R.I.P. Iceland?

I Saw Iceland Melt by Kevin DeAnna

Some of the organizers of the rally were admitted Communists, but most came from various apolitical or more moderate backgrounds. A small contingent of the populist right Liberal Party appeared, but they did not have much of a following. Polls show that the party has fringe appeal, and is not poised to grow as a result of the crisis. One could possibly expect a right-wing backlash in response to the crisis. After all, with the sagas, the ethnic homogeneity, and the quiet nationalism of a country that defines itself by a common history and not an abstract ideology, one could at least expect an “Icelandic First” movement to grow. However, the center-right in Iceland, as the Communists in China, defined the core of their legitimacy as ensuring economic growth. Once this was lost, they have nothing else to offer. The far right, or what passes for it, can offer some anxiety over blond haired Polish immigrants, not enough to build a populist alternative to safeguard Icelandic workers. The land of Vikings, especially in the city of Reykjavik, is more subject to the global mass culture of MTV than it is to the Prose Eddas. The “alternative” English language newspaper is just the “young militant” press outlet of the establishment with the same boring arguments everyone else makes—Iceland’s own Rolling Stone. Every single person I spoke to, when they found out I was an America, expressed hope that Obama would somehow resolve the situation in the world economy. The Left stands not just to benefit, but to gain the entire benefit from the crisis.

The Left also will benefit because in any crisis situation, they have a revolutionary gestalt lacking on the right. On the following Tuesday, crowds gathered in the Austurvollur Square in front of the Althing. They surged to get into the building, and the police beat them back, arresting 15. Why 15? The police could not control the situation if they had arrested more—they didn’t have the numbers. Only a few hours later, several of these same fifteen had rejoined the crowd, hammering on pans and joining in the chant. The crowd was much more ideologically unified than at the rally. This was a march of the Left. Red flags, black flags, and even East German flags made an appearance. A placard with the picture of a giant pig wearing an Independence Party pin translated to the retro-Soviet label “Enemy of the People.”

Make no mistake; it is capitalism that will take the blame for this crisis. Crying that we do not have “true capitalism” is as questionable as those coffee house philosophers telling you that the Soviet Union was not “true communism.” Both claims might be correct, but that is irrelevant. America alone has some minor constituency with the Ron Paul revolutionaries and Young Americans for Liberty that can claim to be true believers in a system that has never been implemented. To the average person however, and certainly overseas, the sudden collapse of jobs and savings because of the incomprehensible machinations of shadowy bankers will lead to greater demands for state security, regardless of the actual causes of the crisis. The battle cry of the Reykjavik riots was not “Smash the State,” or “Down with the Government”—it was “Incompetent Government” – a demand for a more efficient technocracy.

A second depressing conclusion is that absent a right wing alternative, the only response to every leftist failure will be more leftism. Several libertarians are congratulating themselves on noting that Obamanomics will fail just as the New Deal did. Of course, FDR was still elected four times and is remembered as one of the greatest presidents in American history. Similarly, while the new Icelandic regime will busy itself in income redistribution and social scheming, the center-right is limited to a defense of a system that is widely seen to be failing. If the center-left can not fix the crisis, the crowds may come back, confront the “fascist” police yet again, and help create an even more extreme alternative. If Iceland’s decline continues, the Left-Greens stand to benefit far more than the Liberal Party or certainly the altogether discredited Independence party. The Left is the establishment and its own alternative.

Third, the crisis will provide the cover for the leftists to carry out their irreversible agenda of social transformation. Both the left-wing parties will push for liberalizing labor laws for immigrants, an ominous sign for a tiny nation of about 300,000. The fall of the Independence Party also removes a major obstacle for the admission of Iceland to the EU, which though not on the table immediately, may look increasingly desirable if the krona remains weak. This will create great pressure on Iceland to accept mass immigration and other restrictions on sovereignty which could easily destroy the country and current a permanent constituency for socialism. Because the country is so small, leftists only need to open the floodgates once to ensure their permanent majority. An economic crisis, unless the left moves towards outright communism, will pass in time, as will Obama, reality shows, and the Republic itself. A sweeping demographic change is forever. As a paleoconservrvative (or maybe post-paleo), I will confirm Ryan McMacken’s charge that I have greater faith in the capacity of this Nordic people to thrive even under socialism than for lasseiz-faire capitalism to create a paradise after the international community decides Iceland is the ideal place to settle tens of thousands of Palestinians.

The capitalist system around the world is in crisis and in Iceland, there does not seem to be an alternative except the vague leftist Zeitgeist that never seems to lose its appeal. Nor is there one worldwide. The nationalist Right does not seem likely to triumph in Iceland or in Europe, and in America, it simply doesn’t exist. Campaigning on libertarianism in Iceland or anywhere in Europe for that matter seems laughable. The Left, for all its failures, has a universal creed of emancipation and egalitarianism, and an idealism that can always inspire in times of crisis. Most worryingly, social democracy does not suffer from its failures but is pushed constantly towards greater extremism and statism. If this was in the spirit of the streets in Iceland, the spectre will certainly not avoid America.

Is there a right wing alternative to capitalism? If not, is there a way to build a movement behind real capitalism as enduring as that behind the fighting spirit of the Left? These are the questions that need to confronted by those of us on the Right today, if we are to build a fighting faith that resist the End of History represented by social democracy. Iceland holds a warning, but no answers.

Lest we forget, the communist dream is to break down religious and ethnic barriers into a proletariat united under shared exploitation by a capitalist elite, which it then overthrows to bring about a Babelist Paradise on Earth (after liquidating any remnant ethnic or religious residues – who are the true enemy of communism, capitalism being the pretend enemy). Are we then to fall for the global communist trick and embrace monstrous global capitalism as the alternative to communism?

Whenever leftist global capitalism creates a problem, leftist global socialism is immediately paraded as the only alternative.  Sometimes nationalism and WWII are inexplicably blurred into association with transnational capitalism as well (the connection being WWII is unpleasant and thus convenient to associate with global capitalism…) This must change; the West needs a right wing. Christians and conservatives to often defend the current revolutionary status quo rather than attempting to preserve and restore a virtuous and just order.

What’s needed is men who are willing to think for themselves, deriving a path from a guiding moral center that leads them to a third way, or perhaps a fourth way, without destroying ethnic, religious, community, and class divisions. Christian economics used to take morality and the entire societal organism into consideration on economic matters, and this is surely part of the solution. It’s said that modern economics are too complicated to understand, but economic activities don’t need to be fully understood and fully regulated, just guided – e.g. when a clearly immoral or anti-societal phenomenon arises, it ought to be corrected. Another sure part of the solution is for Christians to return to dreaming of Paradise in the next life rather than attempting creative destructive change in the hope of bringing about a Babelist Paradise in this life.

What people fail to realise is communism and capitalism, along with various other isms, are essentially religious at heart. Ideological conflict is religious by another name.

Irving Kristol, creator of the neoconservative religion, in his Reflections of a Neoconservative quoted in the front of his book:

Everything that passes for politics today will be unmasked as religion tomorrow. –Kierkegaard.

Everything begins with the mystical and ends in the political. –Peguy.

He then proceeded to write:

Every now and then, to be sure, someone who is not of the Left will declare that all these ideological categories are outmoded, and the time has come to proceed with the business of politics in some kind of pragmatic, nonideological way. But such declarations are as if written on water. They usually represent little more than an effort, in a spirit of resignation, to ratify the views of the more moderate Left as a new consensus and orthodoxy on which public policy will be based. That effort always fails. The policies of the moderate Left invariably turn out to have a germinating within themselves contradictions that lead to crises in economic policy, social policy, foreign policy. And as the moderate Left comes into discredit, the more militant and extreme Left once again regains the commanding heights of ideological authority.

To be sure, the Right also revives and quickens to life under such circumstances. It may even win elections or, in nonparliamentary regimes, seize power through a military coup. But these tend to present little more than termporary interregna. For it is characteristic of the Right–has been characteristic for well over a century and a half now–that it neither convincingly claims ideological authority nor even feels the need to make such a claim. And , in the modern world, a nonideological politics is a politics disarmed.

It has been so since the American and French revolutions, which ushered in the ideological era of politics. This politics is ideological in the sense that it consists of political beliefs that are oriented in a melioristic way–a “progressive” way, as one says– toward the future. It is impossible for any set of political beliefs in the modern era to engage popular sentiments without such a basic orientation. In this sense, all modern societies of whatever kind conceive themselves to be progressive. The rare exception, an overtly “reactionary,” backward-looking regime, is correctly perceived to be an absurd and transient, and usually nasty, anachronism.

The reason modern polictics is so essentially ideological is that modern reality–economic, social, technological, intellectual, political–will not have it otherwise. Only in a static society can politics conform to its traditional premodern ideal: “tending to the arrangements of society” (in Michael Oakeshott’s phrase) in a sober and prudent way, so as to achieve domestic tranquility, while conforming to traditional notions of just, official behavior. But in a world of scientific-technological innovation and economic growth, with all its transformations of economic and social reality as well as the accompanying changes of values and habits, politics must of necessity assume another guise. It must be committed to shaping the future with at least as much energy as to preserving a traditional attachment to the past.

But Kristol is wrong – these forces are far from inevitable. The Creative Destruction he praises as inevitable is destroying us and cannot continue. An integral part of Western progress, that one never hears mentioned, is the ethnic and moral core it is built upon. Economic reductionists have labeled this “moral capital”, and it’s extremely expensive to repair and replace. Kristol is simply proposing that these forces of destruction be directed and used to his ends, to Hell with the long term consequences and morality of it.

We’re in an era similar to when the Athenian traditionalists faced off against the Atlantian empire builders. The cause of the Atlantian rot, btw, appears to be too much immigration:

Such was the vast power which the god settled in the lost island of Atlantis; and this he afterwards directed against our land for the following reasons, as tradition tells: For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with wisdom in the various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another. They despised everything but virtue, caring little for their present state of life, and thinking lightly of the possession of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them; neither were they intoxicated by luxury; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control; but they were sober, and saw clearly that all these goods are increased by virtue and friendship with one another, whereas by too great regard and respect for them, they are lost and friendship with them. By such reflections and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, the qualities which we have described grew and increased among them; but when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power. Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things.

The ideologies of our day promise power and productivity from mass society, but their societies rot from within. For those unfamiliar with the tale, the traditional Athenians ultimately won against the corrupt Atlantians.:

Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars.

A more historical example is Rome, which collapsed on its own demographic rot.

Let’s renew the West before it similarly collapses. If there’s need for an ideology, how about anti-global nationalism, including a Christian faction that wishes to encourage Christian morality and virtue within its respective nations, while leaving others alone outside the sending of missionaries and such. Imagine living in a state that isn’t constantly at war, undermining Christian values, suffering conquest by floods of aliens, or suffering perpetual Creative Destruction. Imagine a society that minds its own business and actually cares for its people. Stranger things have happened.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

21 thoughts on “R.I.P. Iceland?

  1. Weaver Post author

    C. S. Lewis:

    The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head.


  2. roho

    The standard comment was “All roads lead to Rome, and you must go there.”

    And they did, without leaving.

  3. roho

    I’m currious regarding the statement that “the International Community could determine to settle tens of thousands of Palestinians in Iceland?”

    Is that an idea being kicked around by the globalist elites?

    It would not surprise me.

  4. Captainchaos

    roho: “I’m currious regarding the statement that “the International Community could determine to settle tens of thousands of Palestinians in Iceland?”

    Is that an idea being kicked around by the globalist elites?”

    The idea being kicked around is that Iceland now needs to be integrated into the EU – all else will flow from that. Can you not see, that the entire thrust of the ruling regiment in the West is bent on the genetic destruction of our people? It MUST be destroyed, at whatever personal cost to ourselves. We MUST have our revolution, either through the ballot box, as the National Socialists did, or through the barrel of the gun. THAT is the game, THOSE are the stakes!

    Truly, there can be no other path, and it is the only sane course, for if our people are destroyed genetically we will have lost everything, and, therefore, we have nothing to lose.

    The BNP explicitly condemns miscegenation, says they will try the current elites for war crimes and engage in massive repatriation of non-Whites. Why is it that talk like that, here, gets me branded a fed troll from the SPLC? Are the minds of faileocons really that enfeebled, and, is the life instinct really that degraded in you?

    If you will not stand for your own people, and vow to do whatever must be done for us to remain forever ourselves, you are not men.

  5. Weaver Post author


    my apologies for accusing you of being an SPLC troll, but you take relatively similar stances to my own that aren’t reasonable or appealing, at least to me, especially since you turn around and insult those whom you’re attempting to appeal to.

    It’s not your ideas but your presentation and reasonableness that I objected to previously.

    As for ideas, you call for, in another recent post here, the expulsion of all 1965 immigrants… Well, that’s not reasonable. What you’re calling for is a street fight, and no one wants that, least of all me. Secession and/or a dramatic decrease in immigration would accomplish my ends nearly as well, at least so far as politics is concerned. Culture is where the fight is beyond that though, and civil and states’ rights (end to affirmative action etc.) Francis had a national solution that you might like (it’s commonly misunderstood though I think), but it’s less extreme than your proposal. He wished to guarantee all within the country full legal equality and protections, and that’s not only moral but politically necessary. You can’t treat people as subhuman: it’s unpopular and, more importantly, immoral.

    The whole purpose of nationalism is to provide order, safety, happiness, a Christian environment, etc. No nation lasts forever, so harsh “ends justifies the means” proposals aren’t worth the costs imo, though long term thinking is much desired.

    Deporting people isn’t likely going to happen in large numbers. As things are headed now, America’s going to Balkanise, which will be aweful (street fighting…) So, it’s desperately important that the leftist dreams be debunked now so that future events aren’t… a nightmare.

    Whenever a nativist or nationalist reaction to immigration, anti-societal policies, or creative destruction or some other “progress” towards a global new world order is proposed, proponents are immediately accused of being extremists who want to harm others who don’t quite fit into the national core.

    There’s something very wrong with the right wing of today: it’s almost nonexistant. Everyone today is some sort of globalist ideologue or prudent conservative. There are no principled right wing reactionaries, and most folks view such as somehow being violent and dangerous, despite how it’s always the leftist gangs who are so violent nowadays.

    To even hint at not wanting to join a global government is unPC and extreme in today’s environment. I’m then revealed to be one of the bigots English teachers tell their university students prevent homos and third worlders from being happy in a global society. You’re just adding fuel to the fire.

    You continue to use the term “faileo”, so I don’t think you get what I’m saying. If you’d at least refrain from insulting me, I’d be content.

    There’s not much censorship here though, at least I don’t censor, so don’t worry about that. The filter picks up a lot of stuff though.

  6. Captainchaos

    Your a stand up guy, Weaver. I’m not a conservative – I don’t see much worth preserving of the extant order, in fact I think it is necessary that what we have now be wiped away so something better for our people can be erected – I’m a revolutionary. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    My proposal is simple: We take back North America, Australia, New Zealand, Europe and Russian Siberia for our race. Period. All that would have been ours, in perpetuity, but for the traitors in our midst. I say why leave the Devil’s handiwork in place?

    Any strategy of secession would only be a stop gap measure until the eventual, total reconquest of the North American continent, if I had my way.

  7. Weaver

    It’s good to have a dream, and Burnham would agree with you, in abstract theory, that secession could be good as a “stop gap” or shedding of a corrupt part.

    I hope you’ll act morally though.

    Btw, pre-WWII Americans and Europeans were rather racial and still Christian. A conflict wasn’t perceived between the two then, so I hope you’ll give that a chance too.

  8. Captainchaos

    I do not believe the country can be held together but by Titoesque totalitarian measures. So, that being true, dissolution with minimal violence is the best and most merciful outcome.

    War, in which various White factions, aligned with non-Whites, would be the most dysgenic result.

    If Whites were united, or a significant portion of Whites were, with no substantive opposition from other Whites, against non-Whites, though Whites were out numbered even three to one, they would definitively route the non-Whites.

    And, of course, there is the prospect of other world powers (e.g., China and Russia) perhaps swooping in to snatch some of the North American land mass. Some Russian policy advisers have even discussed the possibility of reacquiring Alaska in just such a scenario – that kind of bitterness is what we get for stabbing our White brothers in the back for the benefit of Jewish gangsters.

    Also, what of all the poor little Negroes in Africa when the White race is diminished to a pathetic, mongrelized rump, and the Chinese gain mastery of that continent? It takes little imagination to realize the life they will live as permanent untermenchen under the Chinese boot – if they are not outright exterminated.

    It is not only for the survival and primacy of our own race that we fight, but for the benefit of all mankind. It is not a question of the justice of a particular people being master, de facto or de jure, only a question of which. That it is too horrible to contemplate is no refutation; that is the world, I’m sorry to say.

  9. Captainchaos

    Further, that White men fight, literally to the last man, at the gates to hold back the forces of genetically induced barbarism, if need be, is the only sane course; to secure a life worth living. Because, for White men death is preferable to enslavement – and the tortuously slow dissolution of what we are.

  10. Weaver

    China’s core population is crashing though, and it’s only interested in African resources atm. They live in separate communities (no servants etc.), and are sure to upset natives as minimally as is possible.

    China isn’t as homogeneous as folks make it out to be – it even has secessionist elements in parts of the country who don’t view themselves as Han Chinese.

    China suffers terrible corruption too, and it remains to be seen whether the growing middle class will cause political change.

    What you say about Africa though is of course correct though atm the Chinese are only interested in its resources. I don’t think there are any attempts right now at colonies there.

  11. Robert Lee

    “The BNP explicitly condemns miscegenation, says they will try the current elites for war crimes and engage in massive repatriation of non-Whites. Why is it that talk like that, here, gets me branded a fed troll from the SPLC? Are the minds of faileocons really that enfeebled, and, is the life instinct really that degraded in you?”
    - Captainchaos

    That really is the problem that white nationalists, racial realists, and racialists have with the general paleoconservative movement. They think you are disingenuous and cowardly in regards to race because you guys refuse to ever talk about the subject openly and honestly. And when you do it usually involves innuendo (it’s all about the culture, not race!).

    Besides, most racialists are very far-right on all the social issues. Indeed, they agree with paleos on most everything. The only thing they object to is the way you guys are cowered into silence by the SPLC types.

    Also, racialists object to the disrespect and scorn that paleos show to their movement.

    I’m not necessarily talking about everyone on this site. I’m just talking about paleos in general.

  12. Robert Lee

    Quote from Captainchaos on this thread:

    “The BNP explicitly condemns miscegenation, says they will try the current elites for war crimes and engage in massive repatriation of non-Whites. Why is it that talk like that, here, gets me branded a fed troll from the SPLC? Are the minds of faileocons really that enfeebled, and, is the life instinct really that degraded in you?”

    That really is the problem that most white nationalists, racial realists, and racialists have with paleoconservatives. They think that you guys are disingenuous and cowardly because you refuse to talk openly and honestly about racial issues. Indeed, when paleos do talk about race it usually involves innuendo.

    But it seems to me that most of the time paleos base their argument on the need for cultural preservation, scorning the mere mention of racial preservation out of fear of being called a racist.

    Besides, most racialists are very far-right on the political spectrum, and as such agree with paleos on the social issues. The only difference they have with paleos is that they are not cowered into silence by SPLC types.

    Also, racialists object to the scorn and disrespect that paleos show to their movement.

    I’m not necessarily talking about everyone on this site. Instead, I’m just talking about paleoconservatives in general.

  13. Weaver Post author

    Mr. Lee,

    I’m personally opposed to miscegenation, as was Richard Weaver I’m pretty sure, and I’ve explicitly stated that culture is only meant to serve the people who have it, including by tying them to past generations and by bringing them to God so that their souls are saved, and other obvious benefits.

    I think the South is paradise, and all it’s features are worth preserving. I’m also very attached to Britain. To be clear though, I do care a lot for the blacks in the South, and I wish that both whites and blacks there could find some stable, peaceful order somehow, albeit without mixing.

    I also think a strong national identity is necessary to resist genetic engineering, which will become the greatest moral threat, meaning it will severe ties to Adam and Eve and undermine the view that man has an eternal soul or is otherwise important. People haven’t caught on to this issue though I’ve been ranting about it on the internet for years. I do not believe those nations with shallow roots and weak virtue will resist, and will thus fall into moral crisis.

    I’m not particularly squeamish about race, but most people are. And some others at this site have different views on it or don’t want it discussed nonstop, so I try to keep it muted, though if I don’t answer the topic continues to be brought up until I do, lol.

    However, genetics weren’t understood until recently, though there was certainly a very strong sense of race in the past (though many today attempt, and succeed at, rewriting this history, though mass book burnings would be required to complete this)…

    There’s a fear that man’s eternal soul will not be recognised and honoured.

    And this is extremely important.

    1. people within a group could conceivably be mistreated by being viewed as mere clumps of DNA. Eugenic abuse is especially a concern.
    2. people outside the group could be conceivably mistreated of course by being viewed as subhuman, this especially includes outsiders living among insiders.

    Another point: men like Kevin MacDonald are either full or very near full atheist, and this drives away many Christians, both nominal and true Christians.

    A lot of Americans believe racial acknowledgment is inherently unChristian largely for the reasons given above, but also because they believe (Protestants mostly) man is no longer meant to live tribally but that Marx was seemingly right in his desire to unite the world, though I don’t find this in the Bible.

    And many other Americans (popular among Catholics and many others) believe groups should be founded solely on social bonds, including familial meaning genetics becomes important, but also consciously allowing in some amount outsiders, especially so that all are considered human and no dual morality arises. E.g. two warring clans used to marry two members so as to resolve the feud with a small blending of DNA. And a group that offers economic advantage might be allowed in.

    And others just think that it’s too troublesome to… kick people out or secede, and not worth the efforts. They seem to just want to amalgamate and found a new distinct people, albeit while not continuing the flood of immigration.

    And then a lot of people I think sincerely don’t linger on racial issues. They sincerely think that as long as their cultural attachments, safety, liberties, living space, environmental impact, and familial life aren’t disrupted, they could not possibly care less. If immigration brings them money (cheap labor, larger tax base), then they’re fully fine with it, though the economic figures don’t hold up for that. To the extent immigration doesn’t affect their lives, they don’t care, and they have zero interest in political theories which they don’t understand and which they suspect to be sophistry.

    And others just aren’t “white nationalists” but rather some ethnic subset and additionally believe cultural bonds are needed along with racial bonds.

    That’s what I pick up from paleos and general nonMarxists and nonlibertarians today – that set of views. There are probably many important subtle variations – those aren’t only meant as examples from America…

    No definition has ever been successfully give for paleos that I’m aware of, so if racial divisions increase the paleo movement could erupt over it and break up, just as paleolibertarians and paleocons broke up before. But I don’t get the impression from reading columns and such that it’s in any way a closet movement. People are generally who they say they are.

  14. Weaver Post author

    It’s not that paleos are cowardly though.

    Most of these paleos who don’t speak on race often truly do not, I suspect, hold secret racial views, just from reading their columns and such.

    They might decline to say a few things, but they’re sincere opponents of WN.

    You take Dr. Fleming at Chronicles, no way is he any sort of WN. He’s a Christian and a believer that we’re all of Adam and Eve, though he also favours small societies that are not mere cosmopolitan hubs of a New World Order. The Aryan, Celtic, Albanian, Roman, Russian, Greek, “white”, etc. mythos don’t appeal to him, at least that’s the impression I get, though any attempt of mine at pinpointing his views at his site has been returned with a denial so I could well be wrong yet again… He’d surely take different positions were his views secretly something else; no, I suspect he’s exactly whom he claims to be.

    And many others would fully reject a national racial movement as say Francis used to propose, though they’d be fine if people wanted to separate on their own.

    So, I don’t think it’s so much cowardice. I think it’s a sincere difference of views.

  15. Captainchaos


    The destruction of the genetically distinct European peoples is genocide. Gas chambers or miscegenation, it is all the same in the end. Those paleos who would deny the European peoples the necessary means to ensure their genetic continuity are complicit in genocide. Either they are with us or they are with the genocidalists. WNs are committed to resisting this genocide – it is a perverse injustice of monumental proportions that we are the scorned and the ostracized.

    Any moral system that demands the dissolution of our people is not moral.

  16. Weaver

    Well, that’s what I’m pointing out: paleos who say they are mostly not WN are not closet WN, though we can all agree on a lot of policies, so there’s a lot of overlap really politically, but they’re not WN.

    Where agreement exists, folks ought to work together… VDARE’s a great example of different groups working together to reduce immigration.

    Those paleos who would deny the European peoples the necessary means to ensure their genetic continuity are complicit in genocide.

    Most don’t favor that though. Most are just less attached to it than are you, and that’s all I’ve got to say. Hopefully all the mysteries have been resolved.

    Politics is not black and white.

  17. Robert Lee

    Sorry that I ended up posting two comments when I only meant to post one. There was either a problem with my computer or a problem with this site last night. Maybe someone here shut down the comments section on this thread last night or something?

    That being said, I thank you Weaver for your long and detailed comments. I want to respond to a few of the points you make but I don’t have the time to do it right now. Also, you cover a lot of ground so I want to take the time to give a thoughtful response.

    I’ll respond shortly.

  18. Captainchaos

    That is just it, Weaver. That kind of indifference to our cause cannot be allowed to define the future of our people. Our people MUST have life, and the necessary conditions to sustain it. That it does not really ultimately matter, that some compromise can obtain that allows for the tainting of our blood, and that the surrender of the decisive ability to determine our own destiny is feasible, that this would not be conclusively catastrophic, is sheer delusion. THAT is the urgently sensed truth that animates us, for which we MUST make whatever sacrifices are necessary to secure victory.

    Pat Buchanan himself once hinted that if it goes the way of Rhodesia, in our primary homelands, our people will be exterminated. Our struggle for life and light is Manichean.

    You know that to be true.

  19. Captainchaos

    Also, it is nearly self-evident, having acquainted one’s self with the facts, that Kevin MacDonald’s characterization of the Jewish people is manifestly the truth. I realize that strikes perilously close to the root of the tree of Christianity.

    Further, it is essentially the view of Adolf Hitler, who we have been instructed by Jews to believe is the devil. Yet, we know, that in spite of this, Hitler did not, would not, allow the Jews to be exterminated by German hands. Still, Nazism, as historically incarnated, is morally unacceptable; though it is clearly the most muscular, effective tool at our disposal; then and now.

    It is true that the best men of our race dwarf the best men of the Jewish people – even they know that, deep inside.

    And it may be that we must accept the, for some, heart breaking truth, that all the goodness, and greatness, we possess, is due to what we are, owed to our blood – alone.

  20. Weaver


    I’m not of the same view, nor is Buchanan I’m sure.

    I do not praise Hitler. I do not view whites as a master or otherwise superior race, and I do not believe the ends justify the means. If you like Hitler, you might should consider moving to Germany where there are other Germans who’ve shared that history.

    I wish to defend and preserve the South because it is a wonderful place that I’m attached to.

    So, conclusion: politics is grey. Not to be rude, but comments closed.

Comments are closed.