|
December 21st, 2009 | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10
|
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/
|
December 28th, 2009 | #2 |
Administrator
|
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 08:36 PM. |
December 29th, 2009 | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
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 06:26 PM. |
December 29th, 2009 | #4 | ||||||
Administrator
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Criticism of KM and his non-existent strategy - only. Same on the other threads in this forum. |
||||||
December 30th, 2009 | #5 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vinland (NE U.S.A.)
Posts: 408
|
Quote:
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 |
|
December 30th, 2009 | #6 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vinland (NE U.S.A.)
Posts: 408
|
Quote:
__________________
"Heiden sind alle, die zum Leben ja sagen, denen "Gott" das Wort für das Große Ja zu allen Dingen ist." – Nietzsche |
|
December 30th, 2009 | #7 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
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. |
|
December 30th, 2009 | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,645
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Blood & Soul Aryan |
|
December 30th, 2009 | #9 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
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. |
|
December 30th, 2009 | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,645
|
Quote:
The home schooling curriculum would focus on factually reinforcing this belief, as well as being an excuse for bringing like-minded families into contact.
__________________
Blood & Soul Aryan |
|
December 31st, 2009 | #11 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
December 31st, 2009 | #12 |
Administrator
|
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. |
December 31st, 2009 | #13 |
Administrator
|
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. |
December 31st, 2009 | #14 |
Administrator
|
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.
|
December 31st, 2009 | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
|
"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. |
December 31st, 2009 | #16 | |
Hath not a Goy eyes?
|
Quote:
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. |
|
January 1st, 2010 | #17 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
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. |
|
January 1st, 2010 | #18 |
Administrator
|
[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. |
January 1st, 2010 | #19 |
Administrator
|
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. |
January 1st, 2010 | #20 | |
Hath not a Goy eyes?
|
Quote:
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 10:36 AM. |
|
Tags |
homeland, jim giles, kevin macdonald, repatriation, wn lite= fail |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|