I have to hand it to Rand, he can be pretty clever at times. I saw him interviewed on TV yesterday, and he took the opportunity to dis Hillary over all the people she campaigned for who lost. The way he worked it into a generic interview about the election results was something to behold.
Now #HillarysLosers is apparently a thing. Here it is on Twitter.
2016 is on!
Conservative Heritage Times 
Rand can piss and moan, and Hillary can piss and moan?
The most committed to Israel will get the most financial support, and win.
Just as Obama’s admin said, “Bibi is a chickenshit”, Bibi responded “GRASSY KNOLL” as a reminder to POUTUS in the future, “WE WILL KILL YOU IF WE MUST!”
Hillary understands this concept.(She has killed her share!)
LikeLike
Red;
There was talk of a certain Gov. Montana challenging Hillary in the primaries (talk is less strong at the moment) who said some “funny” things about Eric Cantor, and then Southern dapper men.
IMO, the deeper level of what Rand is up to is encouraging an anti-war Democrat challenge to Hillary.
Clever, sure, but also a few moves ahead–the advantage one has of being classically trained.
LikeLike
Hillary definitely needs an anti-war challenger, and I suspect she will have one. The issue is how credible he/she will be.
LikeLike
That’s the point of using an uber-masculine (in the American Mind) Montana Governor who will attack Hillary on foreign policy; who disses a certain breed of white Southern men as being effeminate–(Cantor, Graham), even setting his “gaydar” off.
Isn’t that the prototype to go wreck Hillary? Dean was a coat and tie, pro-2nd Amendment, anti-war sort–from New England, but Schweitzer has some swagger, rather than a Dean yell.
Anyway, the point was more about what Rand is up to. True, maybe just, as you note, getting on record as attacking Hillary early–the strategy of running as if you have already won–and that is probably part of it, but I think he is encouraging a real ‘discussion’ which is healthy, and a step past clever.
LikeLike
Surely Schweitzer was referring to a certain type of hoity-toity Southerner? No one would mistake the average Southern Bubba as gay. I see what you’re getting at, but it just suggests to me that Schweitzer needs to get out more.
She needs to be challenged by a Jim Hightower type, a populist man of the people. Someone who could pound her on war and peace and populist economic issues.
LikeLike
Schweitzer was talking about Eric Cantor re: gaydar.
Jim Webb is probably yesterday’s news but he’s another one.
LikeLike
I saw a Rand interview Wed morning on CNN. Rand comes across as whiny even after a win and the Hillary focus was not a good move. During that interview, he had the opportunity to outline his core themes…all he did was whine on and on about Obama and Hillary. Rand as a candidate never appealed to me as he comes across as phoney and whiny.
LikeLike
Do you honestly believe, or would simply prefer, that tele is the place to outline core themes? Isn’t it all identity politics?
LikeLike
I know he was talking about Cantor, but what he actually said came off as pretty sweeping of Southern guys in general. Here’s the problem. There were plenty of manly men in the old Democrat party, the one that was about standing up for the little guy economically. But that’s not the new Democrat party. The new Democrat party hates the poor white guy as much as it does the Country Clubber. Such an environment should repel real men, and all you’re left with is a bunch of self loathing eunuchs.
Here’s a thought – Ben Jones. Don’t know if his politics have changed. He was a Blue Dog more than a populist, IIRC.
LikeLike
I agree, Red, sweeping claim about men who vote for Lindsey Graham–Republicans, conservative Republicans. That is solid Democratic politics interested in the white vote. Calling Republicans a bunch of…I can’t help it, I love gonzo.
LikeLike
Your right Red……….The old “Dixiecrat” and the new “Democrat” are completely different animals.
LikeLike
While we’re loving on Dixiecrats: one reason they were so great is all whites, rich and poor, were facing similar threats. So, they were united more than is usually the case. I wish we could build on that unity. That concept of acting towards the whole polity, rather than for individual interests or the usual rich vs poor, is a rare and powerful thing.
As Sam Francis and others said, people tend to embrace ideologies that serve their interests. So, an ideology isn’t necessarily selfless.
Anyway, so the South has been under unusually positive moral pressures due to the external threat and internal struggle with blacks – as well as agrarian, religious, and more traditional (relative to the North) origins. And we’re in a harsh environment, harsh as in poor and less developed, which is probably a positive on morality. Our climate is probably too pleasant, which would be a negative.
LikeLike
At this point in time, all of those forces considered, what white group is more virtuous than Southerners? It’s a shame we can’t crystallize that into a durable society.
LikeLike
Fierce Independence………….Whites in the city or suburbs have no interest in knowing their neighbors. We are like an “Area Dog” that fights only for it’s area.
Where would other races be, if they were not on the other end of the spectrum, embracing collectivism and group strategy?
LikeLike
Roho, archaeology seems to suggest that Nordic-looking whites were once more widespread, as well as whites in general.
–
I believe pop science is mistaken about whites being individualistic by nature.
Whites seem genetically more religious and more empathetic. Those whites at the border might be more virtuous, because they’ve had to struggle against nature and other tribes and small communities to survive, not within a mass society. Mass society rewards those who exploit it and punishes those who sacrifice for it. We’re not suited for mass society. We’re suited for smaller societies where the environment is harsh. Over time mass society just squeezes us dry.
LikeLike
“I believe pop science is mistaken about whites being individualistic by nature.”
The mere concept of property rights as defined by Roman civilization, and more convoluted with Anglo-Celts, suggests we are more individualistic then other cultures. “Every home a castle” speaks volumes. We are also the only culture who doesn’t think “stabbed in the back” in just a smart tactic, but rather a method of evil, suggesting we as a people favor “fair play.”
If anything, I would say we are a less religious people–Prots really stripped the polytheism Saint “worship” offered from the script with all its holy-days, and Calvinism’s call to “work will set you free” (wasn’t that the sign outside Auschwitz?) became the new polytheism, or dualtheism, God and manna.
Still we believe we are sovereigns on our own lands–even if the bank has majority stake.
LikeLike
Quote: “If anything, I would say we are a less religious people–Prots really stripped the polytheism Saint “worship” offered from the script with all its holy-days, and Calvinism’s call to “work will set you free” (wasn’t that the sign outside Auschwitz?) became the new polytheism, or dualtheism, God and manna.”
Oh, certainly not. The Reformation is a perfect example of deep faith. It’s Christianity that says to remove false idols. The Reformation argues for our being simple peasants who deeply believe. We lacked and mistrusted the wisdom of the wider Tradition, and we wanted the true faith. Also, we weren’t swayed by mere magical superstitions but were motivated by the actual cerebral faith.
Repeatedly with whites we see the same such deep devotion while others have a more magic-and-superstition orientation.
Now, that said, I believe the Tradition has great value. And that’s why the Episcopalian Church might be best. You have the Tradition without the Pope. The Reformation wasn’t wrong; it just went too far. Similarly ISIS and al-Qaeda destroy things as “false idols”. They have that same fanatical craze, and Christianity was similar when it drove out paganism. The Spanish destroyed all they could, at least at times; and there were attempts to destroy Roman quasi-religious books.
–
“The mere concept of property rights”
Nearly all have a concept of property rights. The religious element might be unique in how whites might honour property rights more than others would. Honouring a right when in a position not to is surely categorised as religious-motivated. It’s piety. If it’s not piety to God and a sense of what’s objectively right, then it’s piety to the group.
The Chinese are a bourgeois / subjects-of-empire type people perfectly suited for mass society if they can resist corruption, which they are not well suited to resisting. On the whole, they make good workers. The English were trained to blindly serve their “aristocracy”, and the Chinese similarly trained their people to mind their own affairs. The result is a culture ready for a modern workforce.
It’s worth noting that the English make good workers, which is not the same as good masters. Jews seem to be the natural masters in English liberal society, which is not to say that they control all but rather that they seem to outcompete the English in that area.
–
Nordics and northeast Asians tend to be shy and less charismatic around large groups, but that’s not individualism. That’s simply a missing adaptation for urban environments. You see the same in wild animals vs. pets bred to be tame. Wild animals are certainly not individualistic. Anyway, our being less sociable is one common bad argument often given for our being genetically individualistic.
Similarly, a saying is how peasants and rural folk tend to be honest and morally upright but less crafty and knowledgeable. They’re high quality but easy to dupe. And urbanites tend to be willing to do anything, though of lower natural quality. They trick peasants with ease.
We’re still adapting to becoming better urbanites, still being tamed.
Rural populations also tend to be more religious than urban populations. And rural populations are also, I suspect, far less likely to approve of miscegenation or change in tradition. Modern society gives us economy of scale, but it comes at an enormous cost.
When we say someone is a “socialist” today, it’s likely his motive is he wants something for himself and so joins in the morality-for-the-mass calls. If in a position to benefit at the expense of the mass, he’ll go for it. So, he’s not really group-oriented. As part of a mass, he’s individualistic. As a “socialist”, he’s just learning to adapt to modern society.
–
Northwest Europe was on the border of Rome and was less developed with a lower population density. So it’s natural it would still have decentralised values – just as any tribal and post-tribal society among Europeans and Mongoloids has. Add in Christianity’s past attempt to reduce clan ties (St. Thomas mentions this, the laws against marrying cousins and the reason behind them) and to undermine all piety that doesn’t directly point to Christ (Reformation went too far here) – and separately a growing bourgeois power with a dramatically shrinking agricultural class, and you have the natural setting. Buddhism was also supported by the merchants (over Hinduism) in India early on; Liberalism isn’t the first time merchants have come to power or otherwise exerted their influence over other castes. Technology has just changed the world. If technology finally exterminates mankind, we can blame the English and liberalism, sure. But I’d rather not be exterminated with them. And I certainly don’t want to continue the group suicide as part of “heritage”.
Anyway, northwest whites send dowries with their daughters signifying higher cost in raising a child but also empathy for it, very different from other parts of the world where the reverse is customary. And whites make good soldiers, the ultimate test of whether a person is individualistic or group-oriented, and whites have a lower crime rate than many others. Northeast Asians are likely similar to us, yes. It’s the Confucian north of China that is said to be most group oriented. And likely they too make the best soldiers and are otherwise most like the English when contrasted with the south of China, which is more individualistic.
Anyway, individualism + less religious is the fad I disagree with and why I’m not crazy about most of the right-wing movements dominant today.
In truth whites are deeply religious. Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Euro paganisms all speak of this. Other religions tend to be far less developed, orienting more around magic. You have pyramids and henges and other odd religious signs that whites have visited areas all over. There are even signs that religious whites might have visited the Americas far before the Vikings did. Anyway, aside from the Americas: repeatedly whites use slaves/workers and are then overwhelmed. The British Empire was nothing more than history repeating, concluding with Britain being colonised by its past underlings as happened before.
Today we see whites embracing one ideology after another, ever seeking truth and a sense of purpose. Other races aren’t like this. Whites are the most religious by far. Others are content to raise families and consume.
The past white religions of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism refer to a class struggle between the warrior caste and the priestly caste. Whites might be a conquering people at times, but they’re a priestly people too. The wars over religion of Islam and Christianity, both mostly in Caucasian territories, are enormous.
–
The modern white is atheist, sure. But he’s going extinct too. My interest is in preserving whites. I’m not like the current Pop-Right that focuses on elitism and progress. And Third Position and similar trads are like me as well. It’s an entirely different, past-oriented, god-oriented perspective. It’s piety. I get the impression my way of thinking has been nearly killed off due to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory, England’s rise on Liberalism, elite theory gone wrong, and perhaps someone working behind the scenes manipulating us (peasants are again easy to manipulate) are to blame.
–
If blacks are not individualistic, then why are their leaders so corrupt? You don’t find such resistance to bribery and theft among nonwhites. This can be said to be either a religious motive or a group-tie motive of whites – or I suppose it could be said that we’re just cowards who fear getting caught.
However, reg cowards: In game theory, whites tend to punish those who harm the group / act “immorally” in those test scenarios. So, we’re willing to sacrifice ourselves for the greater good, whether that good be the group or a more universal sense of “good”. And again the whites as good-soldier argument here.
–
I’m familiar with the current claims that whites are individualistic and nonreligious, that blacks are supposedly more group-oriented and religious. Of course I’ve heard the claims. They’re repeated at every website and magazine, as frequently as Coca Cola advertises on TV. I just don’t find less recent history backs this claim at all.
Dawkins’s “selfish gene”, which I haven’t read about I’m just guessing, probably applies to blacks. But I doubt it applies to whites. That concept sounds like it better explains black behavior which seems fine with betraying their own though unites with their own against others, at least when they’re little risk to the individual.
LikeLike
Ah, another reason Liberalism might have thrived in England and America: we didn’t have the old, dead remnants to bog us down.
Egypt arose from nowhere, likely of foreign origin. It thrived partly perhaps because of the necessity of an elite to control the efficient farming of the Nile, but it likely also thrived more than its fatherland because it was unbound by tradition. The largest pyramid is the first, though that argument has become cliche now… Tradition serves a purpose, but it can get in the way of raw power too.
LikeLike