Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Mindweapons in Ragnarok
December 1, 2013
The liberal intelligentsia took up “civil rights” 50 years ago, and found it paid pretty well. It was quite a party, because it was supported by the oligarchs and plutocrats. And it was probably fun for a lot of them to shit on ordinary white people, even their own “racist relatives,” and say, “ha ha, the culture is on our side.”
But anti-whitism has always been driven by the oligarchy, and only remuneratively enforced by the liberals. It was always about beating down lower class and middle class white people, making us culturally and legally subordinate. And liberals enjoyed it and many still enjoy it.
But the top liberal intellectuals are noticing a problem. Below are three examples — Noam Chomsky, Eric Alterman and Paul Collier of the British magazine “The New Statesman.” Collier puts in a lot of liberalist filler to try and cover his butt, but his “10 blocks” are devastating to the whole project of liberalism and multiculturalism. In fact, it is an acknowledgment of Keith Alexander’s motto, The project of liberalism is doomed when multiculturalism succeeds.
In bashing down white people, the oligarchs and their paychex liberals have created the 21st century Dystopia of diversity, multiclturalism, low wages, the Knockout game, mudsharking, Mexicans and Guatemalans taking jobs that should go to American teenagers, and many many many more assaults on our lives and our quality of life.
When liberalism comes down, it’s coming down hard. The USSR was brought down by it’s own politicians. Liberal intellectuals themselves are starting to chip away at their own Berlin Wall of political correctness. I made this post because when liberals attack their own ideology, they do it with the insight of insiders. We hate the PC but since we had no part in crafting it or enforcing it, but only being victimized by it and fighting it, we don’t see it from the inside. We can’t imagine what it has been like to be a “civil rights” supporter, and then (apparently) become disillusioned with the whole project. Of course to admit such a thing outright invites a “racist” witch hunt, so they don’t admit it outright, but they sure beat around the bush very hard.
So they know it doesn’t work. How do we push this thing over the rest of the way? The best idea I can come up with is that we become individually powerful and wealthy, and then work with one another on a model of informal friendship and business networks, and raise a generation of strong children who will at least survive the Dystopia, at best, overthrow it and seed a new, pro-white, Traditionalist culture.
Noam Chomsky admits — antiracism is antiwhite.
One big problem is that the white working class has been pretty much abandoned by the political system. The Democrats don’t even try to organize them anymore. The Republicans claim to do it; they get most of the vote, but they do it on non-economic issues, on non-labor issues. They often try to mobilize them on the grounds of issues steeped in racism and sexism and so on, and here the liberal policies of the 1960s had a harmful effect because of some of the ways in which they were carried out. There are some pretty good studies of this. Take busing to integrate schools. In principle, it made some sense, if you wanted to try to overcome segregated schools. Obviously, it didn’t work. Schools are probably more segregated now for all kinds of reasons, but the way it was originally done undermined class solidarity.
For example, in Boston there was a program for integrating the schools through busing, but the way it worked was restricted to urban Boston, downtown Boston. So black kids were sent to the Irish neighborhoods and conversely, but the suburbs were left out. The suburbs are more affluent, professional and so on, so they were kind of out of it. Well, what happens when you send black kids into an Irish neighborhood? What happens when some Irish telephone linemen who have worked all their lives finally got enough money to buy small houses in a neighborhood where they want to send their kids to the local school and cheer for the local football team and have a community, and so on? All of a sudden, some of their kids are being sent out, and black kids are coming in. How do you think at least some of these guys will feel? At least some end up being racists. The suburbs are out of it, so they can cluck their tongues about how racist everyone is elsewhere, and that kind of pattern was carried out all over the country.
Eric Alterman echoes Chomsky thing here:
John Derbyshire mentioned an article in the New Statesman (a left wing British political magazine) that says a discouraging word about immigration.
I fear that the open door, multiculturalism and generous provision of public services may be the social policy equivalent – another impossible trinity. This is because the major social risk posed by rapid migration combined with multiculturalism is not that the society polarises but that it atomises. It’s not that England would descend into violence but that our tacit norms of co-operationand generosity would gradually be undermined.
With an open door, migration keeps accelerating beyond this level so that diasporas keep expanding, thereby increasing diversity. In turn, beyond a point diversity starts to undermine the co-operation and generosity on which egalitarian policies rest. This is why the trinity of policies judged desirable by liberal intellectuals may be impossible.
With the current state of knowledge, such questions remain open. The analytics suggest that the net effects of migration follow an inverse-U pattern: moderate migration is modestly beneficial, whereas rapid migration carries potentially large risks. We lack the research to determine where our society is along this inverse U.
My guess is that, to date, Britain has had net benefits. We do, however, know that uncontrolled migration accelerates. Consequently, at some point the costs of additional diversity would outweigh the benefits. We do not know at what rate diasporas are being absorbed. Hence, we do not know what rate of migration would be compatible with stable diasporas. We do not know at what point particular social conventions would start to crack in the face of rising diversity. We do not know what the costs of such cracks would be.
In these circumstances, liberal intellectuals who dismiss concerns about future migration, as distinct from the complaints about its past effects, are being cavalier at other people’s expense. It is the indigenous poor, existing immigrants and people left behind in the countries of origin who are potentially at risk, not the middle classes.
Liberal intellectuals are being cavalier at other peoples’ expense. That’s a good way to put it.
