A letter about Larry

Posted by the Narrator... on January 13, 2009, 05:17 PM | #

Sorry, I can’t provide it.  I searched google but still can’t find it.
Posted by Bruce Graeme on January 13, 2009, 02:39 PM

Thank you!

For what it’s worth, admitting that certainly brightens your star to me.

And what about Danny Thomas, born Amos Alphonsus Muzyad Yaqoob? He was the son of two Lebanese immigrants!!
Posted by Bruce Graeme on January 13, 2009, 02:39 PM

Well Lebanon isn’t in Europe.

So, no.

Look, what you are getting at is whether or not this group or that group was/is/will be seen as White by some people.

As far as I know there was never a time in American history when various European groups were singled out as being seen collectively non-White, officially or unofficially by the general populace.
Different? Yes.
Foreign? Yes.

But that was true even for long established British peoples here as well. In David McCullough’s book ‘John Adams’ you get a sense of that. Adams wife, Abagail, referred to Pennsylvania as, “that far away country”, in one of her letters.
She was in Massachusetts at the time!

But with the rest,

For one thing a lot of Italians, Greeks, Irish, Germans etc...Anglicized their names upon arrival to the US and were physically indistinguishable from British Americans. And with a multitude of wildly varying accents among those British-descended citizens and local customs, it wasn’t that difficult to blend in to the general “American” identity.

Of course when they came in large numbers they stuck out like a sore thumb.
That happened another time in the 20th century.

Not with Italians.
Not with Greeks.
Not with Germans.

But when Appalachian-Americans moved in large numbers to the upper midwest in search of jobs.
They stuck out like a sore thumb and, to a degree, formed their own neighborhoods and such.

These were people who were tall, light haired, blue eyed, multi-generational rural Americans of mostly English and Scotch-Irish extraction moving to an area where the people were tall, light haired, blued eyed multi-generational rural Americans of mostly German, English and Scotch-Irish extraction.
Yet the two groups were distinct from one another, and I’ve come across a few people from Chicago or other mid-western places who will tell me that their great-grandpa (or whatever) was from Appalachia.
They speak of it as though their great grandpa had been an immigrant right off the boat.
And in may ways, they were.

In many rural places in the 19th century, if someone was from a different part of the state they were literally referred to as “foreigners”.

So how various groups of Europeans were seen or treated at various times doesn’t really reflect how they were viewed racially by other Whites.
It’s a completely different context which usually has various non-related components to it.

3/ May I ask you opinion about the racial approach advocating complete racial separation? Each race would have its own sovereign government and territory. The nation of Northern European peoples could separate itself totally from the non-Northern European peoples now in its midst. (cf. Richard McCulloch, The Ideal and Destiny, chapter X - Partition for Survival)
-Posted by Bruce Graeme on January 13, 2009, 02:39 PM

At this point I think it’s an unnecessary question.
But since you asked, I think in Europe each nation should attempt to sustain its own identity and ethnic people.
England for the English. Scotland for the Scots. France for the French. Italy for the Italians and so on.

In North America...the short answer. There are still areas of distinct sub-groups. English in New England, Germans in the midwest, Scandinavians in the upper-midwest, Cajuns in New Orleans, Scotch-Irish in Appalachia, Italians in New York and so on.

But at this point, Whites (all Whites) are on the verge of a catastrophe of epic proportions.
Right now Gondor and Rohan have to band together just to survive the coming Dark Age.

If we survive that, our descendants can arrange whatever type of institutions they see best to serve their purposes in building the best future for themselves possible.

.
.
.
Now,
having said all that.
And back to your original assertion.
You could have phrased it inversely and pondered whether or not jews were, historically, seen as White by White Americans.

And on that my response would have been similar. I don’t know of an official policy one way or the other.
Some may have...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Benjamin

But it’s all academic any way.
It is how we define ourselves today, having a better historical vantage point and genetic research at our disposal, that gives us the ability to better discern the various races and our (by degrees) dis-relation to them.

Obviously many Whites today would view Harrison Ford as White. Yet, he isn’t. Being half jewish he is no more White than Barak Obama is.

What I busy myself with on this subject though, is not perception, but reality.
...

Posted by Prozium on January 13, 2009, 06:07 PM | #

Larry is now blaming the WASPs for the Immigration Act of 1965:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/01/13/blame-the-wasps/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 13, 2009, 06:22 PM | #

“We simply need to recognize that whiteness is an indispensable facet of what white people and Western society are and have been.”

Does that sentence in Auster’s essay “make up for” any of its “shortcomings”? 

(I’ll come right out and say:  I don’t quite understand his essay and I don’t fully understand Bruce Graeme’s questions about it or GW’s critique of it in replying to Graeme.  That failure to understand is my fault:  there are theories that Auster and GW have dealt with that I just haven’t understood.)

Posted by Loriver on January 13, 2009, 06:27 PM | #

Obviously many Whites today would view Harrison Ford as White. Yet, he isn’t. Being half jewish he is no more White than Barak Obama is.

This is not a good way of thinking about things, in my opinion.

Jews may not fall within European genetically, but it may well be the case that a half-Northern-European-half-Jew is on average more closely related to a Briton than (for example) a Greek or Southern Italian is.

Posted by Ralph on January 13, 2009, 06:28 PM | #

You know, I thought I was going to stay away but reading these posts I have to respond, because some of these points are off-the-chart idiotic:

“In your opinion, Ralph, who exactly is running race-replacement?  You can’t fight an enemy you can’t see.  The first step is to know who’s doing it.  It’s not happening by itself.  Someone, some group, is consciously running it — planning it, planning the stifling of all criticism of it, and so forth.  Who?  Exactly who?.” Fred Scrooby

It’s a combination of long-time hatred of the goy by jews, combined with upper-class white hatred of the lower classes masquerading as self-hatred, combined with a certain puritan strain of Christianity which is gnostic and manichean in nature, a dollop of teen daddy-rebellion by the boomer generation, a post-war prosperity, at least in the U.S, which allowed all this deracination to take place. All helped along by the Frankfurt school and an unbridled mercantilism brought about by the poor character formation of entire generations. Do you not think that people can sense this, even if they can’t articulate it?

Ethnic aggression is a bitch, ain’t it Ralph. Desmond Jones

This is the worst, most childish attitude on this thread. Did you not read my post? Do you think this is just a game of Gotcha? You personify everything I hate about these kinds of discussions. Tens of millions of people affected deeply and you’re bringing up historical false-parallels and doing your little schadenfreude sack dance. Would you have been even happier if something had happened to my wife or daughter? You sound just like a lefty saying we have it coming (in America) because we killed the indians. You are not a serious person at all.

So you only began to see the problem when it began affecting you.  Hey, Ralph.  The US had a negro problem for a long time before 1992.  Where were you then, buddy?  Don’t tell me, I can guess: the US historically had a southern and eastern euro problem, too.  Ah… Silver

Don’t tell me about the ‘negro problem’, silver. My family had to move out of Brooklyn in the mid ‘70s because of the ‘negro problem’. I’d had run-ins with them ever since I was nine and was chased by a bunch of them looking to fuck up a white boy. Everybody had a story about being assaulted or other by them and my friends and I defended our neighborhood vigorously for that reason, until the media discovered the Howard Beach incident (ignoring all the black-on-white crime which touched it off), as a way to neuter white defense of their places.
THAT’S where I was, buddy!

“Don’t shun or run from the larger questions the times force us to confront, Ralph.” Silver

On the contrary, I actively seek serious discussion of the larger questions. Unfortunately it is sometimes carried on by people who have not been confronted with the nuts-and-bolts effects of those larger questions and so lapse into navel-gazing. Just like those college lefties on daddy’s money who smoke pot in their dormrooms and come up with outrageous notions they think actually will work. I don’t know anything about you so please understand that I am not a priori putting you in that category.

“BTW, Ralph, I’ve lived in the NYC metro area most of my life and have met lots of southern Italians and Sicilians who don’t consider themselves white.  Some NY/NJ Italians have largely created their own ethnic world apart from mainstream white America.  Others are very assimilated.  The Italians who settled away from big east coast cities are all very assimilated at this point.” Joe

This is nonsense and not my experience. I never remember anybody Italian I knew or know that went around saying they were not white. That we don’t consider ourselves WASPS, maybe. But nobody went around making a big deal of it and in day-to-day life we lived alongside other ethnic groups and kept up the neighborhood in the same way. Perhaps you are speaking of a trend among younger italians brainwashed by marxists or finding a way to score non-white pussy. This is a trend I do not like, but it was not always so. BTW, the Irish and the Poles did the same thing. And BTW, lots of young people of good English or otherwise northern European stock go around denying their own whiteness. I do believe they are in fact the worst offenders in this regard. Never saw Italians do anything remotely close to that.

But ultimately nobody cared, and I’ll tell you why. By the time I came of age the European Italian, the European Irish, the European Pole and so on had long since passed their assimilation stage. The U.S. is a product of Anglo-Saxon culture, unique but also stemming from the common roots of Christendom, Athens and Rome which helped form its profoundly new take on solving the problems of a sustainable society. And yes, genetics is very much a part of it. Sure, we had our salami stores and the Germans had their Oktoberfest but we all became increasingly anglicized, because our cultures and our races were never very far apart to begin with. So we had no problem moving into a formerly Anglo neighborhood and keeping up our houses and the streets clean and going to the same schools (if you bring up organized crime, well, that’s a constant in any culture). But sooner or later we all acted white. I do not try to minimize problems but please also do not exaggerate them.

If you want to talk assimilation I’ll give you an example from my own family. My father and uncle are WWII veterans. My grandfather, who came from Italy, made damned sure the both of them signed up, knowing full well that not only could they possibly be killed but that they might actually wind up killing some of his own family, on the other side. His attitude was not unique among the immigrants. Assimilated enough for you?

Bottom line for me is that I am not interested in anything that does not contribute to the resoration of white countries as white countries. Discussions that veer off into towel-snapping are useless. High-flown conferences that purport to SAVE WESTERN CIVILIZATION (as defined by jews) are useless (I haven’t seen the whole speaker list, but one exception is Brenda Walker. She really does report comprehensively on the nuts-and-bolts issues and I have had a pleasant exchange of emails with her about one of her articles. That is what I’m talking about. She has her eye on the ball).

For the record I believe that England should be for the English, Germany for the Germans, Italy for the Italians and, because of our long-established patterns of assimilation the U.S.A. for mainly Anglos but for all white people in general. Israel for the Jews, since beside genetics they are avowedly hostile to the rest of us.

Now I’m done.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 13, 2009, 07:57 PM | #

“It’s a combination of long-time hatred of the goy by jews, combined with upper-class white hatred of the lower classes masquerading as self-hatred, combined with a certain puritan strain of Christianity which is gnostic and manichean in nature, a dollop of teen daddy-rebellion by the boomer generation, a post-war prosperity, at least in the U.S, which allowed all this deracination to take place. All helped along by the Frankfurt school and an unbridled mercantilism brought about by the poor character formation of entire generations. Do you not think that people can sense this, even if they can’t articulate it?” (—Ralph)

You’re articulating it quite well, Ralph.  Thanks for your reply:  you did better at summarizing it than I could have.  You have a head on your shoulders, comrade.  With men like you entering the lists on our side we will only grow stronger and stronger.  Things are not going to keep going exclusively the other side’s way.  That’s all I can say.  Exactly what form things will take when they finally break our way, I don’t know; no one knows, obviously.  But break they finally will.  The other side’s days of getting everything they want, unopposed, are numbered.

By the way — the guy who told you you had “come to the wrong blog”?  He was mistaken.  This blog is right for you, Ralph. 

And you’re right for it.

Posted by Ralph on January 13, 2009, 08:38 PM | #

Fred,

Thank you for the gracious words. I thought I needed to break my promise to stay away to acknowlege that. But the guy is right. I think that conversations such as these must take place. I just don’t have the patience for them anymore. I do appreciate the thoughtfulness and seriousness of some of you here.
Take care.

BTW, I forgot to mention a major factor missing from the above quote: Feminism

Posted by Armor on January 13, 2009, 09:13 PM | #

I think that conversations such as these must take place. I just don’t have the patience for them anymore.

If you have interesting things to say but don’t want it to be buried in an absurd discussion, maybe you can send it by e-mail to Guessedworker, and I hope it will be posted as a log entry.
I think Guessedworker is mainly interested in theory and philosophical justifications. Personally, I would also like to read about practical ideas and common sense strategies to change things.

Posted by Armor on January 13, 2009, 09:16 PM | #

“it will be posted as a log entry. ”

as a MAIN log entry.

Posted by Joe on January 13, 2009, 09:27 PM | #

“This is nonsense and not my experience. I never remember anybody Italian I knew or know that went around saying they were not white. That we don’t consider ourselves WASPS, maybe. But nobody went around making a big deal of it and in day-to-day life we lived alongside other ethnic groups and kept up the neighborhood in the same way. Perhaps you are speaking of a trend among younger italians brainwashed by marxists or finding a way to score non-white pussy. This is a trend I do not like, but it was not always so. BTW, the Irish and the Poles did the same thing. And BTW, lots of young people of good English or otherwise northern European stock go around denying their own whiteness. I do believe they are in fact the worst offenders in this regard. Never saw Italians do anything remotely close to that.”

Well I’ve heard a good number of people say that.  They say things like “I’m not white, I’m olive.” The people I’ve heard say this are mostly very dark Sicilians who look like the actor Vincent Pastore.  I’m not saying that they aren’t white, only that they don’t consider themselves such(at least in some contexts). 

A lot of Hispanics do the same thing.  They consider themselves “white” relative to blacks.  Like my Puerto Rican friend who expressed concern about being “a white guy” traveling through a black neighborhood.  But the same person will feel very un-white around a whole bunch of WASPs. 

I have heard Irish people say they are not white too, but they can’t point to any physical feature to support that.  Western Irish people are probably the “whitest” people in the world in that they share less recent common ancestry with people from outside of Europe than any other ethnic group.  Ethnic Germanic people in Central Europe and Scandinavia have relatively high amounts of Near Eastern ancestry by comparison. 

I also don’t think races have firm, clear boundaries.  The white race blends into the people of the near east along two paths(from Greece to the Levant and from the Caucuses into the fertile crescent).  There is also no clear separation between Caucasoids and Mongoloids as one moves across northern Eurasia.  You have a series of ethnic groups in Russia that progressively become more phenotypically Mongoloid the further East one travels.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 13, 2009, 09:58 PM | #

Armor: If you have interesting things to say but don’t want it to be buried in an absurd discussion, maybe you can send it by e-mail ...

Of course.  The contact button is under the header.

I would also note that your thoughts too, Armor, would be welcome - especially on the situation in France, which many of us would like to keep abreast of better than we do.

Posted by gnipgnop on January 14, 2009, 12:06 AM | #

Harrison Ford is no more White than Obama is....ROTFLMAO. Statements like that make White Nationalists seem even more of a laughing stock than they already are to most people.

As for whether Italians are White, of course they are. (They are Caucasoid people from Europe; while they have darker pigmentation than the European average, they have lighter pigmentation than the average for humanity in general.)
Were Italians always regarded as White in the US? In the legal sense, yes (so were Jews and Lebanese Christians BTW).* In the popular sense, not always. (In comparison to Blacks; they were White; in comparison to WASPs, Germans and Irish, they weren’t all so White.)

Take this American of Sicilian descent (I have relatives who are probably more “olive” than Ralph’s family.) I went to high school with a lot of Blacks; there were times when I felt like the only White guy in the room (not a pleasant experience BTW). Other times, when I have been around a lot of WASP or Scandinavian types, I felt a little more “ethnic.”

I don’t know why you guys are fighting so hard over who gets into your “white” club when white people’s share of the population is shrinking as fast as it is.

*Prior to the alliance between Hitler and Mussolini, most of those (in America at least) who accepted Italians but rejected Jews did so on religious rather than “racial” grounds, contrary to what “the Narrator” says. Most “white nationalists” in America up to that time rejected both groups on both religious and racial grounds (the Klan was anti-Catholic as well as anti-Semitic and preferred Anglo-Celtic people over everyone else.)

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 14, 2009, 03:11 AM | #

The U.S. is a product of Anglo-Saxon culture, unique but also stemming from the common roots of Christendom, Athens and Rome which helped form its profoundly new take on solving the problems of a sustainable society.

Ralph is so self-deluded that he can’t see he’s a poster boy for Auster and the “White” multicult. For him there is no foundational American. It can’t be that the US is a unique product of an “American” culture founded upon an “American” ethny. No, no because that would be non-inclusive. God forbid that the “American” desire to exclude the “European” (is there any other kind?) Irish, Italian or Jew. No, no, these were “former” Anglo (isn’t that an ethnic slur on diverse Whites) neighbourhoods (ghost towns no doubt) that suffered the brunt of the same ethnic aggression Ralph is bitching about today. No historical parallels there. If there’s crime in every group then why is Ralph kvetching? The Mexicans now invading his neighborhood have roots in Christendom. In a generation they too will be assimilated. The last generation of ethnic aggressors are getting their ass kick and they don’t like it. Suck it up and be a man. If you can’t beat it then flee it, Mr. Appeal to the anecdotal and emotional. Go home Ralph. Italy is still overwhelmingly Italian. No more identity crisis. You’ll be with your own people able to dream about the glory days of ancient Rome (at least for now).

P.S. - Did your Dad and Uncle ever kill any of their “own” people. Too funny.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 14, 2009, 03:29 AM | #

The Narrator,

Re: the issue of ethnic versus religious aggression -

The Philadelphia Nativist Riots

(also known as the Philadelphia Prayer Riots, the Bible Riots and the Native American Riots) were a series of riots that took place between May 6 and 8 and July 6 and 7, 1844 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States and the adjacent districts of Kensington and Southwark. The riots were a result of rising anti-Catholic sentiment at the growing population of Irish Catholic immigrants. [...]

On May 7, the nativist groups denounced the Catholics and called on Americans to defend themselves from “the bloody hand of the Pope."[8] A mob marched to Kensington, where gunfire broke out between the nativists and Catholic residents. During the riot, the nativist mob set fire to and destroyed the Hibernia fire station, thirty homes and the market where the violence started the day before. The violence did not end until the local militia, commanded by General George Cadwalader, arrived and dispersed the crowd. Bishop Francis Kenrick quickly issued a statement that instructed all Catholics to avoid violence and confrontations.[7]

After a brief lull, the violence continued on May 8. The nativists came back to Kensington and burned down St. Michael’s Catholic Church and rectory at Second and Jefferson Streets, the Seminary of the Sisters of Charity, which had been attacked a few days before, and several homes before soldiers arrived and the fire was contained. While the riot was being contained in Kensington, another nativist mob had gathered within the borders of Philadelphia itself. They gathered at St. Augustine’s Catholic Church, located on Fourth Street between Vine and New Streets. The city troop was stationed by the church, and Mayor John Morin Scott pleaded for calm. The rioters threw stones at the mayor, ignored the troops and burned down church, cheering when the steeple fell. A nearby school with a collection of rare books was burned as well.[8][9] Throughout the riot, only Irish Catholics were targeted; German Catholics were unharmed, even though rioters had been near a German Catholic church.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 14, 2009, 03:39 AM | #

Re: The white issue, it matters not. Group X can be as white as the fresh fallen snow. Knock yourself out. It means nothing. It’s a false construct used to further an ethnic/class interest.

Posted by the Narrator... on January 14, 2009, 07:10 AM | #

Harrison Ford is no more White than Obama is....ROTFLMAO. Statements like that make White Nationalists seem even more of a laughing stock than they already are to most people.
Posted by gnipgnop on January 14, 2009, 12:06 AM

No it’s when we depend on complexion alone that we drop our credibility.

There are many millions of people around the world with light complexions, who are not White. (and I would think by now that when racialists say White most readers would understand that to mean, Europeans)

There are millions of Chinese people with White skin, gnpgnop. But they aren’t White. They aren’t European.

The same goes for Turks, Jews, Arabs, Berbers etc… A lot of them have light complexions, but they are none the less, not White.

The Narrator,

Re: the issue of ethnic versus religious aggression -

The Philadelphia Nativist Riots
Posted by Desmond Jones on January 14, 2009, 03:29 AM

As I pointed out above, large groups of outsiders, no matter how alike to you they may be, will always spark troubles.

As for the not attacking German Catholics (which wiki sources to a passage from a book written in 1973), I would point out the following

Notice which state Philly is in?
Germans, even a few Catholic ones, were piling into Pennsylvania as early as the 17th century. It’s probably the most German of any state in the union.

...

Posted by gnipgnop on January 14, 2009, 08:06 AM | #

No it’s when we depend on complexion alone that we drop our credibility.

There are many millions of people around the world with light complexions, who are not White. (and I would think by now that when racialists say White most readers would understand that to mean, Europeans)

There are millions of Chinese people with White skin, gnpgnop. But they aren’t White. They aren’t European.

The same goes for Turks, Jews, Arabs, Berbers etc… A lot of them have light complexions, but they are none the less, not White.

OK then buddy. If that’s true, why don’t you just say “European” or “European Gentile” instead of “White”?
BTW, your analogies don’t make much sense. Ashkenazi Jews, unlike Chinese, often look like Europeans and many have significant European blood.  As for your absurd analogy between Harrison Ford and Obama, you (and many others) may not consider Ashkenazi Jews White, but everyone considers them more White than Kenyans.

Posted by upon46 on January 14, 2009, 08:49 AM | #

‘Bruce Graeme’ is obviously the same poster as ‘G de B.’ (Note the quality of his non-native English.)

Posted by the Narrator... on January 14, 2009, 09:16 AM | #

There are millions of Chinese people with White skin, gnpgnop. But they aren’t White. They aren’t European.

The same goes for Turks, Jews, Arabs, Berbers etc… A lot of them have light complexions, but they are none the less, not White.
-the Narrator…

OK then buddy. If that’s true, why don’t you just say “European” or “European Gentile” instead of “White”?
Posted by gnipgnop on January 14, 2009, 08:06 AM

White. European. Same, same.
The word synonymous comes to mind.

And there is no other kind of European than Gentile Europeans.

Never-the-less, I explained the meaning of White in this very thread for the sake of the ill informed and slow witted…

BTW, your analogies don’t make much sense. Ashkenazi Jews, unlike Chinese, often look like Europeans and many have significant European blood
Posted by gnipgnop on January 14, 2009, 08:06 AM

Genetic studies are inconclusive on the amount of European DNA in jews. So your assertion is just that, your assertion.

But half-White, or Quarter White still = not-White.

Again, it’s not perception but reality that counts.

Your comment about jews being able to pass as Whites better than Asians (in the eyes of many) will run up against Keanu Reeves types who are half Chinese (or other Asian mixes).
Keanu, as well, is not White.

As for your absurd analogy between Harrison Ford and Obama, you (and many others) may not consider Ashkenazi Jews White, but everyone considers them more White than Kenyans.
Posted by gnipgnop on January 14, 2009, 08:06 AM

Yes, yes. And bumblebees resemble birds more than ants, but that doesn’t mean that they can or should be reclassified as birds, now does it....

Sure, a lot of people view Harrison Ford as White. But many of those same people believe Spain is somewhere in South America.

What I’m arguing for is the way things truly are, as opposed to the way they are mistakenly perceived as being.

And I would add, once again, jews do not view themselves as White.
Larry Auster’s comments at his site, in answer to this thread, demonstrate this as much as anything…

.

Posted by Vince on January 14, 2009, 12:39 PM | #

Ethnic aggression is a bitch, ain’t it Ralph. (Desmond Jones )

Ethnicity explains a lot.

All Slavs are related and all Slavs are European, more precisely: Slavic people are alpines - a European (white) sub-race.

However, consider the now-defunct country of Czechoslovakia. What’s the difference between Czech and Slovak? They are both - from a racial point of view - Western Slavs. The question then is how to explain the inner conflicts between Czechs and Slovaks?  A still better example is the implosion of Yugoslavia in 1992 which led to armed conflicts in Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia/Kosovo and Macedonia.

And, considering the fact that Palestinian Arabs and Jews are both Semites(!), how to explain the “Palestinian” demographic threat [the ever increasing Israeli-Arab population] that Israel - if Israel is to remain a Jewish State - is facing? Why don’t they both, Palestinian Arabs and Jews, consider themselves - first of all - as members from the same - SEMITE - race?

Because there is another, more important category, than race. A sense of unity is not merely based on territory. More important than race is a consciousness of kind (by a long and continuous tradition, and by a faith which is nationalistic as well as religious).  How else to explain the conflicts between the Han and the Vietnamese lasting thousands of years!?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 14, 2009, 12:59 PM | #

“Upon46” is correct.  The individual posting as Bruce Graeme (previously G de B) is a race-replacement advocate very similar in sliminess to The Monitor and Rocket.  Such people should always post with the same name to warn others to stay away, as lepers were once required to do (or was it syphilitics?  consumptives?  people infected with the Black Death?  with small pox?  I forget which, it was one of those).

Posted by Prozium on January 14, 2009, 06:06 PM | #

Re: The white issue, it matters not. Group X can be as white as the fresh fallen snow. Knock yourself out. It means nothing. It’s a false construct used to further an ethnic/class interest.

From 1790 until 1952, “whiteness” was the racial eligibility criterion of U.S. naturalization law, not “Anglo-Saxon.” The fifty-two racial prerequisite cases heard in federal courts all addressed the question of whether the petitioner was “white.”

Posted by Armor on January 14, 2009, 10:18 PM | #

Prozium on January 10 :

Larry does have a Jewish agenda.

1.) In the case of Israel, the apple of his eye, Larry is a vocal supporter of the “transfer” of the Palestinians. He claims the very survival of Israel depends upon ethnic cleansing.

2.) In the case of America, Larry changes his tune. If I recall correctly, he doesn’t even approve of segregation. Some traditionalist! Transfer is fine when it is “good for the Jews” in Israel, but “immoral” in the United States, as that would set a dangerous precedent for his co-ethnics.

3.) Is Larry a righteous Jew? He fails a very simple test. In a world of “good Jews” and “bad Jews,” which is the one Larry himself imagines, Larry doesn’t approve of “transfering” the “bad Jews” who are tearing down Western civilization to Israel. Ethnic loyalty precedes all of his ostensible ideological commitments.

Transfering Jewish troublemakers to Israel sounds great in principle but is not likely to happen soon. However, I hope Auster would approve the idea of quotas for Jews in government, the media, financial institutions, universities, Hollywood… Their overrepresentation in those institutions is harmful to us because they tend to indulge in anti-white activism, and it is a clear sign that they engage in nepotism against our interests. For some reason, white people are shy about cutting the Jewish overrepresentation down to size, but they will become more confident doing so if Auster, as a Jew, gives them some encouragement.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 14, 2009, 10:54 PM | #

From 1790 until 1952, “whiteness” was the racial eligibility criterion of U.S. naturalization law, not “Anglo-Saxon.”

Obviously a huge mistake if there was constant legal squabbling to determine who was “white”. The 1915 Supreme Court decision regarding Syrians, Armenians and Parsees being just one of them. The historical record, again, shows that the term “white” is measured upon an ever shifting scale of no value.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 14, 2009, 11:15 PM | #

And the shifting of the concept of “whiteness”, in this case, was driven in large part by organised Jewry who feared their exclusion from naturalization on a racial basis.

Posted by Prozium on January 14, 2009, 11:25 PM | #

Obviously a huge mistake if there was constant legal squabbling to determine who was “white”.

“Anglo-Saxon” is an even more nebulous term.

The 1915 Supreme Court decision regarding Syrians, Armenians and Parsees being just one of them. The historical record, again, shows that the term “white” is measured upon an ever shifting scale of no value.

American naturalization law has traditionally been race based. If similar distinctions were made in Canada (ethnic or racial), I am unaware of them. I know that Canada was a popular destination for our fugitive slaves who were granted Canadian citizenship. The negroes who fought for the British in the American Revolution and the War of 1812 were settled in Nova Scotia.

Here is an excerpt from the “Canada” entry in the Jim Crow Encyclopedia:

Canada did not have the same rigid Jim Crow system as the South of the United States. By law, black citizens in Canada had full legal rights; they could vote for and serve in public office, own land and engage in contracts, testify in court, and serve on juries. A number of black officeholders, both elected and appointed, served in western Canada.

Posted by Prozium on January 14, 2009, 11:28 PM | #

To my knowledge, Jews were never excluded from Canada.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 15, 2009, 12:06 AM | #

“Anglo-Saxon” is an even more nebulous term.

Not nearly as nebulous or far-ranging as the term “white”, based upon the USSC decisions.

Canada did not have the same rigid Jim Crow system as the South of the United States.

Correct. However, individuals were legally free to include or exclude blacks from their places of business/homes etc. The KKK also brought significant pressure in physical intervening to deny interracial marriage.

Jews were never excluded from Canada.

The immigration policy prior to WWII was based upon country of origin. British Jews were allowed, Polish Jews were not because immigration from eastern Europe was considered undesirable.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 15, 2009, 12:36 AM | #

At Desmond Jones’s link of 11:15 PM the Jews in the early part of the last century are shocked that they might be considered to be Asians, and are struggling against any such classification being applied to them.  But Semites, including Jews, are Asians.  They come from Asia, they evolved in Asia, they have always lives in Asia.  They’re Asiatics with, in many ways, a distinctive Asiatic mentality.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 15, 2009, 12:42 AM | #

Moreover, the fact that the Jews want to genocide white people certainly doesn’t bolster the argument that they see themselves as white:  you generally don’t want to utterly annihilate your own racial grouping, wipe it off the face of the earth, out of pure seething racial hate.  That’s not generally the way things work.  Jews are Asiatics.  So, what are they complaining about in those book pages Desmond linked?  Have they ever behaved as if they didn’t hate Euros?

No.

Let Euros therefore now classify them accordingly.

Posted by Prozium on January 15, 2009, 03:04 AM | #

Not nearly as nebulous or far-ranging as the term “white”, based upon the USSC decisions.

“Anglo-Saxon” is more nebulous because it is a cultural term. The indigenous Britons aren’t “Anglo-Saxons.” Neither are the Welsh, Scots, Irish or the descendant of the Normans, Vikings, and Romans. Yet all live in the British Isles and have intermarried.

Correct. However, individuals were legally free to include or exclude blacks from their places of business/homes etc. The KKK also brought significant pressure in physical intervening to deny interracial marriage.

Negroes enjoyed full Canadian citizenship from a very early date.

Posted by gnipgnop on January 15, 2009, 04:20 AM | #

Narrator, you have proved my point about most “White Nationalists"- namely, their incoherence and inability to come up with an argument that can convince people who aren’t already part of the “movement.”
I just think if you were a little bit smarter (like Kevin McDonald) you could come up with a more coherent and convincing anti-Jewish argument. Or you could just point out the drawbacks of an overly close relationship with Israel, or what background a lot of these Wall Street scam artists came from, and leave the Harrison Ford-Barack Obama analogies etc.  at home.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 15, 2009, 06:24 AM | #

“Anglo-Saxon” is more nebulous because it is a cultural term.

The genetic/cultural distance of all the groups you list is not nearly as great as that between Europeans and Non European Caucasians let alone the founding American population and Parsees. Number of immigrants needed to reduce ethnic interest by one child 8.5 between NEC and EC. Between the Germans and the English 57.2.

Negroes enjoyed full Canadian citizenship from a very early date.

Canadian citizenship didn’t exist until 1947.

Posted by the Narrator... on January 15, 2009, 08:53 AM | #

From 1790 until 1952, “whiteness” was the racial eligibility criterion of U.S. naturalization law, not “Anglo-Saxon.”

Obviously a huge mistake if there was constant legal squabbling to determine who was “white”. The 1915 Supreme Court decision regarding Syrians, Armenians and Parsees being just one of them. The historical record, again, shows that the term “white” is measured upon an ever shifting scale of no value.
Posted by Desmond Jones on January 14, 2009, 10:54 PM

Linking to a book called ‘The Racial State’ by David Goldberg is, ironic, at best....

The majority of Americans are against Amnesty for illegals, but that is hardly reflected in the actions of our government, media of courts of law.

The ability on the part of a group to bring a case to court and challenge the status-quo (in court) is hardly evidence of shifting definitions on the part of a populace.

There are accredited nuts out there right now declaring that the term “gender” is measured upon an ever shifting scale of no value.
.
.
.

And, Anglo-Saxon means English. No one else…

Narrator, you have proved my point about most “White Nationalists"- namely, their incoherence and inability to come up with an argument that can convince people who aren’t already part of the “movement.”
Posted by gnipgnop on January 15, 2009, 04:20 AM

If your going to fold on an argument just be man enough to say, “fold” like Bruce did.

I just think if you were a little bit smarter (like Kevin McDonald) you could come up with a more coherent and convincing anti-Jewish argument.
Posted by gnipgnop on January 15, 2009, 04:20 AM

I’m not “anti-jewish” and am not attempting to make an “anti-jewish” argument.

I’m pro-White and defending my people.

just point out the drawbacks of an overly close relationship with Israel, or what background a lot of these Wall Street scam artists came from, and leave the Harrison Ford-Barack Obama analogies etc.  at home.
Posted by gnipgnop on January 15, 2009, 04:20 AM

That really seems to have bothered you!
I wonder why?!?!?

Certain concepts may be difficult for some to understand (not mentioning any names), but the truth is always worth pursuing.
It would, for example, be a lot easier to say “the Great Sky Spirit” above created the world and all that’s in it and leave it at that. Most people would not have a problem comprehending the world in those terms.

But it’s just not true!

Attributing our existence to Evolution will confuse some and leave others behind. 
So be it!
That’s the price paid for the pursuit of truth.

It’s not enough to appeal towards a, “it’s them vs. us” theme when discussing matters of race with Whites.

We must clearly explain who we are and who they are. What makes us different. Why these difference exist and how those differences will manifest.

I wouldn’t hesitate to guesstimate that one-third of White Americans already hold White National sentiments.
These discussions on the internet are just a small, public, manifestation of the movement.

What we are doing here is fine tuning the details in anticipation of a much larger public manifestation to come.
I think you know that.
I’m certain Auster knows it.

And like Auster, you would seem to council us to either admit jews into the White race or give up the definition of White altogether.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t heed your council…

Jews are not White.

They are not White historically, geographically or biologically.

It’s as simple as that!

...

Posted by Prozium on January 15, 2009, 05:04 PM | #

The genetic/cultural distance of all the groups you list is not nearly as great as that between Europeans and Non European Caucasians let alone the founding American population and Parsees. Number of immigrants needed to reduce ethnic interest by one child 8.5 between NEC and EC. Between the Germans and the English 57.2.

“Anglo-Saxon” equally suffers from your objections to “white.” It cannot be precisely defined. The boundries of the construct have “shifted” throughout history. “Anglo-Saxon” is also more of a cultural term whereas “white” refers to a specific phenotype.

Canadian citizenship didn’t exist until 1947.

Well, British citizenship.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 15, 2009, 06:47 PM | #

“white” refers to a specific phenotype.

Like this.

Well, British citizenship.

Nope. Try again.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 15, 2009, 07:02 PM | #

“Like this.”

Nope.  Try again.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 15, 2009, 07:04 PM | #

An albino Negro doesn’t present the white phenotype, any more than an albino black bear presents the polar bear phenotype.  Which Desmond knows, so he’s having a little fun there I assume.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 15, 2009, 08:46 PM | #

The Persians are it then. Knock yourself out. Someone should tell VA though. She\’s under a different impression.

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2009/01/pride-guilt-and-survival.html

Posted by Rammstein on January 15, 2009, 11:10 PM | #

Ralph ~ Is that you, Dimitri? If so, what are you doing hanging around a scumbag like Auster? You should know better.

Posted by Bruce Graeme on January 22, 2009, 05:14 PM | #

@ Narrator… on January 13, 2009, 05:17 PM | #

I wrote on January 13, 2009, 05:17 PM:  “Sorry, I can’t provide it.  I searched google but still can’t find it.” [Posted by Bruce Graeme on January 13, 2009, 02:39 PM]

I have found it now, at last, and I am looking forward for your response, with great interest

The primary aim of all this legislation [the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924] had been to preserve the racial profile of the United States as it had been defined and defended by the Founding Fathers[18] and had become “fixed” in the late nineteenth century. It was much too late for laws that would permit a privileged caste off fair-haired Nordics to lord it over a bottom layer of black slaves and white serfs. But it was not too late for Congress to prevent the Northern European racial nucleus from being physically and culturally submerged by continuing mass migrations of Southern and Eastern Europeans.

18. Washington was opposed to unrestricted immigration because he wanted to protect the “American character.” Jefferson feared that, since the bulk of European immigration would eventually have to come from Central, Southern and Eastern Europe, the newcomers would import with them the ideas and principles of absolute government under which they and their ancestors had lived for so many centuries.

http://www.officialprussianblue.net/showthread.php?t=6429