Stopping White Genocide with a Consistent Message

[PeterRabbit]

We live in a closed society where the state claims to have the authoritative answer on race. In the USSR they claimed to have the authoritative answer on economics. No closed society has ever come down through bombs and bullets but through sound, via a consistent message. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'" is one example.

Here is our consistent message

The Mantra

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.



http://www.whitakeronline.org


http://www.whiterabbitradio.net

[The Lawspeaker]

And you are ?

[Megrez]

Judging by most examples of anti-racists, indeed anti-racist = anti-white.

[Debaser11]

Right. I've been saying all of this for quite some time. I use the example of Tokyo. I realized how well monoethnic countries (when the race is industrious, in particular) work when I was living abroad in Asia. What if we dropped 50 million African immigrants there like Europe absorbed? If any Asian American ever gave me any guff about being a "racist," I know what I would say to them. They would be squimish at the thought of even ONE of their cities turning let alone the whole county of their blood turning. To a minority living in the West, they get the best of both worlds. They get to enjoy the nice amenities that whites have created through their own industrious nature while at the same time resting easy about their relatively guarded genepools back home.

It would be like approportioning a pizza you made yourself with someone when they already have a whole one procured. You'd think it a bit unfair that they were demanding an "equal" portion of your pizza simply because you went through the trouble to use better ingrediants and more toppings. And for you, this is the only one you have access to while this other guy already has his pizza. Why would you owe him anything because your pizza is better? It's your pizza! You can share here and there. But don't share to the point that you're giving it all away!

The problem is largely that being white doesn't mean anything. A white person literally means a person who's a blank sheet of paper or a Nabisco cracker to "exotic" ethnics (some don't even realize that LotR is white culture) and even worst of all, it means a blank sheet, culturally void group to far too many (most) whites themselves in the 21st century. No matter how articulate and reasonable and intelligent a white nationalist may be, they are seen as a joke a priori. And that's because whites have allowed materialism to degrade their own culture and will. The white nationalist is speaking another language to them. There's no material beef which they use to make sense of the world. It seems like a silly game when so much is actually at stake (no pun). Most whites are unaware that they are losing something when minorities gain at our culture's expense.

And if anyone says anything about "Native Americans," kindly point out that any land whites took from them, they did through force. It was a flat out war. Despite some injustices that took place in North and South America, conquering a people by the sword is a much more honorable way to take something than using a Marxist guilt engine which burns on distorted or myopic views of history and misplaced white compassion. Groveling and making dishonest claims to get something is never honorable next to someone willing to lay their life on the line in battle. And notice that no whites (largely) seem to have a culture based on groveling the way say...blacks, Mexicans, and Indians (sometimes) do.

[Austin]

Have any of you ever talked to real Asians about race once they knew your personal politics?


Whoaaaa is all I can say. If people think Hitler was bad with Jews, wait till Africans and Indians start flooding the East.

[Magister Eckhart]

Am I the only one who sees more "advertisement for Stormfront-flavoured radio" than "valuable post on the racial situation" here?

I'm all for discussion on the issue, but BOLD FACED ALL CAPS smacks of the 14/88 approach to this whole situation.

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Now, while I'll be the first to hop in line when we're attacking miscegenation, and I have actually argued in favour of cultural segregation on these forums, I think you're making some serious errors regarding a "genocide" of the "white race" (which, no doubt, you speak of with all of its crude Darwinism quite intact).

Let's not be hasty, and jump on board with something that just sounds pleasant to the ears - there is no, nor has there ever been, an active conspiracy to eradicate the "white race" in any way, shape, or form. The intentions (since genocide is a teleological terminology) of liberal and subsequently Bolshevistic enterprise is not the elimination of any singular race-- unless you think that somehow in a miscegenated couple that one race survives pure and intact, in which case I think you have a very poor handle on genetics.

Furthermore, both the liberal/capitalist (bourgeois) and Bolshevist (proletarian) philosophies are focused on either the individual or the world community; what, therefore, we are dealing with is not a deliberate or systematic eradication of a group (i.e. genocide), but rather a philosophy which does not recognise the significance of the group to begin with. Rather, individuals are given agency in a liberal framework to pursue individual goals, the goal of the ideology being to achieve maximum freedom and maximum egalitarianism amongst groups and amongst individuals. This means, obviously, that integral frameworks which are perceived to oppress or prevent said freedom or egalitarian social structure must necessarily be themselves dismantled.

On the other side, we have the Bolsheviks. Here the concern is also freedom and equality but through the elimination of hierarchies rather than integral groups. The bourgeois liberal believes in creating a level playing field for individuals, the proletarian communist seeks to create a levelling of individuals themselves. What, therefore, the goal of the Bolshevik becomes is the elimination of the controllers of production; formerly, these were embodied in the production-owning class of European bourgeoisie, against whom a European proletariat was expected to rebel. When such did not happen and the Europeans, subjugating as they did the earth and all other peoples on it, retired themselves to Arabesque luxury and service economy, entire nations became bourgeois, and not all of them Western, either.

Meanwhile Western liberals had equipped the colonized people with the means to become like they were "Enlightened" and technological, competitors in the world free market. The natives refined this, fed by a hunger for the power once possessed by their colonial masters. A new proletariat was born for the Bolshevik to rally to their place as levellers of society, and thus the bourgeois "First World" was pitted against the proletarian "Third World".

However it is not the racial white man who the Bolshevik hates, but all the bourgeois - i.e. all those who control the means of production. The problem, therefore, is not so "black and white" (pardon the pun) - though there are absolute aspects of it. Rather, the "coloured world" consists of many people, some of them racially Caucasoid, while the "white world", the bourgeoisie, consists of many people as well, many of them racially Congoid, Capoid, and Mongoloid. Your "genocide" is pure fancy conceived from watching this conflict from the forest floor instead of having the mindfulness to climb a tree and look down upon it.

Of course, this has racial (in both the crude biological sense as well as the more refined cultural sense) consequences. For example, miscegenation becomes more widespread - far from being encouraged by one party alone as some sort of conspiratorial action, it is encouraged by a small group, and as it becomes endorsed in society, it becomes part of the way media communicates, and as it becomes more common in media, it becomes more endorsed in media, thus setting in motion a vicious cycle fed by individualism and a thirst for advertising revenue by Western man himself. It is a cultural and social phenomenon following a natural course.

In his richly-adorned opium dens of consumption, Faustian man today thinks only of his personal, individual needs; his greed and lust for money-power and carnal pleasure drive him, so that things formerly sacred begin to decay.

Such a situation has not taken root in the Coloured/Third World. These still cling to the old taboos and old traditions, driven by a foreign cultural soul that still has creative potential. It is perfectly natural that these primitive sons of yet historyless (perhaps more appropriately "prehistoric") Cultures should begin to overtake the bloated, dying West. Such immigration and invasion will continue even into the age of blood and violence, as Western man himself begins to embrace the barbaric in himself, and the age of Caesars comes about.

------

Since my Spenglerisms are already bleeding through I might as well give my owm more explicitly Spenglerian take on the whole situation. I implore you not to think that somehow there is some kind of conspiracy stacked against the West - Western man himself has created this situation, and he will taste the bitter fruits of the seeds he has planted through colonialism, liberalism, and Bolshevism - all children of the same mother in the language of Christian exclusivity, equality, and servitude. As Spengler rightly says "Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism" - for Bolshevism, like liberalism its father, represents a twisted, secular, amoral form of a far older Christian egalitarianism and universalism, held near to the bosom of the Occident itself and nurtured by the fruit of Faustian labour.

Long have we walked this path toward our appointed doom. It is not the racial destiny of crude biology, but a far deeper-seeded spirit of self-awareness, a heightened sense of belonging and of place. It is the Roman soldier who fell dead at Pompeii, refusing to abandon his post until relieved, the very portrait of Apollonian perfection - the West has need of such men who have true race. "There are no great races, only great men," whose greatness is reflected in their sense of race. Faustian man demands his Caesar, he demands his bloodsport, his further technological and final political transformation before he breathes his last looking out from his citadel at lands which shall cease forever to be his even as the heat of his corpse lingers. Already have we begun the transformation - already are there many among us who are fellaheen, as the great High Culture of the Egyptians became nearly two and a half millennia ago, and as the High Culture of the Apollonian Classics was prevented from becoming by the utter eradication and subjugation of their surviving sons by Faustian man.

There is no "genocide" - our race is passing, as is its destiny to pass and make way for a new Culture that will take a very different shape than our own, to whom we shall be as incomprehensible as long-past foreign High Cultures are today to us.

[Debaser11]

While I agree with much of your post, Wag, I think there is a bit of a disconnect here (political vs. philosophical) even if your comments were 100% relevant. The OP is commenting on a more narrow political aspect about race that is one small part of the drama. I find it very obnoxious to see the double standards that exist among other nonwhite peoples on the race question as well as double standards that appear in public policy (affirmative action).

It is the "forest floor" point of view to attack nonwhites and political liberals, sure, but there is still some validity to those attacks. For example, American Renaissance points out a great deal of political topics that are racial in nature that should make white people very angry. It's a perfectly worthwhile publication as far as I can tell. That being said, it is important to realize that physically acting on this "floor" view won't yield the results people want because the situation is the way it is because of the West (and whites) itself. I don't necessarily find fault with people who have reactionary tendencies on these matters nor do I fault people for actively trying to fix something that is impossible for them to fix. Many times, they seem sincere and are understandably motivated. Not everyone reads Spengler or even accepts his line of thinking. (G.K. Chesterton, for example, thought we had much more control over our destiny and he was a smart smart man.) So while I do think white nationalist attempts at politics will largely be a failure, I think they are acting in a reasonable manner in so far as the tunnel vision of politics allows one to behave reasonably.

I would not be comfortable labeling what's happening in the West "a genocide" either and I think it is indeed gratuitous vocabulary that just happens to be teleological.

[Magister Eckhart]

While I agree with much of your post, Wag, I think there is a bit of a disconnect here (political vs. philosophical) even if your comments were 100% relevant. The OP is commenting on a more narrow political aspect about race that is one small part of the drama. I find it very obnoxious to see the double standards that exist among other nonwhite peoples on the race question as well as double standards that appear in public policy (affirmative action).

As I said, I'd be the first to criticise the way society treats the racial question; I just think (to keep with my previous metaphor) that one gets a better view of everything by climbing a tree rather than standing on the forest floor.

It is the "forest floor" point of view to attack nonwhites and political liberals, sure, but there is still some validity to those attacks. For example, American Renaissance points out a great deal of political topics that are racial in nature that should make white people very angry. It's a perfectly worthwhile publication as far as I can tell. That being said, it is important to realize that physically acting on this "floor" view won't yield the results people want because the situation is the way it is because of the West (and whites) itself. I don't necessarily find fault with people who have reactionary tendencies on these matters nor do I fault people for actively trying to fix something that is impossible for them to fix. Many times, they seem sincere and are understandably motivated. Not everyone reads Spengler or even accepts his line of thinking. (G.K. Chesterton, for example, thought we had much more control over our destiny and he was a smart smart man.) So while I do think white nationalist attempts at politics will largely be a failure, I think they are acting in a reasonable manner in so far as the tunnel vision of politics allows one to behave reasonably.

Nor do I blame the reaction itself or the "forest floor" approach - my criticism of the odour of "White Power" emanating from the OP is disconnected from my critique of the content of the post; after all, one must be able to distinguish between aesthetic and content.

I have to admit you took me by surprise with Chesterton - having read his Everlasting Man, I certainly agree with you that his erudition at least matches Spengler's own, but I still hold his optimism to be unfounded in anything but the sheer terror that seizes a man when he gazes upon the monstrosity that is history and sees himself reflected in the abyss of posterity. The only way to escape the cyclopean vista of decay and decline that inevitably reveals itself when gazing into the future is to paint over it with the bright pastels of blithe Christian optimism, which is exactly what Chesterton does.

Few men are strong enough to handle the weight of the reality of Spengler's "strong pessimism"-- even Spengler himself found the burden extremely hard to bear (if you'd like I have some sketches for my biography of him that cite examples of this) and I am not entirely unconvinced that the stress that brought about his chronic nervous afflictions and ultimate demise was not linked to his refusal to reject his own pessimistic conclusions.

I therefore understand the motivation and deeply sympathise with it (you'll see me frequently slipping out of my trance of pure Spenglerian thought in attempts to save Western civilization myself), but ultimately one must have the strength of will to realise where the West itself is to blame for its situation and for its ultimate demise. American Renaissance has a great deal to offer but like all of their ilk they flatly refuse to be self-reflective in any way, to realise that directing rage outward is not only absurd, but counter-productive. This, I believe, was also Spengler's vision, and because I have come to accept it myself after much reflection, I do my best to proselytise it, to correct the grievous errors of reactionaries on the forest floor.

I would not be comfortable labeling what's happening in the West "a genocide" either and I think it is indeed gratuitous vocabulary that just happens to be teleological.

I'm glad we certainly recognise the intent present in the word's usage.

[Debaser11]

As I said, I'd be the first to criticise the way society treats the racial question; I just think (to keep with my previous metaphor) that one gets a better view of everything by climbing a tree rather than standing on the forest floor.

Very much agreed. When white nationalists say "white people need to wake up," they are right. But it's not going to happen until the whole civilization has morphed beyond ANY recognition in terms of values or consciousness. And if the white nationalist types bothered to read a little deeper into the situation, they'd know why whites will not "wake up" and maybe some of their anger at the other would be reduced to a more healthy level.

Even having a panoramic view of the situation, it's tough not to want to at least swim against the current some. (You wrote about snapping out of your Spenglerian trance and I think that's only natural. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing but it's easy to lose yourself. Human instinct is not made for the type of scope that I think both of us (and you in particular) base our outlook on so there's no way to avoid such lapses from time to time and sometimes I think it's justified to pick certain battles even if you can probably guess the cause will still be lost in the end.) Of course, there are more effective ways to swim against the current than just putting on a goofy hood or uniform and preaching racial pride. To build on my own metaphor, such behavior is the like swimming with one arm instead of your whole body. You just go in circles while you still get pushed back. I'd pick my battles. Most of them exist in a nonpolitical context, I think.

Nor do I blame the reaction itself or the "forest floor" approach - my criticism of the odour of "White Power" emanating from the OP is disconnected from my critique of the content of the post; after all, one must be able to distinguish between aesthetic and content.

I see. I'm not fond of such vibes, either. But they are understandable (given what whites face) and I actually prefer such vigor over vacant relativism so long as it's not blatantly creeping toward an unhealthy hatred of the other which, in my estimation, causes a person to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, I'm fine with someone's positive affirmation of their whiteness but am leary when it becomes a rant that implies others are inherently evil or that they should be killed en masse or something ghastly like that.

I have to admit you took me by surprise with Chesterton - having read his Everlasting Man, I certainly agree with you that his erudition at least matches Spengler's own, but I still hold his optimism to be unfounded in anything but the sheer terror that seizes a man when he gazes upon the monstrosity that is history and sees himself reflected in the abyss of posterity.

Incidentally, you are probably more read up on Chesterton than I am. I have really only read some of his musings (and part of a debate he had with Bertrand Russell) and found them to be insightful. I'd actually love to see all of his debate with Russell if that transcript is availiable somewhere as I'm sure much of Chesterton's thought goes over Russell's analytical head. (I do like his little rant on people who say "I can see no difference.") I have a friend who is really into the Catholic/Christian types (Aquinas, Chesterton, Lewis) and much of what I know about him in the interest of full exposure is not from firsthand knowledge of his writings. I do agree that his optimism seems unfounded in terms of historical evidence. I just threw his name out there because I remember him being one of the 20th century intellectual giants who seemed to place a bit more emphasis on free will no doubt due to his Christian outlook.

The only way to escape the cyclopean vista of decay and decline that inevitably reveals itself when gazing into the future is to paint over it with the bright pastels of blithe Christian optimism, which is exactly what Chesterton does.

Right. It seems we've been trying this formula for quite some time. Doesn't seem to be working.

Few men are strong enough to handle the weight of the reality of Spengler's "strong pessimism"-- even Spengler himself found the burden extremely hard to bear

Yeah. Such an outlook doesn't win you many friends, does it? I have a hard time dealing with even a primitive understanding of what Spengler was writing about. Dueling modes of thought (at a moderate level to stay sane) seem unavoidable. But that may be something that Spengler would label "cowardice." And I think that's probably accurrrate.

(if you'd like I have some sketches for my biography of him that cite examples of this)

I'd be highly interested, yes.

and I am not entirely unconvinced that the stress that brought about his chronic nervous afflictions and ultimate demise was not linked to his refusal to reject his own pessimistic conclusions.


I therefore understand the motivation and deeply sympathise with it (you'll see me frequently slipping out of my trance of pure Spenglerian thought in attempts to save Western civilization myself), but ultimately one must have the strength of will to realise where the West itself is to blame for its situation and for its ultimate demise.

Really makes you want to be born in a different time, no?

American Renaissance has a great deal to offer but like all of their ilk they flatly refuse to be self-reflective in any way, to realise that directing rage outward is not only absurd, but counter-productive. This, I believe, was also Spengler's vision, and because I have come to accept it myself after much reflection, I do my best to proselytise it, to correct the grievous errors of reactionaries on the forest floor.

Yes. American Renaissance does not ask enough whys. But again, they are operating at the political level.

[Magister Eckhart]

Very much agreed. When white nationalists say "white people need to wake up," they are right. But it's not going to happen until the whole civilization has morphed beyond ANY recognition in terms of values or consciousness. And if the white nationalist types bothered to read a little deeper into the situation, they'd know why whites will not "wake up" and maybe some of their anger at the other would be reduced to a more healthy level.

I sometimes wonder how much the contemporary definition of "white people" is even accurate to describe who it is we're trying to save. I frankly think the whole WN movement is an outmoded form of Western preservation; much has transpired since the nineteenth century when all of these ideas first arose. For example, there is now a physical manifestation of the worst elements of the Jewish community - Israel - that stands in opposition to a large portion of the Jewish community that is visibly in favour of the West's survival and against the corrupting influence that most WN-types ascribe to the Jews as a whole.

Furthermore, it's quite hard to say who is really "white" - racially speaking, almost half of the Caucasian Race is completely excluded, and on purely arbitrary grounds of appearance-- Italian Mediterraneans are allowed to pass as "white" but Mediterraneans from Arabia, Palestine, Pakistan, and India are not? Despite the fact that in some cases the racial difference between a Greek and an Egyptian are practically non-extant, the "racial" separation WN clings to is a flight of romanticist fancy where Europe constitutes a racial whole separate from the rest of the world and is alternatively called "the West", "Euro-American", "White", or a number of other titles that sometimes seem very arbitrarily applied.

Granted, the attitude in the WN community toward miscegenation can be quite accurate and positive, but only in cases of explicit racial difference and by and large because - again - of pure appearance. They may go around preaching "there's more to race than skin colour" (a mantra I have heard frequently) but ultimately they themselves use this only as a shield and violate it regularly in their own categories. Ultimately their fault resides in their overly Darwinistic understanding of "race" - but it does not end there. For not only do they apply spiritual values to a fundamentally physical category, they invent physical categories that are not actually empirically provable. The entire thing is pure fantasy, and the reason for that is complete lack of introspection in the community. Everything is outward; they have no real grounding force to locate themselves.

Overall, European preservation can be turned into a positive project with a little bit of education and self-awareness. We need to be able to look at ourselves, at our own community and our own history and look at where we are and how we got here. While foreign influence and foreign invasion are negative things, is it foreign influence and foreign invasions that brought us to where we are or is it our present social and psychological position that invite foreign influence and foreign invasion? I would say it must be the latter, and therefore it is the West itself which has created the situation with which it must presently contend; but to claim such a thing sees one shunned by blind pride-driven "White nationalists" and other "race"-based preservationists.

Even having a panoramic view of the situation, it's tough not to want to at least swim against the current some. (You wrote about snapping out of your Spenglerian trance and I think that's only natural. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing but it's easy to lose yourself. Human instinct is not made for the type of scope that I think both of us (and you in particular) base our outlook on so there's no way to avoid such lapses from time to time and sometimes I think it's justified to pick certain battles even if you can probably guess the cause will still be lost in the end.) Of course, there are more effective ways to swim against the current than just putting on a goofy hood or uniform and preaching racial pride. To build on my own metaphor, such behavior is the like swimming with one arm instead of your whole body. You just go in circles while you still get pushed back. I'd pick my battles. Most of them exist in a nonpolitical context, I think.

One must always fight on the field of battle oneself has chosen.

On this note, however, I would not say that I'm not "swimming against the current" here. I just think that even politics requires more introspection than it presently experiences; the central problem I see (I agree with E.J. Jung and Spengler on this point) is that the mob and the mediocre have taken complete control of all political undertakings, both on the "fringe right" and in the mainstream. The fact is that most of them, far from refusing thoughtful introspection, are incapable of it.

I see. I'm not fond of such vibes, either. But they are understandable (given what whites face) and I actually prefer such vigor over vacant relativism so long as it's not blatantly creeping toward an unhealthy hatred of the other which, in my estimation, causes a person to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, I'm fine with someone's positive affirmation of their whiteness but am leary when it becomes a rant that implies others are inherently evil or that they should be killed en masse or something ghastly like that.

Again I think there needs to be some consideration of what "whiteness" actually means before we take another step towards preservation of it - I'm still not sold that the "white" category is even what we need to be working in. "Western" really is far more accurate to describe what we want to preserve, and "Western" isn't really a racial category in the Darwinistic sense that WN and NS want to use.

Incidentally, you are probably more read up on Chesterton than I am. I have really only read some of his musings (and part of a debate he had with Bertrand Russell) and found them to be insightful. I'd actually love to see all of his debate with Russell if that transcript is availiable somewhere as I'm sure much of Chesterton's thought goes over Russell's analytical head. (I do like his little rant on people who say "I can see no difference.") I have a friend who is really into the Catholic/Christian types (Aquinas, Chesterton, Lewis) and much of what I know about him in the interest of full exposure is not from firsthand knowledge of his writings. I do agree that his optimism seems unfounded in terms of historical evidence. I just threw his name out there because I remember him being one of the 20th century intellectual giants who seemed to place a bit more emphasis on free will no doubt due to his Christian outlook.

Chesterton is a fun read. You should look at his The Everlasting Man. I actually think he's superior to C.S. Lewis in a lot of respects; while I like Lewis' space trilogy, I just think he has a more primitive understanding of what he's talking about. Chesterton comes to the wrong conclusions, but he is far more elegant and thorough in arriving at those conclusions than Lewis is.

Right. It seems we've been trying this formula for quite some time. Doesn't seem to be working.

Agreed. That plays a role in why I'm not Christian.

Yeah. Such an outlook doesn't win you many friends, does it? I have a hard time dealing with even a primitive understanding of what Spengler was writing about. Dueling modes of thought (at a moderate level to stay sane) seem unavoidable. But that may be something that Spengler would label "cowardice." And I think that's probably accurrrate.

Well it's that attitude that caused sales of Man and Technics to completely tank, both in the US and Germany. Especially in Germany, people simply didn't want to hear anything more about how they were running like lemmings toward a cliff; Hitler had just become Chancellor and things were looking up, they didn't want to hear pessimistic estimations about how it took more than a lot of "Party-theatrics" and a "heroic tenor" to put the Western world on the right track.

I think today we have a similar situation; people want optimism and optimism only - they don't even want a realistic estimation of what it will take to get where we need to go; the general tendency, as Spengler declares in Jahre der Entscheidung is:

Durst nach Geld ohne Arbeit und Rechten ohne Pflichten

"Thirst after wealth without work and justice without responsibility"

I'd be highly interested, yes.

I'll message you a few excerpts.

Really makes you want to be born in a different time, no?

All my life...

Yes. American Renaissance does not ask enough whys. But again, they are operating at the political level.

As I said above, I'm not sure politics is a good excuse to lack introspection.

As an aside, this is looking increasingly like the OP was just an advertisement for some ill-conceived Stormfront-flavoured radio, as I suspected in my first post. It's too bad, I'd really like to see his response to our discussion here. He'd probably prove most of my points.