Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 21st, 2009 #1
Simon Cresswell
Junior Member
 
Simon Cresswell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10
Simon Cresswell
Angry Kevin MacDonald

Yesterday I listened to Jim Giles interview Dr. Kevin MacDonald. In the interview MacDonald made it clear he is NOT for an EXCLUSIVE Whites ONLY homeland in the USA. He took the position that some blacks can stay in the USA. MacDonald is WRONG! ALL non-Whites MUST be forced out of ALL White ancestral homelands. You can listen to the interview at this link: http://www.rebelarmy.com/
 
Old December 28th, 2009 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Let's make this a research file. In it we put relevant info about MacDonald, particularly his positions that do not accord with white nationalism.

- praises jews, says he admires them
- wants blacks living in North America
- admirer of Sam Francis, the palecon, whom he had write foreward to one of his books
- said WN were not helping when they posted on "Inside Higher Ed" article defending him when he was under attack by SPLC
- hypocritical criticism of VNN on Jim Giles show for vulgar approach, yet willing to work with VNN for several years

intellectual problems

- dubious/irrelevant thesis that jews pursue a evolutionary group strategy
- focus on "self-delusion" as explanation of jewish loxism/double standards

Last edited by Alex Linder; December 28th, 2009 at 07:36 PM.
 
Old December 29th, 2009 #3
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

I listened to this interview today. A number of the things MacDonald said, particularly in regards to VNN, struck me as contradictory. For example, he says we should be fighting the enemy and not each other (I agree), and that everyone should pursue his own course, but then spends much of the interview slamming VNN. Well, which is it? Is it "different strokes for different folks," or does he want to blame VNN for holding WN back from popular acceptance?

I disagree with MacDonald on homosexuality being "genetic." I have to wonder how much research he's actually done on the subject because the evidence for a genetic cause to homosexuality is, to be generous, inconclusive at best and very possibly fraudulent. This point is important because if homosexuality is really "genetic" rather than being a perversion, the ramification will be that it's OK to expose kids to this lifestyle and counterculture since there's no way they could possibly be swayed or seduced by it. I suspect MacDonald is siding with the "nature" side of this debate rather than the "nurture" for ideological reasons more than anything. There's at least as much evidence for homosexuality being a choice and/or influenced by the postnatal environment as there is for a prenatal cause.

But what I really don't get is how MacDonald can be belligerent towards people who are hostile to queers and then turn around and say that it's in the queers' best interest to go back in the closet. How exactly does MacDonald intend to send queers back in the closet? By asking nicely? Is he completely oblivious to the fact that queers have a powerful lobby whose primary objective is to keep them out of the closet, while deliberately destroying the traditional (heterosexual) concept of the family MacDonald says he wants to protect? Something doesn't compute.

MacDonald wrote some good, scholarly books about jews, but I'm increasingly starting to think that he should stay out of politics. He's yet another guy who wants to have steak without getting his shirt bloody to get it.

BTW, were some earlier comments removed from this thread? I thought I had posted something earlier about how GLR wanted to deal with blacks.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Igor Alexander; December 29th, 2009 at 05:26 PM.
 
Old December 29th, 2009 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
I listened to this interview today. A number of the things MacDonald said, particularly in regards to VNN, struck me as contradictory. For example, he says we should be fighting the enemy and not each other (I agree),
The problem with this is that it begs the question: who are we? He has a different answer than I do, although I actually don't believe he has ever thought about the matter more than superficially. Most of his type, conservatives who think they're something else, just lump everybody in the same category. That's the wrong way to do it.

Quote:
and that everyone should pursue his own course, but then spends much of the interview slamming VNN.
Yes - one's course is only valid if it does what he says it should do. Our course at VNN is to attack as enemies those who functionally or overtly are our enemies, and that certainly includes conservatives.

Quote:
Well, which is it? Is it "different strokes for different folks," or does he want to blame VNN for holding WN back from popular acceptance?
His own efforts are aimed at one level, the classic mistake noted by GLR. And they will never reach as many as VNN ALREADY has. Not to mention they're not rooted in any strategy, they're just attempts to influence some hazy elite. This "influence the elite" sounds good until you think about what it means. Then it falls apart. The point is not to influence the elite, it's to form a new one.

Quote:
I disagree with MacDonald on homosexuality being "genetic." I have to wonder how much research he's actually done on the subject because the evidence for a genetic cause to homosexuality is, to be generous, inconclusive at best and very possibly fraudulent. This point is important because if homosexuality is really "genetic" rather than being a perversion, the ramification will be that it's OK to expose kids to this lifestyle and counterculture since there's no way they could possibly be swayed or seduced by it. I suspect MacDonald is siding with the "nature" side of this debate rather than the "nurture" for ideological reasons more than anything.
There's at least as much evidence for homosexuality being a choice and/or influenced by the postnatal environment as there is for a prenatal cause.
It is certainly true that homosexuality is a bad thing, and it is undeniable that queers target teenagers. Nothing good can come of having homos in leadership positions, and that is why Greg Johnson is doing whatever he can to prevent the truth about his queerness from coming out.

Quote:
MacDonald wrote some good, scholarly books about jews, but I'm increasingly starting to think that he should stay out of politics. He's yet another guy who wants to have steak without getting his shirt bloody to get it.
Yep. He's a conservative who thinks he's something else. In that, he's no different from most of the others in his circle. It's also partly a generational thing. His type is unable to overcome personal feelings and tastes and do what needs to be done. Indeed, it actively fights against what needs to be done, which is harsh discrimination between friend and enemy toward the end of polarizing the public between Whites and jews. MacDonald and TOQ don't even have anything legitimately described as a strategy - they simply want to "influence" elites. What they need to be forced to face is that 1) their strategy can't work; 2) their strategy is basically a cover story for doing what makes them feel good, and what advances their personal career interests.

Quote:
BTW, were some earlier comments removed from this thread? I thought I had posted something earlier about how GLR wanted to deal with blacks.
Yes. I just want facts and serious discussion on this thread.

Criticism of KM and his non-existent strategy - only. Same on the other threads in this forum.
 
Old December 30th, 2009 #5
TowardWewelsburg
Member
 
TowardWewelsburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vinland (NE U.S.A.)
Posts: 408
TowardWewelsburg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The problem with this is that it begs the question: who are we?
You make this error frequently, and it detracts from the quality of your writing. Perhaps these career girls can help you:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com...-question.aspx

http://grammartips.homestead.com/begging.html

http://begthequestion.info/
__________________
"Heiden sind alle, die zum Leben ja sagen, denen "Gott" das Wort für das Große Ja zu allen Dingen ist." – Nietzsche
 
Old December 30th, 2009 #6
TowardWewelsburg
Member
 
TowardWewelsburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vinland (NE U.S.A.)
Posts: 408
TowardWewelsburg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Cresswell View Post
Yesterday I listened to Jim Giles interview Dr. Kevin MacDonald. In the interview MacDonald made it clear he is NOT for an EXCLUSIVE Whites ONLY homeland in the USA. He took the position that some blacks can stay in the USA. MacDonald is WRONG! ALL non-Whites MUST be forced out of ALL White ancestral homelands. You can listen to the interview at this link: http://www.rebelarmy.com/
This is not entirely accurate. In this interview, Dr. Macdonald stated that it was a gross mistake to bring the African population here in the first place, but he doesn't see a feasible way to repatriate them at this stage of the game. When pressed by Jim Giles, who asserted that White Americans may get fed up to the point that they demand that every last non-White must go, Macdonald stated that this would be an understandable goal and one he would not oppose.
__________________
"Heiden sind alle, die zum Leben ja sagen, denen "Gott" das Wort für das Große Ja zu allen Dingen ist." – Nietzsche
 
Old December 30th, 2009 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TowardWewelsburg View Post
You make this error frequently, and it detracts from the quality of your writing. Perhaps these career girls can help
I used the term correctly. Unlike your spelling of MacDonald.

The arguments of queers and their ass-clown fans like you are all based on the false premise that "we" are agreed on who "we" are. We aren't.
 
Old December 30th, 2009 #8
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I used the term correctly. Unlike your spelling of MacDonald.

The arguments of queers and their ass-clown fans like you are all based on the false premise that "we" are agreed on who "we" are. We aren't.
I've been thinking about a solution for all of this. And another poster on Occidental Dissent also thought about a way to make this a reality, using home schooling as a catylyst for networking and creating a family-friendly nucleus of white people dedicated to preserving their white genes.

People who care about home-schooling and the white race, and also preferentially are female, need to start up a website for creating a curriculum and exchanging ideas and getting their families together. We might have to re-institute arranged marriages.

The point is, you create a "we" of whites. An us and them.

This would be primarily for heterosexual whites (at least until the technology is in place for homosexuals to breed with each other), so I'm not doing this for myself.

I am selflessly thinking about what is best for the white race.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old December 30th, 2009 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Witzgall View Post
I've been thinking about a solution for all of this. And another poster on Occidental Dissent also thought about a way to make this a reality, using home schooling as a catylyst for networking and creating a family-friendly nucleus of white people dedicated to preserving their white genes.

People who care about home-schooling and the white race, and also preferentially are female, need to start up a website for creating a curriculum and exchanging ideas and getting their families together. We might have to re-institute arranged marriages.

The point is, you create a "we" of whites. An us and them.

This would be primarily for heterosexual whites (at least until the technology is in place for homosexuals to breed with each other), so I'm not doing this for myself.

I am selflessly thinking about what is best for the white race.
Thanks for caring, George! You're a peach.

I don't know if race alone is binding enough. The communities you describe exist, they are religious.

I do think, and have long argued for, a White HS curriculum. I think it would appeal to a lot of Christians, not just WN. As long as Christianity were not disrespected and the intellectual rigor were there.
 
Old December 30th, 2009 #10
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Thanks for caring, George! You're a peach.

I don't know if race alone is binding enough. The communities you describe exist, they are religious.

I do think, and have long argued for, a White HS curriculum. I think it would appeal to a lot of Christians, not just WN. As long as Christianity were not disrespected and the intellectual rigor were there.
If the belief in the importance of preserving the white race is not enough to prevent people from race-mixing then there is no hope. This belief is, in fact, the only belief that unites all pro-whites. This is religion enough in and of itself, there is no need for imposing Christinsanity or Creatardity or whatever else.

The home schooling curriculum would focus on factually reinforcing this belief, as well as being an excuse for bringing like-minded families into contact.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #11
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Two strands of the MacDonald-TOQ strategy are in conflict. The “top-down” approach seeks to convince whites in the “cultural establishment,” the under-defined “elites,” of the intellectual merits of WN. One means to reach these people is to soften the differences between WN who view Jews as a hostile racial or ethnic group, and paleoconservatives who pretend it's just an ideological disagreement with some Jews. But is mendacious paleoconservatism really more palatable or respectable (or a “gateway”) to elites than truthful WN? Steve Sailer argues:

Quote:
Views on illegal immigration may be the surest status symbol. A blithe attitude toward illegal immigration conveys your self-confidence that you don’t have to worry about competition from Latin American peasants and that you can afford to insulate your children from their children. Moreover, your desire to keep down the wages of nannies, housekeepers, and pool boys by importing more cheap labor advertises that you are a member of the servant-employing upper-middle class.
Quote:
Another class marker of elite discourse is not letting the dreary realities of daily life sully discussions of affairs of state. Both average and elite Americans observe that the children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants are more likely to become disruptive students and to join street gangs, so they both try to find schools for their children far from them. While the typical citizen draws the additional lesson from this that our government should therefore work harder to enforce the laws against illegal immigration, inside the Beltway anyone noticing a connection between the personal and the political is looked down upon as a pathetic loser who needs help from his government.
That’s all consistent with my observations. The highest-achieving people I’ve known are “moderate” Republicans: socially liberal, fiscally conservative is the typical formula. They want no part of paleoconservatism, with its “petty resentments” and whiff of nativism. These are people who cheerfully fund minority scholarships and aspire to be “citizens of the world.” Whether they really believe in any of this is another matter: mine aren’t the only eyes that roll in diversity training. But that goes back to the gap in MacDonald’s understanding:

Quote:
A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike.
MacDonald has a comprehensive explanation of why Jews critiqued the culture, but little of why the whites who controlled our institutions accepted, even welcomed the critique. It’s not surprising that he doesn’t have a clear idea of how to change the minds of the few such influential whites still left.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Views on illegal immigration may be the surest status symbol. A blithe attitude toward illegal immigration conveys your self-confidence that you don’t have to worry about competition from Latin American peasants and that you can afford to insulate your children from their children. Moreover, your desire to keep down the wages of nannies, housekeepers, and pool boys by importing more cheap labor advertises that you are a member of the servant-employing upper-middle class.

That's the rich, not the upper-middle class. I don't think most of the "stuff white people like" crowd have servants and pool boys. They do have some of the attitudes he describes. Certainly a large percentage of the people at my college were the way he described. WASPs with money are the ones infected with liberalism. They embrace a cultic, anti-factual view of the world and detest and are quite vicious toward any who don't embrace their insanity. Their views are not precisely the same as the views of the jew-commies, but they mesh with them pretty well.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

It’s not surprising that he doesn’t have a clear idea of how to change the minds of the few such influential whites still left.

They are few, and trying to influence them is a waste of time. The point is to not to influence the elite but replace them. That is far too great a task for aging academics, homosexuals and mental patients, all of whom have excuses why they can't do anything except tickle keyboards and throw dinner parties. So they content themselves with trying to influence paleoconservatives - people who couldn't even keep their magazines and foundations from being taken over by jews in roughly the blink of an eye.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

It is precisely what is unthinkable to men like MacDonald which is where progress could be made. MacDonald, if he were part of a young strong movement, would attack Buchanan, not praise him. That such an idea is unthinkable to him, and he publicly divorces from those who advocate it, demonstrates the fundamentally conservative nature of the 'respectable' approach. A white nationalism that has endless excuses for conservatives and no support for its own is essentially acknowledging its own impotence. Influence is not something one directly aims at, rather it is a throwing off of strength reflected in laughter and ridicule.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #15
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

"They embrace a cultic, anti-factual view of the world"

They think, with enough money, facts can be escaped. Escaping facts is a status issue. They don't care that California schools are 48th. The gates to their communities will be breached. The cop that responds will be mexican. That will be their re-introduction to facts.
 
Old December 31st, 2009 #16
Bassanio
Hath not a Goy eyes?
 
Bassanio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 4,287
Blog Entries: 6
Bassanio
Default

Quote:
I used the term correctly.
Yeah, you used it correctly, that is, you used it correctly if we are to go by the writing standards of the world of Amerikwan journalist hacks where this error abounds.

Otherwise, you used it incorrectly.

When something begs the question, it doesn't beg any old question that comes to mind, but rather only one question--what the hell does that have to do with anything?--regarding a faulty premise/non sequitur.
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him.
 
Old January 1st, 2010 #17
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassanio View Post
Yeah, you used it correctly, that is, you used it correctly if we are to go by the writing standards of the world of Amerikwan journalist hacks where this error abounds.

Otherwise, you used it incorrectly.

When something begs the question, it doesn't beg any old question that comes to mind, but rather only one question--what the hell does that have to do with anything?--regarding a faulty premise/non sequitur.
Wrong, moronicus. It does refer to a logical fallacy, but a specific one - treating as settled the very thing under debate. Which is exactly how I used it - Kevin MacDonald and the others I criticize say "we" shouldn't criticize people on our side, but just what is our side and who are on it is the thing under debate. Their use of 'we' begs the question. As I said. Who are we? I have one answer, and it's very specific. They have an unconsidered other.

From Wewelsburg link above:

Begging the question does not mean to bring up the question. It means to present as true a premise that requires proof--i.e., taking a conclusion for granted before it is proved or assuming in the premises of your argument what is supposed to be proved in the conclusion. (This fallacy is related to the circular argument.)

Because others' misuse of the term involves a literal question, he and you assume my use of a question is the same thing, and like theirs a mistake. It's not. I used the term correctly.
 
Old January 1st, 2010 #18
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Wewelsburg assumed because I used a question I was making the mistake of thinking begging the question means bringing up a question, but I was not. I simply elided a longer set up and put in question form the thing under debate - who "we" are - that KM and others assume.]

Begging the question does not mean to bring up the question. It means to present as true a premise that requires proof--i.e., taking a conclusion for granted before it is proved or assuming in the premises of your argument what is supposed to be proved in the conclusion. (This fallacy is related to the circular argument.)

For example, when National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice asserted that we had to invade Iraq, because we didn't want the smoking-gun proof of their weapons of mass destruction to be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities, she was claiming as the premise of her argument the idea that the Iraqis had or were on the verge of having nuclear weapons. But whether or not they had such weapons was precisely what needed to be proved in order to justify the invasion, so it could not be itself used as proof of the need to invade to preempt their use of such weapons.

When President Bush repeatedly suggested during the run-up to the invasion that Saddam Hussein, because of his hatred of the U.S., would be likely to give weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to al-Quaida, he was assuming a cooperative relationship between Hussein and al-Quaida, as well as assuming that Hussein actually did have WMDs. But what he needed to prove in order to justify the invasion was that Hussein had WMDs and/or that Hussein had a cooperative relationship with al-Quaida. Those were precisely the issues under contention, but his arguments for invasion always treated them as the premises, as if they were already proven.

And when President Bush calls it "revisionist history" whenever anyone questions whether intelligence was manipulated to justify the invasion, he is also begging the question. The only way to argue that intelligence was not manipulated would be to show that it was not. Simply saying such questions are "revisionist history," is not answering the questions, but evading them.

Here is one more, less political, example: When a student accuses me of grading him unfairly because no matter how "excellent" his papers are, I never give them above a C, he is basing his argument that I grade unfairly on the unproven premise that his essays are excellent. (You'd be surprised at how often teachers hear just such arguments. On second thought, maybe you wouldn't be surprised at all.
 
Old January 1st, 2010 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

For example:

we should be fighting the enemy and not each other

...is based on the premise or unexamined assumption that we all agree on who "we" are. We don't. MacDonald's "we" includes people like jew Gottfried whom my "we" considers an enemy.
 
Old January 1st, 2010 #20
Bassanio
Hath not a Goy eyes?
 
Bassanio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 4,287
Blog Entries: 6
Bassanio
Default

Quote:
Wrong, moronicus. It does refer to a logical fallacy, but a specific one - treating as settled the very thing under debate. Which is exactly how I used it - Kevin MacDonald and the others I criticize say "we" shouldn't criticize people on our side, but just what is our side and who are on it is the thing under debate. Their use of 'we' begs the question. As I said. Who are we? I have one answer, and it's very specific. They have an unconsidered other.
Ah, now I understand--it was simply your sloppy punctuation that led me astray.

Here's a better version:

"The problem with this is that it begs the question. Who are we?"
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him.

Last edited by Bassanio; January 1st, 2010 at 09:36 AM.
 
Reply

Tags
homeland, jim giles, kevin macdonald, repatriation, wn lite= fail

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 PM.
Page generated in 0.15804 seconds.