Intellectualism and White American Advocacy

Whigger IntuhlecshualI tore something in my back yesterday while horsing around with the kids, and am on some medication for that. This post will likely feature more cognitive impairment than usual, but that’s okay. The central message of this post is that my cardinal motivations are neither intellectual, nor logical, nor rational. The message here is one which transcends abstract thought, so perhaps it’s fitting that I write it while those faculties are impaired.

The primary motivator behind my activism can be summarized in one word: patriarchy, the extension of fatherhood to encompass my extended tribal family. I believe that the purpose of a man is as surely the defense and stewardship of his family and his tribal family as the purpose of a hammer is to drive in nails. This is temporal, and yet it’s in the highest tradition of the biblical patriarchs and of Christ’s message of stewardship. This is instinctive, not rational, yet the scientific observations of Frank Salter, Kevin MacDonald, J.P. Rushton, Robert Putnam, and numerous other respected academicians and thinkers corroborate the optimality of what I would have chosen to do even if they had concluded it to be suboptimal.

I can’t help but feel that our movement suffers from a bit of an inferiority complex in intellectual pursuits, striving fruitlessly to persuade our enemies in academia that we’re credible and correct. We, being a gullible bunch, too easily accept the surface arguments of our competitors. We’re inclined to believe them when they declare that they think race is a social construct, or that intelligence is the product of exclusively environmental factors, or that disparities in reported crime rates are products of institutional bias. We’ve invested untold hours making summaries and bar charts of the same mountain of data, a mountain that grows steadily with each passing year.

But it’s to no avail.

I’m as guilty of this as the next guy. I’ve been corresponding with a reporter I met at the CofCC conference and have caught myself multiple times falling into the trap of thinking I’m corresponding with somebody who can be reasoned with. While there’s something to be said in favor of “the foolishness of preaching”, there are probably better things I can be doing with my time than engaging a thoroughly committed liberal in a private discussion. It’s not like she’s going to let a few facts get in the way of her secular religion (nor am I), and it’s possible (perhaps probable) that I’ll slip up and say something stupid which can be used out of context to discredit the organization and the movement.

Many in the movement fret about the anti-intellectual impulse among many White Advocates. But I suspect it’s inevitable. The practical result of our enemies’ complete domination of our educational institutions and our intellectual salons is that to be “intellectual” in this age is to be anti-White. While there’s definitely comfort in knowing that our worldview and our struggle is one which is supported by the latest genetic research and the most ancient intellectual traditions, the reality on the ground is that Professor MacDonald isn’t even allowed to share his most critical observations with his students or dedicate a class to these observations. In fact, up until some recent thuggish agitation on his campus, most of his students were unaware that he even held these heretical views.

We should take pride in our intellectual traditions, bearing in mind that the inventor of the automobile, Henry Ford, vigorously fought Jewish power. The inventor of the semiconductor and founder of Silicon Valley, William Shockley, demanded that our public policy account for the inferior intellect of America’s Blacks. The co-discoverer of DNA, James Watson, opined that Africans in general and Black researchers in particular just aren’t up to White standards. But the bottom line is that Henry Ford was terrorized in his death bed for his heresy. Shockley was driven out of polite society and stripped of his acclaim for his heresy. Watson, despite cravenly attempting to retract his statements, was robbed of his research institute for his heresy.

His-PanicBut it may be just as well, because to rest our justifications for our advocacy on anything abstract or intellectual is to invite the sophistry of our enemies. I see this all the time. As an example, I’ve heard some White Nationalists declare that they don’t want Mexicans flooding our country because they’re disproportionately criminals and burdens on our welfare system. So then some Jew who purports to be a traditional conservative makes a case that first generation Mexican immigrants don’t actually commit that much crime and have an economic impact that comes close to balancing out. Fortunately, another Jew retaliated with Talmudic sorcery of his own, winning the debate for our side. But my own aversion to being replaced by Mexicans had nothing to do with their criminality or welfare dependency in the first place.

Personally, I consider the overclass invaders like Jews and Asians to be more dangerous to our long-term interests than the underclass ones, anyway.

I can’t be defeated in a debate about race because you can’t defeat a vision. I’m no more likely to be persuaded by an argument to turn my back on my people than a mother could be persuaded by an argument to stop loving her child. A mother’s love has nothing to do with logic and neither does my sense of responsibility for the fate of my nation. Even if my race were the ugliest and stupidest race of them all, I would still rise to defend it. A good father will defend his son even if that son is ugly and stupid. Sure, I do think my people are uniquely intelligent, creative, and aesthetically pleasing. But maybe that’s simply the result of my own bias. That may well be. I’m biased and I make no apologies for being so.

While it’s difficult for me to convey with the written word the true nature of the vision that motivates me to keep fighting, I believe the following musical performance comes close to capturing its essence…

29 Comments

  1. Completely agree, f_ing A Bubba. Also, Steve Sailer has an elegant definition of race as: “Race is all about who your relatives are, and, not coincidentally, answers to the question of who you are related to turn out to be unavoidably relativistic.” Essentially, a race is a genetically related group of people. In short, it’s a tribal thing and of course it’s instinctual. It is well known that the people who look most like myself are those that I tend to have an instituctual desire to protect. That is a primal fact, and we shouldn’t seek to reject it because someone wants people like us replaced or dead.

  2. I was expecting to read something that lacked substance being as you have that back pain but it seems you over came the pain and delivered an intelligent , well written view. And that is just the sort of mule headed stubborn determination it will take to keep your’s and other WN’s ideas alive.

    No point in arguing a personal view to others; since it is only birds of a feather who flock’s together.

  3. @Brandon
    It’s an interesting website. I’ve never heard of it before. I’m generally irritated by attempts to tag along with the minority victim paradigm and I perceive a lot of “men’s rights” stuff to be a manifestation of that. Yes, I’m calling you out, Ferdinand Bardamu of InMalaFide.com. White males will never be invited to the diversity “pity party”. From what I can gather, this guy appears to be striking a note of ownership, accountability, stewardship, and loving dominance.

    @segestan
    The quality of my writing isn’t affected by my being hopped up on painkillers. I’m not sure whether I should be proud or ashamed. 🙂

  4. “I can’t be defeated in a debate about race”

    Our opponents can never prove that it is good for us to be race-replaced, but we still need good arguments to show how silly, vicious, incoherent and full of lies they are.

    Because of censorship, many Whites don’t realize that they are deliberately being targeted. They still want to trust their government. I think when more Whites stop debating and turn violent, it will help everyone understand that our elites aren’t trying to kill us for our own good. The elites won’t be able to maintain any illusion if they decide to crack down on White dissidents. Then, arguments will become superfluous.

  5. Good article. Race is very reasonable as an organizing principle. It is based on something that is real: genetic relatedness.

    Even the legions of professional prevaricators operating currently can’t entirely erase this fact.

  6. ‘ But my own aversion to being replaced by Mexicans had nothing to do with their criminality or welfare dependency in the first place. ‘

    Mexicans could not have given us Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes, that much is certain.

    The following clip intrigues me somewhat: the speaker is from Nicaragua.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDED_vGkTfA

    I can’t see whether his eyes are blue. The speaker has clearly bought into a lot of right-wing establishment thinking.

    I wonder how genetically related he is to modern Europeans, and the modern American whites.

    If the USA received a lot of very pale Hispanics, would they tend to separate from the darker Hispanics and attempt to emphasize their pallor?

    If a genetically distinct pale Hispanic population proved itself to focus on extremely traditional European values over the course of several decades, would that prove them to be another white subrace?

  7. Armor,
    I definitely believe that we’re primarily fighting a war of ideas and I agree with you that we must carry on this fight. I suppose that I’m trying to say that the intellectual dimension of our struggle is limited in scope and practical utility. There definitely is a place for it, an important one, as you’ve suggested.

  8. My conversion was complete when I realized it’s like loving your family. At the end of the day I don’t really care what anybody else thinks, and I hardly need to have some consistent intellectual framework that makes it politically acceptable for me to love my family, and by extension, White people in general.

    Also, that song was great. I have a hard time trying to categorize it. And their loopy dancing and stuff was cute, and all so very … White.

  9. The only real problem I have regarding this topic is that I am so utterly disappointed in most white people. Even the ones who should know better refuse to recognize the truth about race. There are decent people who have experienced non-white crime firsthand and they still refuse to accept reality. Remember that 40% of Whites voted for Obama. I want to save these people. I want to reach out and rescue them because they are my people. But they reject the truth with platitudes like “we’re all human.” It is very discouraging.

    If one ever reaches a point of disillusionment one must fall back on the last line of defense: you are fighting this struggle because the only remaining option is extermination.

  10. We need more intellectualism, not less.

    No one who reads Stormfront can think that the pro-white movement suffers from an excess of intellectualism.

    But it’s to no avail.

    I’m as guilty of this as the next guy. I’ve been corresponding with a reporter I met at the CofCC conference and have caught myself multiple times falling into the trap of thinking I’m corresponding with somebody who can be reasoned with.

    The purpose of intellectualism is not to try to persuade our sworn enemies and inveterate opponents. It is to convince our co-ethnics as well as to show them that the malicious stereotypes with which we are smeared are wrong.

    Personally, I consider the overclass invaders like Jews and Asians to be more dangerous to our long-term interests than the underclass ones, anyway.

    This is not an argument against intellectualism. It is an argument against “HBD” types and IQ fetishists. Jewish and Asian supremacists like John Derbyshire, Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, Guy White, and Half Sigma are dangerous foes of ours.

    As an example, I’ve heard some White Nationalists declare that they don’t want Mexicans flooding our country because they’re disproportionately criminals and burdens on our welfare system. So then some Jew who purports to be a traditional conservative makes a case that first generation Mexican immigrants don’t actually commit that much crime and have an economic impact that comes close to balancing out. Fortunately, another Jew retaliated with Talmudic sorcery of his own, winning the debate for our side. But my own aversion to being replaced by Mexicans had nothing to do with their criminality or welfare dependency in the first place.

    This also is not an argument against intellectualism. To the contrary, it shows that we need more intellectualism: we need to hone and sharpen our arguments for racial separation.

    Many of the arguments white nationalists use to argue for separation are insufficient. A popular one is that of the crime and other social pathologies of blacks, Hispanics, and other non-white groups. If lowering crime rates is what ultimately matters to you, this can achieved without separation. Imposing strict law-and-order measures would suffice. Likewise, the average IQ of non-white groups is an insufficient justification for a white ethnostate. If IQ scores are the basis of your argument, you might be at a loss to object to someone who advocates the race-replacement of whites by “cognitively elite” non-whites.

    Racial survival is what necessitates separation and the ethnostate. Separation is required for racial preservation.

    http://www.toqonline.com/2010/03/separate-or-die/
    In his essay “Separate or Die,” Richard McCulloch discussed the importance of the reason for partition. See the section “Partition and Racial Survival.”

    From Instauration, January 1976:

    “Los Angeles: The small band of faithful had a busy month. One new supporter wanted to organize a study group. Another tracked down a man who wrote for a gift copy of The Dispossessed Majority on the grounds he was a UCLA instructor. It turned out he had no connection whatever with UCLA. Anything for a free book. Still another supporter has worked out a plethora of constructive solutions for the Majority’s resurrection, some of which may appear in later issues of this magazine. Meanwhile, he warned that Instauration should not be too negative and too concerned with our sickness rather than its cure. Our point is that the illness must be properly diagnosed before there can be an effective prognosis. An activist in the group said the time was long past for education and the deed must now replace the thought. We have heard this argument before; in fact it has been voiced up and down the land since 1930. The activist was told that until we can educate at least a small segment of our preachers, teachers and other members of the intelligentsia to see things our way, we will just be spinning our wheels. There is no deadlier enemy of activism than a false timetable.

    From The Ethnostate:

    “Educate, arouse, act! These are the well-worn stepping-stones to power. But they should be traversed in that order. Arousal before education, acting before being properly aroused are invitations to failure. Misplaced priorities do not set the stage for momentous deeds.”

  11. I don’t have access to this paper, but it looks like it is worth reading.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/4121335

    “Impression Management for the Thinking Racist: A Case Study of Intellectualization as Stigma Transformation in Contemporary White Supremacist Discourse”

  12. MGLS,

    It’s imprudent to establish the core of our message on a foundation of intellectual abstraction. It’s also foolish to believe that the intellectual front is the cardinal front. This is a political struggle, a tribal one, and there is no formula, theorem, or dataset which can prove or disprove the highly subjective nature of a man’s love for his people, his tribe.

    You appear to be conflating intellectualism with evangelism. We certainly shouldn’t be stepping back from the argument, by any stretch. But as Kurtagic and others have stated better than I could, most people are reached by emotional appeals and appeals to their immediate interests. While there are certainly some tard corrals, our movement’s intellectual maturity far outstrips its political or cultural maturity.

    Our movement has more professors than it has meeting organizers. If we were to gather up a single copy of all the books that have been written making our case, we would need to be careful to avoid having them topple over and kill us. If we were to gather up a list of adherents willing to make even the most humble sacrifice of dues or investment of time, we could probably mail that list with a single postage stamp.

    This war has many fronts, and many of them are intellectual. The men and women who are fighting those battles are doing critical work for the cause. I don’t want this post to be interpreted as a slap in the face of those gifted and motivated intellectuals. I also don’t believe it’s appropriate for you to imply that I’m demanding hasty or ill-prepared action when I’m not doing that.

  13. “Matt: Speaking of patriarchy, have you seen this guy’s website?
    Gender roles and patriarchy are his “specialty”
    http://www.mensaction.net

    Have you guys ever gone to website http://www.the-spearhead.com? They believe society is being run by feminist women, and they believe an economic crash is on the horizon and that patriarchy will make a comeback. They have been rather tolerant when I bring up Jews and feminism and the demographic decline of the white race. I think it’s just a case of they like venting their frustrations on a forum about women and feminism, but either still haven’t seen the big picture or are just to intimidated and brow beaten to name the Jew. I’ve received private emails from users on that forum who agree with our position. It might be worth visiting such sites and making tactful contributions when appropriate.

  14. How are you going to emotionally connect with these people? Their emotions are dictated by the mass media. If you start talking about race their emotional response will be to denounce you as a racist. They’ve been conditioned to do that.

  15. ‘How are you going to emotionally connect with these people? Their emotions are dictated by the mass media. If you start talking about race their emotional response will be to denounce you as a racist. They’ve been conditioned to do that.’

    There are three related political positions of interest.

    1) White Nationalism. The white genes are the priority. Is it good for the whites?

    2) Jeffersonianism. Would TJ have done it that way? Did TJ want blacks and whites to be separate? The Articles of Confederation were closer to TJ’s thinking than the Constitution.

    3) Constitutionalism. Is it in the Constitution? Did the Framers intend it?

    Theoretically, all USA military officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They ought to be staunch Constitutionalists, come hell or high water, if they understand their oath.

    But Constitutionalism is very close to Jeffersonianism. If a USA military officer starts out at the Constitution and then leans toward TJ, he must admit that TJ was a white separatist.

    If all USA warfighters saw themselves on a continuum between strict-constructionist Constitutional Federalism and Jeffersonian Anti-Federalism, it would be considerably easier to connect the issue of white separatism to the issues of the Founding Fathers’ Enlightenment ideals.

    I don’t read WN websites because I am full of love for whites above all other races. I am a Jeffersonian, not a White Nationalist. But, as it happens, telling the truth about TJ’s white separatism is taboo almost everywhere, except on WN sites. Thus I tend to comment on a lot of WN sites.

  16. Sam Davidson
    “How are you going to emotionally connect with these people? Their emotions are dictated by the mass media. If you start talking about race their emotional response will be to denounce you as a racist. They’ve been conditioned to do that.”

    There’s different ways to do it but with the average brain-washed person i’d say.

    1. Use the conditioning.
    2. Don’t *start* talking about race.

    What is the underlying reality? jews decided after WWII that they needed a final solution to the Aryan problem and started a project which from the beginning was racist and genocidal to its core. However a huge part of this racist and genocidal project involved conditioning white people to see racism and genocide as the ultimate sins.

    The multicult has got the biggest internal contradication in human history.

    In theory anti-racism = racists must be destroyed!!!
    but
    1. Only white people are racist
    2. All white people are racist even if its unconscious
    so in reality
    anti-racism = white people must be destroyed!!!
    anti-racism = genocidal anti-white racism in disguise

    100% white town = 0% diverse
    50% white town = 50% diverse
    diversity = fewer white people
    celebrating diversity = celebrating fewer white people
    diversity = anti-white racism in disguise

    anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white

    There are 100s of examples every day. Just point them out. Leave out all the “why?”stuff and race stuff until you’ve got them to the point where they can at least agree that sometimes things can look like “anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white” even if they disagree with you. Ideally you want them to start noticing the double standards themselves and mentioning it to you.

    The next step is why? Avoid anything racial yet because of the conditioning. Instead something along the lines of:

    “The Democrats want immigration for the votes, the Republicans want immigration for cheap labour, shouting about racism is just their way of bullying people into doing what they want.”

    You want to treat it like bringing someone out of a cult.

    white = racist
    anti-racist = anti-white
    anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-white

  17. My point was that people who are swayed by the emotional argument are going to avoid our message because it’s more emotionally satisfying to agree with the multicultural status quo. On the other hand, if you can convert an intellectual by the power of the facts alone you will have a steady ally because the facts support our worldview.

  18. I think it’s like a cult and you have to pull them out and deprogram them first.

    Once you’ve got them to that stage then yes, there probably is a difference how “stickable” a person is but personally i’ve had no more luck persuading logical types than emotional ones without undermining the conditioning first.

  19. Sam,
    You can’t just forfeit on the emotional front. History has shown that it’s very possible to reach people on an emotional level with our message. In fact, biological research actually suggests that we have some real advantages. We definitely will need to reframe and it’s a steep uphill battle from where we’re at. But we may well be losing this battle because we haven’t really bothered to fight it, yet.

    The problem with reaching the kind of people who are persuaded by purely logical arguments is that you’re going to end up with that kind of people. You’re going to end up with a bunch of aspies and hermits for whom not only our cause is an abstract exercise, but the whole job of interacting with human beings is an abstract exercise altogether. While nobody will actually ADMIT that they’re not genuinely committed, the deafening sucking noise of inaction speaks for itself.

    But the big problem with intellectualism is that there’s not much to talk about that hasn’t been beat to death. We are a people, a people who are different, and who wish to determine our own destiny. We can bicker about the details, but that’s really it. Racism is not a philosophy, an ideology, or a worldview. It’s of paramount importance for us right now, as much as oxygen is to a man with a boot on his neck – but oxygenism can’t be credibly expanded into an intellectual movement, either.

    This movement is a coalition of intellectual movements and worldviews, many of which are quite divergent and even irreconcilable. As I’ve explained before, I’m committed to defending White America as an extension of a recognition of a patriarchal responsibility to be a steward and protector of my extended tribal family. For others, there’s a eugenic mission. For others, it’s a RadTrad thing. For others, it’s about some personal vendetta. For others, it’s really all about the Jews. For others, they think they’re the real Jews. And on and on and on.

  20. I use code talk with conservative-tendency people and it works great. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage make it a lot easier.

    I think it’s more important to get involved in your local community on their terms, and hide your views, than go out waving your banner. Infiltrate the community with taqqiyah! CHARGE!

  21. I think each individual lost rabbit has a tipping point. Up to that tipping point being explicitly racial repels them because of their conditioning but once they’re past the tipping point their natural instincts kick in and they want the racial view.

    So i think we need both, some people being explicit and some stealthed depending on what suits the individual agitator.

  22. ‘You’re going to end up with a bunch of aspies and hermits for whom not only our cause is an abstract exercise, but the whole job of interacting with human beings is an abstract exercise altogether. While nobody will actually ADMIT that they’re not genuinely committed, the deafening sucking noise of inaction speaks for itself.’

    Even aspies and hermits can support the cause with lifestyle changes.

    For men, shaving one’s head is practical, understated, and yet a statement of support.

    Buying CDs – whether from Kurtagic’s favorite neofolk or from “Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes” – can provide a significant amount of lifestyle based support.

    And if a leftist gives them grief about it, they can say, “Hey man, this is a lifestyle issue, I’m expressing my love by shaving my head.”

    And the Winthrop P. Snuggles, the Cuddly Bear of White Compassion, can walk in and hand the leftist a kitten. That will cement moral supremacy.

  23. For those of you who have not seen the cartoon:
    http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:DrLM1uixtq2deM:http://www.stormfront.org/forum/image.php%3Fu%3D65619%26dateline%3D1132757685

    “Winthrop P. Snuggles” is a brilliant example of detournage that destabilizes an existing cultural hegemony.

    Whites are presented with a propagandized world. They are told that snuggly compassionate care bears are good, and the Celtic Cross is scary.

    But when the two are combined – the propaganda falls apart, and whites have reclaimed a little part of the culture.

    Another example is the “Heil Kitty” T-Shirt.

    http://www.cafepress.com/nationallampoon.40085563

    Hitler is used as a symbol of all that must be shunned, Hello Kitty is the symbol of all that must be purchased (which is how a materialistic culture expresses approval).

    Combine the two images and the existing cultural hegemony implodes.

    Let us not say “burn, baby, burn” but rather “detourn, baby, detourn.”

  24. It’s imprudent to establish the core of our message on a foundation of intellectual abstraction.

    I’m not talking about abstruse philosophizing or making some obscure, arcane philosophy our message.

    You appear to be conflating intellectualism with evangelism. We certainly shouldn’t be stepping back from the argument, by any stretch.

    Intellectualism does not mean engaging in fruitless debates with our opponents. Intellectualism does not mean getting into a screaming match with blacks about crime statistics.

    While there are certainly some tard corrals, our movement’s intellectual maturity far outstrips its political or cultural maturity.

    Stormfront is the largest white nationalist website. Stormfront, VNN, Christian Identity nutcases, and Radio Free Mississippi do not leave one impressed with the “intellectual maturity” of the “movement.”

    The problem with reaching the kind of people who are persuaded by purely logical arguments is that you’re going to end up with that kind of people. You’re going to end up with a bunch of aspies and hermits for whom not only our cause is an abstract exercise, but the whole job of interacting with human beings is an abstract exercise altogether.

    Many people are uninformed or only hazily aware of reality. An emotional exhortation to them will likely fall on deaf ears. A vulgar message based on struggle and raw survival will repel the idealists, visionaries, and intellectuals we need to attract.

    Who is going to be swayed by base emotional appeals? Those who are itching for rash action and “excitement.” Is cretinization what we want? The extreme of the anti-intellectual spectrum is the Jim Giles “plan” of “F*** the g**d***ed f***ing intellectuals” and “Get a posse together and go do something.” Little could be more harmful than the Giles “strategy.” (Note before anyone misunderstands or suggests otherwise: I not “accusing” or “implying” that Matt Parrott or anybody else here supports or advocates the Jim Giles “plan.” I am only using Giles as an extreme example of anti-intellectualism.)

    While nobody will actually ADMIT that they’re not genuinely committed, the deafening sucking noise of inaction speaks for itself.

    It is pointless to engage in action for the sake of action. Arousal must come before action, education before arousal.

    The view of the Occidental Dissent inner circle appears to be that engaging in activism, attending protests, and organizing rallies is to be the top priority today.

    The belief in rallies and protests is cargo-culting the 1960s counterculture. The success of rallies and protests is largely determined by the reaction of the establishment. Non-white, Jewish, and leftist protesters succeeded because significant sections of the establishment either wholeheartedly supported them (Jews, non-whites, and Majority Proditors), were willing to use them to further their own careers (Majority Gracchites and Trucklers), or did not have the will or desire to oppose them (Majority Pussyfooters and Old Believers).

    We will accomplish nothing until and unless we educate some of the intelligentsia and convince them to see things our way.

    Engaging in activism prematurely will only result in activists spinning their wheels and becoming frustrated and burned-out.

  25. MGLS,
    I think we’re essentially on the same page and getting bogged in semantics and misunderstandings. I think you incorrectly conflate emotional appeals with tard corral filth. I spent years on one target, making hardly any progress at all despite my arsenal of statistics and intellectual cases – to no avail. I didn’t make a breakthrough with her until I showed her “Show of Hands – Roots”, then briefly framed it in terms of our struggle. She didn’t need another intellectual diatribe or exposition of a double-standard. She needed to be convinced that our expression of life is a beautiful and unique one worth cherishing and preserving.

  26. MGLS,
    I think we’re essentially on the same page and getting bogged in semantics and misunderstandings.

    You’re probably right.

  27. Cultural change must come from the roots- not the treetop.

    If enough people can be persuaded to turn off the TV and start reading- even that would be a step in the right direction- since most of our conditioning seems to be coming from the Volksverdümmungskasten anyhow (Idiot Box in German).

    Image that huge chunk of free time for original thought to emerge!

3 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Why non-White-Nationalist Jeffersonians must be aware of Ethnic Genetic Interests « Uncontroversial
  2. R.E.A.L. Surprise « Locust blog
  3. Linkage is Good for You: Amusing Coincidence Edition (NSFW)

Comments are closed.