"Just the tip"

-Virtually all observers agree that it is a terrible disadvantage for a child to come into the world without a father. Fatherless children are much more likely than those from two-parent homes to be poor, fail in school, commit crime, and, in turn, have fatherless children.184
By 2008, illegitimacy had reached extraordinary levels: 72 percent for blacks, 66 percent for American Indians, 53 percent for Hispanics, 29 percent for whites, and 17 percent for Asians. 185 A majority of black, Hispanic, and Indian children are therefore coming into the world without the support of a married couple.

-There are considerable group differences in disease rates, and as the demographic mix changes, the costs of care will rise. The Centers for Disease Control estimated that in 2006, black men were six times more likely than white men to have HIV, and Hispanics were 2.2 times more likely. Black women were 18 times more likely than white women, and Hispanic women were 4.2 times more likely to be infected.199 In 2005, non-whites accounted for 83 percent of all AIDS cases in women and the disease was the leading cause of death for black women aged 25-34 years.200 The CDC devotes more than $300 million—almost half its domestic HIV prevention budget—to fighting HIV among blacks.201

lol

I'm stealing that one.

"groups" "cultures" "populations"

"ethnicities" is a good one to shift to.

Someone might deny race exists, but they sure as hell can't deny that an ethnicity exists.

big brained.

-Eighty percent of black women are overweight or obese. During the period 2006 to 2008, blacks were 51 percent more likely than whites to be obese and Hispanics were 21 percent more likely. The CDC found that blacks and Hispanics exercise less than whites, and that black and Hispanic women careless than white women about being overweight and therefore do not try as hard to lose weight.206 A study of the greater Boston area reported that Hispanics were the group least likely to eat balanced meals.207

-Immigration from Third-World countries has reintroduced diseases that had been eradicated, and brought new ones for which American doctors are illprepared. Many of these diseases are associated with living conditions commonin poor countries and now becoming more common in the United States: overcrowding, malnutrition, poor sanitation, and close contact with animals receiving little veterinary care.Tuberculosis (TB) is a fearsome killer in Third-World countries—it caused 1.7 million deaths in 2003 according to the World Health Organization—but had been eliminated in the United States by the 1970s. Americans forgot about TB until 1985, when it suddenly reappeared in cities that receive many immigrants.220 By 1993, the US-born population had a TB infection rate of 5.8 cases per 100,000, but immigrants from Vietnam and Haiti, for example, hadrates 24 and 21 times higher. Legal immigrants are supposed to produce chest X-rays to prove they are healthy, but there is a brisk trade in phony X-rays, and illegal immigrants do not bother with X-rays at all.221 In 2008, the foreign-born were eight times more likely to have TB than native-born Americans.22

-Americans must open their eyes to the fact that a changing population could change everything in America. The United States could come to resemble thedeveloping world rather than Europe—in some places it already does. One recent book on immigration to Europe sounded a similar alarm when the author asked: “Can you have the same Europe with different people?” His answer was a forthright “no.”340 It should be clear from the changes that have already taken place in the United States that we cannot have the same America with different people, either.

Different populations build different societies. The principles of European and European-derived societies—freedom of speech, the rule of law, respect for women, representative government, low levels of corruption—do not easily take root elsewhere. They were born out of centuries of struggle, false starts, and setbacks, and cannot be taken for granted. A poorer, more desperate America, one riven with racial rivalries, one increasingly populated by people who comefrom non-Western traditions could turn its back on those principles.

-Our current immigration policies will make the United States a poorer, grimmer, more dangerous country for everyone. Hispanics expect to gain increasing power by increasing their numbers, but they will find they have gained power in a country that increasingly resembles the failed nations from which they thought they had escaped. It is in everyone’s interests to cut immigration close to zero.

-The demographic forces we have set in motion have created conditions that are inherently unstable and potentially violent. All other groups are growing in numbers and have a vivid racial identity. Only whites have no racial identity, are constantly on the defensive, and constantly in retreat. They have a choice: regain a sense of identity and the resolve to maintain their numbers, their traditions, and their way of life—or face oblivion.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/03/15/first-worldism-part-5-the-european-revolution/

@CarletonJ i think its mental retardation

"What Henry Harpending and Peter Frost argued in their paper Western Europe, State Formation, and Genetic Pacification was that from around 1000 AD to 1750 AD, about 1.5% of the male population was executed for some sort of crime, either by court of by mob. Over 30 generations, this adds up to 45% of the males, or just 22.5% of the population. But the effect on whatever genotypic correlates with criminality will be greater than this.
This is an important point. It is not merely that those criminal individuals got removed. It is that their genes got removed out of the collective genetic tumbler. And so it is not merely that a few bad apples got removed each generation, but that those genes then couldn’t spread throughout the rest of the population. Each criminal can thus be seen as vessel in which a cluster of more criminal genes. And so when executed, those genes got removed throughout."

-Today's generation is desperately trying to make some sense out of their lives and out of the world. Most of them are products of the middle class. They have rejected their materialistic backgrounds, the goal of a well-paid job, suburban home, automobile, country club membership, first-class travel, status, security, and everything that meant success to their parents. They have had it. They watched it lead their parents to tranquilizers, alcohol, long-term-endurance marriages, or divorces, high blood pressure, ulcers, frustration, and the disillusionment of "the good life." They have seen the almost unbelievable idiocy of our political leadership—in the past political leaders, ranging from the mayors to governors to the White House, were regarded with respect and almost reverence; today they are viewed with contempt.

-What the present generation wants is what all generations have always wanted—a meaning, a sense of what the world and life are—a chance to strive for some sort of order.

-The young react to their chaotic world in different ways. Some panic and run, rationalizing that the system is going to collapse anyway of its own rot and corruption and so they're copping out, going hippie or yippie, taking drugs, trying communes, anything to escape. Others went for pointless sure-loser confrontations so that they could fortify their rationalization and say, "Well, we tried and did our part" and then they copped out too. Others sick with guilt and not knowing where to turn or what to do went berserk. These were the Weathermen and their like: they took the grand cop-out, suicide. To these I have nothing to say or give but pity—and in some cases contempt, for such as those who leave their dead comrades and take off for Algeria or other points.

- Remember we are talking about revolution, not revelation; you can miss the target by shooting too high as well as too low. First, there are no rules for revolution any more than there are rules for love or rules for happiness, but there are rules for radicals who want to change their world; there are certain central concepts of action in human politics that operate regardless of the scene or the time. To know these is basic to a pragmatic attack on the system. These rules make the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one who uses the tired old words and slogans, calls the police "pig" or "white fascist racist" or "motherfucker" and has so stereotyped himself that others react by saying, "Oh, he's one of those," and then promptly turn off.

This failure of many of our younger activists to understand the art of communication has been disastrous. Even the most elementary grasp of the fundamental idea that one communicates within the experience of his audience — and gives full respect to the other's values — would have ruled out attacks on the American flag. The responsible organizer would have known that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag while the flag, itself, remains the glorious symbol of America's hopes and aspirations, and he would have conveyed this message to his audience. On another level of communication, humor is essential, for through humor much is accepted that would have been rejected if presented seriously. This is a sad and lonely generation. It laughs too little, and this, too, is tragic.

"When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of Communism, We will not take it under the label of Socialism. There labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much. We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; We'll take it under Liberalism, under Progressivism, under Democracy. But take it we will."

Alexander Trachtenberg, 1944 [American Communist movement.]

-Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.

-For the real radical, doing "his thing" is to do the social thing, for and with people. In a world where everything is so interrelated that one feels helpless to know where or how to grab hold and act, defeat sets in; for years there have been people who've found society too overwhelming and have withdrawn, concentrated on "doing their own thing." Generally we have put them into mental hospitals and diagnosed them as schizophrenics. If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psychological barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair. If I were organizing in an orthodox Jewish community I would not walk in there eating a ham sandwich, unless I wanted to be rejected so I could have an excuse to cop out. My "thing," if I want to organize, is solid communication with the people in the community. Lacking communication I am in reality silent; throughout history silence has been regarded as assent — in this case assent to the system.

-Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families—more than seventy million people—whose incomes range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right [left]. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.

-Our youth are impatient with the preliminaries that are essential to purposeful action. Effective organization is thwarted by the desire for instant and dramatic change, or as I have phrased it elsewhere the demand for revelation rather than revolution. It's the kind of thing we see in play writing; the first act introduces the characters and the plot, in the second act the plot and characters are developed as the play strives to hold the audience's attention. In the final act good and evil have their dramatic confrontation and resolution. The present generation wants to go right into the third act, skipping the first two, in which case there is no play, nothing but confrontation for confrontation's sake—a flare-up and back to darkness. To build a powerful organization takes time. It is tedious, but that's the way the game is played—if you want to play and not just yell, "Kill the umpire."

-We will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy. It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceded by reformation. To assume that a political revolution can survive without the supporting base of a popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics.

-Men don't like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives— agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate.

-A reformation means that masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don't know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won't act for change but won't strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution.

@CarletonJ I'll just tell you in DMs. It's not that important

-Those who, for whatever combination of reasons, encourage the opposite of reformation, become the unwitting allies of the far political right [left]. Parts of the far left have gone so far in the political circle that they are now all but indistinguishable from the extreme right. It reminds me of the days when Hitler, new on the scene, was excused for his actions by "humanitarians" on the grounds of a paternal rejection and childhood trauma. When there are people who espouse the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy or the Tate murders or the Marin County Courthouse kidnapping and killings or the University of Wisconsin bombing and killing as "revolutionary acts," then we are dealing with people who are merely hiding psychosis behind a political mask. The masses of people recoil with horror and say, "Our way is bad and we were willing to let it change, but certainly not for this murderous madness—no matter how bad things are now, they are better than that." So they begin to turn back. They regress into acceptance of a coming massive repression in the name of "law and order."

-These were students who had been with Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire and followed him across the country. Some had been with Robert Kennedy when he was killed in Los Angeles. Many of the tears that were shed in Chicago were not from gas. "Mr. Alinsky, we fought in primary after primary and the people voted no on Vietnam. Look at that convention. They're not paying any attention to the vote. Look at your police and the army. You still want us to work in the system?"

It hurt me to see the American army with drawn bayonets advancing on American boys and girls. But the answer I gave the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: "Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing—but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates."

Postchristianity

-WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

-An example of the political insensitivity of many of today's so-called radicals and the lost opportunities is found in this account of an episode during the trial of the Chicago Seven:

Over the weekend some hundred fifty lawyers, from all parts of the country, had gathered in Chicago to picket the federal building in protest against Judge Hoffman's [arrest of] the four lawyers. This delegation, which was supported by thirteen members of the faculty of Harvard Law School and which included a number of other professors as well, submitted a brief, as friend of the Court, which called Judge Hoffman's actions "a travesty of justice [which] threatens to destroy the confidence of the American people in the entire judicial process . . ." By ten o'clock the angry lawyers had begun to march around the Federal Building, where they were joined by hundreds of student radicals, several Black Panthers, and a hundred or more blue-helmeted Chicago police.

Shortly before noon, about forty of the picketing lawyers carried their signs into the lobby of the Federal Building, despite the notice posted on the glass wall beside the entrance, and signed by Judge Campbell, forbidding such demonstrations within the building. Hardly had the lawyers entered, however, than Judge Campbell himself descended to the lobby, dressed in his black robes and accompanied by a marshal, a stenographer, and his court clerk. Surrounded by the angry lawyers, who were themselves encircled by a ring of police and federal marshals, the Judge proceeded to hold Court then and there. He announced that unless the pickets withdrew immediately, he would charge them with contempt. This time, he warned, there could be no question that their contempt would occur in the presence of the Court, and would thus be subject to summary punishment. No sooner had he made this announcement however, than a voice from the throng shouted, "Fuck you, Campbell." After a moment of tense silence, followed by a cheer from the crowd and a noticeable stiffening among the police, Judge Campbell himself withdrew. Then the lawyers, too, left the lobby and rejoined the pickets on the sidewalk. —Jason Epstein, The Great Conspiracy Trial,
Random House, 1970.

The picketing lawyers threw away a beautiful opportunity to create a nationwide issue. Offhand, there would seem to have been two choices, either of which would have forced the judge's hand and kept the issue going: some one of the lawyers could have stepped up to the judge after the voice said, "Fuck you, Campbell," said that the lawyers there did not support personal obscenities, but they were not leaving; or all the lawyers together could have chorused, with one voice, "Fuck you, Campbell!" They did neither; instead, they let the initiative pass from them to the judge, and achieved nothing.

*Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing. In short, radicals must have a degree of control over the flow of events.*

-The basic requirement for the understanding of the politics of change is to recognize the world as it is. We must work with it on its terms if we are to change it to the kind of world we would like it to be. We must first see the world as it is and not as we would like it to be. We must see the world as all political realists have, in terms of "what men do and not what they ought to do," as Machiavelli and others have put it.

**-The seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.

The eighth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory. The same means employed with victory seemingly assured may be defined as immoral, whereas if it had been used in desperate circumstances to avert defeat, the question of morality would never arise. In short, ethics are determined by whether one is losing or winning. From the beginning of time killing has always been regarded as justifiable if committed in self-defense.**

gotta bail

That's basically what they're saying

-IN THE BEGINNING the incoming organizer must establish his identity or, putting it another way, get his license to operate. He must have a reason for being there —a reason acceptable to the people.

Any stranger is suspect. "Who's the cat?" "What's he asking all those questions for?" "Is he really the cops or the F.B.I.?" "What's his bag?" "What's he really after?" "What's in it for him?" "Who's he working for?"

The answers to these questions must be acceptable in terms of the experience of the community. If the organizer begins with an affirmation of his love for people, he promptly turns everyone off. If, on the other hand, he begins with a denunciation of exploiting employers, slum landlords, police shakedowns, gouging merchants, he is inside their experience and they accept him. People can make judgments only on the basis of their own experiences. And the question in their minds is, "If we were in the organizer's position, would we do what he is doing and if so, why?" Until they have an answer that is at least somewhat acceptable they find it difficult to understand and accept the organizer.

 His acceptance as an organizer depends on his success in convincing key people—and many others—first, that he is on their side, and second, that he has ideas, and knows how to fight to change things; that he's not one of these guys "doing his thing," that he's a winner. Otherwise who needs him? All his presence means is that the census changes from 225,000 to 225,001.

It is not enough to persuade them of your competence, talents, and courage—they must have faith in your ability and courage. They must believe in your capacity not just to provide the opportunity for action, power, change, adventure, a piece of the drama of life, but to give a very definite promise, almost an assurance of victory. They must also have faith in your courage to fight the oppressive establishment—courage that they, too, will begin to get once they have the protective armor of a power organization, but don't have during the first lonely steps forward.

-The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a "dangerous enemy." The word "enemy" is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people, to identify him with the Have-Nots, but it is not enough to endow him with the special qualities that induce fear and thus give him the means to establish his own power against the establishment. Here again we find that it is power and fear that are essential to the development of faith. This need is met by the establishment's use of the brand "dangerous," for in that one word the establishment reveals its fear of the organizer, its fear that he represents a threat to its omnipotence. Now the organizer has his "birth certificate" and can begin.

-Establishing one's credentials of competency is only part of the organizer's first job. He needs other credentials to begin—credentials that enable him to meet the question, "Who asked you to come in here?" with the answer, "You did." He must be invited by a significant sector of the local population, their churches, street organizations, social clubs, or other groups.

The organizer's job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify you as the person most qualified for this purpose. Here the tool of the organizer, in the agitation leading to the invitation as well as actual organization and education of local leadership, is the use of the question, the Socratic method:

Organizer: Do you live over in that slummy building?

Answer: Yeah. What about it?

Organizer: What the hell do you live there for?

Answer: What do you mean, what do I live there for? Where else am I going to live? I'm on welfare.

Organizer: Oh, you mean you pay rent in that place?

Answer: Come on, is this a put-on? Very funny! You know where you can live for free?

Organizer: Hmm. That place looks like it's crawling with rats and bugs.

Answer: It sure is.

Organizer: Did you ever try to get that landlord to do anything about it?

Answer: Try to get him to do anything about anything! If you don't like it, get out. That's all he has to say. There are plenty more waiting.

Organizer: What if you didn't pay your rent?

Answer: They'd throw us out in ten minutes.

Organizer: Hmm What if nobody in that building paid their rent?

Answer: Well, they'd start to throw . . . Hey, you know, they'd have trouble throwing everybody out, wouldn't they?

Organizer: Yeah, I guess they would.

Answer: Hey, you know, maybe you got something—say, I'd like you to meet some of my friends. How about a drink?

-The issue that is not clear to organizers, missionaries, educators, or any outsider, is simply that if people feel they don't have the power to change a bad situation, then they do not think about it. Why start figuring out how you are going to spend a million dollars if you do not have a million dollars or are ever going to have a million dollars —unless you want to engage in fantasy?

Once people are organized so that they have the power to make changes, then, when confronted with questions of change, they begin to think and to ask questions about how to make the changes. If the teachers in the schools are bad then what do we mean by a bad teacher? What is a good teacher? How do we get good teachers? When we say our children do not understand what the teachers are talking about and our teachers do not understand what the children are talking about, then we ask how communication can be established. Why cannot teachers communicate with the children and the latter with the teachers. {sic} What are the hangups? Why don't the teachers understand what the values are in our neighborhood? How can we make them understand? All these and many other perceptive questions begin to arise. It is when people have a genuine opportunity to act and to change conditions that they begin to think their problems through —then they show their competence, raise the right questions, seek special professional counsel and look for the answers. Then you begin to realize that believing in people is not just a romantic myth. But here you see that the first requirement for communication and education is for people to have a reason for knowing. It is the creation of the instrument or the circumstances of power that provides the reason and makes knowledge essential. Remember, too, that a powerless people will not be purposefully curious about life, and that they then cease being alive.

From the founding of the Kingdom of Poland in 1025 through to the early years of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth created in 1569, Poland was the most tolerant country in Europe.[5] Known as paradisus judaeorum (Latin for "Paradise of the Jews")

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25646954

-In the early days the organizer moves out front in any situation of risk where the power of the establishment can get someone's job, call in an overdue payment, or any other form of retaliation, partly because these dangers would cause many local people to back off from conflict Here the organizer serves as a protective shield: if anything goes wrong it is all his fault, he has the responsibility. If they are successful all credit goes to the local people. He acts as the septic tank in the early stages—he gets all the shit. Later, as power increases, the risks diminish, and gradually the people step out front to take the risks. This is part of the process of growing up, both for the local community leaders and for the organization.

The organizer must know and be sensitive to the shadows that surround him during his first days in the community. One of the shadows is that it is just about impossible for people to fully understand—much less adhere to—a totally new idea. The fear of change is, as discussed earlier, one of our deepest fears, and a new idea must be at the least couched in the language of past ideas; often, it must be, at first, diluted with vestiges of the past.

-But it's more than that. It is a desperate search for personal identity—to let other people know that at least you are alive. Let's take a common case in the ghetto. A man is living in a slum tenement. He doesn't know anybody and nobody knows him. He doesn't care for anyone because no one cares for him. On the corner newsstand are newspapers with pictures of people like Mayor Daley and other people from a different world—a world that he doesn't know, a world that doesn't know that he is even alive.

When the organizer approaches him part of what begins to be communicated is that through the organization and its power he will get his birth certificate for life, that he will become known, that things will change from the drabness of a life where all that changes is the calendar. This same man, in a demonstration at City Hall, might find himself confronting the mayor and saying, "Mr. Mayor, we have had it up to here and we are not going to take it any more {sic}." Television cameramen put their microphones in front of him and ask, "What is your name, sir?" "John Smith." Nobody ever asked him what his name was before. And then, "What do you think about this, Mr. Smith?" Nobody ever asked him what he thought about anything before. Suddenly he's alive! This is part of the adventure, part of what is so important to people in getting involved in organizational activities and what the organizer has to communicate to him. Not that every member will be giving his name on television—that's a bonus— but for once, because he is working together with a group, what he works for will mean something.

-It is difficult for people to believe that you really respect their dignity. After all, they know very few people, including their own neighbors, who do. But it is equally difficult for you to surrender that little image of God created in our own likeness, which lurks in all of us and tells us that we secretly believe that we know what's best for the people. A successful organizer has learned emotionally as well as intellectually to respect the dignity of the people with whom he is working. Thus an effective organizational experience is as much an educational process for the organizer as it is for the people with whom he is working. They both must learn to respect the dignity of the individual, and they; both must learn that in the last analysis this is the basic purpose of organization, for participation is the heartbeat of the democratic way of life.

We learn, when we respect the dignity of the people, that they cannot be denied the elementary right to participate fully in the solutions to their own problems. Self-respect arises only out of people who play an active role in solving their own crises and who are not helpless, passive, puppet-like recipients of private or public services. To give people help, while denying them a significant part in the action, contributes nothing to the development of the individual. In the deepest sense it is not giving but taking— taking their dignity. Denial of the opportunity for participation is the denial of human dignity and democracy. It will not work.

fair

I think White National is a modern description of a notion that has been in place since the founding of most European derived nations

@Bjorn - MD Genetically Bosniaks are but culturally they aren't

Looking more at the US application personally

If a Bosniak were willing to convert away from Islam and change their name if it is deived from an Islamic source, then I wouldn't have an issue accepting them as white

I can understand that, but Bosniaks and frankly Albanians are small enough groups that it wouldn't matter

We'll begin voice discussion in about 30 minutes.

@everyone

him cant unmute

@CarletonJ do you have unmute power

thanks

Here I attempt to answer some typical criticisms that have been leveled against CofC. (See also my website: www.csulb.edu/~kmacd). I also discuss issues raised by several books that have appeared since the publication of CofC. There have been complaints that I am viewing Judaism in a monolithic manner. This is definitely not the case. Rather, in each movement that I discuss, my methodology has been: 

(1.) Find influential movements dominated by Jews, with no implication that all or most Jews are involved in these movements and no restrictions on what the movements are. For example, I touch on Jewish neo-conservatism which is a departure in some ways from the other movements I discuss. In general, relatively few Jews were involved in most of these movements and significant numbers of Jews may have been unaware of their existence. Even Jewish leftist radicalism—surely the most widespread and influential Jewish sub-culture of the 20th century—may have been a minority movement within Jewish communities in the United States and other Western societies for most periods. As a result, when I criticize these movements I am not necessarily criticizing most Jews. Nevertheless, these movements were influential and they were Jewishly motivated.

(2.) Determine whether the Jewish participants in those movements identified as Jews AND thought of their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests. Involvement may be unconscious or involve self-deception, but for the most part it was quite easy and straightforward to find evidence for these propositions. If I thought that self-deception was important (as in the case of many Jewish radicals), I provided evidence that in fact they did identify as Jews and were deeply concerned about Jewish issues despite surface appearances to the contrary. (See also Ch. 1 of CofC.)

(3.) Try to gauge the influence of these movements on gentile society. Keep in mind that the influence of an intellectual or political movement dominated by Jews is independent of the percentage of the Jewish community that is involved in the movement or supports the movement. 

(4.) Try to show how non-Jews responded to these movements—for example, were they a source of anti-Semitism?

https://youtu.be/U-Sr6Zd8oSI?t=35m5s

going to watch the video brb

brb

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0exM0PX3uUB

@CarletonJ I heard you

kid bedtime, may return

@Jacob the first girl..."Ok...um, ok...so, ok" lol

Here's Nick Fuentes responding to my exchange with Shapiro

https://youtu.be/snEuYGLGsvg?t=5m13s

The foregoing has documented a general tendency for Jewish intellectuals in a variety of periods to be involved with social criticism, and I have hinted at an analysis in terms of social identity theory. More formally, two quite different types of reasons explain why Jews might be expected to advocate ideologies and political movements aimed at undermining the existing gentile social order.

First, such ideologies and movements may be directed at benefiting Jews economically or socially. Clearly one of the themes of post-Enlightenment Judaism has been the rapid upward mobility of Jews and attempts by gentile power structures to limit Jewish access to power and social status. Given this rather conspicuous reality, practical reasons of economic and political self-interest would result in Jews being attracted to movements that criticized the gentile power structure or even advocated overthrowing it entirely.

Thus the czarist government of Russia enforced restrictions on Jews mainly out of fear that Jews would overwhelm gentile Russians in free economic competition (Lindemann 1991; SAID, Ch. 2). These czarist restrictions on Jews were a prominent rallying point for Jews around the world, and it is not at all unreasonable to suppose that Jewish participation in radical movements in Russia was motivated by perceived Jewish interest in overthrowing the czarist regime. Indeed, Arthur Liebman (1979, 29ff) notes that Jewish political radicalism in czarist Russia must be understood as resulting from economic restrictions on Jews that were enforced by the government in the context of considerable Jewish poverty and a very rapid Jewish demographic increase. Similarly, well into the 1930s the Jewish socialist labor movement in the United States aimed at bettering the working conditions of its predominantly Jewish membership (Liebman 1979, 267).

Second, Jewish involvement in social criticism may be influenced by social identity processes independent of any practical goal such as ending anti-Semitism. Research in social identity processes finds a tendency for displacement of ingroup views away from outgroup norms (Hogg & Abrams 1988). In the case of Jewish-gentile contact, these outgroup norms would paradigmatically represent the consensus views of the gentile society. Moreover, individuals who identify themselves as Jews would be expected to develop negative attributions regarding the outgroup, and for Jews the most salient outgroup is the gentile power structure and indeed the gentile-dominated social structure generally.

Jewish ingroup status vis-à-vis the gentile world as an outgroup would be expected to lead to a generalized negative conceptualization of the gentile outgroup and a tendency to overemphasize the negative aspects of gentile society and social structure. From the social identity perspective, the Jewish tendency to subvert the social order is thus expected to extend beyond developing ideologies and social programs that satisfy specific Jewish economic and social interests and extend to a general devaluation and critique of gentile culture—”the sheer destructive power of Jewish rationalism once it escaped the restraints of the traditional community” (Johnson 1988, 291-292).

The social identity perspective also predicts that such negative attributions are especially likely if the gentile power structure is anti-Semitic or perceived to be anti-Semitic. A basic finding of social identity research is that groups attempt to subvert negative social categorizations imposed by another group (Hogg & Abrams 1988). Social identity processes would therefore be intensified by Jewish perceptions that gentile culture was hostile to Jews and that Jews had often been persecuted by gentiles. Thus Feldman (1993, 43) finds very robust tendencies toward heightened Jewish identification and rejection of gentile culture consequent to anti-Semitism at the very beginnings of Judaism in the ancient world and throughout Jewish history. In Lord George Bentnick: A Political Biography (1852, 489), the nineteenth-century racial theorist Benjamin Disraeli, who had a very strong Jewish identity despite being a baptized Christian, stated that “persecution… although unjust may have reduced the modern Jews to a state almost justifying malignant vengeance. They may have become so odious and so hostile to mankind as to merit for their present conduct, no matter how occasioned, the obloquy and ill-treatment of the communities in which they dwell and with which they are scarcely permitted to mingle.” The result, according to Disraeli, is that Jews would perceive gentile society in extremely negative terms and may attempt to overthrow the existing social order:

*But existing society has chosen to persecute this race which should furnish its choice allies, and what have been the consequences? They may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property…52 The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skillful accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure. (Disraeli 1852, 498-499)53.*

-That some gentiles were involved in these movements is not surprising either. At a theoretical level, my thinking is based once again on an evolutionary interpretation of social identity theory (see SAID, Ch. 1). Gentiles may be attracted to the political and intellectual movements that attract Jews and for many of the same reasons, that is, reasons related to social identification and ingroup-outgroup competition. For example, African American intellectuals have often been attracted to leftist intellectual movements and environmentalist explanations of racial group differences in IQ at least partly as a reaction to their perceptions of white animosity and the consequent implications of genetic inferiority. In the same way, I argue that anti-Semitism has been a motivating force for many Jewish intellectuals. Recall the motivating role of self-esteem as a theoretical primitive in social identity theory. A great many people who, for whatever reason, feel victimized by a particular sociopolitical system are attracted to movements that criticize the system, blame others for their problems, and generally vindicate their own positive perceptions of themselves and their ingroup as well as their negative perceptions of outgroups. In each of the intellectual and political movements I review, Jewish identification and a concern to combat anti-Semitism were clearly involved.

Moreover, once Jews have attained intellectual predominance, it is not surprising that gentiles would be attracted to Jewish intellectuals as members of a socially dominant and prestigious group and as dispensers of valued resources. Such a perspective fits well with an evolutionary perspective on group dynamics: Gentiles negotiating the intellectual status hierarchy would be attracted to the characteristics of the most dominant members of the hierarchy, especially if they viewed the hierarchy as permeable. Writer William Barrett, a gentile editor of Partisan Review, describes his “awe and admiration” of the New York Intellectuals (a group of predominantly Jewish intellectuals discussed in Chapter 6) early in his career. “They were beings invested in my eyes with a strange and mysterious glamour” (in Cooney 1986, 227). Partisan Review was a flagship journal of this very influential intellectual movement and had a decisive influence on success or failure in the literary world. Leslie Fiedler (1948, 872, 873), himself a New York Intellectual, described a whole generation of American Jewish writers (including Delmore Schwartz, Alfred Kazin, Karl Shapiro, Isaac Rosenfeld, Paul Goodman, Saul Bellow, and H. J. Kaplan) as “typically urban, second-generation Jews.” The works of these writers appeared regularly in Partisan Review, and Fiedler goes on to say that “the writer drawn to New York from the provinces feels…the Rube, attempts to conform; and the almost parody of Jewishness achieved by the gentile writer in New York is a strange and crucial testimony of our time.”

Almost one-half of Kadushin’s (1974, 23) sample of elite post-World War II American intellectuals was Jewish. The sample was based on the most frequent contributors to leading intellectual journals, followed by interviews in which the intellectuals “voted” for another intellectual they considered most influential in their thinking. Over 40 percent of the Jews in the sample received six or more votes as being most influential, compared to only 15 percent of non-Jews (p. 32). It is therefore not surprising that Joseph Epstein (1997) finds that during the 1950s and early 1960s being Jewish was “honorific” among intellectuals generally. Gentile intellectuals “scoured their genealog[ies] for Jewish ancestors” (Epstein 1997, 7). By 1968 Walter Kerr could write, “what has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as it is anything else… The literate American mind has come in some measure to think Jewishly. It has been taught to, and it was ready to. After the entertainers and novelists came the Jewish critics, politicians, theologians. Critics and politicians and theologians are by profession molders; they form ways of seeing.” In my personal experience, this honorific status of Jewish intellectuals remains common among my colleagues and is apparent, for example, in Hollinger’s (1996, 4) recent work on the “transformation of the ethnoreligious demography of American academic life by Jews” in the period from the 1930s to the 1960s.

Finally, a major theme is that gentiles have often been actively recruited to the movements discussed here and given highly visible roles within these movements in order to lessen the appearance that the movements are indeed Jewish-dominated or aimed only at narrow Jewish sectarian interests. From the standpoint of social identity theory, such a strategy aims at making gentiles perceive the intellectual or political movement as permeable to non-Jews and as satisfying gentile interests. As indicated in SAID (Chs. 5, 6), the rhetoric of universalism and the recruitment of gentiles as advocates of Jewish interests have been recurrent themes in combating anti-Semitism in both the ancient and modern world.

**Several writers have commented on the “radical changes” that occurred in the goals and methods of the social sciences consequent to the entry of Jews to these fields (Liebman 1973, 213; see also Degler 1991; Hollinger 1996; Horowitz 1993, 75; Rothman & Lichter 1982). Degler (1991, 188ff) notes that the shift away from Darwinism as the fundamental paradigm of the social sciences resulted from an ideological shift rather than from the emergence of any new empirical data. He also notes that Jewish intellectuals have been instrumental in the decline of Darwinism and other biological perspectives in American social science since the 1930s (p. 200). The opposition of Jewish intellectuals to Darwinism has long been noticed (Lenz 1931, 674; see also comments of John Maynard Smith in Lewin [1992, 43]).**

@CarletonJ Could you continue to post your notes on CoC here? Maybe not all of them, but what you think is most relevant or significant...

@Aleis⊕ccidentalis when I get some time - which isn't looking hopeful in the future with my work schedule lol... I plan on uploading all of notes from every BOTM to separate docs.

Basically this would allow people to take from the books the most crucial information without having to read them. I think it would be beneficial.

For sure...I mostly just want something to solidify the key ideas, stats and other information after reading the book (and to copy the notes myself). Even if it isn't for awhile, I'd definitely appreciate if you posted what you've got!

Sigmund Freud was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, a clinical method for treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient and a psychoanalyst.

Definition of psychoanalysis: a system of psychological theory and therapy that aims to treat mental disorders by investigating the interaction of conscious and unconscious elements in the mind and bringing repressed fears and conflicts into the conscious mind by techniques such as dream interpretation and free association.

Here's my to-read list:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/80119093?shelf=to-read

*Western culture has been placed on the couch, and the role of psychoanalysis
is to help the patient adjust somewhat to a sick, psychopathology-inducing
society: “While psychoanalytic theory recognizes that the sickness of the
individual is ultimately caused and sustained by the sickness of his civilization,
psychoanalytic therapy aims at curing the individual so that he can continue to
function as part of a sick civilization without surrendering to it altogether”
(Marcuse 1974, 245).*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud%27s_psychoanalytic_theories

https://www.simplypsychology.org/psychosexual.html

*Finally, it is reasonable to conclude that Freud’s real analysand was gentile
culture, and that psychoanalysis was fundamentally an act of aggression toward
that culture. The methodology and institutional structure of psychoanalysis may
be viewed as attempts to brainwash gentile culture into passively accepting the
radical criticism of gentile culture entailed by the fundamental postulates of
psychoanalysis. Draped in scientific jargon, the authority of the analyst depended
ultimately on a highly authoritarian movement in which dissent resulted in
expulsion and elaborate rationalizations in which such behavior was
pathologized.*

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Jews-Karl-Marx/dp/0806529539

thanks for this

*Besides controlling his male underlings, Freud used psychoanalysis to path-
ologize female resistance to male sexual advances. This is apparent in the famous
analysis of the teenage Dora, who rejected the advances of an older married man.
Dora’s father sent her to Freud because he wanted her to accede to the man’s
advances as an appeasement gesture because the father was having an affair with
the man’s wife. Freud obligingly attributed Dora’s rejection to repressing
amorous desires toward the man. The message is that 14-year-old girls who reject
the sexual advances of older married men are behaving hysterically. An
evolutionist would interpret her behavior as an understandable (and adaptive)
consequence of her evolved psychology. Reflecting the generally positive
accounts of Freud in the popular media of the 1950s, Donald Kaplan (1967), a
lay analyst writing in Harper’s, wrote that Freud had “exercised his finest
ingenuity” in the case of Dora: “Three months with Freud may have been the
only experience with unimpeachable integrity in her long, unhappy life.” Lakoff and Coyne (1993) conclude their discussion of Dora by arguing that in general
psychoanalysis was characterized by thought control, manipulation, and
debasement of the analysand. Crews (1993, 56) also describes a “scarcely
believable” case in which Freud manipulated Horace Frink, president of the New
York Psychoanalytic Society, into a disastrous divorce and remarriage to an
heiress, the latter event to be accompanied by a sizable financial contribution to
the psychoanalytic movement. Frink’s second wife later divorced him. Both
divorces were accompanied by episodes of manic depression.*

**Freud obligingly attributed Dora’s rejection to repressing
amorous desires toward the man. The message is that 14-year-old girls who reject
the sexual advances of older married men are behaving hysterically.**

*The cure for the aggression characteristic of anti-Semitism was therefore
believed to lie in freeing gentiles from their sexual repressions. Although Freud
himself eventually developed the idea of a death instinct to explain aggression, a
consistent theme of the Freudian critique of Western culture, as exemplified for
example by Norman O. Brown, Herbert Marcuse, and Wilhelm Reich, has been
that the liberation of sexual repressions would lead to lowered aggression and
usher in an era of universal love.*

*These relationships went far beyond mere loyalty, however. “[Ernest] Jones had grasped the fact that to be a friend of Freud’s meant being a sycophant. It meant opening oneself completely to him, to be willing to pour out all one’s confidences to him” (Grosskurth 1991, 48). “Jones believed that to disagree with Freud (the father) was tantamount to patricide (father murder),” so that when Sandor Ferenczi disagreed with Freud on the reality of childhood sexual abuse, Jones called him a “homicidal maniac” (Masson 1990, 152).*

*Reflecting the utility of psychoanalysis as an instrument of psychological domination and thought control, Freud himself refused to be analyzed. Freud’s refusal resulted in difficulties with Jung (Jung 1961) and, much later, with Ferenczi, who commented that the refusal was an example of Freud’s arrogance (Grosskurth 1991, 210-211). In contrast, Freud used psychoanalysis to sexually humiliate two of his most fervent disciples, Ferenczi and Jones. Freud’s analysis of the women involved in relationships with Ferenczi and Jones resulted in the women leaving the men but remaining on friendly terms with Freud (see Grosskurth 1991, 65). Grosskurth suggests that Freud’s actions were a test of his disciples’ loyalty, and the fact that Jones continued in the movement after this humiliation indicates the extent to which Freud’s followers showed unquestioned obedience to their master.*

*As I have noted, perceived anti-Semitism would be expected to exacerbate the tendency to subject gentile culture to radical criticism. There is excellent evidence that Freud was intensely concerned with anti-Semitism, perhaps dating from the anti-Semitic incident involving his father (e.g., Rice 1990; Rothman & Isenberg 1974a,b; Yerushalmi 1991). Indeed, as expected on the basis of social identity theory, Gay (1987, 138) notes that Freud’s Jewish identity was most intense “when times were hardest for Jews.*

*A strong connection exists between anti-Semitism and Freud’s hostility to Rome. Freud’s conscious identification with Hannibal occurred following an anti-Semitic incident involving his father in which his father behaved passively. Freud’s response to the incident was to visualize “the scene in which Hannibal’s father, Hamilcar Barca, made his boy swear before the household altar to take vengeance on the Romans. Ever since that time Hannibal had… a place in my phantasies” (in McGrath 1974, 35). “Rome was the center of Christian civilization. To conquer Rome would certainly be to avenge his father and his people” (Rothman & Isenberg 1974a, 62). Cuddihy (1974, 54) makes the same point: “Like Hamilcar’s son Hannibal, he will storm Rome seeking vengeance. He will control his anger, as his father had done, but he will use it to probe relentlessly beneath the beautiful surface of the diaspora to the murderous rage and lust coiled beneath its so-called civilities.*

Hey guys, I gotta run. Good talking to you all as usual. Talk to you next week!

You too

!play https://youtu.be/wp9W9Ef9RT8

<:youtube:335112740957978625> **Searching** 🔎 `https://youtu.be/wp9W9Ef9RT8`

**Playing** 🎶 `We Are Genetaion Identity | Generation Identity by Markus Willinger` - Now!

GENERATION IDENTITY

*You want to know who we are? Where we come from? What moves us?
We’ll tell you.
We are the changing times; we are the rising wind; the new generation. We are the answer to you, for we are your children.
You’ve thrown us into this world, uprooted and
disoriented, without telling us where to go, or where our path lies. You’ve destroyed every means for us to orient ourselves.
You’ve reduced the Church to rubble, so that now only a few of us still find refuge in the ruins of that community.
You’ve devalued the state, so that none of us wants to serve it anymore.
You’ve split the family. Our domestic idyll has been plunged into divorce, conflict and violence.*

*You’ve subjected love to a reductionist deconstruction, and so instead of a deep bond, only the animal drive remains.
You’ve ruined the economy, so we inherit mountains of debt.
You’ve questioned and criticised everything, so we now believe in nothing and no one.
You’ve left us no values, yet you now accuse us of being amoral.
But we are not.

You’ve promised yourselves a utopia, a peaceful, multicultural society of prosperity and tolerance.
We are the heirs of this utopia, and our reality looks very different.
You buy your peace with ever-mounting debt.  Today, we’re watching your prosperity disappear throughout Europe.
For us, your multicultural society means nothing but hatred and violence.
In the name of your ‘tolerance’ you hunt down all who criticise you, and call those you hunt intolerant.
We’ve had enough!
Your utopias have lost all legitimacy for us.
Realise at last that we don’t live in a unified world or in a global village. Wars, the poor, and the oppressed will always be with us. This world will never be a heaven on Earth.*

*Your delusions have only accomplished one thing:
You have uprooted your children.
We are the lost, the homeless. ‘Who are we?’ we ask ourselves. ‘Where are we going?’
We’ve seen through your answers and understood that they are lies. We aren’t ‘humanity’ and we don’t want
your paradise.
So we have come up with our own answer to these questions.
We turn to what you have demonised. To ourselves.
We search for our identity, and find it under the rubble of your destructive rage. We must dig deep to find ourselves again.
Our history, our homeland, and our culture give us what you have taken from us.
We don’t want to be citizens of the world. We are happier with our own countries.
We don’t want the end of history, for our history doesn’t give us cause to complain.
We don’t want a multicultural society where our own culture is left to burn in the melting pot. We are less demanding than you, yet we want so much more!

While you’ve chased utopias your entire lives, we want real values. What we demand actually exists; to possess it is our ancestral right. We desire nothing more than our inheritance, and won’t tolerate your withholding it any longer.
We are the answer to you and to the failure of your utopia.

For we are generation identity.*

!disconnect

📭 **Successfully disconnected**

ON LONELINESS

*We’re a great riddle to you. An incomprehensible phenomenon.
Our words and deeds refute all your theories and arguments.
We live in the world you dreamt of, yet this world disgusts us.
Thanks to you, we could develop free from all social obligations and values; thanks to you we go lost and lonely through life.
You’ve destroyed everything that could have offered us identity and refuge, yet you’re shocked that we’re unhappy.
For deep in us lies a constant feeling of being alone, of being lost. We do everything to numb this feeling.
We throw the wildest parties and meet in glowing malls; we dance all night, take drugs, or hide behind our computers. Any means is justified in order to overcome this loneliness, but we are always still alone in the end.
You have taught us that we can buy anything. But where can we buy a remedy for loneliness?


Not that we didn’t try. With brand names, labels, and the latest clothing styles, we want to belong to a certain group. It may seem laughable to you, but for us, this is
one of the last remaining possibilities to somehow find a place where we belong.
Sometimes we manage to convince ourselves in our despair that we are absolutely unique, that we don’t need to belong to anything. In this way we give ourselves strength when the loneliness overcomes us.
Even if, one day, we become part of a group, because our innermost selves long for identity and belonging, we still can’t enjoy it. We always hear your nagging voices in
our heads, warning us about the dangers of peer pressure and the loss of our individuality. This inner conflict plunges us into yet deeper despair.

The dark companion of loneliness is boredom.
It’s the boredom that first reveals how lonely we are.
We don’t ever want to be bored, because then we couldn’t lie to ourselves anymore.
Yet boredom is our constant companion. It envelops us like a dark cloud and makes itself felt whenever we briefly pause from our frenzied searching.*

*This is why we seek to numb our boredom and loneliness, with means that become ever wilder and ever more reckless. But no artificial euphoria lasts long enough to bring us peace. No pleasure leads us to anything but desperate collapse. So we wander through life, half-lost and half-high.

For we are generation identity.*

ON POLITICS

*Sometimes we hear that there were once people who saw their highest honour in dedicating their lives to the service of the state.
We can’t understand or relate to this, as you have made us loathe the state, rotting as it is from the inside.
You’ve demonised it as an instrument of oppression. You wanted to abolish the state by any means.
But you have failed. While all of you fought the state, the commonest and greediest among you seized control of it and became what today passes for politicians.
The rest of you turned away from government service, and thereby left politics to the most repulsive representatives of your generation. And so the government became nothing but another opportunity to make money for oneself and one’s friends.

We bear the consequences of your failure. We pay the price for the fact that you were ‘too good’ to go into politics.
We don’t hate the state, we despise it. But abolish it?
That would never have occurred to us.
We are realists. We know that the state is a necessary evil.
We are pessimists. We don’t expect anything but lies from politicians.

You went to vote bursting with enthusiasm, proud of your right to have a say. We can only laugh at your naïveté.
None of us still believes today that he can change something with his vote. We only vote if there’s nothing good on TV.
The politicians of all the parties are the same to us. They all say the same thing, after all.
They promised the Moon. Unemployment, poverty, crime, and everything bad would be banished, if only we would vote for them. Except that as soon as they won, their words always turned out to be nothing but empty
promises.*

*So we stopped voting. For as long as we can
remember, we haven’t cared which parties attempt to exploit us. The politicians are, for us, all the same old windbags without the slightest conception of the problems and worries of our generation.

You rule over us and run the political system only for yourselves. You don’t care about the youth. And so we don’t care about you. Leave us alone, and don’t bother to try to act like our friends. We see through your grinning
PR masks at first glance.
We don’t want anything to do with you and your pathetic schemes, and you yourselves are the reason why. Your politics disgust us. Your scrabble for power and influence repels us. You repel us.

For we are generation identity.*

ON IDYLLIC FAMILY LIFE

*On countless TV series you make us watch the lives of synthetically perfect families. We are hungry for such images, as they are the exact opposite of the reality you have brought into being.

In your unprecedented arrogance, you claimed that the family was no longer necessary. Father, mother, and child are supposedly an outdated model. You leapt gleefully to the task of stamping out the family.
 
That which should have been our place of refuge and source of inspiration became the stage for countless arguments and fights.
Your ideal was to enjoy success and the good life. And so you enjoyed life. But who watched out for your children?*

*You were egoists, and you divorced a thousand times without once thinking about what that would mean for us.
You wanted to have a career and to make money. So you moved to go wherever the best jobs were, and didn't give a thought to our welfare and stability.

You left us sitting alone in front of the TV, where the perfect life was presented to us every day. Full of rage, we compared our sad reality with the fantasy worlds into which we submerged ourselves.

A perpetual, deep resentment lies buried within us, as we know in our hearts that we were betrayed and tricked out of that which is most important. We can’t articulate this
resentment, but we take it out on you.

You often accuse us of acting irrationally — a justified accusation, as we don’t act rationally, thoughtfully or logically.
We are the generation of the heart and of feeling, and our actions are determined by nothing other than a deep longing for the shelter you should have provided us.
The ideals of TV became our ideals. We have made them our own and we all dream of a wonderful family.

This is what you threw away as old-fashioned and pointless; we want nothing more.
No one showed us how to build a family, or told us how to stick together or resolve a conflict. We have failed a thousand times in trying to realise our ideal.

Since you have run the economy into the ground, we must be ‘flexible’ and look for work wherever we can get it; it prevents us from realising our dream a million times over.

To pay for our pensions, we’ll have to work more than all the generations before us; we know now that you'll even rob us of our future well-being, on top of everything else.*

*You rush across the globe to inject life into your dying economy and to delay paying back your debts, to keep your own pensions rolling in.

Yet our dream remains a happy family and future.

However many roadblocks you put in our path, we won't give up this dream.
For we are generation identity.*

Sorry for not being talkative. I'm exhausted from last night's drive home from DtR and today's school / lifting. I am enjoying everyone's comments, though

no worry 😄

ON CRITICAL THINKING

*If you’ve taught us one thing, it’s that we should not, and may not, believe in anything. We’ve learned this lesson much more thoroughly than you realize.

Question, criticise, and doubt everything — so you lectured us. And when you said ‘everything,’ you meant, above all, the old values of family, tradition, and country.

We followed your lead, criticising, questioning, and doubting everything. But when we say ‘everything,’ we truly mean everything. Above all, we mean you.

Did you really think that the generation you raised in total doubt would follow in your footsteps? Did you really believe that we would accept your critique of all values uncritically? Did you really think that we would continue
your work of destruction, just because you told us how?

How little you know your own children!
The critical minds among us were the first to see through your smokescreen. We listened sceptically to your hollow phrases about tolerance and emancipation, and yet we didn’t let your wishful thinking throw sand in
our eyes. Our gaze penetrated the obscuring fog of your mental confusion and saw things as they are.

We watch as your dead ideas and laughable hallucinations writhe on the ground, gasping for breath, waiting for someone to deal them the mercy blow.*

*We’re glad to assume the task, and to finally bring peace, to you as well.
We’ll carry you carefully onwards, and lay you down to rest. Sleep, dear parents. Stop trying to influence politics.
Stop trying to adapt reality to your false dreams. Take a rest; you’ve truly done enough.
Do not worry. Know that the world is in good hands.

We will destroy the monsters you have created. We will make your barren land bear fruit again. The society you tried to liberate by destroying it, we will rebuild. Rest. Leave the task of shaping Europe to those who
know something about it.

Leave it to us.
Step down and make room.
For generation identity.*

ON THE MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY

*All earthly things appear quite different to different observers. That which each observer expects and hopes for clouds and alters his perception. Our previous experiences change our view of the world, and to speak of you, ideologies, hallucinations and other fantasies
have darkened your vision of the true nature of things.

It may be that two people see the same thing entirely differently, on account of their different experiences and preconceived notions.
It may just as well be that two generations see the same matter entirely differently.
So it is between us and you regarding your
multicultural society.

Decades ago you carried the torch for multiculturalism and wanted to implement it at any cost. But what does multiculturalism mean to you? Nothing more than eating pizza and kebabs at the Turkish joint. Other than that,
you have precious little to do with the multicultural society. And because you like to eat Turkish food and don’t quite get what’s going on, it’s easy for you to damn our criticisms as ‘prejudice.’

In your perception, multiculturalism is working quite fine. But your children see things a bit differently. We go to class with 80% or more foreign-born students. Knife-mad Turks, drug-dealing Africans, and fanatical Muslims.

Your cheap clichés are our reality. That is why we hate your great dream of the multicultural society. What do you know about this
society? Nothing.

So stop trying to lecture us. Stop trying to sell us the line that we’re evil racists, just because your utopia disgusts us.
Don’t come at us with the Second World War and Hitler when we’re talking about Mehmed the Conqueror and Mustafa. And don’t tell us that foreigners are exactly like us, when we see every day that they’re not.*

We are more disenfranchised than they are. We don't want Mehmed and Mustafa to become Europeans. We don’t want immigrants to take over our identities and give
up their own. They should hold on to their own identities, and let us have ours.

We don’t ask more than that which should be obvious: Europe belongs to the Europeans alone. We are the rightful heirs to this continent, and we will not give up our inheritance.

For we are generation identity.

I got to bow out for some family stuff. See ya next time. It's a good book. Thank you for leading, Carleton.

watching Tucker ill be back if youre still discussing

ON DIVERSITY

*Colourful, diverse, heterogeneous; you sure like to sell yourselves as proponents of diversity. You tolerate every perversion and think that by doing so that you’re doing diversity a service. Yet you’re wrong once again.

A picture doesn’t take on vivid contrasts when one mixes all the colours together, but when one paints each colour in its respective place.
Large-scale diversity requires small-scale homogeneity.

You can’t grasp this. You see one multicultural
metropolis, and you want every city to become like it.
You speak of diversity, but you want to make everything the same.
Don’t you preach it to us every day?

There has to be one market, you claim. One form of government is the right one. You want to implement one formulation of human rights, which should apply to everyone. We all live in one world. These are your slogans. How is it then that you dare to claim that you
stand for diversity, when you hate diversity from the depths of your being?

We don’t want to see one and the same kind of city spread across the entire world. We want to travel to other countries and experience entirely different cultures, not further outposts of a universal, globalised metropolis.

We want to return home to our own culture, where we feel in harmony with ourselves, not to a cookie-cutter colony of conformity to a multicultural empire.*

*We oppose your credo of multiculturalism with the principle of ethnopluralism. Instead of mixing and standardisation, we want to preserve difference. We want different peoples, cultures, and identities. Our own
included!

We want the world to remain a colourfully vibrant and enchanting mosaic; we don’t want a drab, grey projection screen.

We are the real representatives of diversity; its
real guerrilla warriors.

For we are generation identity.*

diversity is racial communism. communisms goal was to institute a world government. if all countries are diverse, there would be no point in keeping different countries

Thanks, Carleton

Thanks everyone for joining!

ON SEXUALITY
ruly, it requires great boldness to broach this theme.
We’re often accused, and often correctly, of being the
generation of sexual permissiveness. The generation
without values, principles, or meaningful relationships.
Yes! All of these accusations are justified. Yet they are
only one side of the coin, and in the end, whoever
accuses the youth of a lack of sexual inhibitions without
illuminating its causes has as little of an understanding of
the youth as he does of sexuality.
We reject unrestrained sexuality more than any other
generation. This is because for no previous generation in
history has true love played such a great role as it does
for us.
Of all the things that you’re devalued and destroyed,
you’ve left us love. Truly, you’ve never really cared about
love. You’ve despised it and sold it short. But precisely
for that reason, you’ve never launched a frontal assault
against it. It remained alive.
And it became to our last place of refuge.
So here we are in this world of loneliness and fleeting
happiness; we long for the person who can bring us to
safety. It is our highest goal and our greatest happiness
to find true love.

Yet we are sexually promiscuous, drink hard, and settle
for the second best. No one suffers more from this than
we ourselves.
Two powerful drives rage within us — the longing for
true love on the one hand, and wild animal desire on the
other.
Only a few happy ones among us succeed in fusing
these two fundamental forces together. The great
majority, however, find themselves in a relentless and
pitiless combat with themselves.
You fired the first shot in this war.
The consequences of your ‘sexual liberation’ have us
in a stranglehold. It is impossible to go out for even a day
into the world without being greeted by half-naked men
and women. All films, advertising, and magazines
consciously manipulate sexual desire. So it is that desire
grows, often in opposition to our love. When it’s over and
the wild, alcohol-soaked night is behind us, we regret
what we’ve done. Often we feel sad because of it.
*
This inner struggle, which each of us must win for
himself, is also part of our identity.
Yet we declare resolutely: we want to win it! A long
road may lie before us, but in the end, the love within us

will triumph over animalistic desire.
For we are generation identity.

@Nemets I think you have a delay, guy

my roommate just got home actually i cant talk openly now. ill just type if thats ok

@Nemets try rejoining

i can hear carleton too

like spanish

talk pls

read that in jeb bush voice

ON THE DECLINE AND FALL OF
THE ROMAN EMPIRE
As the Visigoths crossed the Danube in 376 and
penetrated the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire,
Emperor Valens was facing a fateful decision. His
generals pleaded with him to gather the army and force
back the Goths. His political advisers, however, feared a
long and bitter war. In their view, the Visigoths were only
defenceless refugees displaced by the Huns. They
convinced Valens that he must show compassion, and
assign the Goths land in the Roman Empire. The Empire
had far too few soldiers, so it might be quite clever to win
the Visigoths as allies. What was wrong with taking them
in? In fifty years, so they thought, the Visigoths would be
civilised Roman citizens like all the rest. Only their
unusually pale skin and blonde hair would remain as
reminders that they came from outside.
So they gave the Visigoths land. Some years went by,
and the Romans congratulated themselves on their
brilliant solution to the problem. They drank their wine
and let the Visigoths fight for them.
Yet the Visigoths did not by any means integrate
themselves into Roman society, but became a state
within the state. Over the course of the following years,
ever more Germanic peoples crossed the Danube and
joined the Visigoths. The power of the tribe became so

Jeb!

mighty that it no longer followed the Emperor’s orders.
When Emperor Valens recognised that the Visigoths
had grown out of his control, he sent his army to subdue
them. But there were already far too many of them. The
Romans underestimated the power of the Visigoths and
were defeated.
Thereafter, fleeing from the Huns, the tribe murdered
and pillaged its way through the whole Empire. In 410
they sacked Rome, and finally settled in Gaul.
The Huns were now a Western Roman problem. After
having recovered their strength and won a victory over
the Goths, the Romans once again faced the question:
should we continue the attack and drive them back to
Germania, or ally ourselves with them?
Fearing a long war, the Roman politicians sent the
Goths enormous quantities of gold to win them as allies
against the Huns.
When the Hunnic Empire finally collapsed after Attila’s
death, the Roman treasury was bare. The countryside
had been ravaged or occupied by the Visigoths and
other Germanic tribes.
Money for new soldiers was lacking, and although the
external threat from the Huns had been eliminated, the
Empire was still doomed to fall. Vandals, Alemanni, and
Visigoths were firmly established within the Empire, and
could no longer be removed. The Romans sent them

gold to purchase peace, but at some point their reserves
ran out. Then the Germanic tribes finally declared
independence from Rome and laid waste to the rest of
the Western Empire. In 476, the last Emperor of Rome
was dethroned.
*
The fall of the Roman Empire is similar to the process
now underway in Europe. Will we one day speak of the
decline and fall of the West?
*
Devastated and weakened by the Second World War,
allegedly clever European politicians sought help from
outside. The borders were opened to millions of Muslims,
intended to breathe new life into a Europe with a
declining birth rate and allow Europe to compete
economically with the USA and the Soviet Union and,
later, with the rising powers such as China and India.
The Muslims, however, didn’t integrate themselves,
but formed parallel societies. They had significantly more
children than Europeans; their numbers grew without
pause through new births and continued immigration.
The politicians sought to keep them quiet with payoffs
from the welfare state, but in the course of an
overwhelming economic crisis, their savings gave out.
Europe had to start making cuts, and so unrest began
among the immigrants, first in 2005 in Paris, then in

2011, starting in London, and spreading across England.
The number of Muslims continued to grow, and at a
certain point, they began to dominate the state and civil
society. When the Europeans finally attempted to rise up
against them, their rebellion was suppressed. The
Europeans, having grown old and weak, had nothing
with which they could oppose the young and strong
Muslims. Western civilisation dissolved, and new Muslim
empires emerged on its former territory.
*
We can still prevent this future. We can still bring about a
change of events. Yet we can only do this if we honestly
and pitilessly admit to ourselves what sort of a situation
we are actually in.
We have the courage to do this. With the example of
the Romans before us, we know that we will need to fight
for our identity.
Europe’s fate is not yet sealed, and we ourselves will
write our history!
For we are generation identity.

im familiar with Dearborn but ive never been

thats insane that needs to be on the front page of every newspaper in the country

ON ETHNOPLURALISM
Since the dawn of history, humankind has been
composed of innumerable cultures, peoples and tribes.
Each has developed its own way of life, and an entirely
unique way of seeing the world.
The Native Americans strive for oneness with nature.
The Japanese hold honour for their highest value; the
drive toward freedom marks Europeans. Who would
want to force all of these peoples and cultural milieus into
one melting pot? Who would deny that they differ
fundamentally, and that these differences are good?
Preserving cultural diversity and ensuring the most
peaceful possible coexistence has always been our
generation’s great task. Deep in our hearts burns the
desire to leave the era of hatred behind us. We want to
visit other lands and peoples, get to know and love their
unique characteristics, and avoid conflicts through better
insight into the perspectives of other cultures.
Yet unlike you, we are no otherworldly fantasists about
this. Peace among the peoples of the world is too
important to be built on purely wishful thinking.
He who believes he can unite all cultures in
multicultural societies doesn’t do a service to peace, but
lays the foundations for a future of war and hate.

Just as every person requires his own private place,
every culture requires its own space in which to develop
and structure everyday life according to its own manner.
He who drives all cultures and peoples together into
one territory will cause the bloodiest wars, in the long
term. Only by understanding this can the murderous
Balkan Wars or the endless wars in the Middle East be
explained.
Opposites placed in close proximity to one another
always lead to conflict.
This rule also applies to Europe and the mass
immigration of Muslims. History will show us once again
that it would have been much more peaceful to send the
immigrants home than to let them stay, and in so doing
setting the stage for perpetual conflict.
*
But you’ve never understood the essence of identity and
culture. You’ve never grasped that humans need space
in order to live out their identities. That they absolutely
want and require such a space, and will make it for
themselves if given no other choice!
This is why the desires of countless peoples for their
own territories has been causing tensions and clashes in
Europe, and will one day again lead to bitter conflicts.
You will bear the guilt for these conflicts, not the
combatants!

The Roman parallels to the USA and Europe is remarkable. Many people have commented on this from a variety of perspectives like economic and not just demographically

We, however, have understood the essence of identity
and culture, and act in accordance with this
understanding. Our politics won’t be determined by
illusions, but by the hard facts of reality. We respectfully
acknowledge the longing for identity and every culture’s
right to its own space.
For we are generation identity.

Hispanyics lol

we dont want them to prosper in our country

^

ON RESPONSIBILITY
Just as a doctor has a responsibility to his patients, a
teacher to his students, a parent to his or her children, so
we, generation identity, also have a responsibility to
history.
That is to say, to those who come after us.
He who possesses or strives for power must always
be held accountable for the responsible use of this
power.
*
You wanted to escape this responsibility. You felt
yourselves constrained. So you threw responsibility
overboard, and with it all foresight, in order to experiment
with Europe and the future of your children.
To whom do you truly owe answers?
You don’t believe in God, your children don’t figure
into your calculations, and you don’t care about Europe.
Yet you couldn’t escape your historical responsibility.
Consider the following: history is a merciless judge.
It will damn you for being those who drove Europe to
the brink of total annihilation. It will remember that only
the foresight and determination of your children tore
Europe away from the abyss.

We, the identitarian generation, demand a future for
Europe. And we will give Europe a future. Yet this future
will demand of us lives of constant struggle. It will be torn
by conflicts and battles that never would have been
necessary if you had acted responsibly.
*
You ask how you have sinned? What were your crimes?
You’ve inflicted countless and terrible wounds on our
planet. Wounds that we’ll need to bandage and heal with
the greatest care.
You’ve allowed an unprecedented demographic
collapse, and so we’ll need to cough up extravagant
sums for your pensions.
You’ve allowed, even promoted mass immigration, and
so we’ll need to fight for the right to own our continent
one day.
This is the thread from which the battles and conflicts
of the future are woven. This is the burden that you’ve
passed down to us, your children.
We can only hope that this burden doesn’t grow any
bigger.
*
We are aware of our responsibility to history. We want to
pass Europe on to our own children in a better state than
we found it in. We want them to be able to live freely,

without the worries that we have to bear.
To achieve this goal, we will relieve you of all your
duties and all your power. Your politics is a dagger in our
hearts, because it harms Europe.
For this reason, we strive for political and spiritual
authority. We pursue politics of the grand style. But
unlike you, we aren’t afraid of assuming responsibility.
We will take on both power and responsibility for the
greater good of Europe.
For we are generation identity.

ON THE GLOBALISED WORLD
e are truly living in a world that moves quickly. A world
in which scientific discoveries multiply at breakneck
pace, one technological revolution follows the next, and
the world economy transforms itself beyond all
recognition. What once lasted years and decades now
takes place in days or hours.
We are entering a new era, an era of greater proximity
and contact throughout the world. An era in which the
great cultures clash with greater force than ever before
in history. Peoples who once knew nothing of one
another now encounter one another on a daily basis.
This is not always a good thing.
For globalisation is a double-edged sword.
It offers us previously unknown possibilities and
opportunities. But even if controlled and properly
managed, it still conceals previously unknown dangers.
*
Throughout most of human history, each culture lived in
its own sphere without having much contact with the
others.

In our more recent history, the cultures of the world
lived under Western dominion.
That era, however, is drawing to a close. A plurality of
cultures, each the worthy counterpart of the other, have
stepped onto the world stage. Many of them possess
powerful armies, powerful economies, and some of them
have enough nuclear weapons to bring about a man-
made apocalypse.
We must all be cautious in this new era. We can’t
afford to try to force our vision of the world on others out
of vanity anymore.
The age clearly calls for consideration and respect for
the identities of other cultures and religions. Above all,
the West has a few lessons to learn in this regard.
*
But with the end of your power, Europe will also adapt. It
will lay aside its arrogance and integrate itself into a new
global society. This time, without prescriptions for how
the rest of world ought to live.
This is our foreign policy.
In contrast to you, we’ve acknowledged the necessity
for having consideration and respect for other cultures
on their own terms, not the homogenisation of
multiculturalism. Similarly, we’ve acknowledged the
necessity for clear borders and geographic separation,
in the interests of world peace.

Therefore we affirm the following:
China, live as you please, whether it is a dictatorship,
a democracy, or a completely different form of
government. It’s not up to us to judge you. We will
respect your noble culture, in any case.
Muslims, live as you please. Introduce Sharia, or
perhaps not. You have the right to do whatever you
consider to be right for your countries and in your
culture. The time of ‘liberation wars’ has passed; let us
be friends in the future.
To the Africans: the times in which we have robbed
you of an independent voice must finally come to an end.
We won’t offer you any more hypocritical ‘aid.’ We won’t
try any longer to build your states according to our
models. We will depart and let Africa be Africa. We will
give you the chance to solve your problems yourselves,
for you have the power to do so.
*
These are our vows of esteem and respect.
We request the following in return from other cultures:
Just as we accept your identity, we expect you to
accept ours.
Recall your proselytisers. Stop forcing your way onto
European territory. We all want to live together in a

climate of mutual respect.
Our parents’ era is over. The time in which Europe
wanted to tell you how to live has come to an end. So
has the time in which Europeans no longer cared about
their own countries. In the epoch that is now beginning,
the world may not be united, but it will certainly be
marked by mutual respect.
This is the epoch of generation identity.

to finish that thought you had Carleton you sacrifice your identity for cheaper goods that you could get cheaper in just a few more years with technological progress. like it will come well get there we dont need iphones to cost $100 now it could be $1000 for awhile. its not worth sacrificing your culture

completely agree

we just need the recipes!

This part "We won’t offer you any more hypocritical ‘aid.’ We won’t
try any longer to build your states according to our
models. We will depart and let Africa be Africa. We will
give you the chance to solve your problems yourselves,
for you have the power to do so." I find blacks dont seem to believe we will actually leave them alone

We wuz unfunded liabilities

Jared Taylor went to a showing of a movie called Race War with a room full of blacks and theyre all like yeah right! we dont believe youll actually leave us alone you are lying. which is sad how do you think we want you to be penniless and criminal in our country

sportball was my identity

the chapters seem to follow each other seamlessly

sportball is many peoples - most of my family

I think it was Lord Byron's daughter who build the first analytical engine, anglos rise up

anglophile alert

identity doesnt need to be old entirely either. there is a japanese identity that involves anime

ON ESCAPISM
he world, as it presents itself to us, is empty and cold.
Its communities have been dissolved; what remains are
individuals rushing madly to and fro in the service of the
global economy.
It may not be surprising, therefore, that many of us
escape into another, much more pleasant world — that
of computer and video games.
There one finds that which no longer exists in the real
world — a community to belong to, solidarity, great
heroic deeds, authentic chivalry, and true love. In fact,
video games are, for many of us, the last possibility to
somehow perform heroic deeds, experience epic battles,
achieve victory in combat, and overcome defeat.
This is why many of us choose this path, and some
even forget their real lives in favour of it. They don’t want
to go back into the cold, senseless world that you’ve
created, into which you’ve forced them.
You’ve nothing but disdain for their behaviour, and
want to force them back into your reality. But they are
fleeing from you.
We, however, understand our brothers and sisters.
We know why they run, why they don’t want to have

anything more to do with this world, with your world.
So we say to you:
Come to us, brothers and sisters! In this life there are
still battles to fight and struggles to win. We need your
desire for action and your passion in order to defeat our
parents.
Let’s end their reign of terror together. Let’s join each
other in entering into a new era. Let’s build a new world
together. A world in which no one needs to run anymore.
A world in which there will be genuine values and true
friendship. A world of community and solidarity. Come to
us, brothers and sisters. Join us in the struggle against
the ’68ers. Defend yourself with all your strength. Join us
to reclaim our inheritance, our country, and our identity.
Come back, brothers and sisters! For we all belong
together.
We are all generation identity.

this seems to be one of the first times the author talks to other people of his own age

"Come to us, brothers and sisters! Unless your escapism is Doctor Who"

Join our thing!

we've identified the problem now we get into a call to action a bit

are you crying @Selma ?

Troll crying

ah

I don't cry

wahmin dont cry

i saw a vidya that was cosplaying the civil war it was so cool

If you don't main doomfist and play africa by toto on voicechat you aren't playing right

doomfist?

LOL

I play Zarya and the Russian National Anthem.

Or Zarya and Rasputin by that Boney band.

Kalinka

ON INTEGRATION
ne day you recognised that your multicultural society
faced rejection among the peoples of Europe, that
Europeans don’t want it. Countless lands raised their
voices in cries of protest, and Right-wing parties won
votes. You had to react.
So you presented our ailing continent with another
magical cure: integration.
You acted as if integration were something new, as if it
were the opposite of multiculturalism. In this way you
sought to placate the peoples of Europe, at least until the
foreign communities were strong enough in our lands to
put a stop to all protests against the multicultural society.
So it was that you pulled the wool over the eyes of the
European peoples.
*
There are two definitions of integration. You always used
the one you found suited to your particular audience of
the moment. When you talked to the immigrants, you
demanded that they work and master the language of the
land. But how do a job and language skills change the
fact of a multicultural society?

When you talked to the Europeans, you used an
entirely different definition of integration. You spoke of
Western values and said that eventually one would no
longer be able to differentiate the migrants from ethnic
Europeans, that they would become culturally identical.
You essentially said that, with time, they would assume a
European identity.
With these words you sought to placate the
Europeans. That worked for a while.
But at some point, the Right-wing parties caught on to
your trick and finally demanded a ‘harder’ integration.
That is to say, what you had promised the Europeans.
But even this demand is deceptive.
What reason would the members of increasingly
powerful communities have to join a decadent and dying
European culture? How can true integration be possible
when non-Europeans are already so numerous that they
can live effortlessly in their parallel societies?
*
We reject this fake confrontation between you and the
populist Right-wing parties. We neither want a
multicultural society, nor do we want to force members of
other cultures to take on our identity. We therefore affirm
the following:
’68ers! Stop preaching a social model that can’t work,
and immediately plunges societies into chaos whenever

"come to us brothers and sisters" i just had the visual of a horde of scrawny pale men emerging from basements being given IE flags lol

it is attempted.
Right-wingers! Stop defaming immigrants, stop
insulting them and blaming them for our mistakes.
Stop accusing them for wanting to hold on to their
identities. There is nothing crueller than to demand that
one give up his very self.
Muslims and Africans! Take down your tents and
leave this continent. Entire regions of the world already
belong to you. We’ll gladly help you make your
homelands better places, help you to build and shape
them. Even more so than European help, Africa and the
global East need you and your strength.
Return to your home countries, for they belong to you.
Europe, however, will never belong to you. Europe
belongs to us.
For we are generation identity.

you can ID a basketball-American over the phone

🏀

non whites have actually begun integrating and assimilating very well by hating on whitey all the time. great job!

https://www.amren.com/features/2017/01/young-black-man-became-race-realist/

done

The black hebrews are the true black egyptians

😄

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hwlKnVzRkg pretty sure this is the same guy talking with Critical Condition

i think black people notice things on a deep level but not consciously and cant quite verbalize it

Based self hating hebrew magapede

could you please explain how he "hates" Jews being a Jew himself? @Selma

Yes.

He hates his mother who is jewish

ON A WORLD WITHOUT
IDENTITIES
et’s imagine for a moment that your vision of a world
without oppositions, in other words, a world without
differences, was realisable. Let’s picture for just a
moment how such a world would look. Then you’ll
understand, as far as is possible, why we will never
share your goals. Why we will and must always fight you.
Let’s scout the terrain into which your ideology will lead
us in the end.
*
Your world is grey. There are no more colours. Aren’t
colours the reason for conflicts, hate, and war? Didn’t
whites always fight against blacks, reds against yellows?
Therefore you’ve abolished colours, for they only
divide and lead to fascistic groupthink.
Trekking through your world, we reach a city. A city in
which all the streets and buildings look precisely the
same. Don’t different buildings necessarily lead to envy
and social strife? Doesn’t everyone want to show off and
show his superiority with the appearance of his home?
So you tore down all the old houses and built new,
completely identical ones. It is forbidden under penalty of

hating your mother is not based

She deserves it - trust me

law to alter one’s home in any way.
The people in your world, men and women alike, all
wear the same clothing. Different clothing also leads to
exclusion and groupthink.
We enter one of your many education factories. Here
infants, taken from their parents shortly after birth, are
raised by highly trained and qualified experts. You’ve
recognised that many people are disadvantaged by their
family backgrounds. To give everyone the same
chances in life, you’ve finally abolished the outmoded
institution of the family.
The children are taught some things in school. But
they don’t receive grades, because grades differentiate
the better from the less capable students.
No one is forced to pay attention in class, and those
who do are regularly punished, because they make their
peers look inferior.
We leave the factory and head towards the city centre.
Where once a cathedral stood, today there is only a
massive crater in the ground. Since you have recognised
that religions were the cause of countless wars, you
burned all churches, shrines, mosques, temples, and
monasteries to the ground. These establishments
harboured differences.
We talk to a passer-by, but he can’t understand us. He
cannot even speak. You’ve recognised that all forms of

language divide the world. And is not that the first step to
mass murder and war?
*
So we wander through your ever-so-peaceful world, a
world in which there are no more wars, no more conflicts,
and no more struggles.
To what end would one still fight wars here? How
could a conflict of any kind arise in such a place? What
would one fight for in this world of yours, where there’s
nothing worth the effort?
Your dream is our nightmare.
For we are generation identity.

every single dystopian movie has this future

very powerful

The Giver?

Identitarians and those in this movement have the ability to see how these decisions will work when projected into the future. Nobody else is really able to see how this will affect the world

I laughed aloud at this chapter. "Grades are racist"

be back in one minute

keep me updated, DUDES

The tower of babel was actually the first terror attack of samir al hayde

the taking of babies from parents was especially frightening

Women tend to feign masculinity, and they do it poorly/weirdly. And they're often more exaggerated with how they go about it because there's no real fear of physical repercussions.

OUR WEAPONS
rothers and sisters!
Our struggle is hard and our opponents know no
mercy. They hate us for robbing them of their illusions.
Know that they will use every trick and ruse at their
disposal.
They will abuse us in the media, ignore and humiliate
us, and do everything but talk to us.
Don’t expect an open dialogue or a lively exchange of
arguments. Don’t expect them to obey the rules. They
won’t, and so neither can we.
There will only be a dialogue if we force them into one.
Therefore we must seek out confrontation. We have to
yell and scream so loudly that no one can ignore us any
longer. To this end, we need a courageous and
innovative movement.
A movement that acts instead of waits. It needs action
instead of reaction, passion instead of cold detachment,
bravery instead of cowardice, mental agility and flexibility
instead of paralysis and conservatism, love instead of
hate, community instead of individualism.
A movement such as has seldom been seen before,

and will seldom be seen again.
*
We need to throw all of our ballast overboard in order to
stay buoyant. We are at war with enemies who enjoy an
enormous advantage. They control an arsenal of
weapons we can’t even dream of — newspapers, TV
stations, political parties, and governments. They
dominate the public discourse, and conspire with one
another.
If we want to win this struggle, we need to armour up.
We must forge intellectual weapons, for our armouries
are empty.
Write books, brothers and sisters, for every sentence
ignites passion in a thousand others.
Sing songs, brothers and sisters, for a song can move
the entire world.
Draw pictures and make videos, for these say more
than words ever could.
We need every weapon we can lay our hands on.
Every one of you has a talent you can use in the fight.
Help us forge the weapons we will wield in battle against
the ’68ers. We will defeat them.
For we are generation identity.

The only time dudes go as far is if they're too drunk or they're ready to go so to speak

this chapter is almost bad optics yeah haha

we are so rich in art and music and podcasts in this movement

Ascent of art in the alt right

What do you mean "this building is ugly"...?

LOL

it's gorgeous :))))

what was the name of the song again Metatron

I love minecraft

Here's to you - Ennio Morricone

morriccone

moriccone