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

Old August 1st, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Occidental Dissent

[Occidental Dissent is not a conservative site, but I'm going to lump it in this subforum just for convenience. Here Prozium responds to Jim Kalb, whom we responded to in Takimag thread.]

Jim Kalb has some thoughts this morning about White Nationalism:

The basic problem with the approach, of course, is that “whiteness” doesn’t have much to say about what life is about, so it can’t serve as the basis of social order. That’s why the extreme nationalists and racists of the last century relied so much on theatrics and on an ideology of infinite struggle for infinite dominion that made no sense and could only end in catastrophe.

This is untrue. The idea of whiteness is pregnant with profound social implications, which is why it is so fiercely criticized in the mainstream, and why racialists are so innoculated against liberalism. Unlike conservatives, White Nationalists clearly define “interest” in terms of the propagation of a lineage in a defined space through time, instead of individual materialism or appeal to universal abstract principles. This enables them to clearly reason out the activities (abortion, pornography, drug abuse, etc.) which are damaging to their ethny.

“Whiteness,” not conservatism, was the basis of the Southern social order (1660s-1960s) for three hundred years. Far from being unstable, military force was required on two separate occasions to overthrow it. The theatrics of Southern politicians stemmed from democracy, not racialism, and have continued down through the anti-racist era. Finally, the ultimate denounement of segregation in the United States wasn’t brought about by an effort to export the Southern social system; it was the American North which sought to aggressively universalize its ideals abroad.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...lism/#comments
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[reader comment at OccDiss]

By the way, I just got finished reading the encyclopedic, “Race: The History of an Idea in America” (by Thomas F. Gossett), which traced the evolution of America’s ideas about “race” from the early colonists to about 1940. It was a fascinating read, you should really check it our from your local university library.
#
on 15 Jul 2008 at 9:06 pm2Prozium

Welcome back. That sounds very interesting. When was it published?
#
on 15 Jul 2008 at 9:25 pm3notuswind

Prozium,

“Welcome back. That sounds very interesting. When was it published?”

It was originally published in the early 1960s while M.L.K. was still alive; however, due to the seminal nature of the work, it was republished in 1997. Unfortunately, Gossett is biased towards today’s egalitarian consensus but that doesn’t seem to have impaired his comprehensive treatment of the subject.

One of the fascinating conclusions that I was able to gleam from the book is that the American elite (academic, literary, governmental, and press) flipped from some variant of what we might call racialism to racial egalitarianism in a very short period of time after the 1924 immigration act (the climax of racialism amongst America’s elite) and in the run up to our confrontation with German & Italian nationalism in WWII. In the wake of WWII our elite was firmly on the side of the egalitarians (or equalitarians) and committed to the course we’re on today.

I found it rather stunning to see just how hegemonic racialism was in America in the run up to the 1924 act. It would seem that almost everyone was in accord with the very sentiments of Madison Grant in his, “Passing of the Great Race” from press to scientists to politicians. And how quickly that consensus broke down in such a short period of time. The West’s confrontation with ethnic nationalism in Germany and Italy really did a number on its psyche for generations. [actually it was the jews' accession to power via academia and media-takeover; our involvement in the war itself was a result of that takeover]

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...-act/#comments
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Interesting back and forth on segregation and integration, de jure and de facto, who thought up what and enforced it on whom... ]

15 Prozium

The North repealed all of its anti-miscegenation laws, outlawed segregation in education and public accomodations, extended citizenship and voting rights to blacks, and then attempted to force their social system on the rest of the country with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and the civil rights acts of the Reconstruction era. The system we have in place today was pioneered by New England in the early nineteenth century and was implemented in the Midwest during the late nineteenth century.

We think of the “Civil Rights Movement” as a national struggle over race. That wasn’t the case at all. Only the South and a few Western states were segregated. New England had been integrated for over a century; the Midwest for about eighty years or so.

16 ATBOTL

New England had so few blacks that de jure integreation was meaningless and de facto segregation is still the rule of the day there, much more so than in the modern south. Boston is still one of the most segregated major metropolitan areas in the country and one of the few places where blacks are afraid of the white people and stay in their little ghetto in Roxbury and Dorchester. If the whole country had the same proportion of blacks as antebellum New England, we would not have a black problem today.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...land/#comments
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[Prozium]

I’m going to run the new Occidental Dissent site on several key assumptions:

1.) The conservative movement has been neutered, is no longer vehicle for the advancement of our concerns, and is generally a waste of our time and energy. We’re not trying to defend the legitimacy of the status quo anyway.

2.) The White Nationalist movement is marginalized and will remain in disarray for the forseeable future.

3.) The American public is too deadened and distracted by consumerism and discourse poisoning (in the media, public schools, and universities) to respond to our appeals.

4.) Whenever meaningful change in our political system does come, it will be brought by underlying shifts in material reality such as global aging or the present oil and gas crisis in North America which our elites will be unable to handle. Revolutionary change (most likely at the local level) will only become possible once the tools of population control (cheap gas, cheap food, cheap infotainment, happy suburban living) start to break down and the public experiences real hardship.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...tion/#comments
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[reader comment]

I have been reading a new book titled “Willis Carto and the American Far Right” by sociologist Gerorge Michael.

Carto has been a Racialist Activist for about 60 YEARS now.

In the final chapter he states that he has come to the same conclusion (after 60 years of Organizing with the Liberty Lobby) regarding Revolutionary Change. The economy is going to have to collapse before anything else will be possible.

(Carto then goes on to state that a charasmatic leader will have to emerge, basicly he is describing the two ingredients in the formula that worked in the past to allow Hitler to rise to power during the degenerate Weimar period. )

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...tion/#comments
 
Old August 1st, 2008 #6
Mark
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,219
Default

Quote:
New England had so few blacks that de jure integreation was meaningless and de facto segregation is still the rule of the day there, much more so than in the modern south.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...land/#comments
I wouldn't say the South is less segregated, it just appears more profound when the non-white population is much larger. Socially the South is still very segregated, from elementary school to adulthood. The vast majority of integration comes from the government and employers forcing the races together, but personally people usually stick to their own. It's natural, people enjoy being with those they have something in common with.

It can also be observed that integration is less when a non-white population is larger, because then non-whites establish their own identity and order instead of trying to assimilate their small numbers into a white majority.

Interesting to note that northern blacks have more white admixture than southern blacks. Whether this is because of a higher level of assimilation and mixing or just that blacks with more white admixture immigrated to the north is a question.
 
Old June 3rd, 2009 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

“Both of you are driven by the false assumption (one that I admit to briefly entertaining years ago) that the isolation that has been imposed on racialists is due to internal dysfunctions instead of external interest and force.”

I think that this should be the key point for this comment thread. Racialist thinking, in all its forms, is constantly being suppressed, even to the point where a scientist like Watson (co-discoverer of DNA and nobel laureate) loses control of his laboratory over a few sentences in his autobiography. And if Watson isn’t allowed to express a little pessimism over the intellectual endowments of Africans (at the genetic level!) then what room could that possibly leave for any kind of White identitarianism?

If the racialist community is nothing more than a few slightly unhinged froot loops it’s because others would rather avoid the high social costs (imposed by our managerial elites) that may come with racialist beliefs.

_________________

Good points, except that racialists are not unhinged froot loops. For the most part, they are simply men who can see where we're headed, and have done the spade work to find out why. They don't deserve to be disparaged in the same terms jewish destroyers use. Not even by anonyms on blogs.

I will repeat for the millionth time, the only people who believe the advance of the White cause is a function of dress or behavior are those who've never made a serious attempt to advocate it. The System is based on denying White identify. Our failure is not mechanical, it is the outcome the System is designed to produce. Or perhaps you thought that endless legal discrimination and media abuse were accidental?
 
Old June 3rd, 2009 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Friedrich Braun

“#1. The revulsion against Nazi racism in the West during the Second World War.”

Are you still pushing that theory? And it’s your number one reason, no less! “Nazi racism” was significantly less pronounced than the racism of Anglo-Saxons before and during W.W. II. There was nothing spectacular about Adolf Hitler’s racism, for example. He espoused views that were very much in the mainstream of European and American thought. Now, if you’re talking about the Holocaust, Revisionist scholarship has debunked the standard storyline.

As well, you’re underestimating the role of the Jews in fostering liberalism and delegitimzing ethnocentrism among Whites in Europe and elsewhere. That should be your numer one factor.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...-to-gottfried/
 
Old June 9th, 2009 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Rise of Anti-Racism in America

Jun 8th, 2009 by Prozium

At VNN, Alex Linder has some comments on a few of my blogs, in particular the comprehensive post on the causes of America’s racial decline. In that post, I listed the domestic reaction to Nazi racism in the U.S. and Britain as one of the leading factors. I would like to revisit that issue for a moment.

There is no question that American wartime propaganda against the Nazis from 1938 to 1945 had a huge impact on American racial attitudes. This is clearly shown in the opinion polls taken at the time. It was during this period that “racism” was definitively rejected as being “un-American” or inconsistent with the republican principles of liberty and equality. Before the war, a clear majority of white Americans believed in racial differences and the wisdom of racial segregation in the South. After the war, most white Americans were believers in racial equality and supported integration. This explains why the Truman administration took up the languishing cause of civil rights reform which FDR had generally ignored for over a decade.

The evidence is so clear on this point that at first it seems like an open and shut case. This short answer only raises further questions though. Why did Southerners and urban Northerners go on to bitterly resist the Civil Rights Movement for a generation? Why do millions of white Americans still hold racialist views? Why did the majority of white Americans react so negatively to the Third Reich in the first place.

There were other important factors involved. Here are a few:

- The national media was still in its infancy. During the Jim Crow era, Southerners got most of their news from local newspapers controlled by native segregationist editors. Unlike Northerners, Southerners did not read the major national newspapers and magazines or watch that many Hollywood movies controlled by elite liberals. Television didn’t extend its reach that far into the South until the 1960s and 1970s.

- The majority of white Americans lived in the relatively homogeneous North and West and were ideologically committed to liberal democracy. This explains much of their negative reaction to the authoritarian Third Reich. Southerners were born and raised in a world where racial segregation seemed natural and just and their elites still told them it was. Northerners had outlawed de jure racial segregation in the late nineteenth century for being inconsistent with “liberty” and “equality.”

- An indigenous strain of radical anti-racism had always existed amongst the urban, native, Northern Protestant elite. Its roots can be traced back from the leftwing of FDR’s New Deal coalition to the Liberal Progressives to the abolitionists and before them to the most radical fringe of the Revolutionary generation.

- Jews were flooding into the elite universities, buying up newspapers, and rising through the professions. The story of how Boas and his followers undermined the concept of racial differences in American anthropology is well known. Boas had counterparts in sociology, psychology, literary criticism and other disciplines. This process was already well underway in the 1920s and 1930s.

Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe planted this second strain of radical anti-racism which merged with the domestic version in the New Deal coalition of the 1930s.

This was the context in which the negative reaction to Nazi racism occurred. Without this context, Americans would have reacted differently to the rise of the Third Reich in Germany. So, there was no single cause of America’s racial decline, but many converging factors and historical coincidences.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/200...rica/#comments
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 AM.
Page generated in 0.10268 seconds.