The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Anti-Togetherness
The Virtues of Disunity
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_741750991

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A Truth Not Welcome: People do not like being with those different from themselves. Sometimes, briefly, we find it interesting, as in traveling, but for extended periods, no. This distaste pervades society, often unnoticed, with consequences.

Instances of untogetherness:

People cluster by intelligence. With high consistency, we choose mates of intelligence close to our own. Likewise with friends: If you have an IQ of 100, or 150, you are unlikely to have friends of 150, or 100. Bright people join Mensa not from snobbery but because they want to be around people like themselves. On the internet this takes the form of distributed cognitive stratification in which people from around the globe congregate by intelligence.

A woman I knew while living in the Heart of Darkness once said, “In Washington, you assume that everyone is in the ninety-ninth percentile.” She herself was, and her friends were chemists, high-end journalists, authors, and so on. She meant her remark as shorthand for a common sort of clustering.

People associate by age. We rarely have close friends who differ from us by more than ten years. People of fifty shrink in horror at the thought of being trapped in a bar full of screaming twenty-year-olds–and vice versa. Teenagers suffer their parents because they have to, and escape at every opportunity–to the relief of the parents. It isn’t dislike, just a lack of much in common.

Men and women would rather not be with each other too much. In social and domestic settings, yes. Men would prefer to work with other men had they the choice. Men do not want to go fishing with women, or drink beer and argue politics, and when it comes to talking about their feelings, most men would rather die. Women presumably prefer their own.

Male and female homosexuals choose to associate with each other, thus gay bars.

We prefer to spend time with people of our own level of education. If you have a doctorate, you probably have no friends who are graduates only of high school–and vice versa. The same goes for white-collar and blue-collar people. Few bus drivers socialize with lawyers.

We prefer to be with our own race. Look at what people do, not what they say. Blacks do not find the company of white people compelling, and the most liberal of whites spend ninety-five percent of discretionary time with other whites. If whites do spend time with blacks, those will be of their own age, educational level, accent and, except in couples, sex. They will probably feel self-conscious anyway.

The cultures of blacks and whites differ starkly and any association occurs only to the extent that the blacks simulate the culture of whites. Distance is proportional to difference. Whites and Asians socialize more easily than blacks and whites because they have more in common.

We spend our time with people of our own culture. Jews flock together. We have Chinatown, Little Saigon, Little Italy. Good ol’ boys and Boston Brahmins do not party together.

We tend to spend our time with others of our own level of wealth. If you drive a Lexus, you likely do not have friends with second-hand clunkers.

There is worse than lack of socializing. Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred. Think for example Sunnis and Shias, Tamils and Sinhalese, Jews and Moslems in Palestine, Kurds and Turks, Turks and Armenians, blacks and whites in America, Catalans and Spaniards, Basques and Spaniards, Tutsis and Hutus in Burundi, Francophones and Anglophones in Canada, Moslems and Hindus in Kashmir, Russians and Chechens, Mexicans and Anglos in Arizona, Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, and so on.

For that matter, Trump’s supporters and haters cannot stand each other’s company. In general, liberals and conservatives coexist at best uneasily in social situations.

Clearly the domestic tranquility would better be served by letting people and peoples associate as they chose, and in some cases taking measure to ensure separation.

Instead we have elevated almost to the status of religion the idea that people are indistinguishable, or should be, and must be forced into association. This is said to be the natural or at least desirable state of humanity, even though it clearly is not what we really want. On ideological grounds we imagine a world that cannot exist, and try to move into it. When it doesn’t work, we try to force it. This causes endless resentment and unhappiness and sometimes hatred. Yet any who openly do not want to be with those unlike themselves are called racists, sexists, Islamophobes, homophobes, snobs, and so on.

If a group of men are sitting around shooting the breeze and a woman shows up, the conversational dynamics change. The men will speak differently, talk of different things, be wary. Yet heaven help them if they say that sometimes they don’t want female company.

In the military the consequences of forced togetherness are grave, and not just in that women can’t do many of the things required of soldiers. Thirteen men in a squad will work easily together to get a job done. Add a woman and all the men will compete for her sexual favors, even if she isn’t using them, which is possible.

If we permitted freedom of association, we would have bars and clubs for men only, and for women only, as well as for both as people chose. Men would not care if women had segregated bars for themselves, but, what with feminism, women feel compelled to force themselves on men.

In universities we equally see natural human resistance to mandated association. In particular blacks increasingly demand their own fraternities, student centers, graduation ceremonies, and departments of Black Studies. Thus we have the silly spectacle of universities struggling to recruit diversity which, once recruited, struggles to segregate itself.

As noted, ease of association is inversely proportional to difference, and difference is a sort of vector sum of many things: social and economic status, skin color, native fluency in English, sex and sexual orientation, and so on.

ORDER IT NOW

Our current policy of compulsory amalgamation is fueled both by resentment and ideology. Women and blacks think they endure discrimination by men and whites and so insist on inclusion they really do not much want. The result is lawsuits, and sometimes far worse. Cities burn because we insist on employing white policemen in black regions.

Much of today’s anger would diminish if we allowed people to live in neighborhoods of their own kind, and study in schools of their own kind, and be policed by their own kind, and to establish clubs as they like. We could call this something like, oh, say, “freedom.”

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Diversity, Political Correctness 
Hide 64 CommentsLeave a Comment
64 Comments to "Anti-Togetherness"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Ok, so the guy who calls whites “racists” because they reject his illegal, and in my case legal, hombres, appears to be agreeing with the fact that people just want to be with their own kind?? I used to take him seriously…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    LOL;

    Dude, it just becomes more comical every week.

    Why is it that so many white nationalists preach this poppycock than move to Thailand and marry a Filipino.


    "buh...buh...buh...why people'n Asians geh along better than why people and blaaaaaqqs..."

    They seem to get along better than white people and whites too, if WN are any indication, you fucking dumbshit!
    , @Wizard of Oz
    What does your "in my case legal hombres" mean in a context where I take you to be referring to Mexicans as illegal?

    And where can you find Fred Reed calling whites "racist" - not including any ironical reference.
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /freed/anti-togetherness-the-virtues-of-disunity/#comment-2056902
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Sean says:

    Much of today’s anger would diminish if we allowed people to live in neighborhoods of their own kind, and study in schools of their own kind, and be policed by their own kind, and to establish clubs as they like. We could call this something like, oh, say, “freedom.”

    Border Freedom (Wall).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. How secretive can it be if it’s made billions?

    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-family-oxycontin/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. I believe Fred states the obvious, although he does it an erudite way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. bartok says:

    As with any war, a culture war continues because at least one side does not accept the status quo as the basis for peace. (h/t Moldbug). Here, Fred lays out the right-wing case for cultural peace based on the status quo of de facto segregation.

    As the left does not accept this status quo, the left is clearly the aggressor in the culture war. Fred’s peace proposal would be received by the left as a sign of weakness.

    Should also be clear who is the aggressor when left-wing corporations from San Francisco are emboldened enough to boycott entire States of the Union (Indiana and N.C.).

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Issac says:

    Well yes, but the corollary begets the problem. Brahmins and various ethnic minority leaders of the West are absolutely intolerant of free association and self-segregation. No matter how natural the process of socialization is, they will respond to it with subterfuge and hostility. Nobody is permitted to self-contain except those with an explicit endowment of virtue and victimhood from the reigning comtean orthodoxy, written in the language of explicitly anti-European sociology.

    The trouble with reclaiming this freedom, is that it will run up against the “freedom,” that minorities and elites have enjoyed since the mid 20th century: that being the freedom to force association between their preferred sub-demos and their hated white subordinates. And given that this latter, bastardized, form of “freedom,” (literally prohibition against free association) is cherished by everyone from Sanders to Trump, it is very unlikely to materialize.

    As with any other problem ado of how human groups get alone, it has to be approach realistically. Realists of the “current year,” need to be cognizant of the fact that they will not be granted their freedom. They will have to lobby for it just as ferociously as the brahmins and minorities lobbied for their “freedom,” to subject the white majority to their desires in the first place. Without a white identitarian coalition spilling over into the political main, current trends will simply continue until they reach a boiling point of pitched violence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred.

    Not only is it the chief cause of butchery and hatred but it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

    Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

    How did Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

    Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

    Tibetans are pissed because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’. Tibetans are forced to ‘include’ the People of Dog(meat).

    Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans.

    Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

    Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I’ll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

    True, empire can unleash new possibilities, new ideas, new discoveries, and etc. Imperialism led to discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn’t have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there’s always been a huge cost to diversity, or excessive amounts of it. And clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It’s like powerful storms can wipe out entire communities.

    Also, we should make a distinction between organic diversity and imposed(often incompatible)diversity.

    A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

    But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, an extrinsically diverse society will still result in the formation of communities of shared ages or abilities. So, young people of all color may hang out. And smart people of various colors may work together. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a young person is soon an adult than an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be forever young with slogans like “Don’t trust anyone over 30″.

    As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn’t do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse… as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he’s even more helpless than a child.
    In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to oldhood. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It’s one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

    [MORE]

    The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is the identity of ethnicity is weakened, and identity becomes weak or unstable. Or overly narrow — the very smart club — or overly generic — like ALL young people. It’s no wonder that there’s been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

    Now, it’s been said that a lot of affluent white people don’t care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s; he was likely feeling something more physical and female).
    But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF he/she feels a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their ‘friends’ or pack members.

    So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or worry about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn’t always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it’s beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it’s always for the Top Three: Jews, Negroes, or Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

    But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it’s like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn’t just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

    Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that’s all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as ‘weak’ and ‘irrational’. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one’s emotions from rest of humanity, even one’s own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and tyranny.
    Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

    In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and ‘socialist’ with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and ‘white trash’ act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

    It’s not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It’s a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.
    Fascist socialism is asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can’t lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it’s this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won’t even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

    Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism — no matter how successful the individuals are — is bound to fail and lose to group actions of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others. It’s like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decided to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It’s like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
    The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

    Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness… though they’ve now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It’s one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East — war with Iran next on the menu? — , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentile world to get what they want.

    Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it’s not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It’s this connection that makes life meaningful. It’s like the thief in KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he comes to feel a connection to the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
    Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotionally sick because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it’s like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with a wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it’s not enough that he’s safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses’ life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

    Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel this racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
    Also, it’s not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren’t a great culture, it’s worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
    White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate white culture and pay it tribute, it wouldn’t be the same thing. It’s like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage and culture. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It’s just a joke. It’s like it’d be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be ‘larping’.

    Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It’s not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
    Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting are destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

    Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting is destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal is destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is more important. It’s like one’s mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

    Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It’s okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

    And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cord to their own race and history. It’s like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can’t feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind and white senses. White mind feels no pain when white senses are being destroyed.
    But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gustafus
    "Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos"

    You're half right... women marry UP or laterally

    Men marry down or laterally.... but they love to marry and date DOWN... it adds to their self image

    I don't want to look up the science on this... but it's there .. if you have an interest, check it out.

    It's under educational and evolutionary psychology... Jordan Peterson for one...

    , @RadicalCenter
    Wonderfully said.
    , @Miro23

    In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.
     
    This is the interesting Rights and Duties question, that applies to everyone in a society regardless of their intelligence, wealth or any other differences.

    Perversely, US Multiculturalism actually instructs minorities that they have no Duties to general society, and in fact need to attack and reject it for a variety of reasons (i.e. it is Cultural Marxism).
    , @Miro23

    It’s not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It’s a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism (the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.
     
    America First Socialism with its Rights/Obligations is an acceptance of the English social traditions behind the founding of the modern US, which came naturally to predominantly ethnic Anglo-European society up to the 1950's.

    And, there's a point here regarding Great Society welfare socialism.

    Most families are Marxist/Communist in a very fundamental way. They meet Marx's definition "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and there's no problem with this. Parents are happy to look after children for years and family members are often willing to help each other out in various ways over long periods.

    Marx's error was to extend the idea to the whole of society.

    It's true that the Proletariat did have a grievance in awful 19th century factory conditions, but as it turned out, the bonds of the "working class brotherhood" were too weak to counter self interest , opening the door to various self-serving "Communist" elite dictatorships (e.g. Fidel Castro's high life in Cuba).

    And multiculturalism just weakens the bonds further.

    Realistically, a rebirth of America First Socialism can only happen at a much lower level among people who know and trust each other, which means among people who meet together, discuss issues, make real Democratic decisions, raise their own taxes, and supervise their own spending, health, security and welfare.

    In other words, this is American Democracy with power held at the lowest level possible (County then State), with obligatory citizen participation, and a minimal role for Washington and the President - plus locally supervised credit creation (no Federal Reserve).

    , @anonymous
    Oh man, you do go on, and then some more... :D

    You should try applying all that intellectualising to your currently professed spirituality... or lack thereof.


    and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan
     
    Yeah, I can imagine that would be anathema for every white supremacist.

    Now, chew on this;

    O you who have believed, fear Allah as He should be feared and do not die except as true monotheists [in submission to Him and only Him]. [Quran 3:102]

    Can you foresee in which state you will die?

    Where the likes of you are headed, you will beg for one more chance to be born looking like a baboon... and as True Monotheists.

    , @Alden
    Great post!!!
    , @George Orwell
    Wow, it is obvious that a lot of people aren’t handling the decline of the West very well, judging by the lunatic rantings and ravings of its mad men.
    , @Anonymous
    Well-off white people are in the same boat as the poor white people in terms of White Genocide. If we lose our homelands, personal wealth will be of little use. In the West, we're getting replaced by people who are trained to hate us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. gustafus says:

    This is not rocket science….

    IT’S CALLED — HAMILTON’S RULE

    Thousands of years of hard wiring — an evolutionary strategy for survival — we associate with, defend, love and protect those who look and act like we do.

    With few exceptions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. gustafus says:
    @Priss Factor
    Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred.

    Not only is it the chief cause of butchery and hatred but it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

    Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

    How did Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

    Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

    Tibetans are pissed because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Tibetans are forced to 'include' the People of Dog(meat).

    Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans.

    Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

    Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I'll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

    True, empire can unleash new possibilities, new ideas, new discoveries, and etc. Imperialism led to discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn't have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there's always been a huge cost to diversity, or excessive amounts of it. And clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It's like powerful storms can wipe out entire communities.

    Also, we should make a distinction between organic diversity and imposed(often incompatible)diversity.

    A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

    But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, an extrinsically diverse society will still result in the formation of communities of shared ages or abilities. So, young people of all color may hang out. And smart people of various colors may work together. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a young person is soon an adult than an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be forever young with slogans like "Don't trust anyone over 30".

    As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn't do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse... as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he's even more helpless than a child.
    In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to oldhood. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It's one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

    The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is the identity of ethnicity is weakened, and identity becomes weak or unstable. Or overly narrow -- the very smart club -- or overly generic -- like ALL young people. It's no wonder that there's been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

    Now, it's been said that a lot of affluent white people don't care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s; he was likely feeling something more physical and female).
    But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF he/she feels a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their 'friends' or pack members.

    So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or worry about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn't always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it's beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it's always for the Top Three: Jews, Negroes, or Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

    But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it's like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn't just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

    Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that's all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as 'weak' and 'irrational'. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one's emotions from rest of humanity, even one's own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and tyranny.
    Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

    In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and 'socialist' with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and 'white trash' act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

    It's not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It's a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.
    Fascist socialism is asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can't lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it's this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won't even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

    Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism -- no matter how successful the individuals are -- is bound to fail and lose to group actions of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others. It's like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decided to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It's like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
    The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

    Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness... though they've now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It's one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a 'new cold war' with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East -- war with Iran next on the menu? -- , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentile world to get what they want.

    Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it's not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It's this connection that makes life meaningful. It's like the thief in KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he comes to feel a connection to the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
    Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotionally sick because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it's like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with a wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it's not enough that he's safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses' life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

    Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel this racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
    Also, it's not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren't a great culture, it's worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
    White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate white culture and pay it tribute, it wouldn't be the same thing. It's like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage and culture. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It's just a joke. It's like it'd be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be 'larping'.

    Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It's not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
    Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting are destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

    Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting is destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal is destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is more important. It's like one's mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

    Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It's okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

    And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cord to their own race and history. It's like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can't feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind and white senses. White mind feels no pain when white senses are being destroyed.
    But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.

    “Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos”

    You’re half right… women marry UP or laterally

    Men marry down or laterally…. but they love to marry and date DOWN… it adds to their self image

    I don’t want to look up the science on this… but it’s there .. if you have an interest, check it out.

    It’s under educational and evolutionary psychology… Jordan Peterson for one…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    This explains much of the anger of upper-status feminists.

    In traditional societies the male social scale started lower and extended higher. Thus, just about every woman could potentially marry UP. Hence, secretaries married executives and nurses married doctors.

    Women today have successfully achieved equal status in many areas. Thus, by definition there can be no men for whom to marry UP. How does a female MD marry UP?

    This is of course exacerbated by the ongoing willingness of men to continue to marry DOWN.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. gustafus says:

    RED ALERT –

    for a web address that prides itself on its ability to call out Jews for their crimes and misdemeanors…

    nobody is talking about the evolutionary strategy of high IQ Ashkenazi Jews to control the hosts of their given occupations. Translation? — JEWS were the muscle for a whole lot of forced integration.

    Jews in America advanced the efforts of low IQ blacks and hispanics… knowing they could control them… and those efforts would effectively thwart the economic competition by Christian Whites.

    Culture of Critique… 101 … thank you Kevin MacDonald.

    Absent the heavy hand of the “invisible” Jew – who previous to this decade couldn’t even be identified, let alone blamed for the forced multi cultural murder suicide pact between Americans.

    Hollywood – JEWS
    Media – JEWS
    Banking and ALL FED FAMILIES – JEWS
    Wall st – JEWS
    SCOTUS – pretty much all Jews.
    Medicine, including Psychiatry and Sociology – JEWS

    and last but not least… Academia…. controlled by Jews.

    but then a funny thing happened on the way to the total domination and destruction of white America….. the LEFT DISCOVERED PALESTINIANS…… oops.

    the Left joined with pesky Christian churches like the Presbyterians… to divest themselves of any ties to the nasty nasty Sephardic Jews of Israel…..

    No problem … whispers the Bezos, Gates, Zuch, Simon, Blankfein — contingent….

    Well, yes, they ARE a problem.. because Oil money finally turned into political muscle…. here and in Europe, Africa, Asia…. and that nasty 2% find themselves in a conundrum.

    They either continue to sabotage their closest economic rivals… US … or they perish at the hands of 1.7 billion REALLY PISSED OFF MUSLIMS..

    I think they are coming around…. Hey Hersh… how about lunch? — I’ll buy… BLT’s…

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst, Druid
    • Replies: @Bro Methylene
    I've been reading Breitbart lately, and one thing I've learned is how to spot a Jesuit conspiracy. You sound like a Jesuit...your obsession with Jews is a dead giveaway. Jesuits are all about deception, intrigue, and sowing confusion...Did you know Einstein was a Jesuit? Marx was trained by Jesuits...all this antisemitic nonsense is just a smokescreen! The Jesuits trained the Nazis!
    , @anarchyst
    Although America's civil-rights groups appeared to be led by Blacks, in reality they were usually led -- or at least steered -- by Jews. Most of the men who founded the NAACP were jews, and for decades it had a jew as president. Martin Luther King Jr.'s chief advisor was jew Stanley Levison. The major civil-rights groups were funded mainly by Jewish donations. Furthermore, important civil-rights cases were argued and won in the courts by skilled Jewish lawyers. For example Jack Greenberg, who was a key figure surrounding the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. Another Jewish attorney, Nathan Margold, produced the in-depth report that became the NAACP's blueprint for its legal strategy in outlawing racial segregation. In fact, it could be said that the Margold report virtually ended racial segregation in America.
    Now we again mention Congressman Celler (1888-1981). Not only did Celler introduce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into Congress, he oversaw the general creation of the Act within two committees in the U.S. House of Representatives. Celler not only chaired the Judiciary Committee but also House subcommittee No. 5, which considered H.R.7152 [5]. Subcommittee No. 5 was said to be the "most aggressive" entity in strengthening H.R.7152 [6]. Furthermore, Celler handpicked some of the members of Subcommittee #5, ensuring that the 1964 Act had plenty of "teeth"; and he also was the floor manager in the House during debate on H.R.7152. Additionally, Celler put more teeth into H.R.7152 than were needed, in case the bill was watered-down later by its opponents - which it was, via a compromise bill called a "clean bill," which was the same bill with a few words changed to ensure more Congressional support for it. Celler employed tricks to get H.R.7152 through Congress, such as using a discharge petition to aid passage of the bill through the congressional committees. Of significance is that Celler lied about the intent of the 1964 Act when he denied that it would prevent employers from hiring whom they wanted.
    "[T]he charge has been made that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to be established by title VII of the bill would have the power to prevent a business from employing and promoting the people it wished, and that a 'Federal inspector' could then order the hiring and promotion only of employees of certain races or religious groups. This description of the bill is entirely wrong..."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Truth says:
    @Sweep the leg
    Ok, so the guy who calls whites "racists" because they reject his illegal, and in my case legal, hombres, appears to be agreeing with the fact that people just want to be with their own kind?? I used to take him seriously...

    LOL;

    Dude, it just becomes more comical every week.

    Why is it that so many white nationalists preach this poppycock than move to Thailand and marry a Filipino.

    “buh…buh…buh…why people’n Asians geh along better than why people and blaaaaaqqs…”

    They seem to get along better than white people and whites too, if WN are any indication, you fucking dumbshit!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    So then, show us all these endless examples of 'white nationalists that move to Thailand and marry a Filipino'.

    Ahh.
    , @Bro Methylene
    Truth, could you write your comment again, except in proper English? You seem to be saying something about the social compatibility of "whites" (Euro-Americans?) and "Asians" (Orientals I suppose - "Asian" is too broad a category) but I can't quite decipher it. Maybe this is some sort of insider-lingo you're using but we're not all "hip to it."
    , @Clyde
    Troof I can read through you and you have an Asian/Filipina/ Thai thing going on you rascal you going on about white nationalists as a cover.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Priss Factor
    Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred.

    Not only is it the chief cause of butchery and hatred but it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

    Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

    How did Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

    Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

    Tibetans are pissed because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Tibetans are forced to 'include' the People of Dog(meat).

    Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans.

    Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

    Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I'll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

    True, empire can unleash new possibilities, new ideas, new discoveries, and etc. Imperialism led to discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn't have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there's always been a huge cost to diversity, or excessive amounts of it. And clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It's like powerful storms can wipe out entire communities.

    Also, we should make a distinction between organic diversity and imposed(often incompatible)diversity.

    A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

    But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, an extrinsically diverse society will still result in the formation of communities of shared ages or abilities. So, young people of all color may hang out. And smart people of various colors may work together. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a young person is soon an adult than an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be forever young with slogans like "Don't trust anyone over 30".

    As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn't do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse... as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he's even more helpless than a child.
    In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to oldhood. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It's one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

    The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is the identity of ethnicity is weakened, and identity becomes weak or unstable. Or overly narrow -- the very smart club -- or overly generic -- like ALL young people. It's no wonder that there's been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

    Now, it's been said that a lot of affluent white people don't care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s; he was likely feeling something more physical and female).
    But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF he/she feels a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their 'friends' or pack members.

    So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or worry about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn't always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it's beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it's always for the Top Three: Jews, Negroes, or Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

    But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it's like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn't just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

    Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that's all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as 'weak' and 'irrational'. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one's emotions from rest of humanity, even one's own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and tyranny.
    Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

    In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and 'socialist' with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and 'white trash' act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

    It's not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It's a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.
    Fascist socialism is asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can't lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it's this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won't even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

    Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism -- no matter how successful the individuals are -- is bound to fail and lose to group actions of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others. It's like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decided to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It's like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
    The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

    Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness... though they've now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It's one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a 'new cold war' with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East -- war with Iran next on the menu? -- , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentile world to get what they want.

    Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it's not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It's this connection that makes life meaningful. It's like the thief in KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he comes to feel a connection to the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
    Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotionally sick because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it's like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with a wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it's not enough that he's safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses' life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

    Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel this racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
    Also, it's not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren't a great culture, it's worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
    White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate white culture and pay it tribute, it wouldn't be the same thing. It's like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage and culture. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It's just a joke. It's like it'd be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be 'larping'.

    Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It's not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
    Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting are destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

    Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting is destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal is destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is more important. It's like one's mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

    Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It's okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

    And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cord to their own race and history. It's like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can't feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind and white senses. White mind feels no pain when white senses are being destroyed.
    But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.

    Wonderfully said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Miro23 says:

    What you might call the “John Lennon ” religion, “Lennonism”:

    Instead we have elevated almost to the status of religion the idea that people are indistinguishable, or should be, and must be forced into association. This is said to be the natural or at least desirable state of humanity, even though it clearly is not what we really want. On ideological grounds we imagine a world that cannot exist, and try to move into it. When it doesn’t work, we try to force it. This causes endless resentment and unhappiness and sometimes hatred. Yet any who openly do not want to be with those unlike themselves are called racists, sexists, Islamophobes, homophobes, snobs, and so on.

    And, consider the natural way that the social world has evolved over millennia – because it works . Each race living on its own territory, sometimes respecting its neighbours, and sometime not.

    As Fred points out, the worst problems historically come from forced mixing on the same territory.

    Much of today’s anger would diminish if we allowed people to live in neighborhoods of their own kind, and study in schools of their own kind, and be policed by their own kind, and to establish clubs as they like. We could call this something like, oh, say, “freedom.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Miro23 says:
    @Priss Factor
    Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred.

    Not only is it the chief cause of butchery and hatred but it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

    Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

    How did Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

    Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

    Tibetans are pissed because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Tibetans are forced to 'include' the People of Dog(meat).

    Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans.

    Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

    Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I'll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

    True, empire can unleash new possibilities, new ideas, new discoveries, and etc. Imperialism led to discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn't have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there's always been a huge cost to diversity, or excessive amounts of it. And clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It's like powerful storms can wipe out entire communities.

    Also, we should make a distinction between organic diversity and imposed(often incompatible)diversity.

    A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

    But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, an extrinsically diverse society will still result in the formation of communities of shared ages or abilities. So, young people of all color may hang out. And smart people of various colors may work together. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a young person is soon an adult than an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be forever young with slogans like "Don't trust anyone over 30".

    As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn't do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse... as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he's even more helpless than a child.
    In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to oldhood. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It's one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

    The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is the identity of ethnicity is weakened, and identity becomes weak or unstable. Or overly narrow -- the very smart club -- or overly generic -- like ALL young people. It's no wonder that there's been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

    Now, it's been said that a lot of affluent white people don't care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s; he was likely feeling something more physical and female).
    But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF he/she feels a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their 'friends' or pack members.

    So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or worry about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn't always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it's beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it's always for the Top Three: Jews, Negroes, or Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

    But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it's like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn't just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

    Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that's all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as 'weak' and 'irrational'. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one's emotions from rest of humanity, even one's own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and tyranny.
    Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

    In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and 'socialist' with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and 'white trash' act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

    It's not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It's a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.
    Fascist socialism is asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can't lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it's this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won't even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

    Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism -- no matter how successful the individuals are -- is bound to fail and lose to group actions of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others. It's like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decided to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It's like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
    The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

    Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness... though they've now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It's one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a 'new cold war' with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East -- war with Iran next on the menu? -- , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentile world to get what they want.

    Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it's not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It's this connection that makes life meaningful. It's like the thief in KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he comes to feel a connection to the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
    Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotionally sick because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it's like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with a wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it's not enough that he's safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses' life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

    Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel this racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
    Also, it's not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren't a great culture, it's worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
    White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate white culture and pay it tribute, it wouldn't be the same thing. It's like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage and culture. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It's just a joke. It's like it'd be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be 'larping'.

    Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It's not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
    Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting are destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

    Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting is destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal is destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is more important. It's like one's mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

    Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It's okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

    And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cord to their own race and history. It's like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can't feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind and white senses. White mind feels no pain when white senses are being destroyed.
    But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.

    In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

    This is the interesting Rights and Duties question, that applies to everyone in a society regardless of their intelligence, wealth or any other differences.

    Perversely, US Multiculturalism actually instructs minorities that they have no Duties to general society, and in fact need to attack and reject it for a variety of reasons (i.e. it is Cultural Marxism).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Instead we have elevated almost to the status of religion the idea that people are indistinguishable, or should be, and must be forced into association

    I am reasonably sure the order is opposite that stated Fred, to re-order it:

    “we” “have elevated almost to the status of religion the idea that people”
    “must be forced into association”

    … where I would then add, “therefore we rigidly hold the frame on…”

    ” idea that people are indistinguishable”

    The reason for this is that it there is something obviously in violation of basic rights to force people into violation of freedom of association, … so while we go about so forcing, we instead focus on the more defensible and sentimentally powerful idea that “people are indistinguishable”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. @Sweep the leg
    Ok, so the guy who calls whites "racists" because they reject his illegal, and in my case legal, hombres, appears to be agreeing with the fact that people just want to be with their own kind?? I used to take him seriously...

    What does your “in my case legal hombres” mean in a context where I take you to be referring to Mexicans as illegal?

    And where can you find Fred Reed calling whites “racist” – not including any ironical reference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. As you know Fred it’s all a lot more compliicated than just dealing with the follies of forced togetherness when the stakes aren’t even very high. I need hardly remind you of Cain and Abel or Joseph and his brothers to set you off thinking of the many circumstances when the obvious cases for the togetherness of likes doesn’t suffice.

    You have ignored the workplace and the market place and they are a big part of people’s lives. And you have ignored amateur sport which, like music and theatrical productions ought to be major aspects of unsegregated schools integrating functions. Of course they will help delineate the limits too as the three 6 ft 6 inch black basketballers associate with each other and not with the 5ft 5in East Asian table tennis champs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Wally says: • Website
    @Truth
    LOL;

    Dude, it just becomes more comical every week.

    Why is it that so many white nationalists preach this poppycock than move to Thailand and marry a Filipino.


    "buh...buh...buh...why people'n Asians geh along better than why people and blaaaaaqqs..."

    They seem to get along better than white people and whites too, if WN are any indication, you fucking dumbshit!

    So then, show us all these endless examples of ‘white nationalists that move to Thailand and marry a Filipino’.

    Ahh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Yes, indeed, Fred does state the obvious…we have a cliche/proverb for it: “birds of a feather flock
    together”…
    So, sure, there’s a large element of truth in what he says.
    However, he does push it beyond necessity: people of the same race, intelligence, sex, age, wealth will tend to gather together. So we can all think of exceptions, friendships between the sexes (platonic), of different ages, and so on we have seen or experienced. Sure, probably not a large minority, but sufficient to not lay down hard & fast judgements.
    And, naturally, people don’t like to be forced to gather with those they have naught in common with….(Wow, people dont like to be forced to do something — who’d have guessed it ?)
    As a general rule people should be free to associate as they choose. Where it becomes contentious, is where exclusion from mere association is the basis of exclusion from the free use of merit.
    Women wanted into “men’s clubs” because large amounts of business, or the acquisition of power/influence are based on the acquaintanceships/friendships one makes informally in places like clubs.
    It’s also worth remembering that, yes, “difference” is a generator of hatred & conflict. However, it’s often hard to pick out where “difference” begins & greed or desperation for resources/advantage ends. The wars of religion during the 1600′s in Europe were fought over religion AND land, power etc etc.
    On the other hand some may suggest that the differences between the peoples of the North & South of the US were a major contributor to the war… however, others would suggest that the primary “bone of contention” between the States was almost purely economic: ie the North’s use of its political advantage to apply tariffs on the South to the South’s obvious economic disadvantage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Truth
    LOL;

    Dude, it just becomes more comical every week.

    Why is it that so many white nationalists preach this poppycock than move to Thailand and marry a Filipino.


    "buh...buh...buh...why people'n Asians geh along better than why people and blaaaaaqqs..."

    They seem to get along better than white people and whites too, if WN are any indication, you fucking dumbshit!

    Truth, could you write your comment again, except in proper English? You seem to be saying something about the social compatibility of “whites” (Euro-Americans?) and “Asians” (Orientals I suppose – “Asian” is too broad a category) but I can’t quite decipher it. Maybe this is some sort of insider-lingo you’re using but we’re not all “hip to it.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Negrolphin Pool

    buh...buh...buh...why people'n Asians geh along better than why people and blaaaaaqqs...
     
    I think it needs to be said with an extreme affected Mississippi drawl and it will pop out at you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @gustafus
    RED ALERT -

    for a web address that prides itself on its ability to call out Jews for their crimes and misdemeanors...

    nobody is talking about the evolutionary strategy of high IQ Ashkenazi Jews to control the hosts of their given occupations. Translation? --- JEWS were the muscle for a whole lot of forced integration.

    Jews in America advanced the efforts of low IQ blacks and hispanics... knowing they could control them... and those efforts would effectively thwart the economic competition by Christian Whites.

    Culture of Critique... 101 ... thank you Kevin MacDonald.

    Absent the heavy hand of the "invisible" Jew - who previous to this decade couldn't even be identified, let alone blamed for the forced multi cultural murder suicide pact between Americans.

    Hollywood - JEWS
    Media - JEWS
    Banking and ALL FED FAMILIES - JEWS
    Wall st - JEWS
    SCOTUS - pretty much all Jews.
    Medicine, including Psychiatry and Sociology - JEWS

    and last but not least... Academia.... controlled by Jews.

    but then a funny thing happened on the way to the total domination and destruction of white America..... the LEFT DISCOVERED PALESTINIANS...... oops.

    the Left joined with pesky Christian churches like the Presbyterians... to divest themselves of any ties to the nasty nasty Sephardic Jews of Israel.....

    No problem ... whispers the Bezos, Gates, Zuch, Simon, Blankfein -- contingent....

    Well, yes, they ARE a problem.. because Oil money finally turned into political muscle.... here and in Europe, Africa, Asia.... and that nasty 2% find themselves in a conundrum.

    They either continue to sabotage their closest economic rivals... US ... or they perish at the hands of 1.7 billion REALLY PISSED OFF MUSLIMS..

    I think they are coming around.... Hey Hersh... how about lunch? -- I'll buy... BLT's...

    I’ve been reading Breitbart lately, and one thing I’ve learned is how to spot a Jesuit conspiracy. You sound like a Jesuit…your obsession with Jews is a dead giveaway. Jesuits are all about deception, intrigue, and sowing confusion…Did you know Einstein was a Jesuit? Marx was trained by Jesuits…all this antisemitic nonsense is just a smokescreen! The Jesuits trained the Nazis!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Miro23 says:
    @Priss Factor
    Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred.

    Not only is it the chief cause of butchery and hatred but it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

    Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

    How did Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

    Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

    Tibetans are pissed because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Tibetans are forced to 'include' the People of Dog(meat).

    Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans.

    Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

    Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I'll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

    True, empire can unleash new possibilities, new ideas, new discoveries, and etc. Imperialism led to discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn't have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there's always been a huge cost to diversity, or excessive amounts of it. And clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It's like powerful storms can wipe out entire communities.

    Also, we should make a distinction between organic diversity and imposed(often incompatible)diversity.

    A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

    But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, an extrinsically diverse society will still result in the formation of communities of shared ages or abilities. So, young people of all color may hang out. And smart people of various colors may work together. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a young person is soon an adult than an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be forever young with slogans like "Don't trust anyone over 30".

    As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn't do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse... as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he's even more helpless than a child.
    In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to oldhood. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It's one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

    The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is the identity of ethnicity is weakened, and identity becomes weak or unstable. Or overly narrow -- the very smart club -- or overly generic -- like ALL young people. It's no wonder that there's been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

    Now, it's been said that a lot of affluent white people don't care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s; he was likely feeling something more physical and female).
    But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF he/she feels a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their 'friends' or pack members.

    So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or worry about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn't always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it's beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it's always for the Top Three: Jews, Negroes, or Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

    But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it's like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn't just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

    Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that's all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as 'weak' and 'irrational'. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one's emotions from rest of humanity, even one's own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and tyranny.
    Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

    In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and 'socialist' with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and 'white trash' act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

    It's not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It's a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.
    Fascist socialism is asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can't lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it's this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won't even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

    Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism -- no matter how successful the individuals are -- is bound to fail and lose to group actions of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others. It's like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decided to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It's like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
    The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

    Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness... though they've now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It's one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a 'new cold war' with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East -- war with Iran next on the menu? -- , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentile world to get what they want.

    Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it's not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It's this connection that makes life meaningful. It's like the thief in KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he comes to feel a connection to the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
    Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotionally sick because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it's like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with a wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it's not enough that he's safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses' life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

    Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel this racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
    Also, it's not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren't a great culture, it's worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
    White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate white culture and pay it tribute, it wouldn't be the same thing. It's like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage and culture. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It's just a joke. It's like it'd be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be 'larping'.

    Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It's not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
    Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting are destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

    Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting is destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal is destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is more important. It's like one's mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

    Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It's okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

    And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cord to their own race and history. It's like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can't feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind and white senses. White mind feels no pain when white senses are being destroyed.
    But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.

    It’s not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It’s a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism (the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.

    America First Socialism with its Rights/Obligations is an acceptance of the English social traditions behind the founding of the modern US, which came naturally to predominantly ethnic Anglo-European society up to the 1950′s.

    And, there’s a point here regarding Great Society welfare socialism.

    Most families are Marxist/Communist in a very fundamental way. They meet Marx’s definition “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” and there’s no problem with this. Parents are happy to look after children for years and family members are often willing to help each other out in various ways over long periods.

    Marx’s error was to extend the idea to the whole of society.

    It’s true that the Proletariat did have a grievance in awful 19th century factory conditions, but as it turned out, the bonds of the “working class brotherhood” were too weak to counter self interest , opening the door to various self-serving “Communist” elite dictatorships (e.g. Fidel Castro’s high life in Cuba).

    And multiculturalism just weakens the bonds further.

    Realistically, a rebirth of America First Socialism can only happen at a much lower level among people who know and trust each other, which means among people who meet together, discuss issues, make real Democratic decisions, raise their own taxes, and supervise their own spending, health, security and welfare.

    In other words, this is American Democracy with power held at the lowest level possible (County then State), with obligatory citizen participation, and a minimal role for Washington and the President – plus locally supervised credit creation (no Federal Reserve).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. RobRich says: • Website

    “Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that’s all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as ‘weak’ and ‘irrational’. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. ”

    You can always tell a commie infiltrator when they go off on an irrelevant smear on Libertarianism.

    The Libertarians have led the way in noting the problem of pathological altruism, cultural invasion and HBD. Typically, commies seek to hijack libertarian insights and then use them to mislead.

    Get lost, totalitarian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Logan says:
    @gustafus
    "Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos"

    You're half right... women marry UP or laterally

    Men marry down or laterally.... but they love to marry and date DOWN... it adds to their self image

    I don't want to look up the science on this... but it's there .. if you have an interest, check it out.

    It's under educational and evolutionary psychology... Jordan Peterson for one...

    This explains much of the anger of upper-status feminists.

    In traditional societies the male social scale started lower and extended higher. Thus, just about every woman could potentially marry UP. Hence, secretaries married executives and nurses married doctors.

    Women today have successfully achieved equal status in many areas. Thus, by definition there can be no men for whom to marry UP. How does a female MD marry UP?

    This is of course exacerbated by the ongoing willingness of men to continue to marry DOWN.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. I’ve noticed that in places with fewer racial differences, people are more likely to socialise across class boundaries. Doctors and plumbers can talk to each other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred.

    Not only is it the chief cause of butchery and hatred but it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

    Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

    How did Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

    Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

    Tibetans are pissed because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Tibetans are forced to 'include' the People of Dog(meat).

    Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans.

    Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

    Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I'll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

    True, empire can unleash new possibilities, new ideas, new discoveries, and etc. Imperialism led to discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn't have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there's always been a huge cost to diversity, or excessive amounts of it. And clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It's like powerful storms can wipe out entire communities.

    Also, we should make a distinction between organic diversity and imposed(often incompatible)diversity.

    A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

    But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, an extrinsically diverse society will still result in the formation of communities of shared ages or abilities. So, young people of all color may hang out. And smart people of various colors may work together. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a young person is soon an adult than an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be forever young with slogans like "Don't trust anyone over 30".

    As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn't do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse... as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he's even more helpless than a child.
    In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to oldhood. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It's one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

    The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is the identity of ethnicity is weakened, and identity becomes weak or unstable. Or overly narrow -- the very smart club -- or overly generic -- like ALL young people. It's no wonder that there's been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

    Now, it's been said that a lot of affluent white people don't care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s; he was likely feeling something more physical and female).
    But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF he/she feels a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their 'friends' or pack members.

    So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or worry about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn't always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it's beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it's always for the Top Three: Jews, Negroes, or Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

    But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it's like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn't just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

    Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that's all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as 'weak' and 'irrational'. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one's emotions from rest of humanity, even one's own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and tyranny.
    Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

    In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and 'socialist' with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and 'white trash' act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

    It's not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It's a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.
    Fascist socialism is asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can't lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it's this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won't even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

    Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism -- no matter how successful the individuals are -- is bound to fail and lose to group actions of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others. It's like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decided to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It's like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
    The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

    Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness... though they've now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It's one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a 'new cold war' with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East -- war with Iran next on the menu? -- , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentile world to get what they want.

    Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it's not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It's this connection that makes life meaningful. It's like the thief in KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he comes to feel a connection to the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
    Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotionally sick because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it's like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with a wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it's not enough that he's safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses' life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

    Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel this racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
    Also, it's not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren't a great culture, it's worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
    White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate white culture and pay it tribute, it wouldn't be the same thing. It's like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage and culture. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It's just a joke. It's like it'd be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be 'larping'.

    Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It's not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
    Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting are destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

    Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting is destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal is destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is more important. It's like one's mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

    Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It's okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

    And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cord to their own race and history. It's like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can't feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind and white senses. White mind feels no pain when white senses are being destroyed.
    But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.

    Oh man, you do go on, and then some more… :D

    You should try applying all that intellectualising to your currently professed spirituality… or lack thereof.

    and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan

    Yeah, I can imagine that would be anathema for every white supremacist.

    Now, chew on this;

    O you who have believed, fear Allah as He should be feared and do not die except as true monotheists [in submission to Him and only Him]. [Quran 3:102]

    Can you foresee in which state you will die?

    Where the likes of you are headed, you will beg for one more chance to be born looking like a baboon… and as True Monotheists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Joe Hide says:

    Mr. Reed,
    Very interesting and reasonable take on human psychology. Please, more articles like this one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. anarchyst says:
    @gustafus
    RED ALERT -

    for a web address that prides itself on its ability to call out Jews for their crimes and misdemeanors...

    nobody is talking about the evolutionary strategy of high IQ Ashkenazi Jews to control the hosts of their given occupations. Translation? --- JEWS were the muscle for a whole lot of forced integration.

    Jews in America advanced the efforts of low IQ blacks and hispanics... knowing they could control them... and those efforts would effectively thwart the economic competition by Christian Whites.

    Culture of Critique... 101 ... thank you Kevin MacDonald.

    Absent the heavy hand of the "invisible" Jew - who previous to this decade couldn't even be identified, let alone blamed for the forced multi cultural murder suicide pact between Americans.

    Hollywood - JEWS
    Media - JEWS
    Banking and ALL FED FAMILIES - JEWS
    Wall st - JEWS
    SCOTUS - pretty much all Jews.
    Medicine, including Psychiatry and Sociology - JEWS

    and last but not least... Academia.... controlled by Jews.

    but then a funny thing happened on the way to the total domination and destruction of white America..... the LEFT DISCOVERED PALESTINIANS...... oops.

    the Left joined with pesky Christian churches like the Presbyterians... to divest themselves of any ties to the nasty nasty Sephardic Jews of Israel.....

    No problem ... whispers the Bezos, Gates, Zuch, Simon, Blankfein -- contingent....

    Well, yes, they ARE a problem.. because Oil money finally turned into political muscle.... here and in Europe, Africa, Asia.... and that nasty 2% find themselves in a conundrum.

    They either continue to sabotage their closest economic rivals... US ... or they perish at the hands of 1.7 billion REALLY PISSED OFF MUSLIMS..

    I think they are coming around.... Hey Hersh... how about lunch? -- I'll buy... BLT's...

    Although America’s civil-rights groups appeared to be led by Blacks, in reality they were usually led — or at least steered — by Jews. Most of the men who founded the NAACP were jews, and for decades it had a jew as president. Martin Luther King Jr.’s chief advisor was jew Stanley Levison. The major civil-rights groups were funded mainly by Jewish donations. Furthermore, important civil-rights cases were argued and won in the courts by skilled Jewish lawyers. For example Jack Greenberg, who was a key figure surrounding the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. Another Jewish attorney, Nathan Margold, produced the in-depth report that became the NAACP’s blueprint for its legal strategy in outlawing racial segregation. In fact, it could be said that the Margold report virtually ended racial segregation in America.
    Now we again mention Congressman Celler (1888-1981). Not only did Celler introduce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into Congress, he oversaw the general creation of the Act within two committees in the U.S. House of Representatives. Celler not only chaired the Judiciary Committee but also House subcommittee No. 5, which considered H.R.7152 [5]. Subcommittee No. 5 was said to be the “most aggressive” entity in strengthening H.R.7152 [6]. Furthermore, Celler handpicked some of the members of Subcommittee #5, ensuring that the 1964 Act had plenty of “teeth”; and he also was the floor manager in the House during debate on H.R.7152. Additionally, Celler put more teeth into H.R.7152 than were needed, in case the bill was watered-down later by its opponents – which it was, via a compromise bill called a “clean bill,” which was the same bill with a few words changed to ensure more Congressional support for it. Celler employed tricks to get H.R.7152 through Congress, such as using a discharge petition to aid passage of the bill through the congressional committees. Of significance is that Celler lied about the intent of the 1964 Act when he denied that it would prevent employers from hiring whom they wanted.
    “[T]he charge has been made that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to be established by title VII of the bill would have the power to prevent a business from employing and promoting the people it wished, and that a ‘Federal inspector’ could then order the hiring and promotion only of employees of certain races or religious groups. This description of the bill is entirely wrong…”

    Read More
    • Replies: @polaco
    I saw a documentary, some years ago, about the Civil Rights Movement on PBS, and so I've heard it straight from the horse's mouth how 90% of the "whites" who were helping blacks were Jews. There are pictures from the sixties, on the web, of Bernie Sanders demonstrating and scuffling with police. On orders from Moscow, the activists were lauded by the commie propaganda in Poland at the time, as were all anti-war hippies, students, artists, and other degenerates. It therefore was pretty clear who was behind it.
    , @Carroll Price
    Jews also led the Cultural (Hippie) Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, financed the legal battles resulting in the public display of pornography, filing law suits leading to the removal of prayer from schools and other public places, as well as court cases to ban Christmas displays from public places. And, there's little doubt Jews are financing and leading efforts being made to remove historic displays and monuments from public places.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Mistral says:

    This reality call is the reason why today’s Christianity is an illusion. The heart of Christianity is the practice of love which illustrated by Jesus of Nazareth means to die for all humanity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. I just don’t get Fred sometimes. One week he writes something like this (which is awesome), but the next week he’ll be back to his usual: “Mexicans are just like White people in America (only better). They even manage to graduate a few thousand computer scientists every year. So Americans had better bend over backwards to accommodate their illegal Mexican population, who of course have every right to be there.”

    It’s possible that these two strains of thought can exist together in the same non-schizophrenic mind, but it’s not common. If Fred has a comprehensive worldview which reconciles these apparent contradictions, I’d like to see him explain it in greater detail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Did it ever occur to you that maybe you're the one lacking a comprehensive world view?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Mistral says:

    This realistic assessment is the reason why today’s Christianity (and even past Christianities??) is just an illusion. The central idea of Christianity is the conviction of love for all humanity. Accepting this analysis destroys the possibility for authentic spiritual life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The central idea of Christianity is the conviction of love for all humanity.
     
    My priest tells me you're wrong. The central idea of Christianity is that Man is born into a condition of Sin, and only the intercession of Jesus can save his soul. Accept Jesus as your savior, and be saved, or suffer eternally in the fires of Hell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Did Reed run out of booze?

    This is a surprisingly lucid screed from the purveyor of “Whitey hate poor sainted Mestizos” blog porn.

    Keep going to the meetings Fred. It seems to be working.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @Bro Methylene
    Truth, could you write your comment again, except in proper English? You seem to be saying something about the social compatibility of "whites" (Euro-Americans?) and "Asians" (Orientals I suppose - "Asian" is too broad a category) but I can't quite decipher it. Maybe this is some sort of insider-lingo you're using but we're not all "hip to it."

    buh…buh…buh…why people’n Asians geh along better than why people and blaaaaaqqs…

    I think it needs to be said with an extreme affected Mississippi drawl and it will pop out at you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anon7 says:

    According to one study I read, people with IQs over 130 tend to share the psychological trait of “openness to new experience”. This means that our nation’s ruling class thinks that everyone wants to have varied experiences in meeting people, eating new and exotic foods, listening to strange and wonderful kinds of music, and dealing with cultural differences. Anything less is boring!

    However, this formula is a disaster for the remaining 98% of the population, who behave as Fred describes above.

    In fact, even the children of the upper 98% don’t want to participate, owing to the regression to the mean which inevitably occurs. I asked my kids “Who sits with who in the cafeteria?” in the high school in my college town, and the answer was that the white kids sit with the white kids, blacks with blacks, Asians with Asians (and within that group, Chinese kids sit with Chinese kids, Indians with Indians, etc.)

    I’ve long believed that “the smart, liberal kids” really consist of two groups starting in secondary school: genuinely exceptional kids in the 99th percentile, and the kids who admire them and try to be like them. The latter group likes to see diversity, but actually experiencing diversity of culture, language and passionately held viewpoint terrifies them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It’s possible that these two strains of thought can exist together in the same non-schizophrenic mind, but it’s not common. If Fred has a comprehensive worldview which reconciles these apparent contradictions, I’d like to see him explain it in greater detail.

    LOL. I suspect there might be people reading who don’t quite realize that Fred doesn’t give a shit what they think, and is amused at the thought that he would.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jb
    I don't find anything contradictory in Fred's writings regarding Mexicans. He simply has a higher opinion of them than is the consensus view in this particular forum. What, disagreement isn't allowed here?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Stealth says:

    This article is waaaayyyyy hyperbolic, except for this:

    Blacks do not find the company of white people compelling,

    One thing I’ve noticed is that black men have no desire whatsoever for white friends. The vast majority of social interaction between blacks and whites consists of black men copulating with dumb, wayward or flaky white women. When you see a young black man sitting down in a hipster coffee shop, rest assured he’s probably there to hit on white girls. Black boys mostly hang out with white boys to gain access to their sisters and female friends.

    Years ago, I would go out for lunch every day with two of my white co-workers, and we would occasionally ask others to go with us. Black women would usually accept the invitation, but the black guys almost never would. When they did join us, they seemed to be very uncomfortable, as if they didn’t want to be seen in public with white folks, even if there were other black people at the table. They seem to have a lot of hangups.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Mistral
    This realistic assessment is the reason why today's Christianity (and even past Christianities??) is just an illusion. The central idea of Christianity is the conviction of love for all humanity. Accepting this analysis destroys the possibility for authentic spiritual life.

    The central idea of Christianity is the conviction of love for all humanity.

    My priest tells me you’re wrong. The central idea of Christianity is that Man is born into a condition of Sin, and only the intercession of Jesus can save his soul. Accept Jesus as your savior, and be saved, or suffer eternally in the fires of Hell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Art says:

    Surely you jest when extolling the virtues of your Homo Cult of the Seven Hills.

    Despite the hypocrisy of the priesthood – the Catholic Church through its schools, hospitals, and charities has done more good for people than any other single institution in human history.

    There is a reason for this – in its day to day activities, it stays close to the words of Jesus and does not go off the deep end with Old Testament dictates.

    Clearly throughout history, the hierarchy of the priesthood has done much wrong and still leaves much to be desired – but it consistently brings the words of Jesus to people and that is measurable boon to humanity.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Cultures overemphasize their uniqueness/differences than their general similarities. And I doubt people tend always to fit via cognitive skills, I bet personality is a huge factor, even cultures can be described as a behavior/personality collective system.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Alden says:
    @Priss Factor
    Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred.

    Not only is it the chief cause of butchery and hatred but it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

    Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

    How did Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

    Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

    Tibetans are pissed because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Tibetans are forced to 'include' the People of Dog(meat).

    Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans.

    Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

    Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I'll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

    True, empire can unleash new possibilities, new ideas, new discoveries, and etc. Imperialism led to discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn't have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there's always been a huge cost to diversity, or excessive amounts of it. And clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It's like powerful storms can wipe out entire communities.

    Also, we should make a distinction between organic diversity and imposed(often incompatible)diversity.

    A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

    But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, an extrinsically diverse society will still result in the formation of communities of shared ages or abilities. So, young people of all color may hang out. And smart people of various colors may work together. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a young person is soon an adult than an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be forever young with slogans like "Don't trust anyone over 30".

    As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn't do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse... as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he's even more helpless than a child.
    In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to oldhood. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It's one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

    The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is the identity of ethnicity is weakened, and identity becomes weak or unstable. Or overly narrow -- the very smart club -- or overly generic -- like ALL young people. It's no wonder that there's been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

    Now, it's been said that a lot of affluent white people don't care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s; he was likely feeling something more physical and female).
    But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF he/she feels a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their 'friends' or pack members.

    So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or worry about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn't always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it's beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it's always for the Top Three: Jews, Negroes, or Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

    But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it's like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn't just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

    Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that's all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as 'weak' and 'irrational'. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one's emotions from rest of humanity, even one's own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and tyranny.
    Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

    In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and 'socialist' with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and 'white trash' act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

    It's not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It's a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.
    Fascist socialism is asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can't lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it's this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won't even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

    Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism -- no matter how successful the individuals are -- is bound to fail and lose to group actions of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others. It's like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decided to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It's like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
    The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

    Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness... though they've now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It's one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a 'new cold war' with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East -- war with Iran next on the menu? -- , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentile world to get what they want.

    Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it's not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It's this connection that makes life meaningful. It's like the thief in KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he comes to feel a connection to the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
    Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotionally sick because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it's like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with a wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it's not enough that he's safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses' life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

    Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel this racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
    Also, it's not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren't a great culture, it's worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
    White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate white culture and pay it tribute, it wouldn't be the same thing. It's like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage and culture. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It's just a joke. It's like it'd be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be 'larping'.

    Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It's not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
    Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting are destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

    Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting is destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal is destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is more important. It's like one's mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

    Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It's okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

    And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cord to their own race and history. It's like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can't feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind and white senses. White mind feels no pain when white senses are being destroyed.
    But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.

    Great post!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. jb says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s possible that these two strains of thought can exist together in the same non-schizophrenic mind, but it’s not common. If Fred has a comprehensive worldview which reconciles these apparent contradictions, I’d like to see him explain it in greater detail.
     
    LOL. I suspect there might be people reading who don't quite realize that Fred doesn't give a shit what they think, and is amused at the thought that he would.

    I don’t find anything contradictory in Fred’s writings regarding Mexicans. He simply has a higher opinion of them than is the consensus view in this particular forum. What, disagreement isn’t allowed here?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Priss Factor
    Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred.

    Not only is it the chief cause of butchery and hatred but it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

    Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

    How did Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

    Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

    Tibetans are pissed because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Tibetans are forced to 'include' the People of Dog(meat).

    Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans.

    Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

    Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I'll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

    True, empire can unleash new possibilities, new ideas, new discoveries, and etc. Imperialism led to discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn't have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there's always been a huge cost to diversity, or excessive amounts of it. And clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It's like powerful storms can wipe out entire communities.

    Also, we should make a distinction between organic diversity and imposed(often incompatible)diversity.

    A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

    But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, an extrinsically diverse society will still result in the formation of communities of shared ages or abilities. So, young people of all color may hang out. And smart people of various colors may work together. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a young person is soon an adult than an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be forever young with slogans like "Don't trust anyone over 30".

    As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn't do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse... as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he's even more helpless than a child.
    In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to oldhood. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It's one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

    The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is the identity of ethnicity is weakened, and identity becomes weak or unstable. Or overly narrow -- the very smart club -- or overly generic -- like ALL young people. It's no wonder that there's been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

    Now, it's been said that a lot of affluent white people don't care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s; he was likely feeling something more physical and female).
    But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF he/she feels a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their 'friends' or pack members.

    So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or worry about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn't always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it's beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it's always for the Top Three: Jews, Negroes, or Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

    But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it's like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn't just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

    Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that's all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as 'weak' and 'irrational'. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one's emotions from rest of humanity, even one's own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and tyranny.
    Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

    In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and 'socialist' with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and 'white trash' act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

    It's not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It's a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.
    Fascist socialism is asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can't lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it's this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won't even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

    Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism -- no matter how successful the individuals are -- is bound to fail and lose to group actions of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others. It's like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decided to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It's like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
    The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

    Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness... though they've now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It's one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a 'new cold war' with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East -- war with Iran next on the menu? -- , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentile world to get what they want.

    Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it's not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It's this connection that makes life meaningful. It's like the thief in KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he comes to feel a connection to the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
    Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotionally sick because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it's like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with a wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it's not enough that he's safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses' life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

    Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel this racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
    Also, it's not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren't a great culture, it's worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
    White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate white culture and pay it tribute, it wouldn't be the same thing. It's like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage and culture. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It's just a joke. It's like it'd be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be 'larping'.

    Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It's not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
    Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting are destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

    Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting is destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal is destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is more important. It's like one's mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

    Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It's okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

    And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cord to their own race and history. It's like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can't feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind and white senses. White mind feels no pain when white senses are being destroyed.
    But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.

    Wow, it is obvious that a lot of people aren’t handling the decline of the West very well, judging by the lunatic rantings and ravings of its mad men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Wow, it is obvious that a lot of people aren’t handling the decline of the West very well,

    Are people supposed to 'handle it well'?

    That's like expecting a cancer patient to be blase and indifferent to his own demise.

    What is truly shocking is that SO MANY white people either don't care or even welcome this fall of civilization. And this time, there will be no renaissance.

    The fall of Rome didn't destroy the genetics of the European race. It was the fall of culture and civilization, but the very genetic traits that could rebuild a civilization(an even greater one) were still there.

    But with the massive invasion of Europe by Arabs and Africans and with the 'Latin-Americanization' and 'North-Africanization' of Europe, it is Game Over. Europe will forever be like North Africa, a hodgepodge of mess and mediocrity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. polaco says:
    @anarchyst
    Although America's civil-rights groups appeared to be led by Blacks, in reality they were usually led -- or at least steered -- by Jews. Most of the men who founded the NAACP were jews, and for decades it had a jew as president. Martin Luther King Jr.'s chief advisor was jew Stanley Levison. The major civil-rights groups were funded mainly by Jewish donations. Furthermore, important civil-rights cases were argued and won in the courts by skilled Jewish lawyers. For example Jack Greenberg, who was a key figure surrounding the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. Another Jewish attorney, Nathan Margold, produced the in-depth report that became the NAACP's blueprint for its legal strategy in outlawing racial segregation. In fact, it could be said that the Margold report virtually ended racial segregation in America.
    Now we again mention Congressman Celler (1888-1981). Not only did Celler introduce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into Congress, he oversaw the general creation of the Act within two committees in the U.S. House of Representatives. Celler not only chaired the Judiciary Committee but also House subcommittee No. 5, which considered H.R.7152 [5]. Subcommittee No. 5 was said to be the "most aggressive" entity in strengthening H.R.7152 [6]. Furthermore, Celler handpicked some of the members of Subcommittee #5, ensuring that the 1964 Act had plenty of "teeth"; and he also was the floor manager in the House during debate on H.R.7152. Additionally, Celler put more teeth into H.R.7152 than were needed, in case the bill was watered-down later by its opponents - which it was, via a compromise bill called a "clean bill," which was the same bill with a few words changed to ensure more Congressional support for it. Celler employed tricks to get H.R.7152 through Congress, such as using a discharge petition to aid passage of the bill through the congressional committees. Of significance is that Celler lied about the intent of the 1964 Act when he denied that it would prevent employers from hiring whom they wanted.
    "[T]he charge has been made that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to be established by title VII of the bill would have the power to prevent a business from employing and promoting the people it wished, and that a 'Federal inspector' could then order the hiring and promotion only of employees of certain races or religious groups. This description of the bill is entirely wrong..."

    I saw a documentary, some years ago, about the Civil Rights Movement on PBS, and so I’ve heard it straight from the horse’s mouth how 90% of the “whites” who were helping blacks were Jews. There are pictures from the sixties, on the web, of Bernie Sanders demonstrating and scuffling with police. On orders from Moscow, the activists were lauded by the commie propaganda in Poland at the time, as were all anti-war hippies, students, artists, and other degenerates. It therefore was pretty clear who was behind it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. What happened to 30+ posts from last night?

    (My presumption is that (((someone(s)))) demanded removal of the posts critical of the ruling tribe, and rather than pick and choose, SS just removed 30+ posts)

    I cant be the only one that noticed.

    [SEE http://www.unz.com/announcement/server-crash/ ]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @anarchyst
    Although America's civil-rights groups appeared to be led by Blacks, in reality they were usually led -- or at least steered -- by Jews. Most of the men who founded the NAACP were jews, and for decades it had a jew as president. Martin Luther King Jr.'s chief advisor was jew Stanley Levison. The major civil-rights groups were funded mainly by Jewish donations. Furthermore, important civil-rights cases were argued and won in the courts by skilled Jewish lawyers. For example Jack Greenberg, who was a key figure surrounding the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. Another Jewish attorney, Nathan Margold, produced the in-depth report that became the NAACP's blueprint for its legal strategy in outlawing racial segregation. In fact, it could be said that the Margold report virtually ended racial segregation in America.
    Now we again mention Congressman Celler (1888-1981). Not only did Celler introduce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into Congress, he oversaw the general creation of the Act within two committees in the U.S. House of Representatives. Celler not only chaired the Judiciary Committee but also House subcommittee No. 5, which considered H.R.7152 [5]. Subcommittee No. 5 was said to be the "most aggressive" entity in strengthening H.R.7152 [6]. Furthermore, Celler handpicked some of the members of Subcommittee #5, ensuring that the 1964 Act had plenty of "teeth"; and he also was the floor manager in the House during debate on H.R.7152. Additionally, Celler put more teeth into H.R.7152 than were needed, in case the bill was watered-down later by its opponents - which it was, via a compromise bill called a "clean bill," which was the same bill with a few words changed to ensure more Congressional support for it. Celler employed tricks to get H.R.7152 through Congress, such as using a discharge petition to aid passage of the bill through the congressional committees. Of significance is that Celler lied about the intent of the 1964 Act when he denied that it would prevent employers from hiring whom they wanted.
    "[T]he charge has been made that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to be established by title VII of the bill would have the power to prevent a business from employing and promoting the people it wished, and that a 'Federal inspector' could then order the hiring and promotion only of employees of certain races or religious groups. This description of the bill is entirely wrong..."

    Jews also led the Cultural (Hippie) Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, financed the legal battles resulting in the public display of pornography, filing law suits leading to the removal of prayer from schools and other public places, as well as court cases to ban Christmas displays from public places. And, there’s little doubt Jews are financing and leading efforts being made to remove historic displays and monuments from public places.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "Jews also led the Cultural (Hippie) Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, financed the legal battles resulting in the public display of pornography, filing law suits leading to the removal of prayer from schools and other public places, as well as court cases to ban Christmas displays from public places. And, there’s little doubt Jews are financing and leading efforts being made to remove historic displays and monuments from public places."

    Indeed.
    A statue of Jew Confederate slave owner stands untouched in Florida
    https://revisionistreview.blogspot.it/2017/08/statue-of-judaic-confederate-slave.html

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2lnJKN7CQko/WZrpNr-v9JI/AAAAAAAAC1U/nxwUAqrnTmMj8rzsTnY4nURWtaR8GQhkACLcBGAs/s640/David%2BLevy%2BYulee.jpg

    David Levy Yulee statue in Florida

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LFUnAoF2_yM/WZrplON619I/AAAAAAAAC1Y/zHnw9Yl3CUsuo8gTORGzR-DM14FET9LHwCLcBGAs/s640/David_Levy_Yulee_-_Brady.jpg

    Yulee’s inflammatory pro-slavery rhetoric in the U.S. Senate earned him the nickname, “the Florida Fire Eater.” He resigned his senate seat to support the Confederacy.

    www.codoh.com

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Intelligent Dasein
    I just don't get Fred sometimes. One week he writes something like this (which is awesome), but the next week he'll be back to his usual: "Mexicans are just like White people in America (only better). They even manage to graduate a few thousand computer scientists every year. So Americans had better bend over backwards to accommodate their illegal Mexican population, who of course have every right to be there."

    It's possible that these two strains of thought can exist together in the same non-schizophrenic mind, but it's not common. If Fred has a comprehensive worldview which reconciles these apparent contradictions, I'd like to see him explain it in greater detail.

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe you’re the one lacking a comprehensive world view?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Wally says: • Website
    @Carroll Price
    Jews also led the Cultural (Hippie) Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, financed the legal battles resulting in the public display of pornography, filing law suits leading to the removal of prayer from schools and other public places, as well as court cases to ban Christmas displays from public places. And, there's little doubt Jews are financing and leading efforts being made to remove historic displays and monuments from public places.

    said:
    “Jews also led the Cultural (Hippie) Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, financed the legal battles resulting in the public display of pornography, filing law suits leading to the removal of prayer from schools and other public places, as well as court cases to ban Christmas displays from public places. And, there’s little doubt Jews are financing and leading efforts being made to remove historic displays and monuments from public places.

    Indeed.
    A statue of Jew Confederate slave owner stands untouched in Florida

    https://revisionistreview.blogspot.it/2017/08/statue-of-judaic-confederate-slave.html


    David Levy Yulee statue in Florida

    Yulee’s inflammatory pro-slavery rhetoric in the U.S. Senate earned him the nickname, “the Florida Fire Eater.” He resigned his senate seat to support the Confederacy.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    I believe I posted to you before that David Levy Yulee has two Florida counties named after him. Levy and Yulee counties. Impressive in my book.
    , @Vinteuil
    Wally - would you be willing to accept that David Cole's estimate of about 3-3.5 million for Jewish victims of the NAZI's is at least a reasonable guess?

    http://takimag.com/article/how_many_jews_can_be_gassed_on_the_head_of_a_pin_david_cole#axzz4x58O51ky

    This is a guy who has done his level best to get to the truth, at great personal cost to himself.

    I'd really like to see him posting here, as well as at Taki's.
    , @Vinteuil
    And might you also be willing to admit, Wally, my friend, that the NAZI's did everything they could to kill &/or enslave their slavic brothers?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @George Orwell
    Wow, it is obvious that a lot of people aren’t handling the decline of the West very well, judging by the lunatic rantings and ravings of its mad men.

    Wow, it is obvious that a lot of people aren’t handling the decline of the West very well,

    Are people supposed to ‘handle it well’?

    That’s like expecting a cancer patient to be blase and indifferent to his own demise.

    What is truly shocking is that SO MANY white people either don’t care or even welcome this fall of civilization. And this time, there will be no renaissance.

    The fall of Rome didn’t destroy the genetics of the European race. It was the fall of culture and civilization, but the very genetic traits that could rebuild a civilization(an even greater one) were still there.

    But with the massive invasion of Europe by Arabs and Africans and with the ‘Latin-Americanization’ and ‘North-Africanization’ of Europe, it is Game Over. Europe will forever be like North Africa, a hodgepodge of mess and mediocrity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You can't make predictions about the future; for all practical purpose, Roman population "ended" through Germanic and North African mixture as well. Their ethics and culture remained and were adopted, imperfectly as you might say, by others - Europeans didn't revive dignitas or gravitas, etc, and Roman collectivism perished in the revived European culture of increased individualism. If the Romans took what they could from the Greek, then later Europeans took what they could from the Romans; this trend will continue.

    Point is, things change. Doesn't mean there is never a renaissance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Clyde says:
    @Truth
    LOL;

    Dude, it just becomes more comical every week.

    Why is it that so many white nationalists preach this poppycock than move to Thailand and marry a Filipino.


    "buh...buh...buh...why people'n Asians geh along better than why people and blaaaaaqqs..."

    They seem to get along better than white people and whites too, if WN are any indication, you fucking dumbshit!

    Troof I can read through you and you have an Asian/Filipina/ Thai thing going on you rascal you going on about white nationalists as a cover.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Clyde says:
    @Wally
    said:
    "Jews also led the Cultural (Hippie) Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, financed the legal battles resulting in the public display of pornography, filing law suits leading to the removal of prayer from schools and other public places, as well as court cases to ban Christmas displays from public places. And, there’s little doubt Jews are financing and leading efforts being made to remove historic displays and monuments from public places."

    Indeed.
    A statue of Jew Confederate slave owner stands untouched in Florida
    https://revisionistreview.blogspot.it/2017/08/statue-of-judaic-confederate-slave.html

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2lnJKN7CQko/WZrpNr-v9JI/AAAAAAAAC1U/nxwUAqrnTmMj8rzsTnY4nURWtaR8GQhkACLcBGAs/s640/David%2BLevy%2BYulee.jpg

    David Levy Yulee statue in Florida

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LFUnAoF2_yM/WZrplON619I/AAAAAAAAC1Y/zHnw9Yl3CUsuo8gTORGzR-DM14FET9LHwCLcBGAs/s640/David_Levy_Yulee_-_Brady.jpg

    Yulee’s inflammatory pro-slavery rhetoric in the U.S. Senate earned him the nickname, “the Florida Fire Eater.” He resigned his senate seat to support the Confederacy.

    www.codoh.com

    I believe I posted to you before that David Levy Yulee has two Florida counties named after him. Levy and Yulee counties. Impressive in my book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    As a rule, Southerner's didn't like Jews any better than anyone else, but simply tolerated them due to the vital role Jews played in the slave trade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. anarchyst says:

    I was there during the so-called “civil-rights” demonstrations and observed much criminal behavior that never got reported. You see, then as is now, the news media, communists and their fellow travelers had an agenda of their own and as such, could not “let a crisis go to waste”. The rapes, robberies, and the general trashing of the areas they occupied were never reported. Only the reactions of the local citizenry and law enforcement to the lawless behavior of the “demonstrators” was reported…
    These demonstrations were not peaceful by any means, the demonstrators being “egged on” by their new york-based (leftist jew) “carpetbagger” handlers. The locals, both black and white, wanted NOTHING to do with these “outsiders” coming into their peaceful communities, only to cause trouble.
    I WAS THERE, and personally witnesses the criminal activity by these so-called “civil-rights (for some)” pioneers…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @Clyde
    I believe I posted to you before that David Levy Yulee has two Florida counties named after him. Levy and Yulee counties. Impressive in my book.

    As a rule, Southerner’s didn’t like Jews any better than anyone else, but simply tolerated them due to the vital role Jews played in the slave trade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jbwilson24
    I rather think the staggering Jewish economic power in the south was another reason that they were 'tolerated'. Christian principles might have had something to do with it for the upper classes. Tolerated, but also within limits.

    Ulysses Grant noted that Jews were a privileged class in the south, and played a key role in breaking the union economic embargo of the confederacy. Hmmm.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Muhammad Ali's famous quote after he lived in Africa for weeks for the rumble in the jungle. "I am glad granddad got on the boat"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Clyde says:
    @Carroll Price
    https://youtu.be/FpkrnC2hM1k

    Muhammad Ali’s famous quote after he lived in Africa for weeks for the rumble in the jungle. “I am glad granddad got on the boat”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Vinteuil says:
    @Wally
    said:
    "Jews also led the Cultural (Hippie) Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, financed the legal battles resulting in the public display of pornography, filing law suits leading to the removal of prayer from schools and other public places, as well as court cases to ban Christmas displays from public places. And, there’s little doubt Jews are financing and leading efforts being made to remove historic displays and monuments from public places."

    Indeed.
    A statue of Jew Confederate slave owner stands untouched in Florida
    https://revisionistreview.blogspot.it/2017/08/statue-of-judaic-confederate-slave.html

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2lnJKN7CQko/WZrpNr-v9JI/AAAAAAAAC1U/nxwUAqrnTmMj8rzsTnY4nURWtaR8GQhkACLcBGAs/s640/David%2BLevy%2BYulee.jpg

    David Levy Yulee statue in Florida

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LFUnAoF2_yM/WZrplON619I/AAAAAAAAC1Y/zHnw9Yl3CUsuo8gTORGzR-DM14FET9LHwCLcBGAs/s640/David_Levy_Yulee_-_Brady.jpg

    Yulee’s inflammatory pro-slavery rhetoric in the U.S. Senate earned him the nickname, “the Florida Fire Eater.” He resigned his senate seat to support the Confederacy.

    www.codoh.com

    Wally – would you be willing to accept that David Cole’s estimate of about 3-3.5 million for Jewish victims of the NAZI’s is at least a reasonable guess?

    http://takimag.com/article/how_many_jews_can_be_gassed_on_the_head_of_a_pin_david_cole#axzz4x58O51ky

    This is a guy who has done his level best to get to the truth, at great personal cost to himself.

    I’d really like to see him posting here, as well as at Taki’s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jbwilson24
    Exactly what is your point? Trying to deflect away from the rather obvious example of a Jewish slaveowner and slavery advocate who is mysteriously absent from the orgy of statuary decimation going on in the south?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Truth says:
    @Clyde
    Troof I can read through you and you have an Asian/Filipina/ Thai thing going on you rascal you going on about white nationalists as a cover.

    And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for you meddling kids…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Check out the teeths on them https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xs84q2
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Vinteuil says:
    @Wally
    said:
    "Jews also led the Cultural (Hippie) Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, financed the legal battles resulting in the public display of pornography, filing law suits leading to the removal of prayer from schools and other public places, as well as court cases to ban Christmas displays from public places. And, there’s little doubt Jews are financing and leading efforts being made to remove historic displays and monuments from public places."

    Indeed.
    A statue of Jew Confederate slave owner stands untouched in Florida
    https://revisionistreview.blogspot.it/2017/08/statue-of-judaic-confederate-slave.html

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2lnJKN7CQko/WZrpNr-v9JI/AAAAAAAAC1U/nxwUAqrnTmMj8rzsTnY4nURWtaR8GQhkACLcBGAs/s640/David%2BLevy%2BYulee.jpg

    David Levy Yulee statue in Florida

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LFUnAoF2_yM/WZrplON619I/AAAAAAAAC1Y/zHnw9Yl3CUsuo8gTORGzR-DM14FET9LHwCLcBGAs/s640/David_Levy_Yulee_-_Brady.jpg

    Yulee’s inflammatory pro-slavery rhetoric in the U.S. Senate earned him the nickname, “the Florida Fire Eater.” He resigned his senate seat to support the Confederacy.

    www.codoh.com

    And might you also be willing to admit, Wally, my friend, that the NAZI’s did everything they could to kill &/or enslave their slavic brothers?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Carroll Price
    As a rule, Southerner's didn't like Jews any better than anyone else, but simply tolerated them due to the vital role Jews played in the slave trade.

    I rather think the staggering Jewish economic power in the south was another reason that they were ‘tolerated’. Christian principles might have had something to do with it for the upper classes. Tolerated, but also within limits.

    Ulysses Grant noted that Jews were a privileged class in the south, and played a key role in breaking the union economic embargo of the confederacy. Hmmm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Vinteuil
    Wally - would you be willing to accept that David Cole's estimate of about 3-3.5 million for Jewish victims of the NAZI's is at least a reasonable guess?

    http://takimag.com/article/how_many_jews_can_be_gassed_on_the_head_of_a_pin_david_cole#axzz4x58O51ky

    This is a guy who has done his level best to get to the truth, at great personal cost to himself.

    I'd really like to see him posting here, as well as at Taki's.

    Exactly what is your point? Trying to deflect away from the rather obvious example of a Jewish slaveowner and slavery advocate who is mysteriously absent from the orgy of statuary decimation going on in the south?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    Wow, it is obvious that a lot of people aren’t handling the decline of the West very well,

    Are people supposed to 'handle it well'?

    That's like expecting a cancer patient to be blase and indifferent to his own demise.

    What is truly shocking is that SO MANY white people either don't care or even welcome this fall of civilization. And this time, there will be no renaissance.

    The fall of Rome didn't destroy the genetics of the European race. It was the fall of culture and civilization, but the very genetic traits that could rebuild a civilization(an even greater one) were still there.

    But with the massive invasion of Europe by Arabs and Africans and with the 'Latin-Americanization' and 'North-Africanization' of Europe, it is Game Over. Europe will forever be like North Africa, a hodgepodge of mess and mediocrity.

    You can’t make predictions about the future; for all practical purpose, Roman population “ended” through Germanic and North African mixture as well. Their ethics and culture remained and were adopted, imperfectly as you might say, by others – Europeans didn’t revive dignitas or gravitas, etc, and Roman collectivism perished in the revived European culture of increased individualism. If the Romans took what they could from the Greek, then later Europeans took what they could from the Romans; this trend will continue.

    Point is, things change. Doesn’t mean there is never a renaissance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. KenH says:

    Fred can write pretty amazing stuff when he’s not under the influence of alcohol or his Mexican wife. This is a very good article but an odd one considering Fred’s been positing that whites and Latinos are compatible and a match made in heaven.

    Racial re-segregation is the only sane and workable solution to America’s worsening race problems. But as long as Jews wield their mighty power and influence in this nation, which they’re not shy about wielding, true freedom of association and the right to form racially exclusive neighborhoods, schools and towns for whites will be a long shot in “free” America.

    This arrangement would create safe havens for whites and allow us to grow in strength and numbers which of course is the opposite of what the Jews are trying to accomplish in America and throughout the Western world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. Clyde says:
    @Truth
    And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids...

    Check out the teeths on them https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xs84q2

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    Diversity is not a strength but, when separation is not possible, perhaps the planet’s chief cause of butchery and hatred.

    Not only is it the chief cause of butchery and hatred but it is the RESULT of butchery and hatred.

    Diversity is the product of invasion, imperialism, enslavement, and domination.

    How did Ottoman Empire become diverse? Turks invaded and ruled over others and forcibly integrated them. Stalin did the same with huge population transfers in the USSR.

    Israel became diverse because of Zionist imperialism and mass colonization.

    Tibetans are pissed because of Han Chinese imperialism under the banner of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Tibetans are forced to 'include' the People of Dog(meat).

    Latin American diversity resulted from Hispanic invasion, genocide, and slavery. And then Spanish and Portuguese brought over millions of black Africans.

    Since diversity resulted from butchery and hatred, it furthers butchery and hatred.

    Being wary of foreigners is a sound idea. Foreigners could be nice and well-meaning, but as often as not, they come with intentions to take over, replace, and to rule. Just ask the American Indians. I'll bet they are sorry they gave corn to the starving Pilgrims.

    True, empire can unleash new possibilities, new ideas, new discoveries, and etc. Imperialism led to discovery of the whole world and much that is novel, exciting, and epic. And diversity can lead to creative friction and birth of revolutions. Christianity couldn't have been possible without the friction of Roman Imperialists and Jews. And the clash of empires led to rise of new movements and civilizations, like the clash of warm front and cold front creates storms that produce rain to make plants grow. But there's always been a huge cost to diversity, or excessive amounts of it. And clash of civilizations also wiped out entire peoples and cultures. It's like powerful storms can wipe out entire communities.

    Also, we should make a distinction between organic diversity and imposed(often incompatible)diversity.

    A society will always have children, young people, adults, and old people. That is organic diversity. Everyone goes from infancy to old age. Also, even a homogeneous society will have smart people, average people, and dumb people. And it will have strong people, normal people, and weaklings. That kind of diversity is intrinsic and part of ANY community. So, a community can be all German, all Black, or all Jewish, and it will have different kinds of people. At any rate, such differences of age, intelligence, and strength are ameliorated by the fact of racial or ethnic homogeneity. At the very least, despite the differences in age and ability, there is a sense of togetherness and mutuality because they have at least one thing in common: ethnos and shared history. So, a society can be all Japanese, and there will be smart ones, dumb ones, young ones, old ones, healthy ones, sick ones, and etc. Naturally, such diversity in age and ability leads to social divergence. And yet, the factor of shared Japanese ethnicity and history maintains a sense of unity and purpose.

    But even that is impossible in a society of Imposed Diversity or Extrinsic Diversity. Now, an extrinsically diverse society will still result in the formation of communities of shared ages or abilities. So, young people of all color may hang out. And smart people of various colors may work together. But age is not constant. Whereas a Jewish person is Jew from baby to old age, a young person is soon an adult than an old person. So, age cannot be an identity. That conceit was the profound delusion of the Boomers who thought they would be forever young with slogans like "Don't trust anyone over 30".

    As for ability, it only applies on the job. So, while a smart Hindu may identify as SMART at work with other smart people of different races, that identity(of ability) has little use away from work or particular ability that requires intellect. Also, even smart people can give birth to not-very-smart kids. And even smart people can fall in love with not-smart people. Smart women may fall for handsome but not bright men, and smart men may fall for pretty bimbos. So, ability alone doesn't do it as a stable identity. Also, ability is unstable. A person of great brilliance may lose the muse... as with so many music composers. Or a strong person may become injured and no longer be strong. Look at helpless Burt Reynolds after breaking his leg in DELIVERANCE. Suddenly, he's even more helpless than a child.
    In contrast, ethnicity is constant if tended and cared for. It is the ONE constant from childhood to oldhood. So, a Chinese person or Jewish person can be Chinese or Jewish from birth to death, and that gives deep meaning to his life. Also, ethnic identity is one thing that even poor people can pass down to their kids. A rich Hindu and a poor Hindu will bequeath different sums of wealth to their kids, but ethnic identity is priceless. It's one area in which a rich Hindu is not richer than a poor Hindu. The Hindu-ness inherited by a poor Hindu child is no less valuable than the Hindu-ness inherited by a rich Hindu child.

    The problem with a Diverse Society that encourages excessive Race-Mixing is the identity of ethnicity is weakened, and identity becomes weak or unstable. Or overly narrow -- the very smart club -- or overly generic -- like ALL young people. It's no wonder that there's been an explosion of bogus identities such as 50 genders. The death knell to racial and ethnic identity(esp among whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians) has led to a search for new identities based on hair color, holding up placards, wearing pussy costumes, or whatever.

    Now, it's been said that a lot of affluent white people don't care about other whites(who are less well off or facing hard times) because they have it so good. Since they got wealth, privilege, and comfort, why should they care? After all, they are not feeling the pain(not even the kind of pain that Bill Clinton pretended to feel in the early 90s; he was likely feeling something more physical and female).
    But surely, there are two kinds of pain. Physical and emotional. Even those in total physical comfort can feel great emotional pain IF he/she feels a connection to those who are suffering. This is true of animals as well. Even if some elephants are safe, they will feel emotional discomfort if one of their kind is suffering. So, elephants will try to save and help the one in distress. And this is true of chimps, dogs, and dolphins too. Even if they are safe and have plenty to eat, they will feel sad or worried if they sense pain or agony in their 'friends' or pack members.

    So, there is something wrong when well-off whites feel NO sadness or worry about whites who are either suffering or falling behind(esp due to policies pushed by rich whites). This wasn't always so. When whites sensed other whites-in-pain in the past, they all rallied to help those whites. When they heard of the Alamo massacre, white folks all across America wanted to go aid Texans. When Americans heard of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that killed 1000s of white folks, they got roused up. But such feelings have been suppressed among whites under PC, and the elite-educated whites now act as though it's beneath their dignity to care about other whites. If they must CARE, it's always for the Top Three: Jews, Negroes, or Homos(though other groups may be included for political expediency, like the sudden libby-dib faux-compassion for Muslims when Trump got elected).

    But, the fact that a good number of well-off whites did vote for Trump or at least support a kind of nationalism shows that they are not simply about material or physical comfort. They do feel emotional pain, agony, and distress over the fact that so many Americans have fallen to the wayside. Maybe some of these people, though individually successful, have siblings or cousins whose lives have gone the wrong way(and there is no one to lead such people back to the fold; it's like the estranged brother in MICHAEL CLAYTON). Now, this kind of white-on-white sympathy is frowned upon, even vilified, by PC. But some well-off whites do feel it. They understand that life isn't just about individual material comfort but an emotional peace of mind. When so many of their own kind are falling behind, there is bound to be emotional discomfort among such people.

    Libertarians may only care about themselves as free individuals. So, if they are doing fine, that's all that matters. They may scoff at altruistic feelings as 'weak' and 'irrational'. Libertarianism is a cancer of Anglo individualism, like National Socialism was a cancer of Germanic communalism. Both individualism and communalism have genuine worth but only in relation to other -isms. Excessive individualism cuts one's emotions from rest of humanity, even one's own kind. And excessive communalism leads to conformism of the mind and tyranny.
    Unlike Anglos who led the way in the development of individualism, Germans were closer to blood-and-soil sense of an ethnic and cultural community. The positive side of this was a greater concern for the nation as a family. And this positive side was there in National Socialism as well as it emphasized the needs of every member of the German Volk. But it was pushed so far that it turned into a radical racist supremacism that disregarded the worth of OTHER nations and peoples. Too much Germanic or Aryan sense of brotherhood failed to regard other peoples as part of larger brotherhood of man.

    In contrast, the excessive libertarianism of Anglo-America has led to atomization and self-worship(esp by imitating trashy narcissistic celebrities). Some will say US is too proggy and 'socialist' with Big Government, but American Statism exists not to bolster a greater sense of American Community(as during the New Deal) but to facilitate more individualism. It serves as safety net for excessive behavior in a society where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. We see same mindset from Wall Street to Beat Street. Financial sharks gamble and then get bailouts. Negroes and 'white trash' act like louts in schools and personal lives and then rely on government for safety nets so they can go on acting like pigs. Same thing in UK with its statist-enabled Chav pigs and sows.

    It's not fascist-socialism(the only one that will work) but welfare-socialism(that eventually degrades the soul). Fascist socialism is conditional. It's a system that cares for everyone but also pushes everyone to do their part. New Deal was a form of liberal fascist socialism. It was about providing work and benefits for those who wanted to work and be responsible. In contrast, Great Society socialism(the American Great Leap Forward) was welfare-socialism predicated on rewarding those who were least responsible and civic-minded.
    Fascist socialism is asking everyone to lift 100 lbs. Many can lift that weight and some can lift more. But some can't lift even that. But fascist-socialism ask them to try, and it's this effort that matters. So, if someone tries his best and can only lift 50 lbs, the system lifts the other 50 lbs for him. It was aid to someone who did at least try. In contrast, welfare socialism is like lifting the full 100 lbs for someone who won't even try to lift any amount of weight. This is degrading to the soul. In the past, blacks worked hard in this country and had dignity even with menial jobs. At least they tried. So, when these Negroes asked for more, it made some sense for America to be generous. But since Great Society, Negroes think the US exists to just give them any shi* they be demanding. It degraded their souls.

    Anglo individualism was a great idea, but it was meant to exist within the cultural context and community of Anglo culture and tradition. It was not supposed to be a deracinated globalized nothingness where only ME matters. Also, any such individualism -- no matter how successful the individuals are -- is bound to fail and lose to group actions of others. After all, no matter how rich a person, he is powerless against the unity or the mob. Unless some higher theme links him with OTHERS to form a united front, he can easily be taken down by others. It's like even the strongest man will lose if 20 people decided to gang up on him as a group. He may be able to beat them up one-on-one but will lose if 20 attack him in coordination. It's like wolves can bring down a moose or a bear because they work together.
    The trick is to have individualism within a community or to have a community with individuality. Failure of current Anglo-America is there is room for white individuals but no sense of white unity. Failure of National Socialism was the absence of individual independence from the communalized power of the radical state.

    Jews surely learned their lesson about the necessity of communal consciousness... though they've now taken it too far, as with National Socialists. It's one thing to defend and serve Jewish identity and interests, but it is wrong for Jews to sacrifice the identities and interests of OTHERS so that ONLY Jewish identity and interests will be served. That is a form of supremacism with similarities to Nazi chauvinism. The fact that Jewish Globalists are willing to push a 'new cold war' with Russia, create yet more havoc in the Middle East -- war with Iran next on the menu? -- , and push destructive diversity on the West suggests too many Powerful Jews are willing to sacrifice any amount of gentile world to get what they want.

    Still, there is nothing wrong with Jews caring about other Jews. If anything, some Western European Jews were more into their own status among White Gentile elites than into caring about the fate of Eastern European Jews. But WWII, Shoah, and rise of Israel changed all that. There was a sense that it's not enough for Jews to be physically safe and comfortable in one part of the world when other Jews in another part of the world could be oppressed or being killed. So, even though American Jews had it pretty good in the US, they felt emotional duress and pain about what was happening to European Jews. It's this connection that makes life meaningful. It's like the thief in KAGEMUSHA. At one time, he had no concern about anything but himself. But once he comes to feel a connection to the Takeda Clan, he feels emotionally sick to see it wiped out. Without such sense of connection, he would not have cared and would have just gone about looking for good times for himself.
    Or consider the scene in DISTANT THUNDER by Satyajit Ray. The man is served a plate of food, and he can have a nice meal, but he feels emotionally sick because his wife and others in his hometown are suffering from hunger. And it's like TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses in exile could have had a nice life with a wife and all, but God talked to him through a Burning Bush and told him he better care for Hebrews still in bondage in Egypt. So, it's not enough that he's safe and eating well and has a nice life. He has to care for his kind in Egypt under the iron rule of Yul Brynner. From that moment, Moses' life is about bringing every last Hebrew out of Egypt because everyone matters(though, to be sure, he kills half of them later when they get funny with the Golden Calf, the homo parade of the day).

    Anyway, even well-off white folks can be politicized IF they are made to feel this racial, cultural, and historical connection with fellow Europeanites. Once that connection is rewired, even affluent whites who are physically comfortable will feel emotionally uncomfortable when they realize that so many whites are suffering or facing hard times.
    Also, it's not just about love of fellow white folks but love of white European history and civilization. This is a great heritage and must be preserved, and only white folks can do it. (And even if it weren't a great culture, it's worth preserving because all peoples and heritages deserve to survive and be protected. Tajiks are not a great people who contributed much to humanity, but they have every right and responsibility to survive as people and culture in their own homeland.)
    White people must preserve white civilization. The idea of Another People taking over and preserving white heritage is a joke. For one thing, PC instills non-whites with hatred toward whites. But even if non-whites were made to appreciate white culture and pay it tribute, it wouldn't be the same thing. It's like white people can pretend to preserve American Indian culture, but only American Indians can genuinely preserve and guard their own heritage and culture. Non-Indians can study and appreciate Indian stuff, but it is NOT theirs to own and preserve. Elizabeth Warren is NOT a squaw. It's just a joke. It's like it'd be pretty stupid for a bunch of Mexican-Americans to take over a black community and pretend to be New Blacks who own and preserve Black American History and Heritage. That would just be 'larping'.

    Anyway, any people who care for their own great culture and civilization should feel EMOTIONALLY SICK when such are being destroyed or replaced. It's not just a matter of economics but sacred memory and appreciation.
    Just think. White people are supposed to feel angry and outraged if the Mona Lisa were destroyed. But they are not supposed to feel angry and outraged when the very race depicted in the painting are destroyed or replaced or mixed into mulatto-ness. Never mind that Mona Lisa exists only because the kind of people depicted in such paintings existed to be represented by an artist.

    Suppose there is a beautiful flower or animal that inspired a great painting. Now, imagine if people would be outraged if the painting is destroyed but NOT outraged if that species of flower or animal is destroyed. But the painting was possible only because such flower or animal existed(to be represented in art). Indeed, no matter how great the painting, it is still just a pale imitation of the real thing that is more important. It's like one's mother is more precious than a good painting of her. Creativity is precious, but Creation is priceless. The most beautiful painting of clouds is nothing compared to real clouds.

    Western art and culture are the product of and a representation of white people, but for some reason, we are told that the culture is worth preserving but NOT the people who made it possible. So, Greek sculptures are worth preserving but not the Greek people whose forms are depicted in the sculptures. It's okay if Africans come to Greece, hump all the women, and turn every Greek into someone who looks like a Moroccan.

    And so many white people are okay with this because PC cut their connective cord to their own race and history. It's like a paralyzed person with severed spinal cord who can't feel sensations in the rest of the body. PC has cut the spinal cord between the white mind and white senses. White mind feels no pain when white senses are being destroyed.
    But once the white nervous system is reconnected, even the most comfortable and affluent white person will feel great pain, distress, and agony when he realizes what is being done to the civilization and culture of his folks.

    Well-off white people are in the same boat as the poor white people in terms of White Genocide. If we lose our homelands, personal wealth will be of little use. In the West, we’re getting replaced by people who are trained to hate us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. O/T.
    William and Kate are having a third.
    A public example for their domain.
    This is significant.
    Setting a quiet and excellent example for the indigenous English, Scots, Welsh.
    Let me add all White people for that matter.

    The indigenous peoples of the British Isles and Europe need a higher birthrate. Maybe the British subjects will follow their future King’s example. Maybe the indigenous people groups on the continent will take the hint.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave