Vanguard News Network

Tom McReen Says:

“His constant concern has been the emergence of a “technological tyranny” over humanity. As a philosopher and lay theologian, he further explored the religiosity of the technological society.”

I wonder if an all-White society would want to build databases, biometric ID and have CCTV cameras perched high on every street corner.

Though sometimes it can take a little coaxing, things of this sort always end up being welcomed by the people as “progress”, at least initially. They lower crime and increase order in a society, which itself then tends to increase everyone’s material prosperity. The costs of such “progress” are often not perceived in advance, and in any case will seldom be counted until it is too late.

I DO see a lot of Harold Covington personalltrack record of abysmal failure and that’s fine.

a Northwest Republicwon’t change anything,The Northwest Republic is the way of Genocide of the White Race.

The Purpose Of Judaism is junior high school

We Have A Duty To ad hominem attacks

We are not the best,a dying breed;

Take Control Of The Racial Death That Is Rightfully Yours

Technological development does not inherently transform societies, destroying races and cultures? The assertion flies in the face of the facts.

As the result of the development of scientific technique, we now have the ability — unprecedented in evolutionary terms — to enjoy sex without producing children. While no one would deny that this has its good points, it has also had some devastating social consequences. Feminism, for one thing, is absolutely inconceivable without reliable forms of birth control. Scientific techniques of birth control have almost single-handedly shattered the male/female bond, something that has been characteristic of human culture for all of recorded history. Society has become atomized. The falling white birth rate, now below replacement level, can also be credited to the widespread availability of scientific birth control techniques, as can the enormously increased willingness of white women to experiment with miscegenation. Falling rates of marriage and increasing rates of homosexuality can also be attributed to the creation — via the existence of these techniques — of a pool of people who love to have sex but have no children and don’t want any. Sex for them has become only pleasure, a lifestyle choice having no necessary connection to reproduction. They live for today and have no connection to the future. The persistence of race, culture, and nation is meaningless for such people. All of these things and more are unintended and unforeseen consequences of only a single area of technological development — scientific birth control techniques.

But how about the next step, producing children without sex? It’s probably coming soon on a large scale, and is already here to a limited degree. What will that do to culture and race?

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-459075/Children-sex-future-holds-claims-inventor-Pill.html

Children without sex is what the future holds, claims inventor of the Pill

Let us take a journey through time to the year 2050.

Our time machine has landed in the spacious drawing room of Barbara, the 45-year-old owner of a smart advertising agency, and Michael, her equally high-flying husband, in their London townhouse.

Barbara’s career ambitions have been realised, and she is at the top of her game, wealthy and happily married. The time is right to start a family.

If she’d had a baby in her 20s or 30s, setting up her own agency — what with all those 15-hour days — would have been virtually impossible. But now it’s not a problem. Barbara simply puts in a call to the baby bank, where her eggs are kept in “cryopreservation”. Barbara deposited them there when she was 20, when they were in their prime.

[…]

One might think this Huxleyesque vision of a Brave New World just a few years from now sounds a little fantastical. Yet it is the prediction of one of the world?s most eminent scientists, Carl Djerassi.

Professor Djerassi is the man who invented the Pill, the first oral contraceptive, which triggered the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and which many would argue changed the face of society and sexual morality for ever ? and not necessarily for the better.

The Pill gave us sex without children. Now Djerassi has turned that concept on its head. He believes the developed world is heading towards its next cultural revolution — children without sex.

“It is my own prediction that within the next 30 to 50 years in the Western world, many women, when young, will bank their eggs or ovarian tissue, have them frozen, and use them when they feel the time is right for them to have a child,” he says. “It will become commonplace.

“The world has changed. The days are past in which women in countries like Britain have economic dependence on their husbands and take care of the children.

“The days are past when women looked after children and nothing else. Women have careers now. They are better educated, more affluent and healthier on the whole, and many are now living into their 80s.

“They postpone having children until later and then they forget — or remember too late. Soon there will be nothing to stop a woman freezing her eggs when they are at their healthiest and then using them later on in life.”

Less than a decade ago, such a scenario would have seemed impossible. But even now, there are indications that Professor Djerassi’s prediction will come true. A handful of babies have already been born using frozen eggs.

A couple of years ago, freezing and thawing human eggs was a highly-complicated procedure used only as a last resort ? for example, when a woman has been made infertile through cancer treatment.

There was no guarantee of success because while sperm freezes well, when an egg is frozen, its high water content means the ice crystals that form inside can severely damage or destroy it.

Egg-freezing techniques are being increasingly refined. A new process called vitrification, in which water is drawn out and anti-freeze chemicals added, is improving success rates to the same level as normal IVF treatment.

Widespread freezing of eggs, if Djerassi’s prediction is correct, is bound to prove controversial. Is it ethical for women to have children in their 60s? How will the child born using such a procedure be affected both emotionally and physically? Even today we do not know what the long-term consequences of IVF will be on those children it has helped to create.

And then, of course, there is the question of women choosing to defrost and fertilise eggs without bothering to find a partner to help raise the child. Do we really want science to create a generation of ageing mothers who’ve chosen to corrupt nature for the sake of their careers by having children late in life — with or without a man?

Djerassi is dogmatic in his rejection of these moral and social concerns. Controversially, he believes advances in egg freezing techniques would be greatly beneficial to the human race. “There are so many unwanted children in the world,” he says.

“This would be a way of helping to reduce the number of unwanted children. Every child born to a woman who has taken a conscious decision to have a child at that time would be wanted and loved and properly cared for.

“Is there not something to be said for wisdom, affection and maturity? Why shouldn?t a woman have a child when she is older if the science is there to help her? Nowadays it is not thought peculiar if a man in his 50s or 60s has a child. So should it be different for a woman?”

[…]

Djerassi believes putting eggs on ice will have benefits to the health of “babies born to older mothers”.

Biologically, the ideal age to have a child would be 18-20, after which the woman could go to university and have a career.

“In those circumstances, society would have to make arrangements for childcare, which it is does not do, so women are waiting till their careers are established and they can afford good childcare,” he says.

“The problem with this is that the moment a woman hits 35 the risk of her having a child with Down’s syndrome increases four to six times.

“At that age she has lost 90-95 percent of her eggs, and those that are left are ageing rapidly. Storing her eggs is her insurance policy against the future. I think you will get the odd woman of 60 or 70 who will decide to have a baby, but most will be in their 30s and 40s.”

But isn’t the idea of mass child production without sex somehow, well, cold?

“Women, especially, romanticise the moment they conceived,” he says, “but the truth is many don’t actually know. And besides, is it such a high price to pay for a healthy child born at a time that is right for the mother?”

It is certainly a radical idea, but then Djerassi has always been a radical. History was made in a small laboratory in Mexico City on October 15, 1951, when he synthesised norethindrone, the first oral contraceptive, recognised worldwide as one of the most significant advances in steroid chemistry.

He was stunned by the impact it had on society: “I could not anticipate the impact the Pill would have. No one really knew that women would accept the Pill so readily.”

The Pill gave women freedom from the fear of pregnancy and the horror of backstreet abortion, but many see it as a cursed invention that is almost single-handedly to blame for the sexual revolution which brought about — as its critics see it — a wholesale collapse of moral values across the Western world.

Djerassi does not concur with this damning verdict on the legacy of his invention. He argues that society was changing anyway; the Pill just smoothed the way.

“The sexual revolution of the Sixties coincided with the introduction of the Pill — the Pill did not bring it about,” he says bluntly. “The Pill came along at the right time, in the same period as hippy culture, the drug culture and rock ‘n’ roll culture.”

“That the Pill facilitated that direction is absolutely true, but I believe it would have happened anyway. Not as explosively, but more gradually. It would have happened in exactly the same way.”

And he says it is a myth that everyone started having a lot more sex with multiple partners — that his invention effectively allowed the risk-free one-night stand to flourish as it never could before.

“Women were having sex before the Pill, but they were getting pregnant and having abortions. The Pill helped to stop that,” he says.

What about the side effects of the Pill? “There is nothing without side effects,” says Djerassi. “Does it increase the risk of breast cancer? Well, there have been thousands of studies and the question is still debated. But we must not forget that it has been proven that the Pill reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 50 per cent — that is crystal clear.”

He has been unable to escape his “father of the Pill” tag, though he prefers to think of himself as the “mother of the Pill”. “In order to give birth to anything, you need three people,” he says. “A father, a mother and a midwife.”

Djerassi was the chemist who provided the raw chemical ingredients — the “egg”. The biologist Gregory Pincus, who co-ordinated its experimentation as a contraceptive, might be seen as the “father”. And the physician John Rock, who oversaw the first clinical trials, was the “midwife”.

Djerassi’s invention made him a very wealthy man. Unlike many, he had enough belief in what he was doing to buy shares in Syntex, the small Mexican company where he did his research.

“They were shares I bought on the open market,” he says. “Other people could have bought them but no one believed in the future of the company, which developed very much because of work that I and other colleagues conducted. We deserved it.”

[…]

alex Says:

… You’ve latched onto a wacky theory and ignored all counter-evidence. …

Yes, here is my wacky theory, reduced to essentials:

1. Other factors being equal, the Big defeat the Small.

Not an ironclad rule, but whether talking about individual combat, armies, companies, countries, or empires, it’s the way to bet.

2. The Strong defeat the Weak.

Those who are strong enough to take what they want usually do so.

3. The Rich defeat the Poor.

The rabble occasionally is roused, but even when it happens, things quickly return to normal.

4. Short-term advantage to oneself is almost always preferred to long-term benefit for the group.

Humans are pleasure-loving creatures, easily persuaded to accept one candy bar now over the promise of ten later. In making such choices, they are a lot less free to choose than they think. Because people are biologically predisposed to pursue only their individual advantage, the good of the group is most often left to fend for itself.

5. The tragedy of the commons: Nobody is watching the store.

The growth of technique is causal, not final. Technological development causes problems, which necessitates more technological development to solve those problems, in a causal chain that never ends. But there is no over-arching plan to it all, no goal. No one knows or dictates the exact form of the next phase of technological development. The technology of the future is only an aspiration. What actually happens is the product of collective human desire in collision with objective reality; where wanting collides with what’s technically possible, what we can do right now.

Who’s in charge here? Nobody, not even Hymie.

… The question is why you are trying to deflect attention from the little man behind the curtain onto some neo-marxist universal-law-that-aint. …

I’m not really denying anything, or trying to deflect attention from anything. I can grant the whole of your case against the Jews, with the proviso that I would insist that the Jew is not the SOLE cause of all change, all problems.

My view is that the Jew is the current face of the technological system, at least in the West. That makes the Jew like an agent of decomposition in a rotting corpse; or like a catalyst for a chemical reaction. He is the proximate cause of our racial trouble, but the ultimate cause — without which the Jew would not exist, and without which his power would instantly vanish — is the expansion of the global technological system.

in further reply to Arminius:

I note your lack of response to my response to your post says rather a lot.

However, I have asked you to answer a very clean, straightforward question, which says as much about your conception of the future of White Nationalism as Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic does about.

After you do so, I’ll explain why the Northwest Republic Analytical Model is better than, well, “White Zion’s” White Archipelagoes.

Again, here’s the question:

I wrote:

Just to make this interesting, Arminius, what do you think William Luther Pierce would do if he suddenly returned to the present day?

The Purpose Of Judaism is The Genocide of the White Race.

We Have A Duty To Our Racial Destiny.

We are not the last of a dying breed; we are the first, and best, of a brave new world.

Take Control Of The Destiny That Is Rightfully Yours.

Why?

“Though sometimes it can take a little coaxing, things of this sort always end up being welcomed by the people as “progress”, at least initially.”

Sandor on VNNF called ‘progress’ a meaningless concept. Jews do use that word a lot.

“Thom McQueen Says:”

Oy vey another sock puppet! How many is that now?

Troll McGreen is displaying reactionary tendencies, the clever approach would be for us to NEVER FORGET. That’s why there’s a page about the Museum of Jewish Crimes. We will require more than one of those, the sheer volume of jewish criminality against us alone demands it.

……………………………………

Tom McReen, you have a severe case of JewThink and are too dumb to realize it.

“Thom McQueen”… Ah, another REAL Irish name like “Tom McReen”!

in reply to Hoosier:

Hoosier!

Damn, it’s good to have you back!

you wrote:

Fuck this shit. This thread is like the schizophrenic ward of a loony bin.

in reply:
Isn’t that a perfect metaphor for self-identified “White Nationalism” between Pierce and Covington?

Yes.

you wrote:

Hey, NA, thanks for the book tip, Jack London’s “Star Rover.” So far, it’s a great read.

in reply:
Jack London was one of US, and you can see it in his writings about Nature – “White Fang” and the rest of his North-themed stories just show how, if you can read between the lines, he is telling us of our forgotten Heritage, and what MUST be done to restore it.

Thanks, and I’m glad you are enjoying “Star Rover.”

And people wonder where I got the phrase “Walk Among The Stars” from.

Thanks again!

The Purpose Of Judaism is The Genocide of the White Race.

We Have A Duty To Our Racial Destiny.

We are not the last of a dying breed; we are the first, and best, of a brave new world.

Take Control Of The Destiny That Is Rightfully Yours.

Hoosier, I’ll ask Santa to give you a sense of humor for Christmas.

Just to make this interesting, Arminius, what do you think William Luther Pierce would do if he suddenly returned to the present day?

He would be doing the same thing he did for the last 30 years of his life, putting out weekly radio shows.

In the above example, Japan, technology is used to preserve a race rather than destroy it. So the “inevitable” conclusion is that technology is entirely subject to political will and human choice.

Marketers would love it if they could force tech change on populations, but they can’t do that beyond a limited extent. If the tech doesn’t fit human need, people reject it. If it does, like cell phones, they leap to embrace it.

alex Says:

The expansion of the global technological system is relentless and totalitarian in effect, and aggressively takes a role in destroying cultures, nations, and races.

Which simply goes to underline that the operative power is choice manifested by the political leaders. In Japan, the rulers are Japanese, as far as I know, and they want their island to stay that way. In the US, the rulers are jews, and they want to open the borders to the world.

Japan isn’t a very good example for your argument. The fact that the Japanese are located on islands, and that the islands of Japan are already overpopulated has worked in their favor in that regard. Also, in their genetic capabilities, whites are quite different from Japanese, just as they are different from Jews. As a racist, you ought to understand that better than anybody. Don’t expect whites to be able to do what the Japanese did, especially in their current cultural context. The racial cohesion of the Japanese, and importantly, what seems to be an innate cultural conservatism, is much better than that of whites. Nevertheless, they are currently experiencing the twin plagues of feminism and a birthrate that has fallen below replacement level just as much as white societies — and again, this isn’t because of the all-powerful Jewish bogeyman, but because it is an inherent effect of having the technological capability to do so, in its interaction with their nature.

But there is another reason that the example of Japan is bad for you. The Japanese are so disposed to cultural conservatism that they once turned their back on the global technological system altogether and became a closed society during the Tokugawa Shogunate (1603 – 1868). They realized that the inevitable effect of such technology would be to destroy their way of life. During this time, firearms and other western technological innovations were banned. It was only opened up by military force in the nineteenth century, when Admiral Perry’s arrival triggered the Meiji Restoration. They were right about the consequences of being open to Western technology, of course. These technologies completely destroyed their old culture. Where are the samurais now? Where is bushido? Where is honor? In truth, they have abandoned those things and in many ways become only a bunch of little yellow Jews, chasing after shekels, just as most whites are nowadays ersatz Jews.

The Japanese example provides us with a case-in-point lesson that any revolution against the technological system must be global. If technological society isn’t destroyed on a global scale, then the parts that survive will simply retake the parts that were damaged, and the system will reconstitute itself. You can’t simply drop out of it. If you wish to preserve race and culture, it must be destroyed.

in reply to Adam/”Dietrich”:

I’ll deal with the part of your response to alex that directly addressed alex’s issues concerning Japan – asian culture in general, as a matter of fact.

you wrote:

But there is another reason that the example of Japan is bad for you. The Japanese are so disposed to cultural conservatism that they once turned their back on the global technological system altogether and became a closed society during the Tokugawa Shogunate (1603 – 1868). They realized that the inevitable effect of such technology would be to destroy their way of life. During this time, firearms and other western technological innovations were banned. It was only opened up by military force in the nineteenth century, when Admiral Perry’s arrival triggered the Meiji Restoration.

in reply:
Simply, flat-out, wrong on the facts.

The Tokugawa bakkafu kept Nagasaki open as a port for the foreigners to use, and controlled Western technology.

Far from banning guns, the Shoguns simply limited the right of possession to their retainers, their samurai, who went to great lengths to become proficient in the use of these new tools.

If memory serves, the Dutch did very well at Nagasaki.

Japan was always open to the West.

as for the Meiji Restoration, how do you suppose the Satsuma Rebellion was so successful, so quickly?

They played “Adopt and Adapt” with great skill, all the while making sure they had control in accordance with Oriental philosophy.

How long between the Satsuma Rebellion at the NAVAL defeat of a major Western power?

“Take the best, and leave the rest.”

you wrote:

They were right about the consequences of being open to Western technology, of course. These technologies completely destroyed their old culture. Where are the samurais now? Where is bushido? Where is honor? In truth, they have abandoned those things and in many ways become only a bunch of little yellow Jews, chasing after shekels, just as most whites are nowadays ersatz Jews.

in reply:
The samurais remain, acting in a different regime.

Bushido remains, but is well kept from the eyes of those are “not worthy.”

As for the absence of “honor,” you must be kidding.

This is a culture where schoolkids commit suicide (decapitation by railroad wheels at high speed, quite often) for the shame they have brought on their Family’s honor by not doing well enough on intensely competitive examinations.

As for the issue of Race, Hell, they make William Pierce look like Jesse Jackson.

The Purpose Of Judaism is The Genocide of the White Race.

We Have A Duty To Our Racial Destiny.

We are not the last of a dying breed; we are the first, and best, of a brave new world.

Take Control Of The Destiny That Is Rightfully Yours.

Tim McGreen said: “We should have left the Japs alone. Dragging them into the modern world caused them to become an industrial power that soon went to war against Russia and then us. Ditto with the Chinks. Yet more examples of the White Race’s insatiable need to meddle in the affairs of other peoples.”
………………………………………

Well stated. While on the subject, it’s worthing noting here that Commodore Perry was the son-in-law of August Belmont (born Schoenberg), a Frankfurt Jew who was the American agent (and relative) of the Frankfurt Rothschilds. Coincidence?

Shortly after the opening of Japan (1854), Belmont/Schoenburg became actively involved American politics and in financing the Civil War (while other Jews [the Erlangers] were financing the other side), with the end result of 620,000 dead American soldiers (on both sides) and uncounted civilian casualties.

Perry’s wife was Julia Slidell. The Slidells, a wealthy and politically powerful family of New York and New Orleans, had married into the Erlanger [Jewish] banking family of Frankfurt and Paris. The Erlangers, in Europe, were financing the Confederacy. They later owned most of the railways built throughout the AMerican South. Baron d’Erlanger’s first wife’s grandfather was Governor of the Bank of France, as well as French Finance Minister. [Jews have ALWAYS controlled government finances.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Slidell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Emile_d%27Erlanger

Pennsylvania’s Sen. William Bingham (owner of the land on which Binghamton was built) one of the richest men in America at the time, was a founder of the Bank of North America, the USA’s first central bank.

In 1785 it lost its central bank status in Pennsylvania due to objections of “alarming foreign influence and fictitious credit”, favoritism to foreigners, and unfair competition against less corrupt state banks issuing their own bills of credit, such that Pennsylvania’s legislature repealed its state charter on 13 September 1785. After a change of party in the legislature in 1786, the Bank of North America was re-chartered within the Commonwealth in 1787. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_America

“In 1813, Pres. John Quincy Adams said that the Presidency, the Capital, and the Country had been governed by Bingham and his family connections.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bingham

Bingham’s two daughters (both renowned American beauties) married Henry and Alexander Baring, of the Baring bank of London. The Barings were the British monarch’s personal bankers (whose failure caused a sensation just several years ago). One of Bingham’s daughters had been courted (in Philadelphia) by the exiled French pretender who later became King Louis-Philippe of France. Thus, she could have been Queen of France, but she rejected him and chose to marry the banker instead.

The Baring Bank had been founded in London in 1762 by an immigrant from Bremen, Germany. (They were ALL “German” bankers!) In 1802, it helped finance the Louisiana Purchase, despite the fact that Britain was at war with France, and the sale had the effect of financing Napoleon’s war effort. (!) Wm. Bingham died in Bath, England, in 1804 and is buried there with a large memorial. In the 1820s, the bank of Bering was overtaken by the bank of Nathan M. Rothschild.

All of the above, the Binghams and the Slidells, married Jews with titles and becamed titled members of the European aristocracy.