Trainspotter, Paradigms

I tried to post this over at Oxy dissent but it got caught up the filter (or maybe I’m just on moderation).

Trainspotter,

1. Reach a consensus on our territorial objectives. Make the Idea as tangible as it can be. Make the Idea assume a mentally and psychologically digestible form. Is it going to be the Northwest? The South? Or to take from the Captain – “Take it all back…the Big Idea.” I happen to favor the Big Idea, but that may fail the tangibility test.

You don’t say.

Now, if you don’t want to look yeller before giants like the mighty Cap’n and The Admiral and Nordmacht(frei) and you’re in effect saying “I’m with you in spirit, fellas, alas..”, that’s one thing. But if you actually consider proposing such an idea, leading with it, making it a centerpiece of your message, I’m afraid you betray a severely compromised appreciation of just what constitutes a “new paradigm”: there’s nothing new about “I hate non-whites. Get ‘em out of my country.” It’s bitter, old-style nationalism that clashes head on with what the vast majority are prepped to believe about the world — ie about human existence — and, more importantly, what they experience of the world, which is to say very few experience the other so negatively as to wish death on him or to destroy his livelihood, which is what they imagine running him out of the country is equivalent to.

On the other hand, a philosophy of racial live-and-let-live at whose core lies an appreciation of the benefits that accrue from racial homogeneity and racial similarity while relegating “hatred” to matter of contingency does constitute a new paradigm. Far more importantly, it lessens opposition because it requires the least amount of rethinking about the world, one’s country, one’s person, — consider it a kind of “racialist aikido.” In fact, I’d go so far as to say that, while the former (“Big Idea”) makes it all but impossible to support you, the “new paradigm” makes it all but impossible to oppose you.

What I imagine would gall a man the most is the thought of foreigners carving out a piece of his territory just-like-that, without even having to have fired a shot to do it. There are arguments that could be deployed which, if understood (hardly a given in this crowd), can diminish such concerns — but I’m out of time.

A Boasian Niggerlover in Rio

It’s no easy thing being a moderate racist who simply understands the value of racial community and thus desires it. On the one hand, you’re exasperated by the near-insane, mind-bending levels of racial loathing of your bedfellows (the nutzi set, who, whatever their failings, can at least be counted on to never compromise on race), and on the other hand, you’re exasperated by the idiocy and desperation of the race-deniers, and sometimes it’s hard to tell which group exasperates you more. And always, always, there is that alpha and omega of multiracial insanity, the absolute zero of homo sapiens at which point all theories of human conduct cease to operate, the infallible cure-all for racist remorse, the eternal Nigger.

The thread I’m linking to in this post combines the latter two of the above, niggers and niggerlovers, or rather a niggerlover, a very smart and very smarmy, and very literal — he’s married to one — American niggerlover in Rio. The fellow, posting under the moniker “Macunaima,” has a doctorate in social anthropology and hangs out in Brazil forums where he devotes his time to correcting misconceptions about his adopted country. Unlike what you might expect from a hard left, niggerloving, gringo expat, he holds niggers themselves to his anti-racist standards. This produces discussions like the one linked to which demonstrate wonderfully the futility and pointlessness of anti-racism: Macunaima’s eminently reasonable attempts to inject facts and objectivity into the discussion are completely lost on his ostensibly intelligent African-American interlocutors, who at times seem to suspect they’re dealing with a white racist rather than the obvious died-in-the-wool niggerlover Macunaima is. You know, maybe mutually beneficial multiracial interracial understanding could be achieved one day…if we had another three thousand years to work on it. But wouldn’t it be worlds easier to just give in to “racism” and recreate society on the assumption that race is significant and important and spare people the endless frustration of mitigating it?

Obama’s Prize

This line from Mississippi Burning sums it up:

“He wasn’t doing anything…except being a Negro.”

John Derbyshire: Unrepentant Wanker

I just read this HBD Books interview with John Derbyshire.

I always liked Derbyshire. Even when I knew he was structurally incapable (Chinese wife, mixed kiddies — which is why the Jews love him, no mystery there at all) of presenting the whole truth. But eventually you tire of half-truth-tellers and generally useless misdirectionists.

Says Derbyshire: Well, as I say in Doomed, it depends what you mean by “war.” I wanted revenge and was very happy to see Iraq get smashed up. I wasn’t shy about saying so, which kept me on side NR-wise.

Revenge for what?

I never supported “nation-building” though; and when it became obvious that was what Bush was trying for, I complained. I certainly don’t remember holding back at any point.

Knowing what you knew of modern politics the idea that America was just going to storm in, fuck shit up, and get out should surely have struck you as completely unrealistic — particularly since that is not what was occurring in Afghanistan, where you’d figure it should have occurred if it was going to occur anywhere.

As inexcusably dumb as his opinions on war are, they are chickenfeed compared to the stupidity of his opinions on race and society.

The USA I would like to live in would be one in which White Nationalism is not necessary, because

(a) nonwhite nationalisms are not pandered to (removing the WN argument: “They have identity politics, why shouldn’t we?”) and

Ignore it and it’ll just go away. Otherwise known as wishful thinking.

(b) whites are a big, fat, and permanent majority, confident in their culture and proud of their ancestry, but tolerant and helpful towards their minority fellow-citizens.

In other words, enforced parasitism. However much it may suck to have to put it so starkly, when you get down to it, that’s what it is. It might be different if these people actually liked whites and got along with whites. But to have to support a people who don’t like you, who beat you up, rob you and rape you, who curse your culture, who make your cities unlivable, who salivate at the prospects of supplanting you…sheesh, no problem “smashing up” Iraq and wrecking untold misery, but on the domestic front, tut tut, no being a rude racist now.

To get to (a) we have to scrap multiculturalism and the “Diversity” dog poop; to get to (b) we need rational, restrictive immigration policies, prefaced by expulsion of all illegal residents and revocation of “anchor baby” citizenships.

No, dickhead, no. Restricting immigration won’t ensure a big, fat and permanent white majority. People mix. Like you mixed. Which is why you’re foisting this drivel on what you hope are unsuspecting minds.

Retaining multiculturalism is an infinitely wiser and more humane idea. It’s wiser because it keeps people separated, thus buying time. And it’s more humane because multiracialism is a horrible social arrangement that invites all manner of invidious comparisons. At least under multiculturalism racial differences remain somewhat hidden beneath the surface. For example, the first university I attended there were gooks everywhere. I was used to seeing a lot of gooks around, but this was something else. Still, it had very little effect on me because I was able to think this is a multicultural country, these aren’t my people and are thus no concern of mine. But if I have to think of them as my countrymen, then I’ll have to attempt to get along well with them, as well with them as I do with people who much more closely approximate my genetic origin, and that so far has proved deeply unsatisfying. Ultimately, whether you want it or not, you end up with a de facto sort of multiculturalism, with people telling feel-good lies about how much they adore racial diversity.

MLK Award

Most Loathsome Kike, that is. Or maybe MLLK — Most Loathsome Lying Kike, though some might claim that is redundant.

If you had to award this prize to one loathsome lying kike in particular, who would it be?

The field is wide open.

Let’s see.

You have standard liberal kikes like Slate’s Jacob Weisberg and nation-wrecker extraordinaire Joel Kotkin. You’ve got heavy-handed holocaust kikes like Deborah Lipstadt and Michael Berenbaum. You’ve got econo-kikes like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich. You’ve got crazed internationalist neo-cohens like Gabby Shoenfeld and Leslie Gelb and their only somewhat less crazed, more domestic-leaning — but still plenty loathsome — counterparts like John Podhoretz and Ben Wattenberg. There’s the watchdog kikes like Abe Foxman and Mark Potok who are sure to be contenders for the crown. Last but by no means least on this shortlist of nominees we have a loathsome, lying kike, dear to the hearts of many a reader of this blog, faux-WN Larry the Lyin’ Lion Auster.

We’ve only scratched the surface here, so feel free to come up with your own.

(Note: Nope, sorry, fuck off Jews, I’m not an “anti-semite,” at least not the sort you have in mind, the sort that makes you break out in cold sweats. I don’t care for the civilizational shitholes you, as a group, a most responsible for enforcing. I want out. And if you knew what was good for you, you’d want out too. That’s all there is to it.)

Maggot Still At It

I periodically check into Lindsay’s blog, just to see what the pathetic commie maggot is wailing about. And yep, the pathetic commie maggot is still wailing away. “No. No. No,” the pathetic bitch is moaning, “The qualities of the people of Latin America have got nothing to do with the standard of living on that continent.” Which I guess means it’s perfectly fine to take 350,000/year of them as immigrants. Of course, remember, any more than that, any more than the 350,000 the ever so scientifically literate commie Lindsay has ever so scientifically calculated is the optimum amount of immigration for his country, that would risk being a real disaster. But at 350,000/year it’s all smooth sailing.

Nothing demonstrates what a thoroughly pathetic maggot Lindsay is than his granting his intellectual assent to the idea that well, yeah, umm, er, somehow IQ is real and it matters and that, yes, true, spics and niggers have devastated his state, and the yes, umm, er, well, somehow the two are linked, and his stubborn refusal to accept the implications. It’s getting better all the time!! the maggot triumphantly declares. It’s true! Flynn-effect! Improved nutrition! blah blah, better, better, better. Point out or explain that all that is thorough bullshit, most of it concocted by maggot-brained commies like himself, and that, in fact, dysgenics is occurring and its effects are being felt and the maggot again explodes, declares you not his friend, bans you and sinks into depression. And that’s why he’s a commie maggot. That’s why every commie maggot who isn’t personally attempting a power-grab is a commie maggot: inability to accept reality.

One day, it’s always one day with these clowns. One day, when the commies are in power, everything will be put right. One day. Just believe, man. One day, when there’s no more class [dream on, dickhead]. One day, when we’re all the same yummy color [dream on, dickhead]. One day the commie will be able to look out the world and feel at peace with it, knowing in his little heart that all is well [dream on, dickhead].

The most audacious aspect of it all is that these commie cockriders pour scorn on religious poeple (who live a thousand times more serenly than a commie cockwad ever will) pretend their approach is “scientific.” Lawl.

Robert Lindsay: Joke, Fraud, or Both?

Robert Lindsay claims to be as pleased as punch that “Liberal Race-Realism” is starting to grow. He even suggests he may be responsible for “founding” it.

Anyone with any experience with Robert Lindsay knows this is a shameless perversion of history and reality. Robert Lindsay was thoroughly distraught about the facts of racial reality and worked himself to the point of exhaustion trying to deny them. (“Fuck you, Half-Sigma!” he would shout at that blogger’s rather tame observations. And “Fuck you, Silver. Fuck you,” he once told me in relation to a suggestion that something actually be done about race.) He routinely visited racialist boards to gloat and taunt posters with the sort of glib dismissals of racial differences in intelligence and temperament as “preposterous!” that anyone who’s been around the block has seen liberals resort to on countless occasions.

The truth is Lindsay is an unabashed commie, which means he is as close to braindead as it is possible for an ostensibly intelligent man to get. Why he is a commie? Well, think about it. If you were a crippled, four-eyed, balding, aging, drug-fucked failure (who, contrary to his claims, no woman but a used up whore could tolerate a minute of) would you prefer to face the truth about yourself or dream up some way to press your claim for relevance in the world, like being a commie?

Forget about this forgettable creature for a moment. What of his race-realism? What new policies should flow from this understanding of the world according to Lindsay? Well, none, really. He’d “reduce” immigration to 350,000/year and that’s it. I think “joke” and “fraud” are both appropriate.

The pity of it is Lindsay’s quite a likable guy. He’s personable, interesting, knowledgeable, entertaining, and despite the unquenchable envy of his betters (the well-mannered, well-adjusted,well-born and rich) that actually drives him he does seem to genuinely care about other people (commies occasionally do, one must recall). Contra hardcore WNs, “liberal” race-realism does have legs; there is plenty that could be done without going to extremes. Lindsay’s just not the man to hear about it from.

Roissy

Roissy’s escapades have a ring of truth to them, regardless of whether they are embellished or cut from whole cloth. It’s believable that he maintains his blog to share ideas with other “players” (as they see themselves), hoping thereby to increase his own success. It’s likewise believable that its purpose is didactic: frustrated men can reorient their attitude toward sex and women by incorporating the fundamental elements of what is lightly referred to as “game” — even if their objective is not more sex itself. More than any of this, however, I suspect the blog exists to both to glorify its owner and to dull the pain of existence for one who neither sees nor seeks any further purpose in life than fucking. The withering criticism of traditional mores this bleak outlook inspires shares much in common with philosophical atheism, particularly the racialist variety — the “lemmings” waste their lives away living in “suburbs” and shopping at “big box” outlets rather than…well, it’s never really explained…”Being White,” maybe. For racial activist purposes, it’s enough that Roissy opens eyes to the fact that reality is something starkly different to what the masses are led to believe, the hope being that some are encouraged to explore further.

Divisiveness: Reply to Prozium

[Prozium claims to be open to "working with" various folks, including myself, but appears to be have blocked me from posting. The post contained a couple of good points so I'm putting it up here.]

Pas d’ennemis a droit

Maybe not. But certainly plenty of buffoons — as evidenced by assertiveness of one-right-way-to-do-WN on a thread dedicated to decrying such thinking.

Anyway, a more effective way to conceptualize differences is to understand that at present the ship is sailing due anti-white, destination: oblivion. Your task — no easy one — is to turn the ship around and set it sailing due pro-white. But what is the final destination? If we conceive of a theoretical but unreachable ultimate of 100% movie-star good-looking, NASA-brained, ultra-nordics, the ship could call into port at any point sooner, be it race-realism, be it (loony) Pan-”Aryan” Frontism, be it The White Republic etc, and divisiveness largely resulting from disputes between those who want to sail farther up the coast and those who don’t.

More importantly, white nationalism has a Hegelian feel to it…it is inevitable, a part of the “world-spirit” that strives for greater, higher organization.

I have that sense too. It’ll be similar, I think, to the way anti-racism exploded on the scene in the 60s after it had been gestating underground for decades. Conservatives were shell-shocked by it and the feeble responses they scrambled to offer had no hope of matching the intellectually well-drilled left, let alone match the moral vigor the left could muster. “But, but, but…” “But nothing! Out of the way, caveman!”

My definition includes Meds like silver

My only objective here is to keep you to the logical straight and narrow. I share a sense of inevitablism about racialism so my main concern is to contain its negative impact, which I like to believe this can be accomplished, and primarily because my assessment of race and reality indicates (not just wishful thinking, not all of it). Think of it as the beginnings of a sort of “Rules for Racialists: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Racialists,” which is a work that at some point you figure will have to be written .

A lot of these issues boil down to the fact that many who come to racial nationalism bring baggage from the conservative movement and seek to make racial nationalism a kind of conservative package deal, whereas others seek to create a racial nationalist “big tent” that de-emphasizes these other issues. I lean towards the big tent approach. My goal is a society in which all these contentious issues will still exist, but they will be debated by whites alone.

That sounds reasonable but isn’t the question on most people’s lips “Well, what do I have to do? What does it mean to be “pro-white”? Race by itself doesn’t seem like it’s enough. It’s the working class that feels the brunt of diversity, so some sort of populism seems to best fit the bill. That still leaves the door pretty wide open for disagreement on political visions.

Fred Reed

This Fred Reed column recently came to my attention. I’m don’t follow Fred Reed much, although I always feel I should because I tend to like what I read. I share his disdain of snobbishness and pious bullshit. Like him, I’ve lived abroad and, like him, I’m comfortable berating my own for their shortcomings and recognizing the virtues of others. But the linked column made me cringe. There’s no small amount of truth in his characterization of the anglo-protestant, but geezus, talk about kicking a man when he’s down. To think this guy was invited to give a speech at AmRen! Well shit, if a couple of hard-hitting truths are all it takes, hey JT, how about handing me the mic? I promise I won’t be a wussy fag like Ron Tacelli.