Some Musing on Community

I have been thinking about community lately- abstractly in “Hostile Elite” and concretely in “Urban Farming”. But what would an actual community consist of? What would it be like, who would be in it, what would it do and not do?

First of all, on urban farming- I’m not putting down doing it for its own sake. However as a practical matter of survival in distress it should be a way of producing calories fairly cheaply.

One comment was that a community should be fairly small and elite. A core would have more motivated, intelligent and harder-working members; but I think numbers are needed as well. Not so many people that you have unproductive leeches, but something that makes use of the contributions of people of average intelligence and motivation.

What it would not do is get involved in politics at all, or encourage its members to do so. As Mindweapon has pointed out, explicitly white political organizations are “trap crops” at the worst. At best they are irrelevant. A political organization has to collect enough money or bodies to get power, but even if it is very successful at that it has to be useful to the powerful. A community for us is not going to get any sympathy from the PTB so better not to even play that stupid game.

The things it should do, in no particular order, because I’m not sure which is most important. Economic cooperation is vital. People need to help each other get jobs, trade with each other, and do business with each other. I was looking at a construction site some months ago. About 20 workers were smoothing a wide area of concrete, and every single one was Hispanic. Beyond that, they probably had family or village connections as well. Economic activity in America is based more and more on ethnic cooperation.

Simple moral support is critical as well. Just being able to go to a place where you are not a wallet to be fleeced, a sheep to be sheared, a gullet to be stuffed with marginally edible garbage, a sucker to be signed up for low monthly payments or saddled with some overpriced crap from China would be a big relief. This is what people go to church for, but even churches with all-white congregations aren’t friendly to our people and are often just corrupt consumer businesses.

Positive behavioral reinforcement would help people a lot. Learning about the consumer culture, and learning not to be a mark. People need to learn not to watch most sports, or most entertainment, and be given more productive things to do with their time. People need to learn not to wear certain kinds of clothing that have been forced on them, not to eat processed foods and not support businesses that hate them. Our entire culture has been poisoned for so long people don’t even realize it.

This would be explicitly white- part of the description, if not the actual name, would be something like “the european-american cultural society”- but it would not get involved in any kind of racial conflict or politics, which are utterly deadly. It would not try to organize people geographically- for most people moving to a remote area is not practical. If a group did move to a remote area, become a large part of the population and gain control of the local government, one leftist lawyer could and probably would ruin it all. It would get people together where they are.

The model for this is not any kind of political organization, underground organization or militia- it would be completely legal and not secret, although it would avoid drawing attention to itself. The model for this is the English “friendly society” (in its older form, not its current form as a mutual insurance company) or the American working man’s lodge.

If our people could overthrow the hostile elite and establish a government in our interests that would be great. But politics, democratic and authoritarian, non-violent and violent is a leftist game and we can’t win. The future is grim, and we will cope with it much better if we can learn to help each other. The ability to do that is what has defined us, back to the dawn of time. I think we can do it again.

Advertisements

About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Some Musing on Community

  1. PA says:

    The community must have a positive, not a negative mission. It must be about fun, family, productivity, learning, and/or spirituality. Not about “NAMs suck.” Implicitly white homeschooling networks, ethnic-white communities that keep youths’ interest, and Evangelical communities are a good example of a positive unifying purpose.

    However, these communities must have a mechanism that checks a race-liberal drift. Male leadership is key here. Much mischief comes from ungrounded middle-aged women.

    • Phil says:

      “Much mischief come from middle-aged women”
      ————————–

      Real world example: Sweden. Every time I see some documentary or tv story about leftists destroying Sweden, its middle aged feminist Swedish women leading the destruction.

  2. PA says:

    The easiest and mist important first step: disconnect from you television. Best to just get rid of it. “No TV in my home” is one of the easiest ways to get genuinely admiring looks from all whites, regardless of their age, class, or politics.

    By the way, No TV is a SWPL thing. And SWPLs, as I’ve argued elsewhere, are primarily a white-survival subculture. They fly under the radar so effectively that they have themselves fooled in fancying themselves liberal. What better disguise than actually believe you are what you pretend to be.

    In the end, the reason its correct to call them a white community is because while they they talk and think leftie, they live and walk rightie.

    SWPL upside: it is an aggregation of the smartest, most talented, best looking, and financially set whites. There is a lot we can learn from them. They are pioneers in effective group-adaptation, if nothing else.

    Downside: their bodies are free but their minds are enslaved. That’s important to remember.

  3. asdf says:

    SWPLs are very money dependent. Have you seen an SWPL without money? Maybe at an Occupy protest, it doesn’t work out so well for them. Money is a pre-requisite of SWPL culture, those without it are protesting.

    The reason they can be ignorant and still live white is money. $20,000 private school tuition solves being ignorant about schools. Etc. If they were cognizant of the situation they could homeschool, but they are not so when the money is taken away all they are left with is bad ideas.

  4. Ryu says:

    I’ve got a copy of American Desperado now. What an excellent book that is.

  5. Linking this beautiful article because it reflects many of your musings. Money quote:

    “I want my son to see that I have a library of books left over from my days as an African-American Studies major and a pictorial montage of him dressed in a series of Obama onesies and never mind the fact that I have no black friends, that we live in a neighborhood that is overwhelmingly white, and that the non-white people we meet are either delivering food, caring for other people’s children, or working behind a register.”…

    For our son to have a significantly different worldview, we had to commit to changing our lifestyle, to selecting institutions that were broadly inclusive, to living in a different neighborhood, to interacting with different people…

    Realizations are one thing; transformations are another. Our transformation has yet to happen. We are starting to look at other neighborhoods, and to figure out ways to socialize with different people. The need to make a change feels urgent right now. But will that urgency remain with us? I honestly don’t know.

    This is why I don’t take SWPLs seriously. If even they don’t want multiculturalism, not really, not in their own lives, why should I pretend to want it either? I don’t see how deluding yourself about your actions is better than being up front about them, at least to yourself.

    The ironic thing is, if more SWPL parents had the Derbyshire conversation with their kids, they’d be less likely to turn into bigots. When I was growing up, every kid knew that our town had a gentlemen’s agreement vis-a-vis minorities, and every adult denied it strenuously. The result is that kids figure things out on their own.

    • Writing that out, it occurred to me that this woman’s parenting style can be sort of a blueprint for white parents in blue states. Kids are observant, especially when they’re young. You don’t have to beat the drum about race every day for them to get the picture. Hell, you could probably raise your kids WN if you were this lady’s next-door neighbor, as long as you homeschool them.

      • Phil says:

        “This WOMAN’S parenting style”
        —————————————–
        Se PA and my previous comment. These certain Western European descended women have totally absorbed the jewish hatred for Celtic/German people. Do women of other ethnic groups fall for self-hating ideology?

      • Phil,

        You make a good point. What I meant was, it’s possible to educate your children about race without necessarily saying things that, if they repeated them to strangers, would result in a CPS Investigation. At least when they’re little.

        It’s also possible to be a “Nazi” and fly under the radar to such a degree that a woman like this––who, as you say, is consumed by self-hate––would never notice, even if you lived next door to her. Now whether that’s deisrable or not, depends upon your point of view. But it is an option.

        Obviously this woman’s kid has picked up on something, either through instinct or observation, despite the least favorable circumstances imaginable. Let’s be honest, this lady is not going to change neighborhoods, she’s never going to be honest with herself about her “commitment to diversity.” And her kid will pick up on that, however many Obama onesies she buys him.

  6. Heil Hizzle says:

    You seem to talk fondly and often at this blog about the old “friendly societies” like the Moose and the Elk. It is funny because I recently read a book on how to interpret graveyard iconography, and there are literally hundreds of different societies to which men and women (separately) belonged. The thing I fear, however, is that these can become like the Masons, exclusive, secretive, and hierarchical. I am not a conspiracy theorist and I don’t believe Freemasons run the country or the world, but isn’t that a danger, that the organization becomes that sort of top-down monster?

  7. I’m watching this documentary right now. So far it looks like a pretty good deal actually. I know that most religions look pretty good on the surface, but no drinking, no drugs, traditional sex roles, idyllic setting, self sufficiency––who cares if they believe in aliens and whatnot? Unless they’re hiding something like sexual abuse of children, I frankly find it hard to see the downside.

  8. oscar the grinch says:

    “If our people could overthrow the hostile elite and establish a government in our interests that would be great. But politics, democratic and authoritarian, non-violent and violent is a leftist game and we can’t win.”

    Oh, bullshit. Only 50 or 60 years ago, the leftists (meaning of course, the Jews) were mostly outsiders to the mainstream political power structure, having to fight for every inch of history they took up.

    But they fought, and they fought, and they wheedled, and they sneaked, and they infiltrated and they manipulated, and they lied and lied and lied, and they betrayed, betrayed, betrayed, betrayed… and then, one fine morning, they won.

    There’s no real reason we can’t do it too. We outnumber them handily. We have just as many (and statistically speaking, far more) crafty high-IQ types. We have a history just as ruthless as theirs, which we have been lullabyed into forgetting — and yet there it waits, ready to be awakened at a moment’s notice. Ready to be turned into an evil, ferocious flaming spear, which they will dread to look upon.

    We are their fucking worst nightmares. And they know it too, or else they never would have worked this hard.

    We just need to summon the will to win again.

    Get busy.

    • Yes but they were unified first. We don’t have any form of unity not approved by them, so effectively we have no unity. If we can get together and free ourselves of their mind control, we can start this process.

  9. fnn says:

    ” Oh, bullshit. Only 50 or 60 years ago, the leftists (meaning of course, the Jews) were mostly outsiders to the mainstream political power structure, having to fight for every inch of history they took up.”

    They were already powerful in the 1930s:
    http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/PrefacePPB.pdf

    …One can see the shift in the career of racial theorist Lothrop Stoddard, author of books such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy and numerous articles for the popular media, such as Collier’s, Forum, and The Saturday Evening Post. Stoddard viewed Jews as highly intelligent and as racially different from Europeans. He also believed that Jews were critical to the success of Bolshevism. However, he stopped referring to Jews completely in his lectures to the Army War College in the late 1930s. The Boasian revolution in anthropology had triumphed, and theorists who believed that race was important for explaining human behavior became fringe figures. Stoddard himself went from being a popular and influential writer to being viewed as a security risk as the Roosevelt administration prepared the country for war with National Socialist Germany.

    …Lindbergh’s famous speech of September 11, 1941 stated that Jews were one of the principal forces attempting to lead the U.S. into the war, along with the Roosevelt administration and the British. Lindbergh noted that Jewish reaction to Nazi Germany was understandable given persecution ‘sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.’ He stated that the Jews’ ‘greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our Government.’ And, most controversially, he stated, ‘I am saying that the leaders of both the British and Jewish races, for reasons which are understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war’ (in Berg 1999, 427).

    Lindbergh’s speech was greeted with a torrent of abuse and hatred unparalleled for a mainstream public figure in American history. Overnight Lindbergh went from cultural hero to moral pariah. Jewish influence on the media and government would be difficult to measure then as it is now, but it was certainly considerable and a common concern of anti-Jewish sentiment of the time. In a booklet published in 1936, the editors of Fortune magazine concluded that the main sources of Jewish influence on the media were their control of the two major radio networks and the Hollywood movie studios (Editors of Fortune 1936). They suggested that ‘at the very most, half the opinion-making and taste-influencing paraphernalia in America is in Jewish hands’ (p. 62) —a rather remarkable figure considering that Jews constituted approximately 2–3% of the population and most of the Jewish population were first or second generation immigrants…

    • But they could not have done it if their program had not been in harmony, in support of, the people who had already been in power for 300 years.

      • Phil says:

        So you are trying to blame “the Puritans” again. The “puritans” didn’t exist as a organized powerful group in the 1930’s. Just like they don’t now.

      • They haven’t been “Puritans” since around 1800 as I understand, when Unitarianism became the prefered religion of the New England upper class. There has never been a denomination in the US called “Puritan”- Congregationalists are the closest thing. Reformed, many Presbyterians, and many Anglicans fall into this category; Quakers and Methodists their less powerful outliers. But their schools, Harvard and Yale, still educate the elite and their fundamental social attitudes- that a small group of merchants and bankers are morally superior and appointed by God to control the unworthy- are exactly the same.

  10. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – 8-12-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  11. Pingback: A New European Fraternal Organization | Deconstructing Leftism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s