Agreed.

Very nice, however you should’ve opened up with an a priori discussion of where the burden of proof lay rather than the “look at how stupid they are, it’s obvious that Swedes are intrinsically [superior to] black Africans.

The artist? IE: that was his M.O. in producing art as he did?

Like, we could achieve a sweeping victory “without even firing a shot”, so to speak if we radically change our approach.

By idly pontificating and boycotting (really??) all we are doing is retreating into a hole, or at most cultivating delusions that the outside world takes us seriously in any way shape or form.

And by smugly kicking back in the hopes that things get worse so they can get better, we don’t know what kind of damage we will have incurred by such a point in time, and it might not ever happen in the way we imagine. “Waiting” could just lead us up a creek.

This case is simply that of a failed scientific theory which, if true, would have made utopia possible. Its proponents are resistant to admitting defeat because their egos are wrapped up in it, yes, but also because we all want utopia so desperately. If we carefully but resolutely explain this to them, they will have to listen. If we’re crude and callous in saying “Nope, y’all are wrong, blacks suck, et c” then they will not listen. We have to walk away from our egos, and we have to present them an alternative.

Conservatives are no more rational and honest. Everyone just goes along with whichever camp they happen to already be a part of, or whichever camp results in concrete personal benefit. It could easily be argued that modern liberalism was the more moral, rational camp as little as fifty years or even more recently.

lol

It doesn’t matter how right or clever it is, the topic of gun control should be abandoned on strategic grounds.

Polemics emerge as a result of gaps in perspective and divergent semiotical contexts. I get all far-out by saying “semiotical contexts” because such is what enables one camp to say the sky is green, and another camp to say the sky is red. Anyway if, say, David and Goliath both had the same life experiences and were immersed in the same linguistic culture, there would be no conflict at all.

In order to thaw the hearts of our ideological opponents (they are not our enemies; indeed, they are all white after all, and often better than us) we must approach the problem with the detachment and rigor of scientists. We must understand the inner essence of this polemic.

I feel that all of these demographic woes (immigration, et c) are derivative of the hypothesis of racial equality. If we reduce our platform to the simple assertion that the theory of racial equality is bunk—and successfully argue it—all of our other peeves will dissolve.

How do we successfully argue this? Well, we can sway the opinions of liberals if we speak their language and show them that their entire methodology for doing what they’re trying to do—minimize suffering for all—is flawed. I am confident that, simply put, human suffering can be reduced to evolutionary movements. ( IE: Suffering as a byproduct of evolution’s machinations, mapped one-to-one.) Simply put, by building up this massive social infrastructure to ensure the proliferation of obsolete genotypes, eventually the levy will burst and they will all perish as they otherwise would have, except now without the mercy of the “path of least resistance”. There is a vast discussion waiting to be had on this topic, and it is one which liberals have the right ears for.

Yes, such a shift in strategy would call for big concessions, but such reconciliation would amount in de facto victory on all accounts. All we have to do is shed our trappings and break out of the insularity we’ve grown so emotionally dependent on. Did you know that it’s Jewish law to eat pork without hesitation if it’s a matter of life and death?

They were obviously just trying to get a reaction out of y’all re: “dresden”. And re: “go back to Europe”, why not take the hint and realize that the territoriality characteristic of many of us white survivalists is nothing more than a show of weakness—a show that we can neither adapt to nor redirect contemporary cultural trends.

Two reasons, as far as I can reckon: A) Yes, they must “atone”, and B) They are of superior adaptive intelligence, and thus have the mindware to conform to such abstract knowledge systems as those employed by anti-racist ideas.

I got turned away at the door because I was late. So they either met capacity, or they don’t care about actually making any headway.

If everyone is so big on an ethnostate, why don’t you pool your cash together and buy a bunch of cheap land somewhere, even in a different country, and then live as pioneers? I’m not trying to lampoon the idea… The fact that we’re not doing this en masse raises doubts, for me, about the sincerity of those who voice such ideas.

Yeah, whites’ ability to self-hate (and be generally meek/humble/selfless) is a mark of their evolutionary progress away from the traits endemic to blacks.

Amen.

Don’t be bitter.

Agreed.

Nice… but is this spam?

Way to get yourself voted off of the island, mang.

By good company you mean, what, /comfortable/ company? I almost elusively hang out with “liberals”, and I advise anyone who would like to save the white race to do the same. You learn their language, and learn how to convince them. Not to mention, it opens up the possibility for multiple approaches to emerge such that all our eggs aren’t in one basket, so to speak.

Smug ad hominems help in no way. Why not roll up your sleeves and get off the armchair? Stop making such an easy target out of yourself. The future existence of your race is on the line.

Discussions such as this do nothing but detract from the central problem of race, and make it easier for our opposition—and those minds which we must win over—to categorize us and write us off.

Abandon whatever you seem to think your “heritage” is. Your real heritage has subsumed the entire world.

Your “heritage” is the bag of diversionary junk that’s weighing you down and preventing you—and your fellow man—from escaping dangers, existential risks.

McGrath opened the conference by discussing the courage of American pilots fighting the Japanese? How exactly is this relevant or appropriate? Perhaps its vaguely relevant if you want an inspiring tale about the plight of the underdog, but I can’t help but suspect a current of smug white supremacism in it. And even if I’m mistaken in proposing such an interpretation, still, who’s to say that such talk won’t serve only to alienate potential comrades?

To Mr Roth: Forget about diversionary matters of the economy. If we dwell on such issues, we take time away from solving the core dilemma of overthrowing the hypothesis of racial equality. ANd anyway, to deflate the job market for unskilled laborers is to bring about an evolutionary pressure which is already on the menu and which is rather appropriate to our cause.

And Mr Roth is right in his cordial reminder that education is not a cure-all for disparities in native intelligence. Indeed, at best it merely hides the symptoms.

Avoid posing complaints against hispanics. For the purposes of making an otherwise abstract discussion concrete, discuss blacks.

I largeley agree with RAMZPAUL, although his is mistaken in writing-off as good the idea that liberals have fewer children. This is a complicated discussion, but it hinges on “Blessed are the meek…”. Liberals have more agile minds, minds that can do things that an emotive-driven conservative type simply cannot hack. (Remember, the entire point is /adaptive/ intelligence. A key error oft made in white survivalist circles is to presuppose that intelligence can be gauged by the extent to which an individual strives for self-preservation, and his/her ability to arrive at [merely empirically] true conclusions.) Even without articulating the true primacy of “liberal minds” in an evolutionary context, surely everyone can agree, at least by appeal to the “no man left behind” slogan.

Yes, love of one’s children ought to be regarded as bigotry according to the antiracist paradigm. Another unmanageable corollary would be that there ought to be stringent laws prohibiting discrimination against the ugly, as it is equivalent to discrimination against another race, et c. (Down with the beautocracy! Lawl)

Mr Taylor: Forget about the gov’t. All we have to do is effect a revolution of the prevailing scientific paradigm—that is, a cultural revolution. Our entire mission is to overthrow the [unfalsifiable] idea of racial equality such that that the class of sets called “races” is no longer of a privileged, unassailable status. We just need to convince people.

Regarding secession: Sure, it’s a romantic way to look at things. But God as my witness (whatever that’s supposed to mean), I (whoever I am) see that as entirely unnecessary and counter-productive. To predict, let alone advocate, warfare is to hope for it. (And don’t pretend that we can expect secession to not quite likely entail violence.) While a national or ideological entity must be prepared for war in the absence of unilateral pacifism, it is my prediction and strident desire that warfare is gradually but steadily fading into obsolescence. You pull the trigger, you lose the war.

If we are thinking in terms of “us” and “them”, then we are operating within an obsolete moral paradigm. Sure, bitter resentment and persecution are what cause us to “awaken”, but the brilliant epiphany we should be girding ourselves with is that by trying to hault the gears of evolution (IE: pretending punctuated equilibrism is real and championing divisive, egoistic traits which are evolutionarily obsolete, such as those exhibited by black people), we are not proceed by the path of least evolutionary resistance, and thus are setting ourselves up for demographic crises in the future—those swathes of population harboring obsolete traits, that are being kept on life support by the ideological infrastructure which champions them, are being set up for either a rather Orwellian demise, with great suffering. I’m not proposing positivist “evolutionary humanism” in Huxley’s modernist sense, but I’m saying that there is massive amounts of conscious suffering that we can actively /not/ create by /not/ tampering with definitions of intelligence and attempting to “correct” disparities, et c.

Abandon sentimentalism. Play to win.

“Conventional conservative goals are irrelevant to us.” From the perspective of myself and my confidents, much of Amren is not too far removed from typical bigoted paleo-conservatives, or at least paleo-modernists. At the very least, get rid of the suits and ties. When you’re standing before a judge, you don’t evade the death penalty by being well-groomed. (IE: Let me join the conference for the last two hours after spending two weeks riding freight trains, braving the ghettoest parts of the countries, fending off muggers, wading through alligator infested swamps for 18 hours, and then spending $150 to take a bus and limo to arrive for the last day of the conference.)

Mr Spencer: I agree that race is the entire point of whatever discourse we’re trying to cultivate, but we need to somehow use a word other than “white” which incorporates all competent people. Like, maybe try to alter the definition “white” to make it more inclusive and flexible? Like, such that Chinese are considered “white”. Just an idea.

A pet idea I have is to have an extremely libertarian physical country, with landless sub-divisions, or syndicates, where members (such as those who identify–and are accepted–as “white or Christian or anyting else) exist as a nation which could dish out socialist benefits or have goofy normative laws, et cetera.

Yes, we need to shock people.

One thing I do appreciate about Amren is its hard-packaged disavowment of anti-Semitism. The anti-racist experiment was an inevitable epoch, and can be understood as a natural phenomenon.

Regarding Jensen et al: They rock and all, but we need to remember that the whole point is to try to agree with one’s opposition by finding the right language. This can be done without compromising the truth. It’s a seamless little technique. I say this to all who read this.

If you want to disseminate ideas: You must present yourselves as impossible to pigeonhole or sketch a quick schema of. Be elusive. Take the damn suits and ties off. Produce elusive art, don’t get bogged down in polemics where neither parties exist in the same semiotical universe.

“American Freedom Party”? Get real.

The identitarian movement is, again, sentimentalist baggage. Or else it’s just trying to fit “white people” into the same damn, fractally wrong “diversity” equation to make a point. (Although I suppose it satirizes the “diversity” thing in a perhaps productive manner.)

Bloc Identitaire’s idea of distributing pork is juvenille and bratty. I would’ve thought that was clever and potent back as a teenager, but now it strikes me as counter-productive.

Re: Occupying a Mosque. I’m not entirely sure what to make of that. At the very least, I refer again to the strategic value of not trying to fit more than one target in your sight at a time.

“Mr. Derbyshire noted, however, that the really great wars that have left their marks on history have been intratribal wars” This reminds me of The Global Brain by Howard Bloom.

Regarding Mr Dickson: Yes, the construction of “fallout shelters” is important, but it must not be done out of defeatism.

Regarding the counter-demonstrators: We must work harder not to resemble those eff-ups which they rally, perhaps rightfully so, against.

To the author:

Abandon your sentimentalism and abandon your
national pride. Don’t appeal to such things. Else you’re merely
eliciting emotive responses that have again and again failed to court
the right minds, let alone achieve any sort of critical plurality. Play
to win. Be sober-minded.

I can’t even criticize you for being
an ineffectual, fact-mongering poindexter; all you’re doing is
insisting, singing to the choir.

Isolate the problem—don’t
confound the problem by discussing illegal immigration and socialism.
As in physics, a problem can be remedied seamlessly simply by
formulating it correctly and /understanding/ it. What our civilization
is undergoing is a natural epoch, an emergent phenomenon. Once you
meditate on it on a deep, theoretical level, and understand how it is
meant to be solved—then you can solve it.

That is, you need to
look at the situation from a universal perspective, not an “I’m white
and you’re white and we have to fight back” perspective. That is the
initial spark which causes one to awaken to the failure of the
hypothesis of racial equality, but it isn’t what history is waiting for.

Yes, race is the central question, but a new discourse must first emerge before it can be re-introduced.

I was really looking forward to this conference. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Is anyone going to be driving from Nashville to Montgomery Bell tonight or tomorrow morning that can give me a ride? I was originally trying to get there by Thursday to set up camp, but encountered many setbacks on the road (riding freight trains, et c). I want to at least be there for the end. (sorry for this off-topic remark).