anon, if you want to know what atheist secular Jews, extremely to mildly orthodox, religious and non religious Jews think about unlimited legal and illegal immigration I suggest you subscribe to the largest circulation Jewish publication in America, the Jewish Journal. The address is 3250 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles Ca. 90010.

    It’s a weekly publication. Every issue has articles advocating massive, expanded legal and illegal immigration. I’ve never read anything against immigration. For about a month after the San Bernardino massacre the Journal had numerous articles about the horrors of racism against Muslims and how most Muslims just live secular America and are harmless.

    Same thing after a Muslim army captain slaughtered 14 soldiers at Fort Hood. ” “Prejudice against Muslims is far far more evil than slaughtering 14 American soldiers ” preached the Jewish Journal.

    9/11, same thing, Orlando night club same thing.

    Go ahead, subscribe.

    Read More
  103. utu says:
    @Alden
    I know but the English stopped the anti Catholic nonsense when they stopped attending their Protestant churches. But Dykstra just keeps posting the same old same old.

    Various prejudices and misconceptions function in popular culture. Nobody really question them. You can find them in Monty Python.

    Arriving in England, I went from a country where religion was everywhere, but of little interest to me, to a country that had little interest in religion, but still defined me by my purported beliefs. Modern Britain is a country founded in large part on anti-Catholicism.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/22/pope-visit-catholic-prejudice

    And then you have this:

    Although there is a popular perception in Scotland that Anti-Catholicism is football related (specifically directed against fans of Celtic F.C.), statistics released in 2004 by the Scottish Executive showed that 85% of sectarian attacks were not football related. Sixty-three percent of the victims of sectarian attacks are Catholics, but when adjusted for population size this makes Catholics between five and eight times more likely to be a victim of a sectarian attack than a Protestant. (wiki)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    When Bobby Sands was starving himself to death Scots football fans had a song celebrating his imment death.

    Modern Britian was indeed founded on anti Catholicism. Henry 8 and Thomas Cromwell imposed Henry's religion of the week through executions and suspension of civil liberties. Henry himself personally signed 72, ooo execution warrants. He wiped out the remnants of his mother's relatives the entire Plantagenet tribe on grounds of remaining Catholic.

    Are you watching The White Princess on Starz? The Lady Margaret de la Pole character was beheaded by Henry 8 when she was in her late 60s. The alleged grounds were that she was a Catholic. The real grounds were that as the daughter of the Duke of Clarence and niece of Edward 4 and Richard 3 she had more of a dynastic right to the throne than Henry 8.

    Then on to the Cecils father and son who controlled Elizabeth 1 by claiming plots against her.

    There is a lot of really deranged anti Catholicism in the American southern evangelical churches. They call the Catholic church the scarlet woman of Rome, the Whore of Babylon and the devil worshippers of ancient Babylon. They also claim that the church was behind Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

    Southern evangelicals are pro Israel fanatics, much worse than most Jews.

    There is a theory that when Luther went to Rome as a Catholic monk he was contacted by Roman Jews and used by them to split European Christianity. I'm not interested in pursuing that theory.

    My interests are affirmative action discrimination, legal and illegal immigration and black and brown crime.
    , @Philip Owen
    There are Orange Lodges across Scotland and even in Newcastle and Liverpool (another city where soccer clubs split Roman Catholic/Protestant). The moment my friends tell me that they were Roman Catholic (The Anglican Church is also Catholic like the Orthodox) is always an awkward one for them even these days. Anti Catholicism was an underlying factor in the Brexit vote.
  104. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates
     
    I think it would be useful to go through all possible arguments in favor of controlling immigration. Why does it seem so that so many arguments are stigmatized and have negative connotations? Different argument will work with different people. Some arguments will fall on deaf ears in the US but might be persuasive in some European countries.

    Cultural arguments (destruction of cultures of both of the host and that of the immigrant, irreconcilable religious and cultural differences)

    Economic arguments (group and individual impact of immigration, who benefits and who does not)

    Legal arguments (sovereignty, ownership of land and country, national home, who can live in it and who can decide if every citizen is a part owner of the country, rule of reciprocity and 1st categorical imperative: what if everybody did this)

    Biological arguments (irreversibility of miscegenation, loss of natural biological diversity)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfxL_wuYtSg

    I think it would be useful to go through all possible arguments in favor of controlling immigration.

    Since all of the European majority nations are democratic, the people should surely decide for themselves how much of their living space they wish to share with economic migrants, rape-culture refugees, and settlers intent on imposing their legal, political and religious tradition on the country to which they migrate.

    How much of their living space are people willing to give up for the benefit of foreigners, most of whom, after all, have a homeland of their own?

    How many of their school places, maternity hospital beds are people willing to give up for the benefit of foreigners?

    How much in additional taxes are people willing to pay to cover the cost of the new infrastructure that mass immigration necessitates?

    How much of their taxes are people willing to have spent on the maintenance of unemployed immigrants?

    How much are people willing to see wages fall as a result of the increase in labor supply due to mass immigration?

    How much are people willing to see the cost of housing rise as the result of the increase in demand due to mass immigration?

    How willing are people to tolerate transformation of the religious, political, and legal traditions of their country to meet the demands of settlers from an alien, and highly authoritarian culture?

    Not every community will give the same answers. Countries like Canada and Australia have vast territories and it may thought that they need people in a hurry to secure the territory, although even so, they will surely not want to secure the territory at the cost of losing their religious, political and legal traditions.

    In fact, in most European majority countries, the democratic answer to the question of immigration is totally at odds with the policy followed. How many of the English, for example, would have voted to have their capital city, London, their second city, Birmingham, and sundry other cities and major urban areas taken over by a majority of foreigners, many of whom openly express their aim is conquest? A very small minority, as multiple opinion surveys over many years prove.

    Thus the process of mass immigration to most, if not all, European majority nations has been a betrayal of the democratic will of the people: a betrayal of the people opposed to self-destruction, a betrayal, in fact, of a value, a value that Aaron B says the European people cannot possibly have.

    Read More
  105. utu says:
    @MarkinLA
    The priests calculated the distance between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right.

    Uh, no. The Atlantic is about 3000 miles, the Continental US is about 3000 miles and the Pacific is about 5000 miles.

    Columbus made three mistakes that compound to about 50% error. He thought that Asia keeps going further East but his main error was wrong definition of mile from some Persian writings:
    Here is interesting article:

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/columbuss-geographical-miscalculations

    Italian cartographer Fra Mauro (died 1464) estimated circumference 22,500 or 24,000 miglia.
    The globe with a map was ordered by Vatican already in 1477.

    http://www.crossingtheoceansea.com/OceanSeaPages/OS-55-ColumbusCalculations.html

    Read More
  106. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    I am not at all arguing for the Islamization of Europe - quite the opposite!

    I was merely pointing out that if we remain self-interested materialists, we will have no really compelling reason to make the necessary self-sacrifice to resist.

    "The genes of those who do care are more likely to be represented in succeeding generations than the genes of those who do not. Caring about such things is largely a cultural matter. "

    So is it genetically determined, or a cultural attitude, subject to change? Since you distinguish between the two, I assume you do not think culture is genetically determined - otherwise the two sentences are identical.

    If it is genetically determined, then the European population is clearly composed of people who do not possess the gene that makes one care about the survival of one's group - and then, what are you hoping for?

    I am not at all arguing for the Islamization of Europe – quite the opposite!

    I was merely pointing out that if we remain self-interested materialists, we will have no really compelling reason to make the necessary self-sacrifice to resist.

    What is this self-sacrifice?

    What sacrifice is there in closing the door to rape-culture refugees?

    What sacrifice is there in closing the door to H1b visa entrants to the US who take decent jobs from Americans?

    What sacrifice is there to closing the door to people from Asia, Africa and the Middle-East — perfectly fine people for the most part, I am sure — who will take any job that a European has and do the work for a lower wage?

    The only sacrifice you are saying “we” have to make is actually the sacrifice that the greedy globalist shysters such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and all the other billionaire globalist bastards have to make. No more off-shoring of jobs to maximize profits, no more trade deals that override national law, and no more mass immigration either as a source of cheap labor or as a genocidal instrument of national destruction to make way for an undemocratic global governance regime.

    It is the greed and unconstrained ambition of the plutocracy and their paid agents, the Clintons, the Blairs, and all the other bought “representatives of the people,” not the materialism of the people themselves that is driving mass immigration and the destruction of the European peoples both racially and culturally. Indeed, it is only through the exploitation of the generosity of a gullible population that the crime of national genocide by mass immigration has been taken to the point of no return in many parts of the formerly European world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    I think Araonb means that if only Europeans would start going to church and sincerely believing in religion again they could somehow withstand both mass Muslim immigration and the imposition of mass Muslim immigration by the upper classes.
    I think he substitutes materialism for atheism and agnosticism. His comments are not easy to understand.
    , @AaronB
    I understand your point of view, CanSpeccy. I don't necessarily disagree with it - I think you do a very good job at explaining the top layer of the problem, but sometimes, I try and peel back a few more layers. Maybe I get a bit too philosophical, and abstract.

    I'm sure we can both agree the situation is bad, and any solution would help.
    , @annamaria
    Agree that the "crime of national genocide" is not difficult to pinpoint on specific scoundrels, all of them rich and powerful thanks to the protection from Financial Squeed and MIC:
    https://www.rt.com/uk/389694-libya-abedi-lifg-cameron/
    "Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi and his father, Ramadan, had long-standing links to a violent jihadist group which may have had British backing for the 2011 Libyan war and a 1996 attempt to kill then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi."

    https://www.rt.com/usa/389643-amnesty-army-lost-billion-arms-iraq/
    "A newly released declassified audit from the US Department of Defense shows that negligent accounting by the military has resulted in the Pentagon not knowing what happened to more than $1 billion in arms and equipment meant for the Iraqi Army."
    “It makes for especially sobering reading given the long history of leakage of US arms to multiple armed groups committing atrocities in Iraq, including the armed group calling itself the Islamic State.”

  107. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You unfairly snipe at SS and JD for some reason. My tecollection is that Steve was brought up Catholic but his genetic father is Jewish. But i can't see in any case why he should be expected to write to your prescription.
    Also you seem to have missed the Derbyshire piece about the Jews in America who still mrntally live in 1880 Russia hiding from the Cossacks.

    Here is the real reason the Jews fled Russia in the 1880s. It was draft evasion.

    I forget the exact date, but around 1880 Jews got their full civil rights. Unfortunately that included civil
    obligations such as conscription. That’s why the Jews left, not programs, not affirmative action for the goyim, not crackdowns on usury.

    In the foreign affairs/ state department archives of every country in Europe and the Americas are reports from diplomats stationed in Russia that there was no persecution and that the stories about programs were just stories intended to get sympathy so as to facilitate immigration to other countries.
    That’s why the Russian Jews swarmed England, the USA and Latin American countries that did not have the draft.

    They didn’t go to Germany, Austria, France, Italy or Spain because all those countries had conscription.

    Russia’s draft was for 25 years which is horrible to contemplate unless one is down and out and desperate for 3 hots and a cot. But the other European countries had just a few years draftee enlistment and the Jews didn’t go to those countries, they went to draft free England and America.

    That’s why they left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    How very interesting. Thanks. And so convincing I won't bother following it up for credibility, only later when I have time, out of interest. Of course John Derbyshire may well be right about that little group of anti WASPs who live for revenge for the 1880 pogroms (c'mon there must have been one! When they all demanded membership of West Caucasus United FC perhaps...). That lot of twisted souls (assuming they exist) would be not unlike 2nd generation Anglo-Muslims who radicalise themselves.

    My sympathies are 100 per cent with the draft dodgers! Imagine what it would be like not just to be a poor conscript but a poor Jewish conscript with any class of Russian or Ukrainisn officers or NCOs you can think of - and dirty jobs to be done.

    , @jilles dykstra
    Jews left Germany in 1870, because of Prussia's militarism.
    For example, the father of Bernard Baruch.
    Translation: no inclination to fight.
    I must add that not all jews evaded fighting, it was the same in WWI.

    Why pogroms, some of them in any case because Russian serfs in 1860, hope the year is right, were set free.
    Jews often leased the right to sell vodka from the landlord.
    The former serfs never had been taught how to handle money.
    So they drank galore, on credit.
    When they could not pay, their houses were auctioned, by jews, often bought by jews.
    And then jews were blamed.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Now I have followed up and I am afraid your convincing coherent account isn't supported by the first substantial seeming article I read when I Googled for "when were Jews emancipated in Russia" (the answer seems to be only in 1917 fully though 1905 got a mention and earlier initiatives from the non Hasidic Haskalah Jews of the parts of Eastern Europe grabbed by Russia in the late 18th century where Jews lived before any significant number lived in Russia). Jews had been grabbed for military service in the 1820s! Of course I can accept that the pogroms of the early 1880s were exaggerated for the obvious reason you mention and it seems plausible that countries without compusory military service would be more attractive to Jews with young boys in their families.
  108. Alden says:
    @utu
    Various prejudices and misconceptions function in popular culture. Nobody really question them. You can find them in Monty Python.

    Arriving in England, I went from a country where religion was everywhere, but of little interest to me, to a country that had little interest in religion, but still defined me by my purported beliefs. Modern Britain is a country founded in large part on anti-Catholicism.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/22/pope-visit-catholic-prejudice

    And then you have this:

    Although there is a popular perception in Scotland that Anti-Catholicism is football related (specifically directed against fans of Celtic F.C.), statistics released in 2004 by the Scottish Executive showed that 85% of sectarian attacks were not football related. Sixty-three percent of the victims of sectarian attacks are Catholics, but when adjusted for population size this makes Catholics between five and eight times more likely to be a victim of a sectarian attack than a Protestant. (wiki)

    When Bobby Sands was starving himself to death Scots football fans had a song celebrating his imment death.

    Modern Britian was indeed founded on anti Catholicism. Henry 8 and Thomas Cromwell imposed Henry’s religion of the week through executions and suspension of civil liberties. Henry himself personally signed 72, ooo execution warrants. He wiped out the remnants of his mother’s relatives the entire Plantagenet tribe on grounds of remaining Catholic.

    Are you watching The White Princess on Starz? The Lady Margaret de la Pole character was beheaded by Henry 8 when she was in her late 60s. The alleged grounds were that she was a Catholic. The real grounds were that as the daughter of the Duke of Clarence and niece of Edward 4 and Richard 3 she had more of a dynastic right to the throne than Henry 8.

    Then on to the Cecils father and son who controlled Elizabeth 1 by claiming plots against her.

    There is a lot of really deranged anti Catholicism in the American southern evangelical churches. They call the Catholic church the scarlet woman of Rome, the Whore of Babylon and the devil worshippers of ancient Babylon. They also claim that the church was behind Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

    Southern evangelicals are pro Israel fanatics, much worse than most Jews.

    There is a theory that when Luther went to Rome as a Catholic monk he was contacted by Roman Jews and used by them to split European Christianity. I’m not interested in pursuing that theory.

    My interests are affirmative action discrimination, legal and illegal immigration and black and brown crime.

    Read More
  109. Alden says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I am not at all arguing for the Islamization of Europe – quite the opposite!

    I was merely pointing out that if we remain self-interested materialists, we will have no really compelling reason to make the necessary self-sacrifice to resist.
     

    What is this self-sacrifice?

    What sacrifice is there in closing the door to rape-culture refugees?

    What sacrifice is there in closing the door to H1b visa entrants to the US who take decent jobs from Americans?

    What sacrifice is there to closing the door to people from Asia, Africa and the Middle-East — perfectly fine people for the most part, I am sure — who will take any job that a European has and do the work for a lower wage?

    The only sacrifice you are saying "we" have to make is actually the sacrifice that the greedy globalist shysters such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and all the other billionaire globalist bastards have to make. No more off-shoring of jobs to maximize profits, no more trade deals that override national law, and no more mass immigration either as a source of cheap labor or as a genocidal instrument of national destruction to make way for an undemocratic global governance regime.

    It is the greed and unconstrained ambition of the plutocracy and their paid agents, the Clintons, the Blairs, and all the other bought "representatives of the people," not the materialism of the people themselves that is driving mass immigration and the destruction of the European peoples both racially and culturally. Indeed, it is only through the exploitation of the generosity of a gullible population that the crime of national genocide by mass immigration has been taken to the point of no return in many parts of the formerly European world.

    I think Araonb means that if only Europeans would start going to church and sincerely believing in religion again they could somehow withstand both mass Muslim immigration and the imposition of mass Muslim immigration by the upper classes.
    I think he substitutes materialism for atheism and agnosticism. His comments are not easy to understand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I think Araonb means that if only Europeans would start going to church and sincerely believing in religion again they could somehow withstand both mass Muslim immigration and the imposition of mass Muslim immigration by the upper classes.
     
    I think he's correct up to a point - if Europeans did start going to church and sincerely believing in religion again they could resist the evils of both mass immigration and cultural marxism.

    The problem is not that faith has failed. Christianity has failed. It is now a small and steadily declining religion and what's left of it is now so infected by cultural marxism that Christianity as it exists today is itself a dire threat to western survival.

    If Europeans could be persuaded to once again embrace the Christianity of the Middle Ages they'd survive. But they aren't going to do that. I'd be happy if they did but they won't.

    Materialism and atheism are clearly dead ends.
  110. Alden says:
    @MarkinLA
    The priests calculated the distance between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right.

    Uh, no. The Atlantic is about 3000 miles, the Continental US is about 3000 miles and the Pacific is about 5000 miles.

    Whatever it is they got the distance between Spain and Asia right and Columbus didn’t start planning until the priest geographers assured him he could make it to Asia in a reasonable time. The Catholic Church preserved the science of the ancient Greeks who knew the earth was round and correctly estimated the circumference.

    Yet Dykstra keeps posting that Columbus and his sailors thought the earth was flat and that they would fall off if they went too. far. Dykstra is a weird combination of anti Catholic Puritan and leftist anti Catholic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I never wrote that Columbus thought the earth was flat, his sailors did.
    That Columbus had no idea about the circumference of the earth is demonstrated by the fact that it took a long time for him to understand that he had not reached Asia, but something else.
    The catholic church postulated Aristoteles, his 'science' was the science.
    How difficult it was for independent thinkers to disregard Aristoteles is well explained in
    Jacques Merlau-Ponty and Bruno Morando, 'The Rebirth of Cosmology', 1971, 1976, New York
  111. @Alden
    Here is the real reason the Jews fled Russia in the 1880s. It was draft evasion.

    I forget the exact date, but around 1880 Jews got their full civil rights. Unfortunately that included civil
    obligations such as conscription. That's why the Jews left, not programs, not affirmative action for the goyim, not crackdowns on usury.

    In the foreign affairs/ state department archives of every country in Europe and the Americas are reports from diplomats stationed in Russia that there was no persecution and that the stories about programs were just stories intended to get sympathy so as to facilitate immigration to other countries.
    That's why the Russian Jews swarmed England, the USA and Latin American countries that did not have the draft.

    They didn't go to Germany, Austria, France, Italy or Spain because all those countries had conscription.

    Russia's draft was for 25 years which is horrible to contemplate unless one is down and out and desperate for 3 hots and a cot. But the other European countries had just a few years draftee enlistment and the Jews didn't go to those countries, they went to draft free England and America.

    That's why they left.

    How very interesting. Thanks. And so convincing I won’t bother following it up for credibility, only later when I have time, out of interest. Of course John Derbyshire may well be right about that little group of anti WASPs who live for revenge for the 1880 pogroms (c’mon there must have been one! When they all demanded membership of West Caucasus United FC perhaps…). That lot of twisted souls (assuming they exist) would be not unlike 2nd generation Anglo-Muslims who radicalise themselves.

    My sympathies are 100 per cent with the draft dodgers! Imagine what it would be like not just to be a poor conscript but a poor Jewish conscript with any class of Russian or Ukrainisn officers or NCOs you can think of – and dirty jobs to be done.

    Read More
  112. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I am not at all arguing for the Islamization of Europe – quite the opposite!

    I was merely pointing out that if we remain self-interested materialists, we will have no really compelling reason to make the necessary self-sacrifice to resist.
     

    What is this self-sacrifice?

    What sacrifice is there in closing the door to rape-culture refugees?

    What sacrifice is there in closing the door to H1b visa entrants to the US who take decent jobs from Americans?

    What sacrifice is there to closing the door to people from Asia, Africa and the Middle-East — perfectly fine people for the most part, I am sure — who will take any job that a European has and do the work for a lower wage?

    The only sacrifice you are saying "we" have to make is actually the sacrifice that the greedy globalist shysters such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and all the other billionaire globalist bastards have to make. No more off-shoring of jobs to maximize profits, no more trade deals that override national law, and no more mass immigration either as a source of cheap labor or as a genocidal instrument of national destruction to make way for an undemocratic global governance regime.

    It is the greed and unconstrained ambition of the plutocracy and their paid agents, the Clintons, the Blairs, and all the other bought "representatives of the people," not the materialism of the people themselves that is driving mass immigration and the destruction of the European peoples both racially and culturally. Indeed, it is only through the exploitation of the generosity of a gullible population that the crime of national genocide by mass immigration has been taken to the point of no return in many parts of the formerly European world.

    I understand your point of view, CanSpeccy. I don’t necessarily disagree with it – I think you do a very good job at explaining the top layer of the problem, but sometimes, I try and peel back a few more layers. Maybe I get a bit too philosophical, and abstract.

    I’m sure we can both agree the situation is bad, and any solution would help.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Europeans always were on avg materialists as well most of other human people's. Indeed christianism and materialism are connected in not so noble ways since a long time.

    And most Europeans desire to have at least two children. There are some fraction of Europeans who are direct responsible for that lower fertility and they are those who have good conditions to have (more) children but simply no have. One of the reasons Europeans and east Asians have reduced their fertilities is economic. It's too expensive rise a reasonably big family even because children and teenagers don't work. You need to care and invest for two decades a son or a daughter before to expect they will go out of parent house.

    Materialism is always a problem not just today but always. Yes materialism become more influent but I think existentialism also have a role specially among some specific group of brighter people. Younger people has been nurtured in the short thinking term culture even I don't believe only cultural influences that shape their behavior but themselves of course. The Pandora box was partially open in the west. Without all certainties, factual or not, "we" had in the past, people start to over think in divergent way. When a mainstream culture die many other little cultures born and start to fight one each other.

    , @CanSpeccy
    With only rare exceptions, people do not make themselves, either intellectually or morally. The values of a society are established top down. Those values determine the success or failure of the group, whether it survives or dies.

    The Jews, among others, understood that a long time ago and created an ethical code that promotes the perpetuation and dissemination of Jewish genes. The Jews also understood that by penetrating the government of other groups they could manipulate other groups to their own advantage.

    Today, there is massive Jewish influence within the power structures of the European nations, government itself, media, banks, entertainment, and publishing, and much of that influence is directed toward, or in any case has the effect of, destroying the indigenous people by undermining and debauching their cultural institutions. In this work, mass immigration has a major role, as stupidly blabbed by the Jew, Barbara Lerner Specter (see video above).

    The role of the Jews in destroying the European nations does not absolve the stupid, greedy, vicious and depraved members of the indigenous leadership many of whom participate in the destruction of their own people.

    The European nations, I believe, should double down on their commitment to the security of Israel*, and encourage unassimilated Jews to migrate there. At the same time, the European nations should emulate the Israelis in their fierce determination to preserve their own racial, religious and cultural identities.

    *The United States should show leadership in developing plans for settling the Palestinians in a homeland of their own. My own suggestion would be for the US and EU, Britain and Israel to jointly seek the purchase from Egypt of 20,000 square km of Sinai (the same as the area of Israel) to be called New Palestine. There, with several hundred billion in Western aid, the Palestinians could be comfortable settled in a modern cities surrounded by an oasis irrigated with water from solar-powered desalination plants.

  113. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    How very interesting. Thanks. And so convincing I won't bother following it up for credibility, only later when I have time, out of interest. Of course John Derbyshire may well be right about that little group of anti WASPs who live for revenge for the 1880 pogroms (c'mon there must have been one! When they all demanded membership of West Caucasus United FC perhaps...). That lot of twisted souls (assuming they exist) would be not unlike 2nd generation Anglo-Muslims who radicalise themselves.

    My sympathies are 100 per cent with the draft dodgers! Imagine what it would be like not just to be a poor conscript but a poor Jewish conscript with any class of Russian or Ukrainisn officers or NCOs you can think of - and dirty jobs to be done.

    Thanks, always glad to share.

    Read More
  114. @Alden
    Whatever it is they got the distance between Spain and Asia right and Columbus didn't start planning until the priest geographers assured him he could make it to Asia in a reasonable time. The Catholic Church preserved the science of the ancient Greeks who knew the earth was round and correctly estimated the circumference.

    Yet Dykstra keeps posting that Columbus and his sailors thought the earth was flat and that they would fall off if they went too. far. Dykstra is a weird combination of anti Catholic Puritan and leftist anti Catholic.

    I never wrote that Columbus thought the earth was flat, his sailors did.
    That Columbus had no idea about the circumference of the earth is demonstrated by the fact that it took a long time for him to understand that he had not reached Asia, but something else.
    The catholic church postulated Aristoteles, his ‘science’ was the science.
    How difficult it was for independent thinkers to disregard Aristoteles is well explained in
    Jacques Merlau-Ponty and Bruno Morando, ‘The Rebirth of Cosmology’, 1971, 1976, New York

    Read More
  115. @Alden
    Here is the real reason the Jews fled Russia in the 1880s. It was draft evasion.

    I forget the exact date, but around 1880 Jews got their full civil rights. Unfortunately that included civil
    obligations such as conscription. That's why the Jews left, not programs, not affirmative action for the goyim, not crackdowns on usury.

    In the foreign affairs/ state department archives of every country in Europe and the Americas are reports from diplomats stationed in Russia that there was no persecution and that the stories about programs were just stories intended to get sympathy so as to facilitate immigration to other countries.
    That's why the Russian Jews swarmed England, the USA and Latin American countries that did not have the draft.

    They didn't go to Germany, Austria, France, Italy or Spain because all those countries had conscription.

    Russia's draft was for 25 years which is horrible to contemplate unless one is down and out and desperate for 3 hots and a cot. But the other European countries had just a few years draftee enlistment and the Jews didn't go to those countries, they went to draft free England and America.

    That's why they left.

    Jews left Germany in 1870, because of Prussia’s militarism.
    For example, the father of Bernard Baruch.
    Translation: no inclination to fight.
    I must add that not all jews evaded fighting, it was the same in WWI.

    Why pogroms, some of them in any case because Russian serfs in 1860, hope the year is right, were set free.
    Jews often leased the right to sell vodka from the landlord.
    The former serfs never had been taught how to handle money.
    So they drank galore, on credit.
    When they could not pay, their houses were auctioned, by jews, often bought by jews.
    And then jews were blamed.

    Read More
  116. @Alden
    Better Turks than Papists? That must be why the Netherlands revolt against the Spanish Empire occurred just in time to distract the Spanish from the very important naval war against the Turks which culminated in the Catholic victory of Lepanto which made the Mediterranean and Atlantic safer for Europeans.

    I don't know why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes against the Catholic Church. None of his allegations are true, just 400 yr old enlightenment propaganda. Columbus consulted the priests at the university of Salmonacca. The priests calculated the distance between Spain and Asia. They got the distance right. That's quite an achievement for an anti science religion.

    Once Columbus realized that he could sail that distance he was able to raise funds from the Spanish crown. Of course Dysktra will heap scorn on the scientists of Salmonacca for not realizing the Americas were between Spain and Asia.

    Even American fundamentalists and Jews have ratcheted down the anti Catholic Calvinist rhetoric in the last 80 years.

    The pope did not burn Giordano Bruno to death in 1600 in Rome ?
    A pope did not in 1860 or so declare that philosophy outside the church was wrong ?
    The pope was not declared infallible in 1880 or so ?
    Galileo did not get house arrest ?
    Servetius was not burned to death by Calvin ?
    Pietro Redondi, ´Galilei, ketter, De politieke machtsstrijd rond het proces tegen Galileo Galilei, 1633’, 1989, Amsterdam (Galileo eretico, 1983, 1989, Turin).
    Anacieto Verrecchia, ‘Giordana Bruno, Nachtfalter de Geistes’, 2009 Wien
    Giordano Bruno, ‘Über das Unendliche, das Universum und die Welten’, Stuttgart, 1994 (Venetia 1584).
    Goldstone, Lawrence & Nancy, ‘Out of the Flames, The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World’, New York, 2002

    Read More
  117. @annamaria
    What the West is doing is motivated by greed (and the superiority complex).
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com
    "... Muslim fundamentalism is such a strong growth that it needed no Western provocation to set it in motion. We have not only removed or weakened the regimes that inhibited, more or less, that growth. What we have done is to encourage Jihad to flourish on an immensely greater scale. That increased scale increases its glamour and its pull for our English Muslims many times over.
    ... Western countries have been arming and training Muslim fighters knowing full well that those fighters were Jihadis, and were more than likely to join even more extreme Jihadi units. Knowing full well also that some of those Jihadis, but now trained in killing and invigorated by contact with other true believers, would return to their countries of origin and do what harm they could.
    ... We see ragged groups of thugs using, often inexpertly, the deadly equipment we give them or the supply of which we facilitate. ... For there is now no doubt that the flood of foreign Jihadis that have wreaked such havoc in Syria and neighbouring countries was released by us or with our active complicity. It could not have happened but for Western assistance. We do not acknowledge it."

    Your opening two lines are certainly not supported by the blog to which you link as you clearly imply.

    Your blogger says I told them so, I knew and know how this home grown terrorism is the product of western foolishness, and worse, in making armed jihadism against tough but stabilising forces in ME possible and not realising that sad young local Muslims would get carried away by it.

    Not a word about greed or superiority complexes.

    Read More
  118. @Alden
    There is a theory that Hildabeast attacked Libya on orders from the bankers because Ghaddafi took Libya out of the international monetary system.

    America needs a leader like Ghaddafi, a leader who cares about his own people and nation.

    You can’t mean what you say in your last par. Or, on reflection on what Ghaddafi’s character and actions were and the way he treated large numbers of “his own people” i.e. ordinary Libyans who weren’t in fact his people because of tribal or other ethnic or socisl differences, do you think Americans would benefit from being led by anyone like him?

    Read More
  119. Harold says:
    @AaronB
    I thought it was obvious from my last line.

    A society that becomes materialist, loses contact with the spiritual and transcendent, loses the will to live.

    A society that becomes mechanistic, individualistic, and rationalistic creates a life not worth living. Responding to an obscure inner need, humans rebel against it, seek to destroy it, and yearn for the "other".

    This has been going on since the late 18th century, if not earlier. First a trickle, then a flood. At first a few adventurers rejected the West for exotic climes - Sir Francis Burton, Rimbaud, etc, writing about their disgust with life in the West.

    By the 19th century dozens of writers, perhaps the majority, are writing about their disgust with life in the modern West. Flaubert, Baudelaire, Schopenhauer, Dickens, etc. Countless others.

    Jews exploit weaknesses, but they do not create them.

    They’re not materialist, they get a spiritual, transcendent joy from their PC ideology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    They’re not materialist, they get a spiritual, transcendent joy from their PC ideology.
     
    I've never seen much sign of joy among them. Followers of the PC cult seem to be mostly angry, bitter and miserable. They do have a sense of self-righteousness though. It still doesn't seem to make them happy.
  120. Randal says:
    @iffen
    There is no genetic imperative for reproduction.

    There is a genetic imperative to have sex.

    There is no genetic imperative for reproduction.

    Seems pretty unlikely to me, based upon simple observation.

    The existence of a genetic imperative to reproduce seems to be inherent in the theory of gene selection and the consequence that the only reason people (or any species) exist is precisely in order to reproduce their genes. Any reason to deny the obvious presumption?

    Though of course it’s not really relevant to the point I was making, since “genetic imperative for reproduction” could as easily have been written “human urge to reproduce” without affecting the point, or indeed left out completely.

    Read More
  121. @AaronB
    I understand your point of view, CanSpeccy. I don't necessarily disagree with it - I think you do a very good job at explaining the top layer of the problem, but sometimes, I try and peel back a few more layers. Maybe I get a bit too philosophical, and abstract.

    I'm sure we can both agree the situation is bad, and any solution would help.

    Europeans always were on avg materialists as well most of other human people’s. Indeed christianism and materialism are connected in not so noble ways since a long time.

    And most Europeans desire to have at least two children. There are some fraction of Europeans who are direct responsible for that lower fertility and they are those who have good conditions to have (more) children but simply no have. One of the reasons Europeans and east Asians have reduced their fertilities is economic. It’s too expensive rise a reasonably big family even because children and teenagers don’t work. You need to care and invest for two decades a son or a daughter before to expect they will go out of parent house.

    Materialism is always a problem not just today but always. Yes materialism become more influent but I think existentialism also have a role specially among some specific group of brighter people. Younger people has been nurtured in the short thinking term culture even I don’t believe only cultural influences that shape their behavior but themselves of course. The Pandora box was partially open in the west. Without all certainties, factual or not, “we” had in the past, people start to over think in divergent way. When a mainstream culture die many other little cultures born and start to fight one each other.

    Read More
    • Agree: Philip Owen
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Yes, materialism has always been a problem, even in ancient times. It's just much more of a problem now.

    The masses pursue comfort and pleasure, and the elite pursue power and wealth. All of society is organized around these goals. But they make life dreary and inane, so we develop a secret death wish. We want to die.

    A life that is worth living is based on transcendental values - truth, beauty, goodness, and a limitation of desire and individuality - a certain asceticism. These are non-material goals - they do not pertain to material objectives, like survival, or reproduction.

    A society based on these values, and limits desire, provides happiness, and will endure. A society based on comfort, pleasure, wealth, and power, will swiftly collapse.

    Our society is based on these four materialist values, sees nothing beyond animal survival and reproduction, encourages limitless desire, and unlimited individualism. It is a death cult.

    I do not mean we should return to organized religion, or the Church. I don't think its possible to return to any known form of Christianity, but I believe the spiritual and moral vision of Christianity is essentially correct. This vision is found in Eastern religions as well.

    I also do not desire the West to be 'great' again - 'greatness' is a transitional stage toward decline, and is basically materialist in orientation.

    What I would like to see is a West re-oriented toward the transcendent, which would create happiness, free us from our death cult, and make us indifferent towards trivial things like 'greatness' . For various reasons, this would mean reversing immigration, and focusing inward.

    I hope this makes my position clearer.
  122. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AaronB
    "This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    Both are selfish materialistic interests.

    You will never be able to understand why Whites are committing suicide if this is all you can see.

    You are doomed to eternal puzzlement and perplexity, like Derbyshire, like Sailer. Eternally scratching your heads, yet unwilling to question your premises, trapped in the sterile circle of materialism.

    You yourself admit you cannot understand it - i.e it cannot be explained in terms of your premises. One would think when one has reached the limits of one's premises explanatory power, its time to think beyond them.

    Yet how seldom that happens. People just circle endlessly their central premise, unable to break free.

    Yet to anyone who isn't a materialist, how obvious it is why Whites are committing suicide.

    Have you been under the illusion that all that ‘genetic/evolutionary’ BS is anything else than a diversionary tactic?

    Read More
  123. annamaria says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I am not at all arguing for the Islamization of Europe – quite the opposite!

    I was merely pointing out that if we remain self-interested materialists, we will have no really compelling reason to make the necessary self-sacrifice to resist.
     

    What is this self-sacrifice?

    What sacrifice is there in closing the door to rape-culture refugees?

    What sacrifice is there in closing the door to H1b visa entrants to the US who take decent jobs from Americans?

    What sacrifice is there to closing the door to people from Asia, Africa and the Middle-East — perfectly fine people for the most part, I am sure — who will take any job that a European has and do the work for a lower wage?

    The only sacrifice you are saying "we" have to make is actually the sacrifice that the greedy globalist shysters such as Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and all the other billionaire globalist bastards have to make. No more off-shoring of jobs to maximize profits, no more trade deals that override national law, and no more mass immigration either as a source of cheap labor or as a genocidal instrument of national destruction to make way for an undemocratic global governance regime.

    It is the greed and unconstrained ambition of the plutocracy and their paid agents, the Clintons, the Blairs, and all the other bought "representatives of the people," not the materialism of the people themselves that is driving mass immigration and the destruction of the European peoples both racially and culturally. Indeed, it is only through the exploitation of the generosity of a gullible population that the crime of national genocide by mass immigration has been taken to the point of no return in many parts of the formerly European world.

    Agree that the “crime of national genocide” is not difficult to pinpoint on specific scoundrels, all of them rich and powerful thanks to the protection from Financial Squeed and MIC:

    https://www.rt.com/uk/389694-libya-abedi-lifg-cameron/

    “Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi and his father, Ramadan, had long-standing links to a violent jihadist group which may have had British backing for the 2011 Libyan war and a 1996 attempt to kill then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.”

    https://www.rt.com/usa/389643-amnesty-army-lost-billion-arms-iraq/

    “A newly released declassified audit from the US Department of Defense shows that negligent accounting by the military has resulted in the Pentagon not knowing what happened to more than $1 billion in arms and equipment meant for the Iraqi Army.”
    “It makes for especially sobering reading given the long history of leakage of US arms to multiple armed groups committing atrocities in Iraq, including the armed group calling itself the Islamic State.”

    Read More
  124. woodNfish says:
    @Mark Green
    This is a fascinating take on the true Establishment, if not the 'counter-culture'; both of which are politically correct and engineered to be self-perpetuating.

    The progressive Trojan Horse has penetrated the kingdom's walls.

    Tolerance! (Do not resist.)

    These progressive movements are also censorious, authoritarian and highly exclusive.

    'We are all One'. Bigotry will not be tolerated!

    At their core, these liberal movements and their rainbow collection of accompanying values represent the subversive interests of an invasive species.

    When used by leftists, “progressive” is the PC mask word for “regressive”. Regressive is what they truly are. Just like the fascist ant-fa are actually what they claim to be against. Stop helping them hide behind leftist lies.

    Read More
  125. @utu
    Various prejudices and misconceptions function in popular culture. Nobody really question them. You can find them in Monty Python.

    Arriving in England, I went from a country where religion was everywhere, but of little interest to me, to a country that had little interest in religion, but still defined me by my purported beliefs. Modern Britain is a country founded in large part on anti-Catholicism.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/22/pope-visit-catholic-prejudice

    And then you have this:

    Although there is a popular perception in Scotland that Anti-Catholicism is football related (specifically directed against fans of Celtic F.C.), statistics released in 2004 by the Scottish Executive showed that 85% of sectarian attacks were not football related. Sixty-three percent of the victims of sectarian attacks are Catholics, but when adjusted for population size this makes Catholics between five and eight times more likely to be a victim of a sectarian attack than a Protestant. (wiki)

    There are Orange Lodges across Scotland and even in Newcastle and Liverpool (another city where soccer clubs split Roman Catholic/Protestant). The moment my friends tell me that they were Roman Catholic (The Anglican Church is also Catholic like the Orthodox) is always an awkward one for them even these days. Anti Catholicism was an underlying factor in the Brexit vote.

    Read More
  126. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    Faith failed.

    Case closed.
     
    Tell that to the Muslims, the Chinese, the Indians, the Jews.

    And then, look at the West - I think it is rather that materialism failed. Case closed.

    Tell that to the Muslims, the Chinese, the Indians, the Jews.

    I will take the US, even in this decline and fall, with or without religion, over any of those.

    Read More
  127. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    I understand your point of view, CanSpeccy. I don't necessarily disagree with it - I think you do a very good job at explaining the top layer of the problem, but sometimes, I try and peel back a few more layers. Maybe I get a bit too philosophical, and abstract.

    I'm sure we can both agree the situation is bad, and any solution would help.

    With only rare exceptions, people do not make themselves, either intellectually or morally. The values of a society are established top down. Those values determine the success or failure of the group, whether it survives or dies.

    The Jews, among others, understood that a long time ago and created an ethical code that promotes the perpetuation and dissemination of Jewish genes. The Jews also understood that by penetrating the government of other groups they could manipulate other groups to their own advantage.

    Today, there is massive Jewish influence within the power structures of the European nations, government itself, media, banks, entertainment, and publishing, and much of that influence is directed toward, or in any case has the effect of, destroying the indigenous people by undermining and debauching their cultural institutions. In this work, mass immigration has a major role, as stupidly blabbed by the Jew, Barbara Lerner Specter (see video above).

    The role of the Jews in destroying the European nations does not absolve the stupid, greedy, vicious and depraved members of the indigenous leadership many of whom participate in the destruction of their own people.

    The European nations, I believe, should double down on their commitment to the security of Israel*, and encourage unassimilated Jews to migrate there. At the same time, the European nations should emulate the Israelis in their fierce determination to preserve their own racial, religious and cultural identities.

    *The United States should show leadership in developing plans for settling the Palestinians in a homeland of their own. My own suggestion would be for the US and EU, Britain and Israel to jointly seek the purchase from Egypt of 20,000 square km of Sinai (the same as the area of Israel) to be called New Palestine. There, with several hundred billion in Western aid, the Palestinians could be comfortable settled in a modern cities surrounded by an oasis irrigated with water from solar-powered desalination plants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    The briefest survey of Western literature and philosophy will reveal that Western elites began to experience extreme disaffection beginning in the 18th century, and culminating at the turn of the 20th century. Deep pessimism was the keynote, the banality and pointlessness of life under capitalism and mechanization was the motif, a collapse of will was everywhere observed, and a yearning for escape to the exotic was characteristic. This entire elite intellectual movement - decadent, world-weary, self-hating - was composed of White gentiles.

    The ground was prepared for Jews by Whites themselves - Jews merely exploited a fortuitous opening.

    I basically agree with you about Jewish behavior, but I think its pathological. I don't think its a 'successful evolutionary strategy', but a tragic mistake. Jewish behavior must be fought without compromise without losing sight of this fact.

    But that is because I am not a materialist - this is crucial.

    Power, wealth, and materialism, immorality, deceit - are a personal hell for anyone who pursues them. All happiness, all pleasure, all content - gone. Jewish culture creates incredible psychological pressure to pursue these goals, and Jews live in restless misery. Our of their own misery, they victimize other.

    Jewish behavior within society is mirrored in Western behavior on the world stage. The pursuit of wealth and power through violence and deceit is the chief characteristic. Society is organized around power and wealth (the IR, capitalism). The result - all happiness gone, a death wish at the highest levels, loss of will, and the brink of collapse.

    Jews, and the West, are historically the world's great unhappy peoples - and for the same reasons. One group preys on society, the other group preys on the world - and itself, through capitalism. Both have chosen materialism and power, and sold their souls.

    The West is finally emerging from their great curse, and if they manage to avoid suicide and come to their senses in time - by no means certain - have a chance at regaining their soul - the Jews are still lost in their personal darkness.

  128. @AaronB
    I thought it was obvious from my last line.

    A society that becomes materialist, loses contact with the spiritual and transcendent, loses the will to live.

    A society that becomes mechanistic, individualistic, and rationalistic creates a life not worth living. Responding to an obscure inner need, humans rebel against it, seek to destroy it, and yearn for the "other".

    This has been going on since the late 18th century, if not earlier. First a trickle, then a flood. At first a few adventurers rejected the West for exotic climes - Sir Francis Burton, Rimbaud, etc, writing about their disgust with life in the West.

    By the 19th century dozens of writers, perhaps the majority, are writing about their disgust with life in the modern West. Flaubert, Baudelaire, Schopenhauer, Dickens, etc. Countless others.

    Jews exploit weaknesses, but they do not create them.

    Adam Curtis makes a convincing case that Individualism has destroyed any hope for the future, since mass individualism means that people cannot join up to make the world better. It also has knock-on effects, like people cannot fall in love anymore, because to be in love you have merge your soul with someone else. And the unhappy individualist cannot do that.

    https://youtu.be/B4n7L-DQOlY

    Read More
  129. Sean says:
    @annamaria
    A case in point - Libya: http://theduran.com/hillary-clinton-bears-responsibility-for-the-manchester-atrocity/
    "The illegal NATO war against Libya was Hillary Clinton’s war above all others. It was her who took a stable, prosperous, secular socialist country and turned it into a failed state and a terrorist playground. Gaddafi warned that he was the rampart holding back al-Qaeda from Europe, but Hillary Clinton did not care. She even laughed about Gaddafi’s inhumane, barbaric execution at the hands of terrorists.
    Had Hillary Clinton not been able to convince Barack Obama and his useful war propagandists David Cameron in Britain and Nicholas Sarkozy, the dead children in Manchester might be with us today.
    Hillary Clinton famously said of Gaddafi’s illegal execution, “We came, we saw, he died”. Indeed, she came, she saw, he died and now thousands of more have died in Libya, many others have died in Europe because of this, including those who recently perished in Manchester."

    It is as natural for countries to have dissatisfied groups and sometimes uprisings as it is for individuals to experience inner conflict. Of course countries blame outsiders for their troubles, just as individuals blame others when unhappy. Anyone who thinks the life of a nation is naturally peaceful should look in the mirror and ask if their life is like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "It is as natural for countries to have dissatisfied groups and sometimes uprisings as it is for individuals to experience inner conflict."
    This is a truly amazing post in response to that: http://www.globalresearch.ca/manchester-alleged-suicide-bomber-linked-to-libya-islamic-fighting-group-lifg-known-to-british-security-intelligence-lifg-was-supported-by-nato-against-gadaffi/5591732
    "As these terrorists filter out of Syria and back home, those hailing from LIFG are mainly returning to the UK where they have been known by US and British security and intelligence agencies for years to exist. With them they will be bringing back the technical knowledge and experience needed to carry out devastating attacks like the recent blast that targeted Manchester.
    It is terrorism that follows as a direct result of British foreign and domestic policy – supporting terrorists abroad and deliberately refusing to dismantle their networks at home – all as they feed fighters and resources into the US-UK [Israel] proxy war still raging in Syria.
    That the US and UK are using terrorists to expedite their respective geopolitical objectives should come as no surprise... What is surprising is that the Western public continues to react emotionally to each terrorist attack individually rather than rationally, seeing the much larger picture and pattern. And until the Western public sees that bigger picture and pattern, fear, injustice, murder, and mayhem will continue to dominate their lives and futures."

    On the same topic, do you support an open immigration to Israel? Or it is antisemitic to ask this question? (on this site: http://www.unz.com/article/international-campaign-is-criminalizing-criticism-of-israel-as-antisemitism)

  130. Sean says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But, restricting immigration on the grounds he advocates is a terrible mistake from every point of view.
     
    Except, as you forgot to mention, the survival of the European people. But liberals, of course, are always ready to sacrifice European people for whatever depraved cause they may have in mind.

    I meant to say that advocating restriction of immigration on the grounds MacDonald does is a terrible mistake from every point of view, because if immigration is severely restricted, who cares what the rationale is? My point is it won’t actually get done if it is advocated on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests. The open borders lobby WANT ethnic genetic interests to be the reason, and in fact they always bring that up as the real motivation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    My point is it won’t actually get done [i.e., an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration] if it is advocated on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests.
     
    So on what grounds would you advocate an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration?

    You comment is as fatuous as that of Aaron B, who says we should improve our metaphysics, or Frau Merkel who says (5 minutes +) Germans worried about mass immigration of single-male, rape-culture Syrians should "just go to church more often or look at a picture."

    The open borders lobby WANT ethnic genetic interests to be the reason
     
    Bollocks. They never state that genocide is their reason. Traitors like Tony Blair will tell you "Mass immigration is good for the economy," which is a lie if you think a good economy means an economy that is good for the people: Britain has one of the lowest rates of GDP growth per capita in the G2o, for the obvious reason that they have soaked up a vast quantity of cheap, low-productivity foreign labor.

    Your idea that people in Europe don't care about being genocided is inane. That they have been made a minority in their own home by people of an alien race, culture and religion is the consequence of mass immigration that Europeans who remain in such places as London, Birmingham, Luton and Leicester are most acutely aware and mostly deeply angry about, as would be obvious to anyone who knew or even thought for a moment about what is happening.

    But naturally those plotting the destruction of the European peoples don't want their work labelled for what it is, genocide, as neither, apparently, do you.
    , @utu
    You might be right about it that the arguments "on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests" have no legs. And they will not fly.
  131. AaronB says:
    @Santoculto
    Europeans always were on avg materialists as well most of other human people's. Indeed christianism and materialism are connected in not so noble ways since a long time.

    And most Europeans desire to have at least two children. There are some fraction of Europeans who are direct responsible for that lower fertility and they are those who have good conditions to have (more) children but simply no have. One of the reasons Europeans and east Asians have reduced their fertilities is economic. It's too expensive rise a reasonably big family even because children and teenagers don't work. You need to care and invest for two decades a son or a daughter before to expect they will go out of parent house.

    Materialism is always a problem not just today but always. Yes materialism become more influent but I think existentialism also have a role specially among some specific group of brighter people. Younger people has been nurtured in the short thinking term culture even I don't believe only cultural influences that shape their behavior but themselves of course. The Pandora box was partially open in the west. Without all certainties, factual or not, "we" had in the past, people start to over think in divergent way. When a mainstream culture die many other little cultures born and start to fight one each other.

    Yes, materialism has always been a problem, even in ancient times. It’s just much more of a problem now.

    The masses pursue comfort and pleasure, and the elite pursue power and wealth. All of society is organized around these goals. But they make life dreary and inane, so we develop a secret death wish. We want to die.

    A life that is worth living is based on transcendental values – truth, beauty, goodness, and a limitation of desire and individuality – a certain asceticism. These are non-material goals – they do not pertain to material objectives, like survival, or reproduction.

    A society based on these values, and limits desire, provides happiness, and will endure. A society based on comfort, pleasure, wealth, and power, will swiftly collapse.

    Our society is based on these four materialist values, sees nothing beyond animal survival and reproduction, encourages limitless desire, and unlimited individualism. It is a death cult.

    I do not mean we should return to organized religion, or the Church. I don’t think its possible to return to any known form of Christianity, but I believe the spiritual and moral vision of Christianity is essentially correct. This vision is found in Eastern religions as well.

    I also do not desire the West to be ‘great’ again – ‘greatness’ is a transitional stage toward decline, and is basically materialist in orientation.

    What I would like to see is a West re-oriented toward the transcendent, which would create happiness, free us from our death cult, and make us indifferent towards trivial things like ‘greatness’ . For various reasons, this would mean reversing immigration, and focusing inward.

    I hope this makes my position clearer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I don't believe most westerners are subconsciously suicidal, they are just addicted and distracted via materialism as always and reinforced by this existentialist vibe. Yes there are genuine cultural suiciders in west and they are maybe important portion of illibs but even among them there are many who don't want western culture die specially that more secular culture, they are insanely optimistics that in the near future everything will be fine. This idea that regular people are spiritually bored and desire subconsciously that their mother-culture be eliminated seems interesting and appear to be logic in first instance but in the second instance they are just extremely distracted as they would be whatever the period. People are slowly awakening exactly because what only working classes suffered now it's becoming democratic.

    I'm in smartphone I will answer your comment as must be done soon.
    , @Santoculto

    The masses pursue comfort and pleasure, and the elite pursue power and wealth. All of society is organized around these goals. But they make life dreary and inane, so we develop a secret death wish. We want to die.
     
    Maybe you are want to say: '' ''we'' conquer everything and ''we'' are fatigued now''. Seems you are leaving this METAPHOR too far, as if in fact we want to die.

    A life that is worth living is based on transcendental values – truth, beauty, goodness, and a limitation of desire and individuality – a certain asceticism. These are non-material goals – they do not pertain to material objectives, like survival, or reproduction.
     
    Many of this transcendental/evolutionary* values has been materialized, thanks for scientific advancement as well mathematical domination on explanatory narratives. I don't think how this values lost their meaning, they just become more pragmatic, accessible and yes, maybe it make people even more conformative.

    Our society is based on these four materialist values, sees nothing beyond animal survival and reproduction, encourages limitless desire, and unlimited individualism. It is a death cult.
     
    Again, but still many if not most people want constitute families but economic barriers make them cautious about it. Post modern narrative affect different people in different levels, only leftists who really don't care about their fertility or worry about no have kids. You forget the modern phenomena of enlarged adolescence, but i think it's always happen with some subgroups of individuals, it's not a modern thing, it's always happen, the great difference is that today we have the possibility to understand, to have data about all human behavioral dispositions, but ''imatured'' people always exist, in my pretend-to-be logical view.

    It's a death cult by

    economic reasons that inhibit people who want have kids

    anti-white/anti-native culture + open border insanity.

    I do not mean we should return to organized religion, or the Church. I don’t think its possible to return to any known form of Christianity, but I believe the spiritual and moral vision of Christianity is essentially correct. This vision is found in Eastern religions as well.
     
    Fatal contradictions is essentially wrong. Yes, it's not everything on christianity that is wrong, of course.

    What I would like to see is a West re-oriented toward the transcendent, which would create happiness, free us from our death cult, and make us indifferent towards trivial things like ‘greatness’ . For various reasons, this would mean reversing immigration, and focusing inward.

    I hope this makes my position clearer.
     
    This death cult is slowlying trying to convince most people as possible to engage in their dirty dance. I think technological-predominance + capitalism would be the final victory of materialism*
  132. annamaria says:
    @Sean
    It is as natural for countries to have dissatisfied groups and sometimes uprisings as it is for individuals to experience inner conflict. Of course countries blame outsiders for their troubles, just as individuals blame others when unhappy. Anyone who thinks the life of a nation is naturally peaceful should look in the mirror and ask if their life is like that.

    “It is as natural for countries to have dissatisfied groups and sometimes uprisings as it is for individuals to experience inner conflict.”
    This is a truly amazing post in response to that: http://www.globalresearch.ca/manchester-alleged-suicide-bomber-linked-to-libya-islamic-fighting-group-lifg-known-to-british-security-intelligence-lifg-was-supported-by-nato-against-gadaffi/5591732
    “As these terrorists filter out of Syria and back home, those hailing from LIFG are mainly returning to the UK where they have been known by US and British security and intelligence agencies for years to exist. With them they will be bringing back the technical knowledge and experience needed to carry out devastating attacks like the recent blast that targeted Manchester.
    It is terrorism that follows as a direct result of British foreign and domestic policy – supporting terrorists abroad and deliberately refusing to dismantle their networks at home – all as they feed fighters and resources into the US-UK [Israel] proxy war still raging in Syria.
    That the US and UK are using terrorists to expedite their respective geopolitical objectives should come as no surprise… What is surprising is that the Western public continues to react emotionally to each terrorist attack individually rather than rationally, seeing the much larger picture and pattern. And until the Western public sees that bigger picture and pattern, fear, injustice, murder, and mayhem will continue to dominate their lives and futures.”

    On the same topic, do you support an open immigration to Israel? Or it is antisemitic to ask this question? (on this site: http://www.unz.com/article/international-campaign-is-criminalizing-criticism-of-israel-as-antisemitism)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    My glance at your long quote suggests it is out of date and partly misguided. To be sure a lot of the terrorism and the expense of dealing with it in the UK is a product of foolish although not *entirely* evilly motivated adventures in the Muslim world since 9/11. But Tony Blair has a long history of genuine Christian self delusion with only later necessary (for any PM) connections to big business or other influential lobby groups. I am personally acquainted with people close to his first (Oxford) clergyman mentor and also with an older contemporary at his Oxford college who was surprised to find (as I to hear) that the freshmen had a charismatic leader called Tony Blair. (Well Australia has had several Rhodes Scholar PMs and only one a resounding success, one managing to sound stupid occasionally!)

    How the great increase in domestic terrorist numbers and their dangerous skills resulting from Blair and co's misbegotten support for US ME policies has been dealt with shows unsurprising mixtures of sound thinking, incompetence, poor information, judgment calls, good and bad luck, and needs no conspiratorial explanations.

  133. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sean
    I meant to say that advocating restriction of immigration on the grounds MacDonald does is a terrible mistake from every point of view, because if immigration is severely restricted, who cares what the rationale is? My point is it won't actually get done if it is advocated on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests. The open borders lobby WANT ethnic genetic interests to be the reason, and in fact they always bring that up as the real motivation.

    My point is it won’t actually get done [i.e., an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration] if it is advocated on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests.

    So on what grounds would you advocate an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration?

    You comment is as fatuous as that of Aaron B, who says we should improve our metaphysics, or Frau Merkel who says (5 minutes +) Germans worried about mass immigration of single-male, rape-culture Syrians should “just go to church more often or look at a picture.”

    The open borders lobby WANT ethnic genetic interests to be the reason

    Bollocks. They never state that genocide is their reason. Traitors like Tony Blair will tell you “Mass immigration is good for the economy,” which is a lie if you think a good economy means an economy that is good for the people: Britain has one of the lowest rates of GDP growth per capita in the G2o, for the obvious reason that they have soaked up a vast quantity of cheap, low-productivity foreign labor.

    Your idea that people in Europe don’t care about being genocided is inane. That they have been made a minority in their own home by people of an alien race, culture and religion is the consequence of mass immigration that Europeans who remain in such places as London, Birmingham, Luton and Leicester are most acutely aware and mostly deeply angry about, as would be obvious to anyone who knew or even thought for a moment about what is happening.

    But naturally those plotting the destruction of the European peoples don’t want their work labelled for what it is, genocide, as neither, apparently, do you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    So on what grounds would you advocate an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration?
     
    I agree that any argument against immigration based on genetic/racial grounds is likely to fail. It's too easy to demonise such a position.

    There are plenty of other extremely good reasons to oppose immigration. Cultural, economic and environmental arguments are more difficult to demonise.

    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.

    The good thing about this particular argument is that you can point out that there is a country that is trying very hard to maintain the survival of its own ethnic/religious/cultural group and that country is called Israel.

    If you're genuinely in favour of open borders you're antisemitic!
  134. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy
    With only rare exceptions, people do not make themselves, either intellectually or morally. The values of a society are established top down. Those values determine the success or failure of the group, whether it survives or dies.

    The Jews, among others, understood that a long time ago and created an ethical code that promotes the perpetuation and dissemination of Jewish genes. The Jews also understood that by penetrating the government of other groups they could manipulate other groups to their own advantage.

    Today, there is massive Jewish influence within the power structures of the European nations, government itself, media, banks, entertainment, and publishing, and much of that influence is directed toward, or in any case has the effect of, destroying the indigenous people by undermining and debauching their cultural institutions. In this work, mass immigration has a major role, as stupidly blabbed by the Jew, Barbara Lerner Specter (see video above).

    The role of the Jews in destroying the European nations does not absolve the stupid, greedy, vicious and depraved members of the indigenous leadership many of whom participate in the destruction of their own people.

    The European nations, I believe, should double down on their commitment to the security of Israel*, and encourage unassimilated Jews to migrate there. At the same time, the European nations should emulate the Israelis in their fierce determination to preserve their own racial, religious and cultural identities.

    *The United States should show leadership in developing plans for settling the Palestinians in a homeland of their own. My own suggestion would be for the US and EU, Britain and Israel to jointly seek the purchase from Egypt of 20,000 square km of Sinai (the same as the area of Israel) to be called New Palestine. There, with several hundred billion in Western aid, the Palestinians could be comfortable settled in a modern cities surrounded by an oasis irrigated with water from solar-powered desalination plants.

    The briefest survey of Western literature and philosophy will reveal that Western elites began to experience extreme disaffection beginning in the 18th century, and culminating at the turn of the 20th century. Deep pessimism was the keynote, the banality and pointlessness of life under capitalism and mechanization was the motif, a collapse of will was everywhere observed, and a yearning for escape to the exotic was characteristic. This entire elite intellectual movement – decadent, world-weary, self-hating – was composed of White gentiles.

    The ground was prepared for Jews by Whites themselves – Jews merely exploited a fortuitous opening.

    I basically agree with you about Jewish behavior, but I think its pathological. I don’t think its a ‘successful evolutionary strategy’, but a tragic mistake. Jewish behavior must be fought without compromise without losing sight of this fact.

    But that is because I am not a materialist – this is crucial.

    Power, wealth, and materialism, immorality, deceit – are a personal hell for anyone who pursues them. All happiness, all pleasure, all content – gone. Jewish culture creates incredible psychological pressure to pursue these goals, and Jews live in restless misery. Our of their own misery, they victimize other.

    Jewish behavior within society is mirrored in Western behavior on the world stage. The pursuit of wealth and power through violence and deceit is the chief characteristic. Society is organized around power and wealth (the IR, capitalism). The result – all happiness gone, a death wish at the highest levels, loss of will, and the brink of collapse.

    Jews, and the West, are historically the world’s great unhappy peoples – and for the same reasons. One group preys on society, the other group preys on the world – and itself, through capitalism. Both have chosen materialism and power, and sold their souls.

    The West is finally emerging from their great curse, and if they manage to avoid suicide and come to their senses in time – by no means certain – have a chance at regaining their soul – the Jews are still lost in their personal darkness.

    Read More
  135. @AaronB
    Yes, materialism has always been a problem, even in ancient times. It's just much more of a problem now.

    The masses pursue comfort and pleasure, and the elite pursue power and wealth. All of society is organized around these goals. But they make life dreary and inane, so we develop a secret death wish. We want to die.

    A life that is worth living is based on transcendental values - truth, beauty, goodness, and a limitation of desire and individuality - a certain asceticism. These are non-material goals - they do not pertain to material objectives, like survival, or reproduction.

    A society based on these values, and limits desire, provides happiness, and will endure. A society based on comfort, pleasure, wealth, and power, will swiftly collapse.

    Our society is based on these four materialist values, sees nothing beyond animal survival and reproduction, encourages limitless desire, and unlimited individualism. It is a death cult.

    I do not mean we should return to organized religion, or the Church. I don't think its possible to return to any known form of Christianity, but I believe the spiritual and moral vision of Christianity is essentially correct. This vision is found in Eastern religions as well.

    I also do not desire the West to be 'great' again - 'greatness' is a transitional stage toward decline, and is basically materialist in orientation.

    What I would like to see is a West re-oriented toward the transcendent, which would create happiness, free us from our death cult, and make us indifferent towards trivial things like 'greatness' . For various reasons, this would mean reversing immigration, and focusing inward.

    I hope this makes my position clearer.

    I don’t believe most westerners are subconsciously suicidal, they are just addicted and distracted via materialism as always and reinforced by this existentialist vibe. Yes there are genuine cultural suiciders in west and they are maybe important portion of illibs but even among them there are many who don’t want western culture die specially that more secular culture, they are insanely optimistics that in the near future everything will be fine. This idea that regular people are spiritually bored and desire subconsciously that their mother-culture be eliminated seems interesting and appear to be logic in first instance but in the second instance they are just extremely distracted as they would be whatever the period. People are slowly awakening exactly because what only working classes suffered now it’s becoming democratic.

    I’m in smartphone I will answer your comment as must be done soon.

    Read More
  136. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    The briefest survey of Western literature and philosophy will reveal that Western elites began to experience extreme disaffection beginning in the 18th century

    dis·af·fec·tion,
    noun.
    a state or feeling of being dissatisfied with the people in authority and no longer willing to support them.

    So forget your first sentence.

    … beginning in the 18th century … Deep pessimism was the keynote, the banality and pointlessness of life under capitalism and mechanization was the motif, a collapse of will was everywhere observed, and a yearning for escape to the exotic was characteristic.

    Quite wrong. The beginning of the 18th Century, marked in England, the beginning of the new era of post-monarchical government, which followed the Glorious Revolution and the expulsion of James II. It was the beginning of an age of huge optimism, at least among the upper classes, which was sparked by rapidly expanding trade and industrial development. Hence the Whig view of history, as exemplified by Thomas Macaulay’s History of England from the Accession of James II, a work so popular that it made Macaulay the World’s first literary millionaire.

    I basically agree with you about Jewish behavior, but I think its pathological. I don’t think its a ‘successful evolutionary strategy’, but a tragic mistake. Jewish behavior must be fought without compromise without losing sight of this fact.

    But that is because I am not a materialist – this is crucial.

    I can respect your opinion, but the fact is what you refer to as “Jewish behavior” goes back thousands of years as one finds from reading the Torah. Moreover, whatever its consequences for human happiness, it is strictly aligned with what a Darwinian would consider adaptive behavior. Adaptive, anyhow, so far as it succeeds in its objectives. To a Darwinian, whether such behavior makes a person happy is immaterial. Apparently Jews haven’t worried too much about that either, hence their persistence as a nation and their extraordinary material successes.

    The West is finally emerging from their great curse, and if they manage to avoid suicide and come to their senses in time – by no means certain – have a chance at regaining their soul

    The problem for ordinary folk in the West is not avoiding suicide rather it’s avoiding having their kith and kin being suicided. Should they somehow dodge the program of racial and cultural extermination for which they are surely targetted, then will be a time to think about the state of their souls.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I think you seriously need to read a history of European philosophy and literature. Yes, there were pessimists and optimists, especially at first. But it would be futile to deny that by the end of the 19th century, pessimists dominated, talk of decadence was everywhere, and a creeping malaise was spreading over Europe. Spengler did not pluck his history out of thin air. Especially after 1914, everyone was talking about how Europe was finished.

    That this widespread European pessimism, this collapse of will, played no role in the rise of the Jews beggars belief - and it indisputably predated the rise of Jews to prominence in Western intellectual life.

    Contrast this with, say, China - there simply is no comparable phenomenon. There were no pessimistic Chinese writers, thinkers, or philosophers. There was no yearning for the exotic. They all thought their culture, people, religion, and way of life, was fantastic.

    What happened in Europe? If you can't answer this, you will never break free. The Jews surely exploited European pessimism, but to say they created it is simply a-historical.

    I am not, of course, a Darwinist, and do not view things from the perspective of material success - but there are few pertinent remarks that can be made here.

    The pursuit of material success is curiously self-undermining - societies who do so, flourish for a while, but burn out.

    Europe's star burned bright for a few centuries, but is now in eclipse. The Jews - they have striven mightily for power and success for the past 200 years, and made a dramatic showing, but their most talented members are assimilating at over 50%, and as Ron Unz has documented, their intellectual brilliance is one the wane.

    There are indications that Jewish intellectual prominence may well be a thing of the past, and we are dealing with a time lag.

    So from the POV of Darwinian material success, both Whites and Jews would *seem* to have developed the best "killer apps", in their different domains- but a closer inspection reveals the rot that lies just beneath the surface.

    Compare to Egypt which lasted 5,000 years, or China with its 3,000 or more. Modern Europe lasted, what - 500 years. Jewish prominence, what - 200 years? Since it isn't over yet, but just declining, lets say 250 years.

    Secondly, the Jewish will to survive as a separate people has a spiritual basis. This is obvious from the fact that Jewish education, and Jewish religion, focus so heavily on maintaining a separate identity, and creates so many strict laws against it. This wouldn't be necessary if this behavior was reliably genetic.

    Our genes always push towards misceganation and assimilation - which is always why laws, social shaming, and other drastic measures have to be taken to counteract it. If it was reliably genetic this wouldn't be so.
    , @AaronB
    You know, CanSpeccy, what I am saying is really not so outlandish.

    Consider that life displays a strange duality - our wants and desires often conflict.

    For example, we want safety, and excitement. Yet they conflict - you have to choose one, or at least balance them out.

    Is it really so crazy an idea that if you choose to maximize technology and science, you might have to sacrifice other good things? That maximizing technical efficiency might make life so colorless and unemotional, so mechanical and dull, that it leads to a radical loss of enthusiasm?

    That doesn't really sound so implausible to me. It seems to obey the basic rule of how our life works - that we are conflicted beings who often desire incompatible goods.

    Now consider this - Europe is distinguished for two unique things beyond all others; technology (rationalism, empiricism, materialism - the whole package), and pessimism.

    Is it really so far-fetched that the two might be related?

    At the very least, this seems like a fruitful field of inquiry, to search for Europe's unique loss of enthusiasm for life (which clearly predates the Jews), where we also find the source of Europe's unique power.

    , @dfordoom

    Quite wrong. The beginning of the 18th Century, marked in England, the beginning of the new era of post-monarchical government, which followed the Glorious Revolution and the expulsion of James II. It was the beginning of an age of huge optimism, at least among the upper classes,
     
    True. But the pessimism was certainly becoming obvious in the 19th century and was widespread by the end of that century.

    That was one of the causes of the First World War - an irrational belief that war would somehow restore Europe's vitality.
  137. utu says:
    @Sean
    I meant to say that advocating restriction of immigration on the grounds MacDonald does is a terrible mistake from every point of view, because if immigration is severely restricted, who cares what the rationale is? My point is it won't actually get done if it is advocated on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests. The open borders lobby WANT ethnic genetic interests to be the reason, and in fact they always bring that up as the real motivation.

    You might be right about it that the arguments “on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests” have no legs. And they will not fly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    You might be right about it that the arguments “on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests” have no legs. And they will not fly.
     
    Perhaps you live in a society so deracinated that no one really cares who they live among, but in most parts of Europe I would say that the great majority of those indigenous people who are forced to live cheek by jowl with immigrants intent on establishing the dominance of their own culture and bloodlines in the land they have settled, feel strongly about the displacement of their fellow natives, and their fellow natives are those with whom they share the most culturally and genetically. What terminology people use, whether it's "kith and kin," co-ethnics, fellow countrymen, or whatever, underlying the connection is biological relatedness or shared genes.
  138. res says:
    @Alden
    You're too intelligent to keep repeating Calvinist and enlightenment propaganda. Columbus and his sailors knew that the earth was round and if they just keep sailing west they would eventually run into Asia about 5,000 miles from The coast of Spain.

    What Columbus didn't know was that the Americas are between Europe and Asia.

    Why is the calendar used today called the Georgian calendar? Because the calendar needs to be adjusted every 1, 500 years. It was adjusted around 40 BC when Juluus Cesear was Emperor. By 1500AD it needed further adjustment. That adjustment was done in the best observatory in the world at the time by the beat astronomers and mathmeticians in the world. The work was done in the Vatican observatory. The astronomers and mathematicians were Vatican priests.

    I very heard of the scientific method? It was created around 1100 AD by priests and monks at the Roman Catholic University of Paris Sorbonne.

    Your own country the Netherlands was under the North Sea in 500 AD. It was Roman Catholic monks who settled on the beaches and began a thousand year process of land reclamation that literally built the land now called the Netherlands.

    Every university established in Europe before 1800 was established by the church. During those 1600 years you cite the only libraries in Europe belonged to the church

    Why is the calendar used today called the Georgian calendar? Because the calendar needs to be adjusted every 1, 500 years. It was adjusted around 40 BC when Juluus Cesear was Emperor. By 1500AD it needed further adjustment. That adjustment was done in the best observatory in the world at the time by the beat astronomers and mathmeticians in the world. The work was done in the Vatican observatory. The astronomers and mathematicians were Vatican priests.

    You left out a key aspect of the Gregorian calendar. In addition to the shift to remove accumulated error it was changed so it no longer has to be adjusted every 1500 years. This was done by removing 3 leap days every 400 years. For more detail see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

    Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar which has a nice summary:

    The Julian calendar gains against the mean tropical year at the rate of one day in 128 years. For the Gregorian the figure is one day in 3,030 years.[2] The difference in the average length of the year between Julian (365.25 days) and Gregorian (365.2425 days) is 0.002%.

    The change by Caesar beginning the Julian calendar was much more dramatic. The Gregorian calendar just added a small tweak.

    Current reality is a bit more complex with irregularly spaced and unpredictable leap seconds being added (27 since 1972): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

    Read More
  139. @AaronB
    Yes, materialism has always been a problem, even in ancient times. It's just much more of a problem now.

    The masses pursue comfort and pleasure, and the elite pursue power and wealth. All of society is organized around these goals. But they make life dreary and inane, so we develop a secret death wish. We want to die.

    A life that is worth living is based on transcendental values - truth, beauty, goodness, and a limitation of desire and individuality - a certain asceticism. These are non-material goals - they do not pertain to material objectives, like survival, or reproduction.

    A society based on these values, and limits desire, provides happiness, and will endure. A society based on comfort, pleasure, wealth, and power, will swiftly collapse.

    Our society is based on these four materialist values, sees nothing beyond animal survival and reproduction, encourages limitless desire, and unlimited individualism. It is a death cult.

    I do not mean we should return to organized religion, or the Church. I don't think its possible to return to any known form of Christianity, but I believe the spiritual and moral vision of Christianity is essentially correct. This vision is found in Eastern religions as well.

    I also do not desire the West to be 'great' again - 'greatness' is a transitional stage toward decline, and is basically materialist in orientation.

    What I would like to see is a West re-oriented toward the transcendent, which would create happiness, free us from our death cult, and make us indifferent towards trivial things like 'greatness' . For various reasons, this would mean reversing immigration, and focusing inward.

    I hope this makes my position clearer.

    The masses pursue comfort and pleasure, and the elite pursue power and wealth. All of society is organized around these goals. But they make life dreary and inane, so we develop a secret death wish. We want to die.

    Maybe you are want to say: ” ”we” conquer everything and ”we” are fatigued now”. Seems you are leaving this METAPHOR too far, as if in fact we want to die.

    A life that is worth living is based on transcendental values – truth, beauty, goodness, and a limitation of desire and individuality – a certain asceticism. These are non-material goals – they do not pertain to material objectives, like survival, or reproduction.

    Many of this transcendental/evolutionary* values has been materialized, thanks for scientific advancement as well mathematical domination on explanatory narratives. I don’t think how this values lost their meaning, they just become more pragmatic, accessible and yes, maybe it make people even more conformative.

    Our society is based on these four materialist values, sees nothing beyond animal survival and reproduction, encourages limitless desire, and unlimited individualism. It is a death cult.

    Again, but still many if not most people want constitute families but economic barriers make them cautious about it. Post modern narrative affect different people in different levels, only leftists who really don’t care about their fertility or worry about no have kids. You forget the modern phenomena of enlarged adolescence, but i think it’s always happen with some subgroups of individuals, it’s not a modern thing, it’s always happen, the great difference is that today we have the possibility to understand, to have data about all human behavioral dispositions, but ”imatured” people always exist, in my pretend-to-be logical view.

    It’s a death cult by

    economic reasons that inhibit people who want have kids

    anti-white/anti-native culture + open border insanity.

    I do not mean we should return to organized religion, or the Church. I don’t think its possible to return to any known form of Christianity, but I believe the spiritual and moral vision of Christianity is essentially correct. This vision is found in Eastern religions as well.

    Fatal contradictions is essentially wrong. Yes, it’s not everything on christianity that is wrong, of course.

    What I would like to see is a West re-oriented toward the transcendent, which would create happiness, free us from our death cult, and make us indifferent towards trivial things like ‘greatness’ . For various reasons, this would mean reversing immigration, and focusing inward.

    I hope this makes my position clearer.

    This death cult is slowlying trying to convince most people as possible to engage in their dirty dance. I think technological-predominance + capitalism would be the final victory of materialism*

    Read More
  140. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    You might be right about it that the arguments "on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests" have no legs. And they will not fly.

    You might be right about it that the arguments “on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests” have no legs. And they will not fly.

    Perhaps you live in a society so deracinated that no one really cares who they live among, but in most parts of Europe I would say that the great majority of those indigenous people who are forced to live cheek by jowl with immigrants intent on establishing the dominance of their own culture and bloodlines in the land they have settled, feel strongly about the displacement of their fellow natives, and their fellow natives are those with whom they share the most culturally and genetically. What terminology people use, whether it’s “kith and kin,” co-ethnics, fellow countrymen, or whatever, underlying the connection is biological relatedness or shared genes.

    Read More
  141. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The briefest survey of Western literature and philosophy will reveal that Western elites began to experience extreme disaffection beginning in the 18th century
     
    dis·af·fec·tion,
    noun.
    a state or feeling of being dissatisfied with the people in authority and no longer willing to support them.

    So forget your first sentence.


    ... beginning in the 18th century ... Deep pessimism was the keynote, the banality and pointlessness of life under capitalism and mechanization was the motif, a collapse of will was everywhere observed, and a yearning for escape to the exotic was characteristic.
     
    Quite wrong. The beginning of the 18th Century, marked in England, the beginning of the new era of post-monarchical government, which followed the Glorious Revolution and the expulsion of James II. It was the beginning of an age of huge optimism, at least among the upper classes, which was sparked by rapidly expanding trade and industrial development. Hence the Whig view of history, as exemplified by Thomas Macaulay's History of England from the Accession of James II, a work so popular that it made Macaulay the World's first literary millionaire.

    I basically agree with you about Jewish behavior, but I think its pathological. I don’t think its a ‘successful evolutionary strategy’, but a tragic mistake. Jewish behavior must be fought without compromise without losing sight of this fact.

    But that is because I am not a materialist – this is crucial.
     

    I can respect your opinion, but the fact is what you refer to as "Jewish behavior" goes back thousands of years as one finds from reading the Torah. Moreover, whatever its consequences for human happiness, it is strictly aligned with what a Darwinian would consider adaptive behavior. Adaptive, anyhow, so far as it succeeds in its objectives. To a Darwinian, whether such behavior makes a person happy is immaterial. Apparently Jews haven't worried too much about that either, hence their persistence as a nation and their extraordinary material successes.

    The West is finally emerging from their great curse, and if they manage to avoid suicide and come to their senses in time – by no means certain – have a chance at regaining their soul
     
    The problem for ordinary folk in the West is not avoiding suicide rather it's avoiding having their kith and kin being suicided. Should they somehow dodge the program of racial and cultural extermination for which they are surely targetted, then will be a time to think about the state of their souls.

    I think you seriously need to read a history of European philosophy and literature. Yes, there were pessimists and optimists, especially at first. But it would be futile to deny that by the end of the 19th century, pessimists dominated, talk of decadence was everywhere, and a creeping malaise was spreading over Europe. Spengler did not pluck his history out of thin air. Especially after 1914, everyone was talking about how Europe was finished.

    That this widespread European pessimism, this collapse of will, played no role in the rise of the Jews beggars belief – and it indisputably predated the rise of Jews to prominence in Western intellectual life.

    Contrast this with, say, China – there simply is no comparable phenomenon. There were no pessimistic Chinese writers, thinkers, or philosophers. There was no yearning for the exotic. They all thought their culture, people, religion, and way of life, was fantastic.

    What happened in Europe? If you can’t answer this, you will never break free. The Jews surely exploited European pessimism, but to say they created it is simply a-historical.

    I am not, of course, a Darwinist, and do not view things from the perspective of material success – but there are few pertinent remarks that can be made here.

    The pursuit of material success is curiously self-undermining – societies who do so, flourish for a while, but burn out.

    Europe’s star burned bright for a few centuries, but is now in eclipse. The Jews – they have striven mightily for power and success for the past 200 years, and made a dramatic showing, but their most talented members are assimilating at over 50%, and as Ron Unz has documented, their intellectual brilliance is one the wane.

    There are indications that Jewish intellectual prominence may well be a thing of the past, and we are dealing with a time lag.

    So from the POV of Darwinian material success, both Whites and Jews would *seem* to have developed the best “killer apps”, in their different domains- but a closer inspection reveals the rot that lies just beneath the surface.

    Compare to Egypt which lasted 5,000 years, or China with its 3,000 or more. Modern Europe lasted, what – 500 years. Jewish prominence, what – 200 years? Since it isn’t over yet, but just declining, lets say 250 years.

    Secondly, the Jewish will to survive as a separate people has a spiritual basis. This is obvious from the fact that Jewish education, and Jewish religion, focus so heavily on maintaining a separate identity, and creates so many strict laws against it. This wouldn’t be necessary if this behavior was reliably genetic.

    Our genes always push towards misceganation and assimilation – which is always why laws, social shaming, and other drastic measures have to be taken to counteract it. If it was reliably genetic this wouldn’t be so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    But it would be futile to deny that by the end of the 19th century, pessimists dominated ...
     
    And no one is denying it. You were talking of pessimism from the "beginning in the 18th century ..." two hundred years earlier, which is what I commented on. As for after 1914, that's the 20th Century about which neither you nor I had said anything. So don't play fast and loose with the facts or lecture me on what I history I should read when you don't know the difference between the age of reason, and the periods of classical and late modernity.

    That this widespread European pessimism, this collapse of will, played no role in the rise of the Jews beggars belief – and it indisputably predated the rise of Jews to prominence in Western intellectual life.
     
    What are you saying? Europeans got discouraged and said: "Oh WTF, lets allow the Jews to take over and screw us all"?

    That's preposterous. The emancipation of Jews in Europe was due to the rise of liberalism and the concomitant decline in Christian religious faith. But loss of faith or adoption of liberalism are not usually taken to have resulted from pessimism. Rather, liberalism arose in association with the growth of global trade, which required dealing in good faith and with mutual respect with people of all kinds both at home and abroad.

    The pursuit of material success is curiously self-undermining – societies who do so, flourish for a while, but burn out.
     
    That's all wiffle waffle. The Chinese who you seem to think have always been deliriously happy, are among those most ardent in the pursuit of material success, not only today, but throughout their history. Oh, sure, there was some icing on the cake, an elite who cultivated the literary arts, but that is true of every society. But for most Chinese, throughout the ages, material success was a matter of life of death by starvation, and the struggle to survive has given the Chinese a culture that inculcates the value of endless hard work for material success.

    Compare to Egypt which lasted 5,000 years, or China with its 3,000 or more. Modern Europe lasted, what – 500 years. Jewish prominence, what – 200 years?
     
    This is more hand waving. The Egyptians have been around a long time, but not necessarily the same people are Egyptians today as were Egyptians in the time of Narma. There were the original Egyptians of undetermined racial origin, who were infiltrated by Nubians, Berbers, Syrians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs, a history no less tumultuous than that of the Jews or the Europeans. The Jews have been an identifiable group for at least 2600 years, and the Europeans of the British Isles have existed in the Isles, with only small additions, since the retreat of the ice, thousands of years ago.

    the Jewish will to survive as a separate people has a spiritual basis. This is obvious from the fact that Jewish education, and Jewish religion, focus so heavily on maintaining a separate identity, and creates so many strict laws against it. This wouldn’t be necessary if this behavior was reliably genetic.
     
    What has maintaining a separate identity got to do with spirituality? That's not obvious, it's bunk. Jews prefer Jews to other people. Jews prefer their own kith and kin to other people. Jews have a legal code which favors Jews and places Jews in a privileged position over non-Jews. That all makes sense in terms of self-serving behavior, but what's spiritual about it? Nothing. And that Jews have the inclination to serve their own interests at the expense of others is a manifestation of a universal human trait: indeed a universal mammalian trait, a product of natural selection, a consequence of the action of genes in concert with culture.

    Our genes always push towards misceganation [sic] and assimilation
     
    Hah! Here comes the hard sell bullshit from the guy who isn't a Darwinist, telling us what our genes do to destroy our own posterity. That's some Chutzpah.

    which is always why laws, social shaming, and other drastic measures have to be taken to counteract it (i.e., racial mixing)
     
    Which is what that Jewish invention, political correctness is all about. Right? Er, well, um, no. That has to be Chutzpah squared. Well played Aaron B.
  142. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The briefest survey of Western literature and philosophy will reveal that Western elites began to experience extreme disaffection beginning in the 18th century
     
    dis·af·fec·tion,
    noun.
    a state or feeling of being dissatisfied with the people in authority and no longer willing to support them.

    So forget your first sentence.


    ... beginning in the 18th century ... Deep pessimism was the keynote, the banality and pointlessness of life under capitalism and mechanization was the motif, a collapse of will was everywhere observed, and a yearning for escape to the exotic was characteristic.
     
    Quite wrong. The beginning of the 18th Century, marked in England, the beginning of the new era of post-monarchical government, which followed the Glorious Revolution and the expulsion of James II. It was the beginning of an age of huge optimism, at least among the upper classes, which was sparked by rapidly expanding trade and industrial development. Hence the Whig view of history, as exemplified by Thomas Macaulay's History of England from the Accession of James II, a work so popular that it made Macaulay the World's first literary millionaire.

    I basically agree with you about Jewish behavior, but I think its pathological. I don’t think its a ‘successful evolutionary strategy’, but a tragic mistake. Jewish behavior must be fought without compromise without losing sight of this fact.

    But that is because I am not a materialist – this is crucial.
     

    I can respect your opinion, but the fact is what you refer to as "Jewish behavior" goes back thousands of years as one finds from reading the Torah. Moreover, whatever its consequences for human happiness, it is strictly aligned with what a Darwinian would consider adaptive behavior. Adaptive, anyhow, so far as it succeeds in its objectives. To a Darwinian, whether such behavior makes a person happy is immaterial. Apparently Jews haven't worried too much about that either, hence their persistence as a nation and their extraordinary material successes.

    The West is finally emerging from their great curse, and if they manage to avoid suicide and come to their senses in time – by no means certain – have a chance at regaining their soul
     
    The problem for ordinary folk in the West is not avoiding suicide rather it's avoiding having their kith and kin being suicided. Should they somehow dodge the program of racial and cultural extermination for which they are surely targetted, then will be a time to think about the state of their souls.

    You know, CanSpeccy, what I am saying is really not so outlandish.

    Consider that life displays a strange duality – our wants and desires often conflict.

    For example, we want safety, and excitement. Yet they conflict – you have to choose one, or at least balance them out.

    Is it really so crazy an idea that if you choose to maximize technology and science, you might have to sacrifice other good things? That maximizing technical efficiency might make life so colorless and unemotional, so mechanical and dull, that it leads to a radical loss of enthusiasm?

    That doesn’t really sound so implausible to me. It seems to obey the basic rule of how our life works – that we are conflicted beings who often desire incompatible goods.

    Now consider this – Europe is distinguished for two unique things beyond all others; technology (rationalism, empiricism, materialism – the whole package), and pessimism.

    Is it really so far-fetched that the two might be related?

    At the very least, this seems like a fruitful field of inquiry, to search for Europe’s unique loss of enthusiasm for life (which clearly predates the Jews), where we also find the source of Europe’s unique power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Now consider this – Europe is distinguished for two unique things beyond all others; technology (rationalism, empiricism, materialism – the whole package), and pessimism.
     
    My dear fellow, you really should do some fact checking. Europe you say is distinguished for pessimism. On what evidence? You offer none. So here I offer you world suicide stats. With Sri Lanka holding the highest ranking at 35 per 100 K, we have to go 22 places down the list to find the first West European nation, Belgium, which has only half Sri Lanka's suicide rate. As for the US and Britain, they are way down the list at 48 and 123, respectively, Britain with a rate only one fifth that of Sri Lanka. As for those miserable Jews, Israel is at 143 with hardly any suicides at all. Does that suggest deep Jewish/Western pessimism?
  143. @Alden
    Here is the real reason the Jews fled Russia in the 1880s. It was draft evasion.

    I forget the exact date, but around 1880 Jews got their full civil rights. Unfortunately that included civil
    obligations such as conscription. That's why the Jews left, not programs, not affirmative action for the goyim, not crackdowns on usury.

    In the foreign affairs/ state department archives of every country in Europe and the Americas are reports from diplomats stationed in Russia that there was no persecution and that the stories about programs were just stories intended to get sympathy so as to facilitate immigration to other countries.
    That's why the Russian Jews swarmed England, the USA and Latin American countries that did not have the draft.

    They didn't go to Germany, Austria, France, Italy or Spain because all those countries had conscription.

    Russia's draft was for 25 years which is horrible to contemplate unless one is down and out and desperate for 3 hots and a cot. But the other European countries had just a few years draftee enlistment and the Jews didn't go to those countries, they went to draft free England and America.

    That's why they left.

    Now I have followed up and I am afraid your convincing coherent account isn’t supported by the first substantial seeming article I read when I Googled for “when were Jews emancipated in Russia” (the answer seems to be only in 1917 fully though 1905 got a mention and earlier initiatives from the non Hasidic Haskalah Jews of the parts of Eastern Europe grabbed by Russia in the late 18th century where Jews lived before any significant number lived in Russia). Jews had been grabbed for military service in the 1820s! Of course I can accept that the pogroms of the early 1880s were exaggerated for the obvious reason you mention and it seems plausible that countries without compusory military service would be more attractive to Jews with young boys in their families.

    Read More
  144. @annamaria
    "It is as natural for countries to have dissatisfied groups and sometimes uprisings as it is for individuals to experience inner conflict."
    This is a truly amazing post in response to that: http://www.globalresearch.ca/manchester-alleged-suicide-bomber-linked-to-libya-islamic-fighting-group-lifg-known-to-british-security-intelligence-lifg-was-supported-by-nato-against-gadaffi/5591732
    "As these terrorists filter out of Syria and back home, those hailing from LIFG are mainly returning to the UK where they have been known by US and British security and intelligence agencies for years to exist. With them they will be bringing back the technical knowledge and experience needed to carry out devastating attacks like the recent blast that targeted Manchester.
    It is terrorism that follows as a direct result of British foreign and domestic policy – supporting terrorists abroad and deliberately refusing to dismantle their networks at home – all as they feed fighters and resources into the US-UK [Israel] proxy war still raging in Syria.
    That the US and UK are using terrorists to expedite their respective geopolitical objectives should come as no surprise... What is surprising is that the Western public continues to react emotionally to each terrorist attack individually rather than rationally, seeing the much larger picture and pattern. And until the Western public sees that bigger picture and pattern, fear, injustice, murder, and mayhem will continue to dominate their lives and futures."

    On the same topic, do you support an open immigration to Israel? Or it is antisemitic to ask this question? (on this site: http://www.unz.com/article/international-campaign-is-criminalizing-criticism-of-israel-as-antisemitism)

    My glance at your long quote suggests it is out of date and partly misguided. To be sure a lot of the terrorism and the expense of dealing with it in the UK is a product of foolish although not *entirely* evilly motivated adventures in the Muslim world since 9/11. But Tony Blair has a long history of genuine Christian self delusion with only later necessary (for any PM) connections to big business or other influential lobby groups. I am personally acquainted with people close to his first (Oxford) clergyman mentor and also with an older contemporary at his Oxford college who was surprised to find (as I to hear) that the freshmen had a charismatic leader called Tony Blair. (Well Australia has had several Rhodes Scholar PMs and only one a resounding success, one managing to sound stupid occasionally!)

    How the great increase in domestic terrorist numbers and their dangerous skills resulting from Blair and co’s misbegotten support for US ME policies has been dealt with shows unsurprising mixtures of sound thinking, incompetence, poor information, judgment calls, good and bad luck, and needs no conspiratorial explanations.

    Read More
  145. annamaria says:

    More on the Manchester event: http://www.voltairenet.org/article196455.html

    “According to Scotland Yard, the attack has been perpetrated by Salman Abedi. A bankcard has been conveniently found in the pocket of the mutilated corpse of the ‘terrorist’.
    Salman Abedi was born in the UK of a family of Libyan immigrants. His father Ramadan Abedi is a former officer in [Gaddafi’s] Libyan Intelligence Services. He specialised in the surveillance of the Islamist movement, but two decades later has failed to notice that his son has joined Daesh (IS).
    In 1992, Ramadan Abedi was sent back to Libya by Britain’s MI6 and was involved in a British-devised plot to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi. The operation having been readily exposed, he was exfiltrated by MI6 and transferred back to the UK where he obtained political asylum. … In 1994, Ramadan Abedi returned again to Libya under MI6’s direction. In late 1995 he is involved in the creation of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a local branch of Al-Qaeda.. Ramadan Abedi has linked LIFG members to the formation of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and, in 2011, he takes part in MI6’s ‘Arab Spring’ operations, and in LIFG’s role on the ground in support of NATO.
    … Daesh has claimed responsibility for the Manchester attack, but without describing Salman Abedi as a ‘martyr’. After the assassination, Ramadan Abedi has declared his opposition to jihad in a telephone conversation with journalists. He has also claimed that his son had intended to spend the month of Ramadan [beginning 26 May] with him in Libya and that he is convinced of his innocence.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    Bottom line - published accounts indicate clearly that U.S. government entities and politicians (John McCain) have for many years been working hand-in-glove with IS, furnishing IS with money and matériel, and other types of "facilitation."

    What is harder to gauge is the extent to which major terror incidents in the U.S. and UK are attributable to agents who are or appear to be under the control of intelligence agencies.
  146. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    I think you seriously need to read a history of European philosophy and literature. Yes, there were pessimists and optimists, especially at first. But it would be futile to deny that by the end of the 19th century, pessimists dominated, talk of decadence was everywhere, and a creeping malaise was spreading over Europe. Spengler did not pluck his history out of thin air. Especially after 1914, everyone was talking about how Europe was finished.

    That this widespread European pessimism, this collapse of will, played no role in the rise of the Jews beggars belief - and it indisputably predated the rise of Jews to prominence in Western intellectual life.

    Contrast this with, say, China - there simply is no comparable phenomenon. There were no pessimistic Chinese writers, thinkers, or philosophers. There was no yearning for the exotic. They all thought their culture, people, religion, and way of life, was fantastic.

    What happened in Europe? If you can't answer this, you will never break free. The Jews surely exploited European pessimism, but to say they created it is simply a-historical.

    I am not, of course, a Darwinist, and do not view things from the perspective of material success - but there are few pertinent remarks that can be made here.

    The pursuit of material success is curiously self-undermining - societies who do so, flourish for a while, but burn out.

    Europe's star burned bright for a few centuries, but is now in eclipse. The Jews - they have striven mightily for power and success for the past 200 years, and made a dramatic showing, but their most talented members are assimilating at over 50%, and as Ron Unz has documented, their intellectual brilliance is one the wane.

    There are indications that Jewish intellectual prominence may well be a thing of the past, and we are dealing with a time lag.

    So from the POV of Darwinian material success, both Whites and Jews would *seem* to have developed the best "killer apps", in their different domains- but a closer inspection reveals the rot that lies just beneath the surface.

    Compare to Egypt which lasted 5,000 years, or China with its 3,000 or more. Modern Europe lasted, what - 500 years. Jewish prominence, what - 200 years? Since it isn't over yet, but just declining, lets say 250 years.

    Secondly, the Jewish will to survive as a separate people has a spiritual basis. This is obvious from the fact that Jewish education, and Jewish religion, focus so heavily on maintaining a separate identity, and creates so many strict laws against it. This wouldn't be necessary if this behavior was reliably genetic.

    Our genes always push towards misceganation and assimilation - which is always why laws, social shaming, and other drastic measures have to be taken to counteract it. If it was reliably genetic this wouldn't be so.

    But it would be futile to deny that by the end of the 19th century, pessimists dominated …

    And no one is denying it. You were talking of pessimism from the “beginning in the 18th century …” two hundred years earlier, which is what I commented on. As for after 1914, that’s the 20th Century about which neither you nor I had said anything. So don’t play fast and loose with the facts or lecture me on what I history I should read when you don’t know the difference between the age of reason, and the periods of classical and late modernity.

    That this widespread European pessimism, this collapse of will, played no role in the rise of the Jews beggars belief – and it indisputably predated the rise of Jews to prominence in Western intellectual life.

    What are you saying? Europeans got discouraged and said: “Oh WTF, lets allow the Jews to take over and screw us all”?

    That’s preposterous. The emancipation of Jews in Europe was due to the rise of liberalism and the concomitant decline in Christian religious faith. But loss of faith or adoption of liberalism are not usually taken to have resulted from pessimism. Rather, liberalism arose in association with the growth of global trade, which required dealing in good faith and with mutual respect with people of all kinds both at home and abroad.

    The pursuit of material success is curiously self-undermining – societies who do so, flourish for a while, but burn out.

    That’s all wiffle waffle. The Chinese who you seem to think have always been deliriously happy, are among those most ardent in the pursuit of material success, not only today, but throughout their history. Oh, sure, there was some icing on the cake, an elite who cultivated the literary arts, but that is true of every society. But for most Chinese, throughout the ages, material success was a matter of life of death by starvation, and the struggle to survive has given the Chinese a culture that inculcates the value of endless hard work for material success.

    Compare to Egypt which lasted 5,000 years, or China with its 3,000 or more. Modern Europe lasted, what – 500 years. Jewish prominence, what – 200 years?

    This is more hand waving. The Egyptians have been around a long time, but not necessarily the same people are Egyptians today as were Egyptians in the time of Narma. There were the original Egyptians of undetermined racial origin, who were infiltrated by Nubians, Berbers, Syrians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs, a history no less tumultuous than that of the Jews or the Europeans. The Jews have been an identifiable group for at least 2600 years, and the Europeans of the British Isles have existed in the Isles, with only small additions, since the retreat of the ice, thousands of years ago.

    the Jewish will to survive as a separate people has a spiritual basis. This is obvious from the fact that Jewish education, and Jewish religion, focus so heavily on maintaining a separate identity, and creates so many strict laws against it. This wouldn’t be necessary if this behavior was reliably genetic.

    What has maintaining a separate identity got to do with spirituality? That’s not obvious, it’s bunk. Jews prefer Jews to other people. Jews prefer their own kith and kin to other people. Jews have a legal code which favors Jews and places Jews in a privileged position over non-Jews. That all makes sense in terms of self-serving behavior, but what’s spiritual about it? Nothing. And that Jews have the inclination to serve their own interests at the expense of others is a manifestation of a universal human trait: indeed a universal mammalian trait, a product of natural selection, a consequence of the action of genes in concert with culture.

    Our genes always push towards misceganation [sic] and assimilation

    Hah! Here comes the hard sell bullshit from the guy who isn’t a Darwinist, telling us what our genes do to destroy our own posterity. That’s some Chutzpah.

    which is always why laws, social shaming, and other drastic measures have to be taken to counteract it (i.e., racial mixing)

    Which is what that Jewish invention, political correctness is all about. Right? Er, well, um, no. That has to be Chutzpah squared. Well played Aaron B.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    When people are well informed about racial issues they become more inhibit to mate people of other race of even ethnicity. Today because many people are stupidly {{{bad informed}}} they are more prone to choice people of other race but not exactly because they know what they are doing. The most well informed people about racial or collectively evolutionary issues are usually on the "hard' right wing while those who are insanely wrong at least about very central or holistic racial issues (even because they are not too wrong at all, only in the most important issues) are on the left wing lunacy.

    Interestingly the most conservative of all Jewish sectors: orthodox, look quite mixed with Slavic "neighbors", ;) original joos maybe no have that fair skin and at least 30% of mixed light eyes.
  147. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    You know, CanSpeccy, what I am saying is really not so outlandish.

    Consider that life displays a strange duality - our wants and desires often conflict.

    For example, we want safety, and excitement. Yet they conflict - you have to choose one, or at least balance them out.

    Is it really so crazy an idea that if you choose to maximize technology and science, you might have to sacrifice other good things? That maximizing technical efficiency might make life so colorless and unemotional, so mechanical and dull, that it leads to a radical loss of enthusiasm?

    That doesn't really sound so implausible to me. It seems to obey the basic rule of how our life works - that we are conflicted beings who often desire incompatible goods.

    Now consider this - Europe is distinguished for two unique things beyond all others; technology (rationalism, empiricism, materialism - the whole package), and pessimism.

    Is it really so far-fetched that the two might be related?

    At the very least, this seems like a fruitful field of inquiry, to search for Europe's unique loss of enthusiasm for life (which clearly predates the Jews), where we also find the source of Europe's unique power.

    Now consider this – Europe is distinguished for two unique things beyond all others; technology (rationalism, empiricism, materialism – the whole package), and pessimism.

    My dear fellow, you really should do some fact checking. Europe you say is distinguished for pessimism. On what evidence? You offer none. So here I offer you world suicide stats. With Sri Lanka holding the highest ranking at 35 per 100 K, we have to go 22 places down the list to find the first West European nation, Belgium, which has only half Sri Lanka’s suicide rate. As for the US and Britain, they are way down the list at 48 and 123, respectively, Britain with a rate only one fifth that of Sri Lanka. As for those miserable Jews, Israel is at 143 with hardly any suicides at all. Does that suggest deep Jewish/Western pessimism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Schopenhauer has observed that suicide is an affirmation of life. One loves life so much one feels it is only worth living under certain conditions. Those truly indifferent to life wouldn't care enough to commit suicide. The Romans in their strongest period loved to commit suicide, and the Japanese, as well.

    Anyways.

    CanSpeccy, what are we gonna do with you...you have not been following my arguments closely, and thus make many avoidable logical mistakes. But it is not your fault - I am verbose, and you do not wish to see.

    I will leave with an interesting reflection that occurred to me, but I don't think you'll be able to appreciate it. Its subtle, and goes against the grain of your thought.

    Optimism creates misery - the more optimistic you become, the more unhappy you become. The West became optimistic - i.e optimistic about this world, which means seeking one's happiness in material conditions - but since man cannot find happiness in materialism, "optimism" ultimately leads to nihilism.

    It is why a "pessimistic" religion like Christianity - which was optimistic about man's ultimate destiny, and pessimistic about this world - coincided with the West's greatest period.

    And its why Buddhistic countries are so cheerful and happy - Buddhism being a religion of profound pessimism about this world, but believing an escape from this world is possible, thus not nihilistic.

    Well - I can tell this was already to much for you, so I will leave off. Let those who have ears hear.

    , @dfordoom

    we have to go 22 places down the list to find the first West European nation, Belgium, which has only half Sri Lanka’s suicide rate. As for the US and Britain, they are way down the list at 48 and 123, respectively, Britain with a rate only one fifth that of Sri Lanka. As for those miserable Jews, Israel is at 143 with hardly any suicides at all. Does that suggest deep Jewish/Western pessimism?
     
    It's possible that those who attempt suicide in western countries mostly fail and are saved due to competent medical intervention. In Third World countries suicide attempts might be mostly successful. So those figures might be very unreliable.

    We also need to take into account slow gradual suicides - suicide by alcohol or drug use can take years and isn't going to show up in official statistics. Suicide by cop also doesn'ts how up in official statistics but it's very very common in the US.

    Westerners are also very heavily medicated these days. Taking antidepressants is an alternative to suicide. A very poor alternative but possibly better than blowing one's brains out.

    So the statistics almost certainly do not show a true picture of the actual levels of happiness vs misery in different countries.
  148. AaronB says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Now consider this – Europe is distinguished for two unique things beyond all others; technology (rationalism, empiricism, materialism – the whole package), and pessimism.
     
    My dear fellow, you really should do some fact checking. Europe you say is distinguished for pessimism. On what evidence? You offer none. So here I offer you world suicide stats. With Sri Lanka holding the highest ranking at 35 per 100 K, we have to go 22 places down the list to find the first West European nation, Belgium, which has only half Sri Lanka's suicide rate. As for the US and Britain, they are way down the list at 48 and 123, respectively, Britain with a rate only one fifth that of Sri Lanka. As for those miserable Jews, Israel is at 143 with hardly any suicides at all. Does that suggest deep Jewish/Western pessimism?

    Schopenhauer has observed that suicide is an affirmation of life. One loves life so much one feels it is only worth living under certain conditions. Those truly indifferent to life wouldn’t care enough to commit suicide. The Romans in their strongest period loved to commit suicide, and the Japanese, as well.

    Anyways.

    CanSpeccy, what are we gonna do with you…you have not been following my arguments closely, and thus make many avoidable logical mistakes. But it is not your fault – I am verbose, and you do not wish to see.

    I will leave with an interesting reflection that occurred to me, but I don’t think you’ll be able to appreciate it. Its subtle, and goes against the grain of your thought.

    Optimism creates misery – the more optimistic you become, the more unhappy you become. The West became optimistic – i.e optimistic about this world, which means seeking one’s happiness in material conditions – but since man cannot find happiness in materialism, “optimism” ultimately leads to nihilism.

    It is why a “pessimistic” religion like Christianity – which was optimistic about man’s ultimate destiny, and pessimistic about this world – coincided with the West’s greatest period.

    And its why Buddhistic countries are so cheerful and happy – Buddhism being a religion of profound pessimism about this world, but believing an escape from this world is possible, thus not nihilistic.

    Well – I can tell this was already to much for you, so I will leave off. Let those who have ears hear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Schopenhauer has observed that suicide is an affirmation of life.
     
    Proving that those Sri Lankan Buddhist offing themselves at a world record pace, are really optimists. Obviously we need to up the rate of suicide in Israel: it'd cheer them up a bit. But after you.
    , @Talha
    Hey AaronB,

    Another brother and I immensely enjoyed the exchange. Thanks much for your insights.

    Since genes aren’t intelligent, and this entire process is “blind” – genes that confer a survival advantage get selected for, but don’t themselves choose – then those genes which are peripheral to survival, like hair color, probably do not exert strong selective pressure.
     
    Which is why blond hair is also found in Melanesians independently of Europeans - apparently it is simply an "accident" that was selected for:
    "But a new study fingers a random mutation instead, suggesting that blond hair evolved independently at least twice in human history. And other novel genes, including ones with serious health consequences, may await discovery in understudied populations....The mutation, which has no obvious advantages, likely arose by chance in one individual and drifted to a high frequency in the Solomon Islands because the original population was small..."
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/origin-blond-afros-melanesia

    You mentioned this...

    A society that becomes materialist, loses contact with the spiritual and transcendent, loses the will to live.
     
    Beautiful words - and I would add, that - if that which is transcendent has a will - turning your back on It is small beans compared to It turning It's back on you.
    "...God is free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; then they will not be the likes of you." (47:38)

    However, this is of concern only for metaphysical reasons – on the genetic level, as long as survival is ensured, it matters not at all.
     
    There it is.

    The historian Toynbee stated; man's nature abhors a spiritual vacuum.

    Peace.

    As an aside, you may enjoy this about what is truly rich and truly poor:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLbzYtcMvhc
  149. Seraphim says:
    @utu
    why Jilles Dykstra keeps injecting his trite 1700s diatribes

    I think he genuinely believes it. Several centuries of incessant propaganda and brain washing. In England it was not much better.

    To much brain washing results in brain damage. It flattens the brain circonvolutions which starts behaving like a broken record. Now wonder they believe the myth of the ‘Flatten Earth’ or that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because of his ‘ Copernicanism’ and not for heresy: his utterances that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because of his ‘ Copernicanism’ and not for heresy: his utterances that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
     
    Was Bruno burned because he made all of those utterances, or would just one of them have been enough. And if it was right for the Catholic Church to burn Bruno for one or all such heresies, why don't they keep the bonfires burning to deal with like heresies now?
    , @utu
    It is pretty impressive that the enemies of the Catholic Church managed to get so much mile ache out of poor Giordano Bruno. Catholic Church in Catholic countries did not have to defend itself too much and perhaps because of for this reason Church did not go to the counteroffensive or at least it was not very effective. The disgusting aspects of British history are not widely known. PBS keeps coproducing British miniseries that never touch the actual reality of history and life in Britain. CanSpeccy recently wrote that in Britain there was a tradition for aristocracy to be concerned with the fate of poor. Brits believe that nonsense. And if you watch PBS you may end up believing that too.
  150. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AaronB
    Schopenhauer has observed that suicide is an affirmation of life. One loves life so much one feels it is only worth living under certain conditions. Those truly indifferent to life wouldn't care enough to commit suicide. The Romans in their strongest period loved to commit suicide, and the Japanese, as well.

    Anyways.

    CanSpeccy, what are we gonna do with you...you have not been following my arguments closely, and thus make many avoidable logical mistakes. But it is not your fault - I am verbose, and you do not wish to see.

    I will leave with an interesting reflection that occurred to me, but I don't think you'll be able to appreciate it. Its subtle, and goes against the grain of your thought.

    Optimism creates misery - the more optimistic you become, the more unhappy you become. The West became optimistic - i.e optimistic about this world, which means seeking one's happiness in material conditions - but since man cannot find happiness in materialism, "optimism" ultimately leads to nihilism.

    It is why a "pessimistic" religion like Christianity - which was optimistic about man's ultimate destiny, and pessimistic about this world - coincided with the West's greatest period.

    And its why Buddhistic countries are so cheerful and happy - Buddhism being a religion of profound pessimism about this world, but believing an escape from this world is possible, thus not nihilistic.

    Well - I can tell this was already to much for you, so I will leave off. Let those who have ears hear.

    Schopenhauer has observed that suicide is an affirmation of life.

    Proving that those Sri Lankan Buddhist offing themselves at a world record pace, are really optimists. Obviously we need to up the rate of suicide in Israel: it’d cheer them up a bit. But after you.

    Read More
  151. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Seraphim
    To much brain washing results in brain damage. It flattens the brain circonvolutions which starts behaving like a broken record. Now wonder they believe the myth of the 'Flatten Earth' or that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because of his ' Copernicanism' and not for heresy: his utterances that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

    Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because of his ‘ Copernicanism’ and not for heresy: his utterances that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

    Was Bruno burned because he made all of those utterances, or would just one of them have been enough. And if it was right for the Catholic Church to burn Bruno for one or all such heresies, why don’t they keep the bonfires burning to deal with like heresies now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    And if it was right for the Catholic Church to burn Bruno for one or all such heresies, why don’t they keep the bonfires burning to deal with like heresies now?
     
    The decline of the Church does roughly coincide with the decline of the practice of burning heretics.

    So burning heretics seems to have worked.

    And no, I'm not advocating the practice, merely observing that it was successful in achieving its aims.
  152. Eagle Eye says:
    @annamaria
    More on the Manchester event: http://www.voltairenet.org/article196455.html

    "According to Scotland Yard, the attack has been perpetrated by Salman Abedi. A bankcard has been conveniently found in the pocket of the mutilated corpse of the ‘terrorist’.
    Salman Abedi was born in the UK of a family of Libyan immigrants. His father Ramadan Abedi is a former officer in [Gaddafi’s] Libyan Intelligence Services. He specialised in the surveillance of the Islamist movement, but two decades later has failed to notice that his son has joined Daesh (IS).
    In 1992, Ramadan Abedi was sent back to Libya by Britain’s MI6 and was involved in a British-devised plot to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi. The operation having been readily exposed, he was exfiltrated by MI6 and transferred back to the UK where he obtained political asylum. ... In 1994, Ramadan Abedi returned again to Libya under MI6’s direction. In late 1995 he is involved in the creation of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a local branch of Al-Qaeda.. Ramadan Abedi has linked LIFG members to the formation of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and, in 2011, he takes part in MI6’s ‘Arab Spring’ operations, and in LIFG’s role on the ground in support of NATO.
    ... Daesh has claimed responsibility for the Manchester attack, but without describing Salman Abedi as a ‘martyr’. After the assassination, Ramadan Abedi has declared his opposition to jihad in a telephone conversation with journalists. He has also claimed that his son had intended to spend the month of Ramadan [beginning 26 May] with him in Libya and that he is convinced of his innocence."

    Bottom line – published accounts indicate clearly that U.S. government entities and politicians (John McCain) have for many years been working hand-in-glove with IS, furnishing IS with money and matériel, and other types of “facilitation.”

    What is harder to gauge is the extent to which major terror incidents in the U.S. and UK are attributable to agents who are or appear to be under the control of intelligence agencies.

    Read More
  153. reiner Tor says: • Website
    @iffen
    could you come up with a rough back-of-the-envelope model where people would have a hardwired genetic predisposition to wanting to have many kids yet end up having a different number of kids under different circumstances?

    No.

    That's my point.

    That’s an argument from incredulity.

    You just claimed people have an instinct to have sex. How come people have way more recreational sex now than a hundred years ago, if that instinct is genetic?

    Read More
  154. @CanSpeccy

    But it would be futile to deny that by the end of the 19th century, pessimists dominated ...
     
    And no one is denying it. You were talking of pessimism from the "beginning in the 18th century ..." two hundred years earlier, which is what I commented on. As for after 1914, that's the 20th Century about which neither you nor I had said anything. So don't play fast and loose with the facts or lecture me on what I history I should read when you don't know the difference between the age of reason, and the periods of classical and late modernity.

    That this widespread European pessimism, this collapse of will, played no role in the rise of the Jews beggars belief – and it indisputably predated the rise of Jews to prominence in Western intellectual life.
     
    What are you saying? Europeans got discouraged and said: "Oh WTF, lets allow the Jews to take over and screw us all"?

    That's preposterous. The emancipation of Jews in Europe was due to the rise of liberalism and the concomitant decline in Christian religious faith. But loss of faith or adoption of liberalism are not usually taken to have resulted from pessimism. Rather, liberalism arose in association with the growth of global trade, which required dealing in good faith and with mutual respect with people of all kinds both at home and abroad.

    The pursuit of material success is curiously self-undermining – societies who do so, flourish for a while, but burn out.
     
    That's all wiffle waffle. The Chinese who you seem to think have always been deliriously happy, are among those most ardent in the pursuit of material success, not only today, but throughout their history. Oh, sure, there was some icing on the cake, an elite who cultivated the literary arts, but that is true of every society. But for most Chinese, throughout the ages, material success was a matter of life of death by starvation, and the struggle to survive has given the Chinese a culture that inculcates the value of endless hard work for material success.

    Compare to Egypt which lasted 5,000 years, or China with its 3,000 or more. Modern Europe lasted, what – 500 years. Jewish prominence, what – 200 years?
     
    This is more hand waving. The Egyptians have been around a long time, but not necessarily the same people are Egyptians today as were Egyptians in the time of Narma. There were the original Egyptians of undetermined racial origin, who were infiltrated by Nubians, Berbers, Syrians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs, a history no less tumultuous than that of the Jews or the Europeans. The Jews have been an identifiable group for at least 2600 years, and the Europeans of the British Isles have existed in the Isles, with only small additions, since the retreat of the ice, thousands of years ago.

    the Jewish will to survive as a separate people has a spiritual basis. This is obvious from the fact that Jewish education, and Jewish religion, focus so heavily on maintaining a separate identity, and creates so many strict laws against it. This wouldn’t be necessary if this behavior was reliably genetic.
     
    What has maintaining a separate identity got to do with spirituality? That's not obvious, it's bunk. Jews prefer Jews to other people. Jews prefer their own kith and kin to other people. Jews have a legal code which favors Jews and places Jews in a privileged position over non-Jews. That all makes sense in terms of self-serving behavior, but what's spiritual about it? Nothing. And that Jews have the inclination to serve their own interests at the expense of others is a manifestation of a universal human trait: indeed a universal mammalian trait, a product of natural selection, a consequence of the action of genes in concert with culture.

    Our genes always push towards misceganation [sic] and assimilation
     
    Hah! Here comes the hard sell bullshit from the guy who isn't a Darwinist, telling us what our genes do to destroy our own posterity. That's some Chutzpah.

    which is always why laws, social shaming, and other drastic measures have to be taken to counteract it (i.e., racial mixing)
     
    Which is what that Jewish invention, political correctness is all about. Right? Er, well, um, no. That has to be Chutzpah squared. Well played Aaron B.

    When people are well informed about racial issues they become more inhibit to mate people of other race of even ethnicity. Today because many people are stupidly {{{bad informed}}} they are more prone to choice people of other race but not exactly because they know what they are doing. The most well informed people about racial or collectively evolutionary issues are usually on the “hard’ right wing while those who are insanely wrong at least about very central or holistic racial issues (even because they are not too wrong at all, only in the most important issues) are on the left wing lunacy.

    Interestingly the most conservative of all Jewish sectors: orthodox, look quite mixed with Slavic “neighbors”, ;) original joos maybe no have that fair skin and at least 30% of mixed light eyes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    What constitutes the most adaptive breeding strategy, or rather the most adaptive set of breeding strategies can be a complex issue.

    Before the modern age of ready migration within and between nations, breeding patterns were less complex and much easier to assess for adaptive value than is the case today.

    Then, for males the main objectives were to mate with, and invest in the children of, a the highest-status healthy, well-formed and mentally sound female available, while impregnating any other females available, where to do so entailed little risk of economic cost or legal sanction (e.g., Fyodor Karamazov, in Dostoevsky's the Karamazov Brothers, who fathered a son by the mentally defective "Reeking Lizaveta").

    For females, the objective would be to mate with the most dominant economically or socially advantaged males they could attract and bind in wedlock. That all made sense in Darwinian terms and was consistent with normal human impulses as constrained by prevailing legal codes and religious strictures.

    Today, in the West, given the combination of mass migration and racial mixing together with PC bullshit and universal compulsory sex "education," it might take a Nobel Prize winning evolutionary geneticist with a good grasp of geopolitics to figure out the most adaptive breeding strategy.

    , @Corvinus
    When people are well informed about racial issues they become more inhibit to mate people of other race of even ethnicity. Today because many people are stupidly {{{bad informed}}} they are more prone to choice people of other race but not exactly because they know what they are doing. "

    You are a Fascist. People today are well versed about race and culture. They make their own decisions as to who to date and mate. We don't need you to shame us, at best, or put us at the gulag, at worst, because of your alleged superior insight into these matters.

    "The most well informed people about racial or collectively evolutionary issues are usually on the “hard’ right wing while those who are insanely wrong at least about very central or holistic racial issues (even because they are not too wrong at all, only in the most important issues) are on the left wing lunacy."

    Fake News Story.

    "I know it’s also that way but it’s accessible fact that well-informed people and specially about racial issues tend to be more cautious to mate with people who are of racial, ethnic groups."

    They are not "well-informed", they are merely exercising the liberty. If a white person wants to have children with only white people, fine. Whatever. Same for a white person who wants mate with a non-white person. That is their freedom, their choice. We don't need to be bludgeoned by your virtue signaling here.

  155. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen
    instinctive objective of reproduction

    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    There is an instinct to have sex.

    There is no instinct for reproduction.

    There is an instinct to have sex.

    I think women have an instinct for reproduction. It can be suppressed and a lot of women these days do suppress it. That’s one of the reasons they’re so messed up.

    Read More
  156. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Alden
    I think Araonb means that if only Europeans would start going to church and sincerely believing in religion again they could somehow withstand both mass Muslim immigration and the imposition of mass Muslim immigration by the upper classes.
    I think he substitutes materialism for atheism and agnosticism. His comments are not easy to understand.

    I think Araonb means that if only Europeans would start going to church and sincerely believing in religion again they could somehow withstand both mass Muslim immigration and the imposition of mass Muslim immigration by the upper classes.

    I think he’s correct up to a point – if Europeans did start going to church and sincerely believing in religion again they could resist the evils of both mass immigration and cultural marxism.

    The problem is not that faith has failed. Christianity has failed. It is now a small and steadily declining religion and what’s left of it is now so infected by cultural marxism that Christianity as it exists today is itself a dire threat to western survival.

    If Europeans could be persuaded to once again embrace the Christianity of the Middle Ages they’d survive. But they aren’t going to do that. I’d be happy if they did but they won’t.

    Materialism and atheism are clearly dead ends.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    The risk to be dependent on any ''church'' is that people become bovinized, if church say ''diversity is good'' A LOT OF people and worst, a lot of FERTILIZABLE people will follow without more criticism. Yes, by now the only way to to stanc off European demographic haemorrhage is seeking for the stray sheep but with some chance to return to the old cult, but for the future, this crap must cease to exist, real/rational kindness and artistic beauty can survive without having these Semitic leeches or even any other cultural allegory taken as the factual reality. Myths can exist, but people need to be smart enough to know how to differentiate the myth from a fact.
  157. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Harold
    They're not materialist, they get a spiritual, transcendent joy from their PC ideology.

    They’re not materialist, they get a spiritual, transcendent joy from their PC ideology.

    I’ve never seen much sign of joy among them. Followers of the PC cult seem to be mostly angry, bitter and miserable. They do have a sense of self-righteousness though. It still doesn’t seem to make them happy.

    Read More
  158. dfordoom says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    My point is it won’t actually get done [i.e., an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration] if it is advocated on the grounds of genes or ethnic genetic interests.
     
    So on what grounds would you advocate an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration?

    You comment is as fatuous as that of Aaron B, who says we should improve our metaphysics, or Frau Merkel who says (5 minutes +) Germans worried about mass immigration of single-male, rape-culture Syrians should "just go to church more often or look at a picture."

    The open borders lobby WANT ethnic genetic interests to be the reason
     
    Bollocks. They never state that genocide is their reason. Traitors like Tony Blair will tell you "Mass immigration is good for the economy," which is a lie if you think a good economy means an economy that is good for the people: Britain has one of the lowest rates of GDP growth per capita in the G2o, for the obvious reason that they have soaked up a vast quantity of cheap, low-productivity foreign labor.

    Your idea that people in Europe don't care about being genocided is inane. That they have been made a minority in their own home by people of an alien race, culture and religion is the consequence of mass immigration that Europeans who remain in such places as London, Birmingham, Luton and Leicester are most acutely aware and mostly deeply angry about, as would be obvious to anyone who knew or even thought for a moment about what is happening.

    But naturally those plotting the destruction of the European peoples don't want their work labelled for what it is, genocide, as neither, apparently, do you.

    So on what grounds would you advocate an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration?

    I agree that any argument against immigration based on genetic/racial grounds is likely to fail. It’s too easy to demonise such a position.

    There are plenty of other extremely good reasons to oppose immigration. Cultural, economic and environmental arguments are more difficult to demonise.

    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.

    The good thing about this particular argument is that you can point out that there is a country that is trying very hard to maintain the survival of its own ethnic/religious/cultural group and that country is called Israel.

    If you’re genuinely in favour of open borders you’re antisemitic!

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I agree that any argument against immigration based on genetic/racial grounds is likely to fail. It’s too easy to demonize such a position.
     
    Well obviously you demonize your opponents strongest argument. But the Jews have done pretty well demonizing those who deny the Holocaust. Why are Europeans so sure to fail in demonizing those who deny the present-day, ongoing Holocaust of the European nations?

    Obviously the megalomaniac Jews for rule over the nations of the earth, as commanded in the Torah by that old fucker YHWH, and the Treason Party Plutocrats for global governance in place of sovereign state democracy will demonize those opposed to the genocide of their own people. But so what? They will demonize any one and any argument that gets in their way.
    , @Sean
    Is demonisation the reason genetic arguments don't work? I think people have an innate propensity (social identity theory) to seoing themselves as members of a group. and defending it. Evolutionary arguments are like pointing out the objectively superior reproductive potential of a woman (waist to hip ratio ect) . Be that as it may such knowledge is a poor motive compared to lust or love.

    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.
    The good thing about this particular argument is that you can point out that there is a country that is trying very hard to maintain the survival of its own ethnic/religious/cultural group and that country is called Israel.
     
    The bad thing about that particular argument is that is assumes that
    1) People in power will not be capable of violating the Golden Rule for Israel's sake.
    2) People in power won't destroy both the West and Israel

    I think 2 is the real problem, because if Israel ran the West the two state solution would not be US State department policy, and subscribes to be almost every politician including Clinton and Obama--who called a palestinian state inevitable. Many of anti Israel occupation of the WesBank activists are W.E.I. R.D. WHITE GENTILE social justice warriors who want to save the immigrants and hate white nationalists more than anything.

    Brexit was an anti European immigrant vote. National feeling was as offended, and nationalism not evolutionism (or white nationalism which is a totally different beast--UK WNs welcome Poles ect) . Nationalism is the key to mobilising the population.

    Theresa May has gone from being mocked in 2015 as an over the hill politician with no future, to becoming the most popular of modern times http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-more-popular-than-the-tory-party-conservatives-jeremy-corbyn-labour-poll-orb-tim-farron-a7735091.html

    How has she achieved this level of popularity? A good example is the way she accused the EU (Germany) of interfering in UK’s general election


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/germany-interfering-general-election-undermine-theresa-may/

    Speaking outside Downing Street, Ms May also tore into some EU leaders and officials and said Britain would not allow the “bureaucrats of Brussels to run over us”.
     

    , @utu
    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.

    Yes, that is the best argument.
    , @Corvinus
    "I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity."

    There has never been such a thing as "zero diversity", given the fact that ethnic groups have historically bred with one another.

    You also have a peculiar way of defining "real diversity". Racial, ethnic, and cultural groups are surviving and thriving by intermingling with one another.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html
  159. dfordoom says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    The briefest survey of Western literature and philosophy will reveal that Western elites began to experience extreme disaffection beginning in the 18th century
     
    dis·af·fec·tion,
    noun.
    a state or feeling of being dissatisfied with the people in authority and no longer willing to support them.

    So forget your first sentence.


    ... beginning in the 18th century ... Deep pessimism was the keynote, the banality and pointlessness of life under capitalism and mechanization was the motif, a collapse of will was everywhere observed, and a yearning for escape to the exotic was characteristic.
     
    Quite wrong. The beginning of the 18th Century, marked in England, the beginning of the new era of post-monarchical government, which followed the Glorious Revolution and the expulsion of James II. It was the beginning of an age of huge optimism, at least among the upper classes, which was sparked by rapidly expanding trade and industrial development. Hence the Whig view of history, as exemplified by Thomas Macaulay's History of England from the Accession of James II, a work so popular that it made Macaulay the World's first literary millionaire.

    I basically agree with you about Jewish behavior, but I think its pathological. I don’t think its a ‘successful evolutionary strategy’, but a tragic mistake. Jewish behavior must be fought without compromise without losing sight of this fact.

    But that is because I am not a materialist – this is crucial.
     

    I can respect your opinion, but the fact is what you refer to as "Jewish behavior" goes back thousands of years as one finds from reading the Torah. Moreover, whatever its consequences for human happiness, it is strictly aligned with what a Darwinian would consider adaptive behavior. Adaptive, anyhow, so far as it succeeds in its objectives. To a Darwinian, whether such behavior makes a person happy is immaterial. Apparently Jews haven't worried too much about that either, hence their persistence as a nation and their extraordinary material successes.

    The West is finally emerging from their great curse, and if they manage to avoid suicide and come to their senses in time – by no means certain – have a chance at regaining their soul
     
    The problem for ordinary folk in the West is not avoiding suicide rather it's avoiding having their kith and kin being suicided. Should they somehow dodge the program of racial and cultural extermination for which they are surely targetted, then will be a time to think about the state of their souls.

    Quite wrong. The beginning of the 18th Century, marked in England, the beginning of the new era of post-monarchical government, which followed the Glorious Revolution and the expulsion of James II. It was the beginning of an age of huge optimism, at least among the upper classes,

    True. But the pessimism was certainly becoming obvious in the 19th century and was widespread by the end of that century.

    That was one of the causes of the First World War – an irrational belief that war would somehow restore Europe’s vitality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    But the pessimism was certainly becoming obvious in the 19th century and was widespread by the end of that century.
     
    Yeah, well Thomas Carlyle was certainly pretty cranky about industrialism and other developments. Still, he might not have been so pessimistic had his marriage not gone unconsummated.
  160. dfordoom says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    Now consider this – Europe is distinguished for two unique things beyond all others; technology (rationalism, empiricism, materialism – the whole package), and pessimism.
     
    My dear fellow, you really should do some fact checking. Europe you say is distinguished for pessimism. On what evidence? You offer none. So here I offer you world suicide stats. With Sri Lanka holding the highest ranking at 35 per 100 K, we have to go 22 places down the list to find the first West European nation, Belgium, which has only half Sri Lanka's suicide rate. As for the US and Britain, they are way down the list at 48 and 123, respectively, Britain with a rate only one fifth that of Sri Lanka. As for those miserable Jews, Israel is at 143 with hardly any suicides at all. Does that suggest deep Jewish/Western pessimism?

    we have to go 22 places down the list to find the first West European nation, Belgium, which has only half Sri Lanka’s suicide rate. As for the US and Britain, they are way down the list at 48 and 123, respectively, Britain with a rate only one fifth that of Sri Lanka. As for those miserable Jews, Israel is at 143 with hardly any suicides at all. Does that suggest deep Jewish/Western pessimism?

    It’s possible that those who attempt suicide in western countries mostly fail and are saved due to competent medical intervention. In Third World countries suicide attempts might be mostly successful. So those figures might be very unreliable.

    We also need to take into account slow gradual suicides – suicide by alcohol or drug use can take years and isn’t going to show up in official statistics. Suicide by cop also doesn’ts how up in official statistics but it’s very very common in the US.

    Westerners are also very heavily medicated these days. Taking antidepressants is an alternative to suicide. A very poor alternative but possibly better than blowing one’s brains out.

    So the statistics almost certainly do not show a true picture of the actual levels of happiness vs misery in different countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Sure, the suicide rate cannot be a perfect measure of national optimism/pessimism, although judging by this Gallup survey there seems to be some connection. And just about any measure is surely better than the ravings of some 19th Century German philosopher.

    What the Gallup data indicate is that the people of countries with rapid economic growth and relative independence of the US hegemon are generally optimistic. For example, China, India and Bangladesh have 76, 60 and 81% of the population rated optimistic, whereas those with stagnant economies and that are subordinate to US/NATO are generally pessimistic. For example, in the UK, Israel, Palestine, Bulgaria, Belgium, Japan, Italy and Greece only around 20% of the population are optimistic.

    It seems that at the emotional level, at least, people know when they are being pissed on by their elites or are being led in the right direction.

  161. @dfordoom

    I think Araonb means that if only Europeans would start going to church and sincerely believing in religion again they could somehow withstand both mass Muslim immigration and the imposition of mass Muslim immigration by the upper classes.
     
    I think he's correct up to a point - if Europeans did start going to church and sincerely believing in religion again they could resist the evils of both mass immigration and cultural marxism.

    The problem is not that faith has failed. Christianity has failed. It is now a small and steadily declining religion and what's left of it is now so infected by cultural marxism that Christianity as it exists today is itself a dire threat to western survival.

    If Europeans could be persuaded to once again embrace the Christianity of the Middle Ages they'd survive. But they aren't going to do that. I'd be happy if they did but they won't.

    Materialism and atheism are clearly dead ends.

    The risk to be dependent on any ”church” is that people become bovinized, if church say ”diversity is good” A LOT OF people and worst, a lot of FERTILIZABLE people will follow without more criticism. Yes, by now the only way to to stanc off European demographic haemorrhage is seeking for the stray sheep but with some chance to return to the old cult, but for the future, this crap must cease to exist, real/rational kindness and artistic beauty can survive without having these Semitic leeches or even any other cultural allegory taken as the factual reality. Myths can exist, but people need to be smart enough to know how to differentiate the myth from a fact.

    Read More
  162. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    So on what grounds would you advocate an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration?
     
    I agree that any argument against immigration based on genetic/racial grounds is likely to fail. It's too easy to demonise such a position.

    There are plenty of other extremely good reasons to oppose immigration. Cultural, economic and environmental arguments are more difficult to demonise.

    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.

    The good thing about this particular argument is that you can point out that there is a country that is trying very hard to maintain the survival of its own ethnic/religious/cultural group and that country is called Israel.

    If you're genuinely in favour of open borders you're antisemitic!

    I agree that any argument against immigration based on genetic/racial grounds is likely to fail. It’s too easy to demonize such a position.

    Well obviously you demonize your opponents strongest argument. But the Jews have done pretty well demonizing those who deny the Holocaust. Why are Europeans so sure to fail in demonizing those who deny the present-day, ongoing Holocaust of the European nations?

    Obviously the megalomaniac Jews for rule over the nations of the earth, as commanded in the Torah by that old fucker YHWH, and the Treason Party Plutocrats for global governance in place of sovereign state democracy will demonize those opposed to the genocide of their own people. But so what? They will demonize any one and any argument that gets in their way.

    Read More
  163. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto
    When people are well informed about racial issues they become more inhibit to mate people of other race of even ethnicity. Today because many people are stupidly {{{bad informed}}} they are more prone to choice people of other race but not exactly because they know what they are doing. The most well informed people about racial or collectively evolutionary issues are usually on the "hard' right wing while those who are insanely wrong at least about very central or holistic racial issues (even because they are not too wrong at all, only in the most important issues) are on the left wing lunacy.

    Interestingly the most conservative of all Jewish sectors: orthodox, look quite mixed with Slavic "neighbors", ;) original joos maybe no have that fair skin and at least 30% of mixed light eyes.

    What constitutes the most adaptive breeding strategy, or rather the most adaptive set of breeding strategies can be a complex issue.

    Before the modern age of ready migration within and between nations, breeding patterns were less complex and much easier to assess for adaptive value than is the case today.

    Then, for males the main objectives were to mate with, and invest in the children of, a the highest-status healthy, well-formed and mentally sound female available, while impregnating any other females available, where to do so entailed little risk of economic cost or legal sanction (e.g., Fyodor Karamazov, in Dostoevsky’s the Karamazov Brothers, who fathered a son by the mentally defective “Reeking Lizaveta”).

    For females, the objective would be to mate with the most dominant economically or socially advantaged males they could attract and bind in wedlock. That all made sense in Darwinian terms and was consistent with normal human impulses as constrained by prevailing legal codes and religious strictures.

    Today, in the West, given the combination of mass migration and racial mixing together with PC bullshit and universal compulsory sex “education,” it might take a Nobel Prize winning evolutionary geneticist with a good grasp of geopolitics to figure out the most adaptive breeding strategy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I know it's also that way but it's accessible fact that well-informed people and specially about racial issues tend to be more cautious to mate with people who are of racial, ethnic groups.
    , @Corvinus
    "What constitutes the most adaptive breeding strategy, or rather the most adaptive set of breeding strategies can be a complex issue."

    Most human beings do not take this approach. People generally do not consciously lay out a step by step "breeding plan". They find someone attractive who has attractive qualities to them, date for an extended period of time, get married, and have children.

    "Then, for males the main objectives were to mate with, and invest in the children of, a the highest-status healthy, well-formed and mentally sound female available, while impregnating any other females available, where to do so entailed little risk of economic cost or legal sanction (e.g., Fyodor Karamazov, in Dostoevsky’s the Karamazov Brothers, who fathered a son by the mentally defective “Reeking Lizaveta”)."

    Yes, the glorious past.

    "For females, the objective would be to mate with the most dominant economically or socially advantaged males they could attract and bind in wedlock. That all made sense in Darwinian terms and was consistent with normal human impulses as constrained by prevailing legal codes and religious strictures."

    Yes, the glorious past.

    "Today, in the West, given the combination of mass migration and racial mixing together with PC bullshit and universal compulsory sex “education,” it might take a Nobel Prize winning evolutionary geneticist with a good grasp of geopolitics to figure out the most adaptive breeding strategy."

    The most adaptive breeding strategy is for each individual to decide for themselves. Mass migration and race mixing are inevitable. I suggest you be an adult and deal with this phenomenon.
  164. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    Quite wrong. The beginning of the 18th Century, marked in England, the beginning of the new era of post-monarchical government, which followed the Glorious Revolution and the expulsion of James II. It was the beginning of an age of huge optimism, at least among the upper classes,
     
    True. But the pessimism was certainly becoming obvious in the 19th century and was widespread by the end of that century.

    That was one of the causes of the First World War - an irrational belief that war would somehow restore Europe's vitality.

    But the pessimism was certainly becoming obvious in the 19th century and was widespread by the end of that century.

    Yeah, well Thomas Carlyle was certainly pretty cranky about industrialism and other developments. Still, he might not have been so pessimistic had his marriage not gone unconsummated.

    Read More
  165. dfordoom says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because of his ‘ Copernicanism’ and not for heresy: his utterances that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.
     
    Was Bruno burned because he made all of those utterances, or would just one of them have been enough. And if it was right for the Catholic Church to burn Bruno for one or all such heresies, why don't they keep the bonfires burning to deal with like heresies now?

    And if it was right for the Catholic Church to burn Bruno for one or all such heresies, why don’t they keep the bonfires burning to deal with like heresies now?

    The decline of the Church does roughly coincide with the decline of the practice of burning heretics.

    So burning heretics seems to have worked.

    And no, I’m not advocating the practice, merely observing that it was successful in achieving its aims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    So burning heretics seems to have worked.

    And no, I’m not advocating the practice
     
    Well what about droning people? That's the modern equivalent to burning, as on a bonfire, of those who challenge the Globo-Plutocratic-PC order.
  166. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    we have to go 22 places down the list to find the first West European nation, Belgium, which has only half Sri Lanka’s suicide rate. As for the US and Britain, they are way down the list at 48 and 123, respectively, Britain with a rate only one fifth that of Sri Lanka. As for those miserable Jews, Israel is at 143 with hardly any suicides at all. Does that suggest deep Jewish/Western pessimism?
     
    It's possible that those who attempt suicide in western countries mostly fail and are saved due to competent medical intervention. In Third World countries suicide attempts might be mostly successful. So those figures might be very unreliable.

    We also need to take into account slow gradual suicides - suicide by alcohol or drug use can take years and isn't going to show up in official statistics. Suicide by cop also doesn'ts how up in official statistics but it's very very common in the US.

    Westerners are also very heavily medicated these days. Taking antidepressants is an alternative to suicide. A very poor alternative but possibly better than blowing one's brains out.

    So the statistics almost certainly do not show a true picture of the actual levels of happiness vs misery in different countries.

    Sure, the suicide rate cannot be a perfect measure of national optimism/pessimism, although judging by this Gallup survey there seems to be some connection. And just about any measure is surely better than the ravings of some 19th Century German philosopher.

    What the Gallup data indicate is that the people of countries with rapid economic growth and relative independence of the US hegemon are generally optimistic. For example, China, India and Bangladesh have 76, 60 and 81% of the population rated optimistic, whereas those with stagnant economies and that are subordinate to US/NATO are generally pessimistic. For example, in the UK, Israel, Palestine, Bulgaria, Belgium, Japan, Italy and Greece only around 20% of the population are optimistic.

    It seems that at the emotional level, at least, people know when they are being pissed on by their elites or are being led in the right direction.

    Read More
  167. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    And if it was right for the Catholic Church to burn Bruno for one or all such heresies, why don’t they keep the bonfires burning to deal with like heresies now?
     
    The decline of the Church does roughly coincide with the decline of the practice of burning heretics.

    So burning heretics seems to have worked.

    And no, I'm not advocating the practice, merely observing that it was successful in achieving its aims.

    So burning heretics seems to have worked.

    And no, I’m not advocating the practice

    Well what about droning people? That’s the modern equivalent to burning, as on a bonfire, of those who challenge the Globo-Plutocratic-PC order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Well what about droning people? That’s the modern equivalent to burning, as on a bonfire, of those who challenge the Globo-Plutocratic-PC order.
     
    Agreed.

    And while heretics are no longer burnt in western countries heretics against PC know that they can have their livelihoods taken away. Which can result in their losing their families as well. So they're effectively destroyed. The intention is the same. And in Britain and some European countries they will actually send you to prison if your heresy is serious enough.

    The Catholic Church might have ceased hunting down and destroying heretics but the Church of Political Correctness is very very enthusiastic about rooting out heresy.
  168. @CanSpeccy
    What constitutes the most adaptive breeding strategy, or rather the most adaptive set of breeding strategies can be a complex issue.

    Before the modern age of ready migration within and between nations, breeding patterns were less complex and much easier to assess for adaptive value than is the case today.

    Then, for males the main objectives were to mate with, and invest in the children of, a the highest-status healthy, well-formed and mentally sound female available, while impregnating any other females available, where to do so entailed little risk of economic cost or legal sanction (e.g., Fyodor Karamazov, in Dostoevsky's the Karamazov Brothers, who fathered a son by the mentally defective "Reeking Lizaveta").

    For females, the objective would be to mate with the most dominant economically or socially advantaged males they could attract and bind in wedlock. That all made sense in Darwinian terms and was consistent with normal human impulses as constrained by prevailing legal codes and religious strictures.

    Today, in the West, given the combination of mass migration and racial mixing together with PC bullshit and universal compulsory sex "education," it might take a Nobel Prize winning evolutionary geneticist with a good grasp of geopolitics to figure out the most adaptive breeding strategy.

    I know it’s also that way but it’s accessible fact that well-informed people and specially about racial issues tend to be more cautious to mate with people who are of racial, ethnic groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Better informed people, i.e., the better educated, probably have more freedom of choice.
  169. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto
    I know it's also that way but it's accessible fact that well-informed people and specially about racial issues tend to be more cautious to mate with people who are of racial, ethnic groups.

    Better informed people, i.e., the better educated, probably have more freedom of choice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    No. Better informed people and about racial issues are not necessarily better educated, otherwise or quasi otherwise, a lot of better educated people are very bad informed about this issues.

    What I said. They, the illibs are not wrong in everything about this issues, the difference is that they are peripherally correct but the simple fact they stubbornly believe that human races don't exist they already are essentially wrong about this stuff.
  170. Corvinus says:
    @Santoculto
    When people are well informed about racial issues they become more inhibit to mate people of other race of even ethnicity. Today because many people are stupidly {{{bad informed}}} they are more prone to choice people of other race but not exactly because they know what they are doing. The most well informed people about racial or collectively evolutionary issues are usually on the "hard' right wing while those who are insanely wrong at least about very central or holistic racial issues (even because they are not too wrong at all, only in the most important issues) are on the left wing lunacy.

    Interestingly the most conservative of all Jewish sectors: orthodox, look quite mixed with Slavic "neighbors", ;) original joos maybe no have that fair skin and at least 30% of mixed light eyes.

    When people are well informed about racial issues they become more inhibit to mate people of other race of even ethnicity. Today because many people are stupidly {{{bad informed}}} they are more prone to choice people of other race but not exactly because they know what they are doing. ”

    You are a Fascist. People today are well versed about race and culture. They make their own decisions as to who to date and mate. We don’t need you to shame us, at best, or put us at the gulag, at worst, because of your alleged superior insight into these matters.

    “The most well informed people about racial or collectively evolutionary issues are usually on the “hard’ right wing while those who are insanely wrong at least about very central or holistic racial issues (even because they are not too wrong at all, only in the most important issues) are on the left wing lunacy.”

    Fake News Story.

    “I know it’s also that way but it’s accessible fact that well-informed people and specially about racial issues tend to be more cautious to mate with people who are of racial, ethnic groups.”

    They are not “well-informed”, they are merely exercising the liberty. If a white person wants to have children with only white people, fine. Whatever. Same for a white person who wants mate with a non-white person. That is their freedom, their choice. We don’t need to be bludgeoned by your virtue signaling here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Huuum
    No.

    Try tomorrow

    It's a illusion to think people today have chance to choice. Only real capacity to choice is via knowledge and understanding. We can say there are a lot of mixe racers who are aware about REAL racial issues and not (((ZOMBIE))) ones. But majority of mixed racers are stupidly bad informed that races don't exist or it's not relevant, racism is pure and irrational evil and everyone is the same. In mein view stupid ILLIBITARDS can mix freely!! Before it's just take control again, ;)

    If you "hate" the word fascism ok it's what I'm.

  171. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy
    What constitutes the most adaptive breeding strategy, or rather the most adaptive set of breeding strategies can be a complex issue.

    Before the modern age of ready migration within and between nations, breeding patterns were less complex and much easier to assess for adaptive value than is the case today.

    Then, for males the main objectives were to mate with, and invest in the children of, a the highest-status healthy, well-formed and mentally sound female available, while impregnating any other females available, where to do so entailed little risk of economic cost or legal sanction (e.g., Fyodor Karamazov, in Dostoevsky's the Karamazov Brothers, who fathered a son by the mentally defective "Reeking Lizaveta").

    For females, the objective would be to mate with the most dominant economically or socially advantaged males they could attract and bind in wedlock. That all made sense in Darwinian terms and was consistent with normal human impulses as constrained by prevailing legal codes and religious strictures.

    Today, in the West, given the combination of mass migration and racial mixing together with PC bullshit and universal compulsory sex "education," it might take a Nobel Prize winning evolutionary geneticist with a good grasp of geopolitics to figure out the most adaptive breeding strategy.

    “What constitutes the most adaptive breeding strategy, or rather the most adaptive set of breeding strategies can be a complex issue.”

    Most human beings do not take this approach. People generally do not consciously lay out a step by step “breeding plan”. They find someone attractive who has attractive qualities to them, date for an extended period of time, get married, and have children.

    “Then, for males the main objectives were to mate with, and invest in the children of, a the highest-status healthy, well-formed and mentally sound female available, while impregnating any other females available, where to do so entailed little risk of economic cost or legal sanction (e.g., Fyodor Karamazov, in Dostoevsky’s the Karamazov Brothers, who fathered a son by the mentally defective “Reeking Lizaveta”).”

    Yes, the glorious past.

    “For females, the objective would be to mate with the most dominant economically or socially advantaged males they could attract and bind in wedlock. That all made sense in Darwinian terms and was consistent with normal human impulses as constrained by prevailing legal codes and religious strictures.”

    Yes, the glorious past.

    “Today, in the West, given the combination of mass migration and racial mixing together with PC bullshit and universal compulsory sex “education,” it might take a Nobel Prize winning evolutionary geneticist with a good grasp of geopolitics to figure out the most adaptive breeding strategy.”

    The most adaptive breeding strategy is for each individual to decide for themselves. Mass migration and race mixing are inevitable. I suggest you be an adult and deal with this phenomenon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    People generally do not consciously lay out a step by step “breeding plan”.
     
    Of course not. The point is that, dictated by genetically determined drives, behavior nevertheless usually approximates to what, in evolutionary terms, is an optimum reproductive strategy.
    , @CanSpeccy

    Yes, the glorious past.
     
    And future.

    Emotional drives will remain the same. Thus, in impulse, men will remain polygamous, women monogamous, and both men and women will, all other things being equal, prefer partners of their own kind rather than of another kind. Thus, mating behaviors will still tend to approximate to optimal strategies for achieving genetic representation in future generations.

    Meantime, the Treason Party will continue its efforts via the media and compulsory sex "education" to disrupt normal adaptive behavior by promoting pornograpy, queerdom, onanism, and every other form of non-reproductive sex, while disparaging every defense of the indigenous population as a racial and cultural entity.

    You, I take it, are in full accord with the Treason Party.

    But as for your Lord and Savior, was he really a member of the Treason Party? Or was he a Jew, preaching to Jews. A man insistent that:


    until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law.
     
    A law ingeniously designed to promote the evolutionary success of one small Semitic tribe.
    , @geokat62

    Mass migration and race mixing are inevitable. I suggest you be an adult and deal with this phenomenon.
     
    If this phenomenon is inevitable, as you suggest, do you believe Israel will fail in its mission to be a Jewish state? Moreover, since you are a self-declared progressive, do you believe that Zionists are racists for wishing to establish an ethno state - i.e., are you an anti-Zionist because you believe in the inevitability and goodness of the mixing of all peoples and all races?
  172. Jake says:

    “why don’t these White people become vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?

    This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests.”

    I think it makes sense, but then I start from a place that you, Dr. McDonald, do not. The bleeding, stinking Jesus thing changed the world. It can never be simply ignored by those who have been bound to it. Jews by definition are anti-Christ. That guarantees that Jews in every country and every period of history will try to fill their spiritual void with 2 things: ill gotten wealth and revolution against everything that is connected to Christian morality and identity. Jews in rejecting Christ instead took the bribe that Satan had offered Jesus in the desert.

    That means, of course, that any European people that become decidedly focused on helping Jews, uplifting Jews, saving Jews from those tired of being cheated by Jews, will prepare the bed of their subsequent decadence, which will feature their Elites allying with Jews against their own poorer people.

    Jews in choosing anti-Christ do not have a death wish, in part because they are the special race to serve the cause of anti-Christ. But white Gentiles deciding to brush off Christendom and then to prove they could make something better? Well, they, at least the most powerful among them, are examples of gaining the whole world and losing your soul. England did that. So did Germany. So did France. So did Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, eventually even Spain, Portugal, Scotland, and Ireland. And the USA certainly has done it.

    Whites began the process of cultural and genetic suicide with their rebellion against Christendom. Are you aware that Jews printed the vast majority of early Protestant tracts, often at cost? Jews knew how much trouble the Reformation would cause to Christendom and thus to whites and their cultures. They knew it would fracture Christendom, and perhaps that the fracturing of Christendom would lead to individual atomization.

    The process will not stop, much less reverse, save in nations that go against the tide of secular Modernity to back track toward Christendom. Russia seems to be started on that road, as does Hungary. Poland as well.

    I have my doubts that any WASP nation will survive. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were the biggest, most vicious, Judaizers of the Reformation. Their cultural fruit is hardcore philoSemitism. The English language will survive, however degraded, but all WASP run countries seem dead-set on replacing their genetics with the blacks and browns of the world. The sheer insanity can be seen best, I think, in whites working overtime to make certain that no truly conservative Christian revival gets a sound footing, while simultaneously lauding the rise Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Santeria, African animism in their backyards.

    They are culturally suicidal, which leads inevitably to genetic suicide. They are insane, and you will never cure their insanity with talk of white pride. Mainline Protestantism is absolutely central to the problem. As is genteel agnosticism. As is wallowing in the sexual revolution. As is continuing indulgence in traditional Germanic sense of the inferiority of ‘Other’ whites (the way the English see Celts and the Germans see Slavs).

    No WASP-inspired plan will achieve more than a brief treading of water. The only thing that can work is a return to the values and basic identity of pre-Modern, of medieval, Christian Europe. Russians know that. It is the reason the novel Laurus immediately became beloved by moderate and traditional Russians. They know what they must recover in order not to murder their culture.

    But those os us in the WASP controlled world? We may well prefer cultural and genetic suicide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    all WASP run countries seem dead-set on replacing their genetics with the blacks and browns of the world. The sheer insanity can be seen best, I think, in whites working overtime to make certain that no truly conservative Christian revival gets a sound footing, while simultaneously lauding the rise Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Santeria, African animism in their backyards.
     
    What are these WASP-run countries?

    Most of the Western nations are run not by WASPS but by indigenous atheists offering a vague pretence of Christian faith (spirituality, as Phony Bliar calls it), plus Jews, Muslims, Indians, Pakistanis, Africans and all the rest of the PC-advantaged crew. The great majority of the indigenous people of those countries, 70% at least, are dead against mass immigration, as opinion polls in Britain, for example, have shown for many years.

    So, it''s not difficult to see what is happening. The people are being genocided by there own government, best understood as a Treason Party.

    That Hungary and Poland have a Catholic tradition is surely unrelated to the fact that their governments are resisting the US-driven European genocide, since the Pope, like Obama, is an outspoken opponent of walls — except of course around his own place.

    , @Santoculto
    Because evolutionary narrative or perspective look so essential most people here seems believe regular ones think in the same way.
    , @CanSpeccy

    Whites began the process of cultural and genetic suicide with their rebellion against Christendom.
     
    That makes little sense in view of the fact that Christianity is a universalist religion, and the Catholic Church a Roman invention designed to bind together a multi-culti, and multi-racial empire. The Catholic church is playing that same game today in the service of the Globo elite.

    The Anglican church is no better. It is a rather feeble instrument of state, headed by a former oil company money man and probable security service operative, to bind the multi-culti and multi-racial British Empire turned Commonwealth.

    It is time for Europeans to ditch Christ and return to the worship of national pagan gods. The Brits could begin by sacrificing some disgraced puppet of the deep state, Tony Blair for example, at exactly 12 noon on midsummer's day on an altar of national unity to be erected at Stone Henge.

  173. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Jake
    "why don’t these White people become vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?

    This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    I think it makes sense, but then I start from a place that you, Dr. McDonald, do not. The bleeding, stinking Jesus thing changed the world. It can never be simply ignored by those who have been bound to it. Jews by definition are anti-Christ. That guarantees that Jews in every country and every period of history will try to fill their spiritual void with 2 things: ill gotten wealth and revolution against everything that is connected to Christian morality and identity. Jews in rejecting Christ instead took the bribe that Satan had offered Jesus in the desert.

    That means, of course, that any European people that become decidedly focused on helping Jews, uplifting Jews, saving Jews from those tired of being cheated by Jews, will prepare the bed of their subsequent decadence, which will feature their Elites allying with Jews against their own poorer people.

    Jews in choosing anti-Christ do not have a death wish, in part because they are the special race to serve the cause of anti-Christ. But white Gentiles deciding to brush off Christendom and then to prove they could make something better? Well, they, at least the most powerful among them, are examples of gaining the whole world and losing your soul. England did that. So did Germany. So did France. So did Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, eventually even Spain, Portugal, Scotland, and Ireland. And the USA certainly has done it.

    Whites began the process of cultural and genetic suicide with their rebellion against Christendom. Are you aware that Jews printed the vast majority of early Protestant tracts, often at cost? Jews knew how much trouble the Reformation would cause to Christendom and thus to whites and their cultures. They knew it would fracture Christendom, and perhaps that the fracturing of Christendom would lead to individual atomization.

    The process will not stop, much less reverse, save in nations that go against the tide of secular Modernity to back track toward Christendom. Russia seems to be started on that road, as does Hungary. Poland as well.

    I have my doubts that any WASP nation will survive. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were the biggest, most vicious, Judaizers of the Reformation. Their cultural fruit is hardcore philoSemitism. The English language will survive, however degraded, but all WASP run countries seem dead-set on replacing their genetics with the blacks and browns of the world. The sheer insanity can be seen best, I think, in whites working overtime to make certain that no truly conservative Christian revival gets a sound footing, while simultaneously lauding the rise Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Santeria, African animism in their backyards.

    They are culturally suicidal, which leads inevitably to genetic suicide. They are insane, and you will never cure their insanity with talk of white pride. Mainline Protestantism is absolutely central to the problem. As is genteel agnosticism. As is wallowing in the sexual revolution. As is continuing indulgence in traditional Germanic sense of the inferiority of 'Other' whites (the way the English see Celts and the Germans see Slavs).

    No WASP-inspired plan will achieve more than a brief treading of water. The only thing that can work is a return to the values and basic identity of pre-Modern, of medieval, Christian Europe. Russians know that. It is the reason the novel Laurus immediately became beloved by moderate and traditional Russians. They know what they must recover in order not to murder their culture.

    But those os us in the WASP controlled world? We may well prefer cultural and genetic suicide.

    all WASP run countries seem dead-set on replacing their genetics with the blacks and browns of the world. The sheer insanity can be seen best, I think, in whites working overtime to make certain that no truly conservative Christian revival gets a sound footing, while simultaneously lauding the rise Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Santeria, African animism in their backyards.

    What are these WASP-run countries?

    Most of the Western nations are run not by WASPS but by indigenous atheists offering a vague pretence of Christian faith (spirituality, as Phony Bliar calls it), plus Jews, Muslims, Indians, Pakistanis, Africans and all the rest of the PC-advantaged crew. The great majority of the indigenous people of those countries, 70% at least, are dead against mass immigration, as opinion polls in Britain, for example, have shown for many years.

    So, it”s not difficult to see what is happening. The people are being genocided by there own government, best understood as a Treason Party.

    That Hungary and Poland have a Catholic tradition is surely unrelated to the fact that their governments are resisting the US-driven European genocide, since the Pope, like Obama, is an outspoken opponent of walls — except of course around his own place.

    Read More
  174. Sean says:
    @dfordoom

    So on what grounds would you advocate an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration?
     
    I agree that any argument against immigration based on genetic/racial grounds is likely to fail. It's too easy to demonise such a position.

    There are plenty of other extremely good reasons to oppose immigration. Cultural, economic and environmental arguments are more difficult to demonise.

    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.

    The good thing about this particular argument is that you can point out that there is a country that is trying very hard to maintain the survival of its own ethnic/religious/cultural group and that country is called Israel.

    If you're genuinely in favour of open borders you're antisemitic!

    Is demonisation the reason genetic arguments don’t work? I think people have an innate propensity (social identity theory) to seoing themselves as members of a group. and defending it. Evolutionary arguments are like pointing out the objectively superior reproductive potential of a woman (waist to hip ratio ect) . Be that as it may such knowledge is a poor motive compared to lust or love.

    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.
    The good thing about this particular argument is that you can point out that there is a country that is trying very hard to maintain the survival of its own ethnic/religious/cultural group and that country is called Israel.

    The bad thing about that particular argument is that is assumes that
    1) People in power will not be capable of violating the Golden Rule for Israel’s sake.
    2) People in power won’t destroy both the West and Israel

    I think 2 is the real problem, because if Israel ran the West the two state solution would not be US State department policy, and subscribes to be almost every politician including Clinton and Obama–who called a palestinian state inevitable. Many of anti Israel occupation of the WesBank activists are W.E.I. R.D. WHITE GENTILE social justice warriors who want to save the immigrants and hate white nationalists more than anything.

    Brexit was an anti European immigrant vote. National feeling was as offended, and nationalism not evolutionism (or white nationalism which is a totally different beast–UK WNs welcome Poles ect) . Nationalism is the key to mobilising the population.

    Theresa May has gone from being mocked in 2015 as an over the hill politician with no future, to becoming the most popular of modern times http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-more-popular-than-the-tory-party-conservatives-jeremy-corbyn-labour-poll-orb-tim-farron-a7735091.html

    How has she achieved this level of popularity? A good example is the way she accused the EU (Germany) of interfering in UK’s general election

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/germany-interfering-general-election-undermine-theresa-may/

    Speaking outside Downing Street, Ms May also tore into some EU leaders and officials and said Britain would not allow the “bureaucrats of Brussels to run over us”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Evolutionary arguments are like pointing out the objectively superior reproductive potential of a woman (waist to hip ratio ect) . Be that as it may such knowledge is a poor motive compared to lust or love.
     
    I always thought that the right "waist to hip ratio, etc." was what evoked lust, thus confirming that emotions are adapted to maximize evolutionary chances.

    Theresa May has gone from being mocked in 2015 as an over the hill politician with no future, to becoming the most popular of modern times ...
     
    That's yesterday's news. Today Labour are in it with a chance, while May's popularity is eroding fast:

    The dramatic YouGov poll for The Times had the Conservatives down one point on 43 per cent, while Labour gained three points since the end of last week to reach 38 per cent of the vote. The Liberal Democrats were up one point on 10 per cent, and Ukip gained a point to reach four per cent. ...
     
  175. @Corvinus
    When people are well informed about racial issues they become more inhibit to mate people of other race of even ethnicity. Today because many people are stupidly {{{bad informed}}} they are more prone to choice people of other race but not exactly because they know what they are doing. "

    You are a Fascist. People today are well versed about race and culture. They make their own decisions as to who to date and mate. We don't need you to shame us, at best, or put us at the gulag, at worst, because of your alleged superior insight into these matters.

    "The most well informed people about racial or collectively evolutionary issues are usually on the “hard’ right wing while those who are insanely wrong at least about very central or holistic racial issues (even because they are not too wrong at all, only in the most important issues) are on the left wing lunacy."

    Fake News Story.

    "I know it’s also that way but it’s accessible fact that well-informed people and specially about racial issues tend to be more cautious to mate with people who are of racial, ethnic groups."

    They are not "well-informed", they are merely exercising the liberty. If a white person wants to have children with only white people, fine. Whatever. Same for a white person who wants mate with a non-white person. That is their freedom, their choice. We don't need to be bludgeoned by your virtue signaling here.

    Huuum
    No.

    Try tomorrow

    It’s a illusion to think people today have chance to choice. Only real capacity to choice is via knowledge and understanding. We can say there are a lot of mixe racers who are aware about REAL racial issues and not (((ZOMBIE))) ones. But majority of mixed racers are stupidly bad informed that races don’t exist or it’s not relevant, racism is pure and irrational evil and everyone is the same. In mein view stupid ILLIBITARDS can mix freely!! Before it’s just take control again, ;)

    If you “hate” the word fascism ok it’s what I’m.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It’s a illusion to think people today have chance to choice."

    ???

    "Only real capacity to choice is via knowledge and understanding."

    Exactly, by way of our own personal preferences.

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/13/what-makes-people-choose-a-mate-god-and-politics

    "But majority of mixed racers are stupidly bad informed that races don’t exist or it’s not relevant, racism is pure and irrational evil and everyone is the same."

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    "Before it’s just take control again"

    All your lies are belong to us.
  176. @Jake
    "why don’t these White people become vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?

    This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    I think it makes sense, but then I start from a place that you, Dr. McDonald, do not. The bleeding, stinking Jesus thing changed the world. It can never be simply ignored by those who have been bound to it. Jews by definition are anti-Christ. That guarantees that Jews in every country and every period of history will try to fill their spiritual void with 2 things: ill gotten wealth and revolution against everything that is connected to Christian morality and identity. Jews in rejecting Christ instead took the bribe that Satan had offered Jesus in the desert.

    That means, of course, that any European people that become decidedly focused on helping Jews, uplifting Jews, saving Jews from those tired of being cheated by Jews, will prepare the bed of their subsequent decadence, which will feature their Elites allying with Jews against their own poorer people.

    Jews in choosing anti-Christ do not have a death wish, in part because they are the special race to serve the cause of anti-Christ. But white Gentiles deciding to brush off Christendom and then to prove they could make something better? Well, they, at least the most powerful among them, are examples of gaining the whole world and losing your soul. England did that. So did Germany. So did France. So did Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, eventually even Spain, Portugal, Scotland, and Ireland. And the USA certainly has done it.

    Whites began the process of cultural and genetic suicide with their rebellion against Christendom. Are you aware that Jews printed the vast majority of early Protestant tracts, often at cost? Jews knew how much trouble the Reformation would cause to Christendom and thus to whites and their cultures. They knew it would fracture Christendom, and perhaps that the fracturing of Christendom would lead to individual atomization.

    The process will not stop, much less reverse, save in nations that go against the tide of secular Modernity to back track toward Christendom. Russia seems to be started on that road, as does Hungary. Poland as well.

    I have my doubts that any WASP nation will survive. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were the biggest, most vicious, Judaizers of the Reformation. Their cultural fruit is hardcore philoSemitism. The English language will survive, however degraded, but all WASP run countries seem dead-set on replacing their genetics with the blacks and browns of the world. The sheer insanity can be seen best, I think, in whites working overtime to make certain that no truly conservative Christian revival gets a sound footing, while simultaneously lauding the rise Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Santeria, African animism in their backyards.

    They are culturally suicidal, which leads inevitably to genetic suicide. They are insane, and you will never cure their insanity with talk of white pride. Mainline Protestantism is absolutely central to the problem. As is genteel agnosticism. As is wallowing in the sexual revolution. As is continuing indulgence in traditional Germanic sense of the inferiority of 'Other' whites (the way the English see Celts and the Germans see Slavs).

    No WASP-inspired plan will achieve more than a brief treading of water. The only thing that can work is a return to the values and basic identity of pre-Modern, of medieval, Christian Europe. Russians know that. It is the reason the novel Laurus immediately became beloved by moderate and traditional Russians. They know what they must recover in order not to murder their culture.

    But those os us in the WASP controlled world? We may well prefer cultural and genetic suicide.

    Because evolutionary narrative or perspective look so essential most people here seems believe regular ones think in the same way.

    Read More
  177. @CanSpeccy
    Better informed people, i.e., the better educated, probably have more freedom of choice.

    No. Better informed people and about racial issues are not necessarily better educated, otherwise or quasi otherwise, a lot of better educated people are very bad informed about this issues.

    What I said. They, the illibs are not wrong in everything about this issues, the difference is that they are peripherally correct but the simple fact they stubbornly believe that human races don’t exist they already are essentially wrong about this stuff.

    Read More
  178. utu says:
    @Seraphim
    To much brain washing results in brain damage. It flattens the brain circonvolutions which starts behaving like a broken record. Now wonder they believe the myth of the 'Flatten Earth' or that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because of his ' Copernicanism' and not for heresy: his utterances that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skillful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc.

    It is pretty impressive that the enemies of the Catholic Church managed to get so much mile ache out of poor Giordano Bruno. Catholic Church in Catholic countries did not have to defend itself too much and perhaps because of for this reason Church did not go to the counteroffensive or at least it was not very effective. The disgusting aspects of British history are not widely known. PBS keeps coproducing British miniseries that never touch the actual reality of history and life in Britain. CanSpeccy recently wrote that in Britain there was a tradition for aristocracy to be concerned with the fate of poor. Brits believe that nonsense. And if you watch PBS you may end up believing that too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy recently wrote that in Britain there was a tradition for aristocracy to be concerned with the fate of poor. Brits believe that nonsense.
     
    Yes, and I provided examples. Here are some more examples of noblesse oblige among the British aristocracy at the beginning of the 20th Century.

    Altogether 24 British peers died in combat during WW1. By the end of 1915, the British death toll included 95 sons of peers. Among sons of the peers who died in combat during WW1 wereNeil James Primrose, the second son of Prime Minister Lord Roseberry, and Raymond Asquith, oldest son of Prime Minister H.H. Asquith, later Earl Asquith.

    Among members of the aristocracy who served in the trenches during WW1 and survived, was Winston Churchill, who spent six months (four times the life expectancy of a front line officer) in the mud and squalor near the Belgian town of Ypres, winning over the respect and confidence of the tough but traumatised 6th Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers.

    , @Seraphim
    Did you know that Giordano Bruno was a spy (like other 'magi' like John Dee) for the Elizabethan Secret Service of Sir Francis Walsingham, signing his reports in which he uncovered Catholic plots (which led to the beheading of Mary Stuart) with the suggestive name Henri Fagot? And that one of the charges brought against him was his friendship with the heretical Queen of England?
    The whole 'occult philosophy' of the Renaissance was a convenient cover for a vast network of espionage, psyops, plots against the Catholic Church.
    , @Veritatis
    You have a good point. But you see, the counter reformation did work, the Jesuits did work, but after Elizabeth I, that work happened mainly in non-english speaking countries. Catholic thought and practice did have a resurgence in England/US at the beginning of the 20th century. But the 'new' assault on the Catholic Church has happened some years after WWII (say, "Hitler's Pope"), much strengthened by the cultural bulldozer of mass media and mass publishing. Which is very much in English, and either "anti-popish"or jewish. And very, very liberal.

    But after a while, and even understanding the value of apologetics, it is up to Catholics and Christians to show a worthwhile way to live. Who do we stand with, what do we stand for.
  179. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sean
    Is demonisation the reason genetic arguments don't work? I think people have an innate propensity (social identity theory) to seoing themselves as members of a group. and defending it. Evolutionary arguments are like pointing out the objectively superior reproductive potential of a woman (waist to hip ratio ect) . Be that as it may such knowledge is a poor motive compared to lust or love.

    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.
    The good thing about this particular argument is that you can point out that there is a country that is trying very hard to maintain the survival of its own ethnic/religious/cultural group and that country is called Israel.
     
    The bad thing about that particular argument is that is assumes that
    1) People in power will not be capable of violating the Golden Rule for Israel's sake.
    2) People in power won't destroy both the West and Israel

    I think 2 is the real problem, because if Israel ran the West the two state solution would not be US State department policy, and subscribes to be almost every politician including Clinton and Obama--who called a palestinian state inevitable. Many of anti Israel occupation of the WesBank activists are W.E.I. R.D. WHITE GENTILE social justice warriors who want to save the immigrants and hate white nationalists more than anything.

    Brexit was an anti European immigrant vote. National feeling was as offended, and nationalism not evolutionism (or white nationalism which is a totally different beast--UK WNs welcome Poles ect) . Nationalism is the key to mobilising the population.

    Theresa May has gone from being mocked in 2015 as an over the hill politician with no future, to becoming the most popular of modern times http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-more-popular-than-the-tory-party-conservatives-jeremy-corbyn-labour-poll-orb-tim-farron-a7735091.html

    How has she achieved this level of popularity? A good example is the way she accused the EU (Germany) of interfering in UK’s general election


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/germany-interfering-general-election-undermine-theresa-may/

    Speaking outside Downing Street, Ms May also tore into some EU leaders and officials and said Britain would not allow the “bureaucrats of Brussels to run over us”.
     

    Evolutionary arguments are like pointing out the objectively superior reproductive potential of a woman (waist to hip ratio ect) . Be that as it may such knowledge is a poor motive compared to lust or love.

    I always thought that the right “waist to hip ratio, etc.” was what evoked lust, thus confirming that emotions are adapted to maximize evolutionary chances.

    Theresa May has gone from being mocked in 2015 as an over the hill politician with no future, to becoming the most popular of modern times …

    That’s yesterday’s news. Today Labour are in it with a chance, while May’s popularity is eroding fast:

    The dramatic YouGov poll for The Times had the Conservatives down one point on 43 per cent, while Labour gained three points since the end of last week to reach 38 per cent of the vote. The Liberal Democrats were up one point on 10 per cent, and Ukip gained a point to reach four per cent. …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    The great paradigm is that people regularly think evolutionary and moral choices are not just divorced but mutually excluded. One of the fundamental reasons is that the first has been based on non human living beings behavior in other words "chain food morality": Hyper pragmatism, utilitarianism, emotional coldness and force over reason. Yes it's a common view and it's also a common reality (also) in non human natural world but almost living beings no have enlarged set of choices about how operate or behave, they no have many choices because their world has been intense and direct. Humans have overly engaged in escapism to avoid confront"food chain" morality. Escapism is not only about natural evolutionary realism but also existentialism, a new border of only humans because their reason levels can reach.
    , @Sean

    I always thought that the right “waist to hip ratio, etc.” was what evoked lust, thus confirming that emotions are adapted to maximize evolutionary chances.
     
    Yet explaining to a man why he should find a certain waist to hip ratio and bodily proportion in females sexually attractive is maybe not the best way of getting him to do so.
    , @Sean
    May to the rescue of Trump

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-manchester-idUSKBN18L0QU

    President Donald Trump said on Thursday that "deeply troubling" leaks to U.S. media about the Manchester suicide bombing would be investigated, after irate British police briefly stopped sharing information with U.S. agencies.

    Prime Minister Theresa May raised British concerns with Trump at a NATO summit in Brussels, telling him intelligence shared between their two countries had to remain secure, in a rare public show of dissatisfaction with Britain's closest security ally.

    After a suspension that lasted about a day, Britain's most senior counter terrorism officer said late on Thursday that the police had resumed sharing information with the United States after receiving "fresh assurances".

    Trump had called the leaks "deeply troubling".

    "I am asking the Department of Justice and other relevant agencies to launch a complete review of this matter, and if appropriate, the culprit should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," he said in a statement released after his arrival in Brussels.

     

  180. dfordoom says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    So burning heretics seems to have worked.

    And no, I’m not advocating the practice
     
    Well what about droning people? That's the modern equivalent to burning, as on a bonfire, of those who challenge the Globo-Plutocratic-PC order.

    Well what about droning people? That’s the modern equivalent to burning, as on a bonfire, of those who challenge the Globo-Plutocratic-PC order.

    Agreed.

    And while heretics are no longer burnt in western countries heretics against PC know that they can have their livelihoods taken away. Which can result in their losing their families as well. So they’re effectively destroyed. The intention is the same. And in Britain and some European countries they will actually send you to prison if your heresy is serious enough.

    The Catholic Church might have ceased hunting down and destroying heretics but the Church of Political Correctness is very very enthusiastic about rooting out heresy.

    Read More
  181. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Jake
    "why don’t these White people become vocal opponents of the current multicultural zeitgeist that is actively selecting against European genes? How can they just watch or even applaud the demise of their own people?

    This for me is the hardest to understand. Careerism over their obvious genetic/evolutionary interests."

    I think it makes sense, but then I start from a place that you, Dr. McDonald, do not. The bleeding, stinking Jesus thing changed the world. It can never be simply ignored by those who have been bound to it. Jews by definition are anti-Christ. That guarantees that Jews in every country and every period of history will try to fill their spiritual void with 2 things: ill gotten wealth and revolution against everything that is connected to Christian morality and identity. Jews in rejecting Christ instead took the bribe that Satan had offered Jesus in the desert.

    That means, of course, that any European people that become decidedly focused on helping Jews, uplifting Jews, saving Jews from those tired of being cheated by Jews, will prepare the bed of their subsequent decadence, which will feature their Elites allying with Jews against their own poorer people.

    Jews in choosing anti-Christ do not have a death wish, in part because they are the special race to serve the cause of anti-Christ. But white Gentiles deciding to brush off Christendom and then to prove they could make something better? Well, they, at least the most powerful among them, are examples of gaining the whole world and losing your soul. England did that. So did Germany. So did France. So did Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, eventually even Spain, Portugal, Scotland, and Ireland. And the USA certainly has done it.

    Whites began the process of cultural and genetic suicide with their rebellion against Christendom. Are you aware that Jews printed the vast majority of early Protestant tracts, often at cost? Jews knew how much trouble the Reformation would cause to Christendom and thus to whites and their cultures. They knew it would fracture Christendom, and perhaps that the fracturing of Christendom would lead to individual atomization.

    The process will not stop, much less reverse, save in nations that go against the tide of secular Modernity to back track toward Christendom. Russia seems to be started on that road, as does Hungary. Poland as well.

    I have my doubts that any WASP nation will survive. The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were the biggest, most vicious, Judaizers of the Reformation. Their cultural fruit is hardcore philoSemitism. The English language will survive, however degraded, but all WASP run countries seem dead-set on replacing their genetics with the blacks and browns of the world. The sheer insanity can be seen best, I think, in whites working overtime to make certain that no truly conservative Christian revival gets a sound footing, while simultaneously lauding the rise Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Santeria, African animism in their backyards.

    They are culturally suicidal, which leads inevitably to genetic suicide. They are insane, and you will never cure their insanity with talk of white pride. Mainline Protestantism is absolutely central to the problem. As is genteel agnosticism. As is wallowing in the sexual revolution. As is continuing indulgence in traditional Germanic sense of the inferiority of 'Other' whites (the way the English see Celts and the Germans see Slavs).

    No WASP-inspired plan will achieve more than a brief treading of water. The only thing that can work is a return to the values and basic identity of pre-Modern, of medieval, Christian Europe. Russians know that. It is the reason the novel Laurus immediately became beloved by moderate and traditional Russians. They know what they must recover in order not to murder their culture.

    But those os us in the WASP controlled world? We may well prefer cultural and genetic suicide.

    Whites began the process of cultural and genetic suicide with their rebellion against Christendom.

    That makes little sense in view of the fact that Christianity is a universalist religion, and the Catholic Church a Roman invention designed to bind together a multi-culti, and multi-racial empire. The Catholic church is playing that same game today in the service of the Globo elite.

    The Anglican church is no better. It is a rather feeble instrument of state, headed by a former oil company money man and probable security service operative, to bind the multi-culti and multi-racial British Empire turned Commonwealth.

    It is time for Europeans to ditch Christ and return to the worship of national pagan gods. The Brits could begin by sacrificing some disgraced puppet of the deep state, Tony Blair for example, at exactly 12 noon on midsummer’s day on an altar of national unity to be erected at Stone Henge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Hurry, before minarets are erected at Stonehenge.
  182. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    It is pretty impressive that the enemies of the Catholic Church managed to get so much mile ache out of poor Giordano Bruno. Catholic Church in Catholic countries did not have to defend itself too much and perhaps because of for this reason Church did not go to the counteroffensive or at least it was not very effective. The disgusting aspects of British history are not widely known. PBS keeps coproducing British miniseries that never touch the actual reality of history and life in Britain. CanSpeccy recently wrote that in Britain there was a tradition for aristocracy to be concerned with the fate of poor. Brits believe that nonsense. And if you watch PBS you may end up believing that too.

    CanSpeccy recently wrote that in Britain there was a tradition for aristocracy to be concerned with the fate of poor. Brits believe that nonsense.

    Yes, and I provided examples. Here are some more examples of noblesse oblige among the British aristocracy at the beginning of the 20th Century.

    Altogether 24 British peers died in combat during WW1. By the end of 1915, the British death toll included 95 sons of peers. Among sons of the peers who died in combat during WW1 wereNeil James Primrose, the second son of Prime Minister Lord Roseberry, and Raymond Asquith, oldest son of Prime Minister H.H. Asquith, later Earl Asquith.

    Among members of the aristocracy who served in the trenches during WW1 and survived, was Winston Churchill, who spent six months (four times the life expectancy of a front line officer) in the mud and squalor near the Belgian town of Ypres, winning over the respect and confidence of the tough but traumatised 6th Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Aristocracy's and gentry's job was to fight in wars. This was the only thing that was required and expected from them. Anyway, I said they were not concerned with theft of lower classes.
  183. Seraphim says:
    @utu
    It is pretty impressive that the enemies of the Catholic Church managed to get so much mile ache out of poor Giordano Bruno. Catholic Church in Catholic countries did not have to defend itself too much and perhaps because of for this reason Church did not go to the counteroffensive or at least it was not very effective. The disgusting aspects of British history are not widely known. PBS keeps coproducing British miniseries that never touch the actual reality of history and life in Britain. CanSpeccy recently wrote that in Britain there was a tradition for aristocracy to be concerned with the fate of poor. Brits believe that nonsense. And if you watch PBS you may end up believing that too.

    Did you know that Giordano Bruno was a spy (like other ‘magi’ like John Dee) for the Elizabethan Secret Service of Sir Francis Walsingham, signing his reports in which he uncovered Catholic plots (which led to the beheading of Mary Stuart) with the suggestive name Henri Fagot? And that one of the charges brought against him was his friendship with the heretical Queen of England?
    The whole ‘occult philosophy’ of the Renaissance was a convenient cover for a vast network of espionage, psyops, plots against the Catholic Church.

    Read More
  184. Seraphim says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Whites began the process of cultural and genetic suicide with their rebellion against Christendom.
     
    That makes little sense in view of the fact that Christianity is a universalist religion, and the Catholic Church a Roman invention designed to bind together a multi-culti, and multi-racial empire. The Catholic church is playing that same game today in the service of the Globo elite.

    The Anglican church is no better. It is a rather feeble instrument of state, headed by a former oil company money man and probable security service operative, to bind the multi-culti and multi-racial British Empire turned Commonwealth.

    It is time for Europeans to ditch Christ and return to the worship of national pagan gods. The Brits could begin by sacrificing some disgraced puppet of the deep state, Tony Blair for example, at exactly 12 noon on midsummer's day on an altar of national unity to be erected at Stone Henge.

    Hurry, before minarets are erected at Stonehenge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Yeah. Should check. They may already be there.

    But the cunning agents of this other great universalist religion are proposing mosques without minarets, the better to sneak them in across the English landscape.
  185. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    CanSpeccy recently wrote that in Britain there was a tradition for aristocracy to be concerned with the fate of poor. Brits believe that nonsense.
     
    Yes, and I provided examples. Here are some more examples of noblesse oblige among the British aristocracy at the beginning of the 20th Century.

    Altogether 24 British peers died in combat during WW1. By the end of 1915, the British death toll included 95 sons of peers. Among sons of the peers who died in combat during WW1 wereNeil James Primrose, the second son of Prime Minister Lord Roseberry, and Raymond Asquith, oldest son of Prime Minister H.H. Asquith, later Earl Asquith.

    Among members of the aristocracy who served in the trenches during WW1 and survived, was Winston Churchill, who spent six months (four times the life expectancy of a front line officer) in the mud and squalor near the Belgian town of Ypres, winning over the respect and confidence of the tough but traumatised 6th Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers.

    Aristocracy’s and gentry’s job was to fight in wars. This was the only thing that was required and expected from them. Anyway, I said they were not concerned with theft of lower classes.

    Read More
  186. utu says:
    @dfordoom

    So on what grounds would you advocate an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration?
     
    I agree that any argument against immigration based on genetic/racial grounds is likely to fail. It's too easy to demonise such a position.

    There are plenty of other extremely good reasons to oppose immigration. Cultural, economic and environmental arguments are more difficult to demonise.

    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.

    The good thing about this particular argument is that you can point out that there is a country that is trying very hard to maintain the survival of its own ethnic/religious/cultural group and that country is called Israel.

    If you're genuinely in favour of open borders you're antisemitic!

    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.

    Yes, that is the best argument.

    Read More
  187. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Corvinus
    "What constitutes the most adaptive breeding strategy, or rather the most adaptive set of breeding strategies can be a complex issue."

    Most human beings do not take this approach. People generally do not consciously lay out a step by step "breeding plan". They find someone attractive who has attractive qualities to them, date for an extended period of time, get married, and have children.

    "Then, for males the main objectives were to mate with, and invest in the children of, a the highest-status healthy, well-formed and mentally sound female available, while impregnating any other females available, where to do so entailed little risk of economic cost or legal sanction (e.g., Fyodor Karamazov, in Dostoevsky’s the Karamazov Brothers, who fathered a son by the mentally defective “Reeking Lizaveta”)."

    Yes, the glorious past.

    "For females, the objective would be to mate with the most dominant economically or socially advantaged males they could attract and bind in wedlock. That all made sense in Darwinian terms and was consistent with normal human impulses as constrained by prevailing legal codes and religious strictures."

    Yes, the glorious past.

    "Today, in the West, given the combination of mass migration and racial mixing together with PC bullshit and universal compulsory sex “education,” it might take a Nobel Prize winning evolutionary geneticist with a good grasp of geopolitics to figure out the most adaptive breeding strategy."

    The most adaptive breeding strategy is for each individual to decide for themselves. Mass migration and race mixing are inevitable. I suggest you be an adult and deal with this phenomenon.

    People generally do not consciously lay out a step by step “breeding plan”.

    Of course not. The point is that, dictated by genetically determined drives, behavior nevertheless usually approximates to what, in evolutionary terms, is an optimum reproductive strategy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The point is that, dictated by genetically determined drives, behavior nevertheless usually approximates to what, in evolutionary terms, is an optimum reproductive strategy."

    Evolutionary processes are still at work when men and women choose mates, but that is blunted by environmental and personal factors.

    "It is time for Europeans to ditch Christ and return to the worship of national pagan gods."

    What gives me tremendous comfort is knowing you are way outside the norm here, and that tens of millions of white Christian men and women will continue to believe in and embrace our Lord and Savior.
  188. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Seraphim
    Hurry, before minarets are erected at Stonehenge.

    Yeah. Should check. They may already be there.

    But the cunning agents of this other great universalist religion are proposing mosques without minarets, the better to sneak them in across the English landscape.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    So, they might accommodate and some 'national pagan' deities as well.
  189. […] good article by Kevin MacDonald on why academics fear alternative […]

    Read More
  190. Corvinus says:
    @Santoculto
    Huuum
    No.

    Try tomorrow

    It's a illusion to think people today have chance to choice. Only real capacity to choice is via knowledge and understanding. We can say there are a lot of mixe racers who are aware about REAL racial issues and not (((ZOMBIE))) ones. But majority of mixed racers are stupidly bad informed that races don't exist or it's not relevant, racism is pure and irrational evil and everyone is the same. In mein view stupid ILLIBITARDS can mix freely!! Before it's just take control again, ;)

    If you "hate" the word fascism ok it's what I'm.

    “It’s a illusion to think people today have chance to choice.”

    ???

    “Only real capacity to choice is via knowledge and understanding.”

    Exactly, by way of our own personal preferences.

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/13/what-makes-people-choose-a-mate-god-and-politics

    “But majority of mixed racers are stupidly bad informed that races don’t exist or it’s not relevant, racism is pure and irrational evil and everyone is the same.”

    Thank you very much for your opinion on this matter.

    “Before it’s just take control again”

    All your lies are belong to us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I like people who understand evident things and thoughts quickly to reach other levels of debate and understanding. Clearly it's not your case.

    If true freedom must be based on factual understanding why your sick mind would think illibtards as well most people has been well informed about race issues for example criminality rates than in the "glorious past"??

    Many if not most race mixers today are bad informed about racial stuff and their errant behavior is just a result of their stupidity and when humans internalize something in their minds it's very difficult to put off.

    Personal preference is not real understanding of something. That's one of the fatal mistake of your pp.

    It's not just my opinion, but yes when intrinsic preferences and essentially correct understanding match perfectly so it's create a strong feelings about their subjective contrarianess. This explain why a white nationalist tend to be more intensely contrary to mixing race and someone as Charles Murray or Derbyshire is less. Other great problem of human mind: the bitch personal convenience.

    As always most ganzuo are self reflectors. Every gratuitous insult can be easily found among themselves. Completely useless and pathetic creatures.

  191. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    People generally do not consciously lay out a step by step “breeding plan”.
     
    Of course not. The point is that, dictated by genetically determined drives, behavior nevertheless usually approximates to what, in evolutionary terms, is an optimum reproductive strategy.

    “The point is that, dictated by genetically determined drives, behavior nevertheless usually approximates to what, in evolutionary terms, is an optimum reproductive strategy.”

    Evolutionary processes are still at work when men and women choose mates, but that is blunted by environmental and personal factors.

    “It is time for Europeans to ditch Christ and return to the worship of national pagan gods.”

    What gives me tremendous comfort is knowing you are way outside the norm here, and that tens of millions of white Christian men and women will continue to believe in and embrace our Lord and Savior.

    Read More
  192. Corvinus says:
    @dfordoom

    So on what grounds would you advocate an end to the project for the genocide of the European nations by a combination of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration?
     
    I agree that any argument against immigration based on genetic/racial grounds is likely to fail. It's too easy to demonise such a position.

    There are plenty of other extremely good reasons to oppose immigration. Cultural, economic and environmental arguments are more difficult to demonise.

    I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.

    The good thing about this particular argument is that you can point out that there is a country that is trying very hard to maintain the survival of its own ethnic/religious/cultural group and that country is called Israel.

    If you're genuinely in favour of open borders you're antisemitic!

    “I always like to point out that mass immigration destroys diversity. Real diversity requires the survival of distinctive racial, ethnic and cultural groups. The only way to maintain real diversity is to have strict border controls. A globalist world will be a world with zero diversity.”

    There has never been such a thing as “zero diversity”, given the fact that ethnic groups have historically bred with one another.

    You also have a peculiar way of defining “real diversity”. Racial, ethnic, and cultural groups are surviving and thriving by intermingling with one another.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146070/Mixed-race-relationships-making-taller-smarter-Children-born-genetically-diverse-parents-intelligent-ancestors.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Yes he believe in bullshit easily ;-)

    So so called IQ measure something in the end...
  193. @CanSpeccy

    Evolutionary arguments are like pointing out the objectively superior reproductive potential of a woman (waist to hip ratio ect) . Be that as it may such knowledge is a poor motive compared to lust or love.
     
    I always thought that the right "waist to hip ratio, etc." was what evoked lust, thus confirming that emotions are adapted to maximize evolutionary chances.

    Theresa May has gone from being mocked in 2015 as an over the hill politician with no future, to becoming the most popular of modern times ...
     
    That's yesterday's news. Today Labour are in it with a chance, while May's popularity is eroding fast: