NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Your answer is that Jews can indeed be white, but they can’t be trusted. That’s a good answer, but I phrased my question in the wrong way.
What I’m getting at is this: how do we institutionalize genetic morality, and can this be done simply on the basis of skin color? We’ve already agreed that it can’t. Not only must the whites be separated from the browns, but the loyal must be separated from the traitors. Then we get into the classic problems of institution-building, familiar to anybody who has ever run a business, a platoon, a religion, or a political party: credos, mission statements, founding myths, mascots, demonologies, patron saints, heresies, and (most of all) a set of terms upon whose definitions all agree, starting with “us” and “them”.
I’m bringing up the institutional question because I suspect that it’s either a weak point in your thinking or in mine. You seem to be an enemy of all institutional trappings (clear thinkers usually are), but I believe they’re indispensable, especially to a race like ours in which the instinct of self-preservation is, as you point out, weak or absent.
Comment by LibAnon
ME:
The fundamental difference in our thinking is that my basic premise is a very, very unusual one. I believe that institutions are like work tools, that is, they are a product of the people, designed for particular uses at particular times. You see institutions as one of the determinants of the future of humanity.
The future of humanity is entirely a matter of genetics and race. It doesn’t matter if a white society is libertarian or Nazi, because that will pass. For humanity’s future all that matters is what COLOR they are.
Institutions bother me not in the least unless they affect race. Worrying about institutios is like building my world on a partciular method of agriculture. There is no doubt we will have to have food and there is no doubt we will have to have institutions, but I do not address methods of raising food here.
WHITE people will eat well. Dark people will starve. That’s all I need to know.
I am not going to write down here what tools carpenters need to develop in building houses or what institutions each country needs to deal with its particular problems. I AM going to say that if they are WHITE, they will develop the tools and institutions that will keep humanity from turning into a miserable, stagnant brown anthill.
Institutions are a dime a billion. But the instant a person starts to build his thinking on institutions, his attention deviates from race. My aim is to destroy all traitors within our race and to preserve our race. Now comes the critical word:
PERIOD.
Any tool, be it a saw, a gun, or an institution, that keeps us white is good. Any tool, be it a saw, a gun, or an institution, that makes us nonwhite is bad.
We have our race to save. Screw homemaking tips.
#1 by LibAnon on 12/08/2006 - 10:51 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
“Now comes the critical word: PERIOD.”
I think the critical word is HOW, not PERIOD. Otherwise, you and I agree on all points.
Institutions are merely tools, the means to an end. Of course! But tools don’t build themselves, nor is it beneath our dignity to build them.
It’s fine for you to say “My aim is to destroy all traitors within our race and to preserve our race,” just as NASA once said “Our aim is to put men on the moon before 1970.” But if NASA had simply followed that up with slogans like “PERIOD!” and “Screw rocketmaking tips!”, they wouldn’t have made it there.
#2 by mderpelding on 12/09/2006 - 12:12 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
“You seem to be an enemy of all institutional trappings (clear thinkers usually are), but I believe they’re indispensable, especially to a race like ours in which the instinct of self-preservation is, as you point out, weak or absent.”
My first reaction to this statement is
“LibAnon is insane”.
My second reaction is that this is the “money quote”
in LibAnon’s piece.
My third reaction is the question,
Why wasn’t this addressed in the answer?
My final reaction is that LibAnon and others will
never get it.
No matter what you say.
That begs a rather scary conclusion.
I may be wrong, but LibAnon, by virtue of posting
here, shows a certain racial sensability that most
of our bretheren lack.
But, even LibAnon, for all his/her racial identity,
can’t think beyond universalist hogwash.
AKA “wordism”.
Us “clear thinkers” need to consider that reality.
#3 by Dave on 12/09/2006 - 1:05 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
LibAnon,
I once had a statistics professor who was very unusual. On the first day of class he announced that his policy was to blanket fail everyone in the class regardless of their progress.
He said: “My time is too valuable to mess around with anybody who doesn’t care about knowledge for the sake of knowledge, so I do this to get rid of all you clowns who think education is about academic credit”.
There were three of us who remained in class and I learned more about research and inductive studies than I ever dreamed possible by putting up with this guy who was a total pain and extremely demanding. Of course, he was quickly fired for his antics, and he told me he knew he would be fired at the outset but his policy was that nobody pushed him around.
Physically the man was an ape, and very intimidating, and obviously enjoyed kicking people around, kind of a violent counter culture type, but every once in while the university spins those kind through.
But you see, putting up with this SOB put me in the real intellectual elite. And that is just the way white nationalism is destined to proceed.
The truly great thing about the Internet is that you don’t get academic credit for your time here. That flushes out all the nonwhites and those who care only about knowledge for the sake of a payoff or the acquisition of status.
But I absolutely love this exchange you have been having with BW because it is perfect military style indoctrination: Let us identify the enemy clearly by really going into his characteristics and sort out what the real goal is.
It helps me immensely to have my “Ps and Qs” in order regarding doctrine.
That is what is missing for most whites that are in denial of the physical threat, let alone the sovereignty threat, by surging populations of third-worlders invading our lands and the traitors helping them do it.
#4 by Alan B. on 12/09/2006 - 3:31 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
South Africa was a prospering nation under white rule, the world condemed the white leadership on the basis of their apartied institution. Heres a unique situation, the white goverment needed an institution that seperated less productive and volutile blacks from the prosperous whites to insure the survival of the country. The nation of South African, is unique for here we have a native black land being settled by whites of european origin. It is almost to incredible to imagine how a predominantly white America could be face with a situation where whites today are slowly but steadly finding their nation over run with non white immigrants. It is truely genocide and with out doubt and act sheer madness, how could this happen. Whites were the dominant majority as high as 90 percent of the country in 1960. Unlike South Africa, America never faced a large and well organised indiginous peoples. So it becomes quite obvious that this massive non white immigration was a well planed and concieved effort by other whites to create harm on their own people, any fool could see that this policy is non productive. Note, does anybody else find it ironic that the news media seldom mentions how dredfull conditions in South Africa are today for both races, it only took 16 years for the black leadership to run this jewel of africa into the ground.