|
|
|
An exercise in critique An MR reader - I guess we can call him G de B - has mailed me with a collection of counter-arguments to, for the most part, a genetically-focussed Nordic racialism. He requests a response with an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of these various arguments. So I reproduce the mail in full here, duly formatted. You will see that the sources are broad to say the least, ranging from Yockey to Kritarchy! Much of it, though, just represents differing positions among nationalists. G de B implies that these are intellectual problems for Nordicism in particular and white preservationism in general which he has not resolved to his own satisfaction. I trust we will not experience too much difficulty in setting that right. Dear Sir, I would like to draw your attention to the following observation from Tatu Vanhanen in: Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism:
Take for example Northern Ireland. It’s a place where sectarian violence is commonplace, where warring factions look alike, are of the same race, speak the same language, often have the same last names; think of Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. Or take Korea: North and South Koreans are of the same race. But economically, politically, and culturally, what a difference! Jews and Muslims are of the same race - they are both Semites!! Hundreds of examples can be given. The question is then: will such a state of affairs not hinder your ideal of a homogeneous monoracial existence, which is - according to you – necessary for a continued Northern life? Generally it is assumed that nationalism – in an ‘unnaturally’ way - divides races in general and Northern kind in particular. But according to Vanhanen it is not that ‘unnaturally’! If I am not mistaken, I belief that Rienzi also emphasizes the importance of nationality and he stresses the importance of ethnic racial preservation! According to him, ethnic groups (ethnies) as well as races, are real biological entities, related by common descent and genetic similarities. In Race is a Myth? The left distorts science for political purposes by Michael Rienzi I read that transplant donors and recipients often have to be matched not just for race but for close ethnicity within race, because inter-racial transplantations often fail. Arthur Kemp in March of the Titans, claims that “all civilizations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else. Indeed, “It has been suggested that if a group of Nordics were placed almost anywhere, in complete isolation, in a few generations they would produce a thriving civilization. But how to explain then the historical fact that those Nordics who have remained in their homelands - and thus have been preserved from the admixture of lower potential - never achieved to create a civilization in Scandinavia and Northern Europe in general, but had to wait…. until it was The most Nordic of European lands, Norway and Sweden have not succeeded in producing a single philosopher of distinction. In Nordicism revisited, James Gregor observes that the most prominent men in European history have been of manifestly mixed racial origin. Many of the men who are universally regarded as the greatest in history (for instance, Socrates, Michelangelo, Luther, Goethe and Beethoven) were obviously of mixed race. Speaking generally, it is exceptional to find that distinguished men exhibit a pure racial type. In The Might of the West, Lawrence Brown explains that:
In Imperium, Yokey also argues in the same vein. For him too is the concept of race the result of imposing a thought method adapted to material problems on to living things, and thus materialistic. In this book, he claims that:
In his novel The Camp of Saints, Raspail includes an East Indian among the “Saints” who defend France, and portrays many white Frenchmen who welcome the invaders as their equals! This also seems to imply that being a Westerner is not a matter of race, but a “state of mind”. Others claim that:
The human world is constituted by the existence of different and separate human beings who can be held to account for what they do because they are individually free agents. Freedom is the reality of a person, his very being. As such, age, gender, length and weight of body, colour of skin or hair, proficiency in mathematics or any number of other properties or characteristics are not taken into account. They are properties or characteristics of individual persons, but their presence or absence to a greater or smaller degree in any individual does not determine the answer to the question whether that individual is a person or not. No matter how different persons are in any dimension of shape or talent, they are all persons because of their freedom of action, speech, thought and rational communication. In that crucial respect they are all alike. I also found an interesting statement by Frank H. Hankins in his book The Racial Basis of Civilization (1926):
In the same vein Robert Spencer said:
Finally, I have read these comments: 1/ The problem with “White Nationalism” is that there are more than a lot of “White people” that don’t like other groups of “White people”. For example, trying to unite White Southerners and White New Englanders is an impossible task, other than through the use of force (see 1861-1865). [compare Tatu Vanhanen!] 2/ within my family I have two cousins, both sisters. One has black hair and dark eyes, and is obviously a genetic Cherokee Indian. The other is a blonde, with blue eyes, obviously genetically “White”. So, if genetics is family, is the sister that is genetically Cherokee Indian NOT in my family, despite being the daughter of my father’s sister? At our family Christmas Party, should I forcefully remove her from the room? How would you reply?; could you please comment on strength and weakness of such arguments? Sincerely, G de B Comments:99002
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:55 | # (Are we sure they’re not the same <strike>guy</strike> creep?) 99003
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:25 | # G de B: “Take for example the following scenario (with thanks to Steve sailer for his most timely and excellent help):” I told you not to come back without my $500, you little ho. Fred: “G de B commenting at your blog is the same at The Monitor doing it: the equivalent of your blog getting terminal cancer.” At least The Monitard will concede the right of our people to exist once you kick him in the balls enough times. This little punk-made-bitch is trying to find whatever clever way he can into tricking us to accept miscegenation. I want my $500! 99004
Posted by silver on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:26 | #
Under the circumstanes, whatever may be said of me, I think it’s infinitely preferible to being a fruitcake.
I must admit to not being acquainted with the peculiarities of Hutu-Tutsi intermarriage (nor do I care to be), but three points: (1) Six hundred years isn’t necessarily long for pure lines of each to no longer exist. (2) Even if there are no more pure strains of each, six hundred years is nowhere near enough time to iron out phenotypic variation. (3) It’s not so much phenotypic “variation” that is at stake when whites miscegenate with others; it’s that white phenotypes will be lost forever. Sure, even when there is no longer any such thing as a “pure” white there will continue to be a classification of “white,” consisting of people who in some ways resemble Europeans, even if their skins are no longer white and the fineness of white features is absent.
If Sailer said that, that’s why many racialists consider him an idiot. “White,” as described, will simply continue to be defined down until eventually, over hundreds of years, it becomes a pointless designation. Sailer apparently wants you to believe that five hundred years is a Very Long Time (so what’s there to worry about). But compared to eternity, it’s a drop in the ocean. And none of this says anything about the desirability of living under such multiracial conditions, which is a factor you haven’t even attempted to touch on. I honestly think you’d much bettter off just getting with the program, rather than proffering such silly objections. If racialism bothers you, then work to alter its contours. Why leave it to filthy slimebuckets (those on here are the milder ones) to define? Clearly these people are onto something important, even if their views, to say nothing of their humanity, leaves more than just a little to be desired. Fortunately, we don’t require their permission to state the truth as we see it. Let’s just make sure it’s truth we’re attempting to state, not feeble, counterproductive obfuscation that can only succeed in robbing future generations of what should rightfully have been theirs. 99005
Posted by silver on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:30 | #
A problem requiring the most urgent attention, because we all know that maintaining ideological conformity in a blog is the key to political success. That’s how Obama did it. 99006
Posted by G de B on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:19 | # @Captainchaos
But, how are you going to define Whites? By external race characteristics or by descent? Do you only want Nordish racial preservation, as McCulloch does? McCulloch focuses on physical appearance. He makes a racial distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans. The introduction of Mediterranean types, he says, would upset the balance in the population, destroying the racial environment that is required for Nordish racial preservation. There are Jews who have most of the external features of the Nordic race!’ McCulloch uses the term “Nordish” to refer to Northern Europeans. He says:” The introduction of less distinct Nordish types will cause a decrease in the proportions of the more distinct types and—if the change is great enough—their eventual extinction.” Riezi, however, makes clear that the various European groups are genetically similar to each other. In the same vein Tristan Torriani: “I, being a Spanish-North-Italian hybrid ... I still consider myself as much a full-blooded European and heir to Western civilization as any other.” 99007
Posted by G de B on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:40 | # @Captainchaos Additionally comment to my previous post: According to McCulloch’s racial perception, Europeans do not form a single race. He wants to divide North Europeans from South Europeans! McCulloch understands racial traits in phenotypic terms. But according to Rienzi, it is the ethnos that should be the unit of racial preservation - encompassing the whole bio-culture, with its distinctive historical and genetic inheritance. He says: “it is genes, not phenotype, which is passed down to the next generation.” “By singling out phenotype as the principal criterion of in-group membership, it is theoretically possible that white-looking mulattos (or Jews, for that matter) be considered Nordish, allowing for an unperceived influx of Sub-Saharan genes into the Nordish gene pool.” [Tristan Torriani, McCulloch, Nordishism & Enlightened White Separatism.] - http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol2no2/tt-teg.html 99008
Posted by Diamed on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:51 | # It’s not an either-or. If Nordics wanted, they could require you have blond hair, blue eyes, and pass a dna screening test that shows you are 100% white. I see no problem with tons of pro-white countries being born each with their own criteria and standards and laws and language etc they prefer for themselves. If some of them want to be all blond nordics, what is that to us? We just need to found another country that allows brunettes speaks our language and endorses our law system etc. The earth is vast and white people are diverse in culture, genes, philosophy, we should all be pro-white, but after a mutual defense pact and free trade pact, I see no reason we must all be in the same country. Earlier you were trying to prove race doesn’t exist and we should coagulate along the lines of high IQ, conservative values, etc. Now you’re complaining that nordics might unfairly let slip in a few blond jews and africans if they aren’t careful. A) this is completely unconnected to your earlier statements. B) it’s no big deal whatever happens at that point because that already implies we’ve secured a white homeland. If we control our selection standards, no matter how mistaken we are, it will be infinitely better than the current immigration, so I don’t see the point worrying about it. That’s like a princess complaining there’s a pea disturbing her sleep seven mattresses down. 99009
Posted by Dasein on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:10 | # A simple analogy that I’ve found very useful in making the case against miscegenation to racially unaware friends is an ice cream parlour. The owner would not mix the flavours together, no flavour is objectively superior to another, each flavour has its own tub, etc. Works well with types who would run out of the room if you talked about IQ or crime (save that for when they are starting to bore you 99010
Posted by n/a on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:26 | # sangha, What is your ethnic background? G de B, What is your ethnic background and what are your goals here? But, how are you going to define Whites? By external race characteristics or by descent? Both. Genes control “external race characteristics” (otherwise they wouldn’t be “race characteristics”). There’s no contradiction. Do you only want Nordish racial preservation, as McCulloch does? References? Where has McCulloch stated he “only wants Nordish racial preservation”? Even if he did, McCulloch is concerned with America and Northern Europe (“Nordish” lands). He’s not telling Southern Euros what to do in their own countries, so this is really a non-issue. Why are you against racial preservation for the Northern European-descended? McCulloch focuses on physical appearance. He makes a racial distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans. Genetic studies confirm the primary division in Europe is North-South. (The second, East-West component of European genetic variation is also broadly compatible with McCulloch’s ideas.) There are Jews who have most of the external features of the Nordic race!’ There are MORE Jews who have most of the external features of Southern Europeans! Northern Europeans are genetically distinct from Jews (more so than Southern Europeans). At the population level, phenotype clearly reflects this genetic differentiation. A competent observer would never confuse a group of 50 randomly-chosen Ashkenazi and 50 randomly-chosen Swedes or Englishmen. Considering only one phenotypic trait (e.g., eye color), there will be a fair amount of overlap between Jews and Northern Europeans, at the individual level. Add a second trait (e.g., hair color), and the overlap will be reduced to some degree. Keep adding traits and the overlap will keep diminishing. In determining ancestry from genetic data, more markers generally means greater precision. In looking at someone’s “external racial characteristics”, we are effectively reading a set of genetic markers. Ideally, one would assess the DNA sequence directly, but this is slightly unrealistic for most of our daily interactions and physical appearance offers a convenient, if rough, guide to genetic relatedness, which has probably been in play for most of our evolutionary history. When antis talk about “Nordic”-looking Jews they typically stop at hair and eye color. Considering all aspects of (pre-cosmetic surgery) appearance, the fraction of Jews who resemble typical Northern Europeans is tiny. Riezi, however, makes clear that the various European groups are genetically similar to each other. Bill Clinton makes clear that various Human groups are genetically similar to each other. I seem to recall Tristan Torriani is a South American. He’s welcome by me to consider himself whatever he wants—in his country. 99011
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:01 | # Dasein that is perhaps simplistic. The ice cream maker does “hybridize” but he does so judiciously, just as farmers do in animal husbandry. My dog, for example, is a hybrid that is frequently used on ranches due to its exceptional intelligence (not as high as its Border Collie parent) and robust character (but not as much as its Australian Shepherd parent)—but the breed is not then inbred to form a new line. As with all responsible animal husbandry, the original straight breeds are preserved for obvious reasons. 99012
Posted by G de B on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:47 | # @ n/a “G de B, What is your ethnic background and what are your goals here?” 1/ Ethnic background: I am a Belgian. Belgium is comprised of the Dutch-speaking in the North and the French-speaking in Wallonia. The French-speaking Belgians bear deep grudges against the Flemish, and vice versa. The French-speaking population controls the power centers, while the Flamands work harder, are more productive, and have larger numbers. That doesn’t make the Flemish happy. They are constantly wondering whether to secede from the Walloons. I live in the Flemish region, so, I am Flemish and I Am Pro-Flemish Secession because the southern Francophone region of Wallonia is a rust belt suffering chronic high unemployment and crime. 2/ Goal: I don’t want Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe. I want to stop the creeping growth of sharia law. I appreciate Muslim apostates such as the ex-Muslim Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq. That’s why I tend to agree with Francis Yockey saying: “There are numerous intellectuals in the West who feel community with the idea of Asiatic Nihilism.”... “Race is not group anatomy.”...“Race is not a rigid, permanent, collective characterization of human beings, which remains always the same throughout history.” ... “all strong minorities have welcomed into their company the outsider who was attracted to it and wished to join it, regardless of his racial provenance.”...“safeguarding the purity of race’ in a purely biological sense is sheer materialism.” [Imperium (pp.282-302)] Remember also that in his novel The Camp of Saints, Raspail includes an East Indian among the “Saints” who defend France, and portrays many white Frenchmen who welcome the invaders as their equals! @Diamed “country that allows brunettes speaks our language and endorses our law system etc.” The next step is: “The genius of the West is not its whiteness, but in its civilization. Many races, not just white people, have proven able to adopt Western values and perspectives. Our laws, our language, and our literature come from England, but there are many people from all over who are quite capable of accepting and embracing them.” - Robert Spencer 99013
Posted by Darren on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:09 | # Except it is that materialism that defines the psychological nature of the people involved, and ultimately, the civilization they produce. It is this gap of knowledge where Evola, Spengler, and Yockey all fail. Blacks, for example, with their lower-IQ and lower capacity for altruism, cannot participate in Western civilization as equals (as a group). East Asians, on the other hand, are very collective and highly ethnocentric. Their culture and civilization, throughout the ages, is an obvious reflection of this. Here is some good starting material (you may or may not already be familar with it, but nothing you have provided here gives any sort of meaningful refutation to it). http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WesternOrigins.htm Simply put, if people are biologically different in terms of cognitive ability and evolved social traits, they will produce different results. Mixing racially distinct populations means you get conflict - one group wants to do things their way, the other wants to do things differently. 99014
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:24 | # G de B, I haven’t much answered you directly in this thread, but since you appear now to have reduced your culturism to a core from which you will no doubt not resile, I will do so. Setting aside the ideological left, people propose culturism - and reject racialism - for three reasons. The first applies to those, like Yockey, who are wannabee fascists, and for whom the spirit of race will always be key. The insurmountable problem these people all have is that the spirit of race does not actually exist. It is a light-show ... a projection of a highly selective and idealised melange of traditions, myths and historical and cultural icons upon the screen of the imagination. Just as romantic nationalism was reified by the revolutionary French as an object of fealty to replace the old order, so the fascist spirit of race was reified to bewitch and motivate a 20th century Italian public much given to backwardness or a German one much given to defeatism and decadence. It is just an argument. It isn’t real. The second reason applies to the members of the post-war radical right who, from about 1968 onwards, tired of living in the discredited shadow of Nazi science and the biological determinism it had espoused. Yes, there was the spirit of race and biological determinism in Nazism, living together in unresolved conflict. One of them had to go. Nazi science - all those experiments on Jewish camp inmates - was the one. The left seemed more scientifically sophisticated anyway, so the battle for scientific truth was given up, and culture reigned supreme. The leading “spirit” of the New Right, Alain de Benoist, still rejects any trace of biological determinism today. He’s wrong. The third reason applies to all that vast herd of centrist, “get-along” types who shrink from the sheer ferocity of the Marxist left. They meekly accept its claim that biological determinism must mean 110% or nothing. They run for the cover of postmodern respectability the moment somebody like Rushton shows up in town. You belong, in all likelihood, here, though I am sure that something other than a desire for respectability animates you. The important thing to understand is that nobody has ever been sure to what degree the capacities and behaviours of the human organism are biologically determined. The Nazis didn’t know. They just wanted to prove their supremacy. The Marxists do not know. They just want to prove European non-supremacy. Neither are a sound basis for taking any position on the matter. But since the 1970s science in the form of sociobiology has been opening the subject up - and now genetic analysis is mapping difference on a massive scale. This has profound implications for culturists. Race and ethnicity IS the basis of human social structure. It is bound to inform every avenue of serious philosophical enquiry (from which I exclude everything tainted by egalitarianism). Those who cannot move beyond a focus on civilisation, and commence instead upon a qualitative analysis of such forms traceable to their biological roots, will eventually find themselves imprisoned in the past. But this time they will have unreformed Marxists for company, instead of the dead Nazis who haunted de Benoist & Co. Move on. 99015
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:27 | # Discovering that G de B is Flemish, I’ll reconsider my dismissal of him, and respond to his comment above: Both 1) physical and 2) cognitive/psychological/behavioral characteristics are partly genetic. Slight genetic difference manifesting in large population aggregates makes distinct national character — national character which, therefore, is genetic. Yockey and Evola, good men both, were wrong. To see the difference in aggregate national character between, say, Frenchmen and Germans, bigger populations are needed than to see it between Frenchmen and Negroes let’s say, where smaller populations suffice. Where genetic difference is great, smaller aggregates will show it; where slight, larger aggregates will. I trust my reason for highlighting the word aggregate will be clear: neglecting this specific aspect of the issue is the biggest stumbling block in the path of those who are chronically confused by it, who see, say, a particular Negro and think, “He’s all right, so what’s wrong with letting lots of Negroes in?” 99016
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:33 | # I posted my comment just above without seeing the one by GW above it. I agree also with most of GW’s. 99018
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:35 | # JB, I’m thinking about the ice cream parlour once it’s open for business (i.e. the world as it is now). I’m not entirely sure what you mean by the ice cream maker hybridizing- I don’t know of any flavours that are combinations (I don’t eat much ice cream though 99019
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:47 | # GW: “They meekly accept its claim that biological determinism must mean 110% or nothing.” I think anything greater than 80% is going to scare most ordinary people. There must be a better term than determinism (not sure if you consider use of this term to be a straw man). I’ve heard E.O. Wilson put it as ‘genetics keeps culture on a leash’, but I don’t know of a good term that conveys the essence of this. ‘Distribution generator’, ‘creative platform’? Don’t have much of a ring to them. Anybody know of terms that have been used before? 99020
Posted by Armor on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:02 | #
If that statement by Robert Spencer does not justify that he and G de B should replace their own children with a batch of African children, then it doesn’t justify the Western race-replacement policy either. “The genius of the West is not its whiteness” Personally, I don’t care about the genius of the West. 99021
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:22 | # If your car’s momentum is what mostly propels it along the highway at 60 mph why does your foot also need to maintain a light touch on the gas pedal? Because without that constant little bit of additional gas the car will gradually slow and be brought to a halt by friction. The culture your race creates is the car’s momentum moving at 60 mph; your race’s genetics are the constant bit of additional gas needed to keep the car moving. G de B expects the car to keep moving without the foot maintaining its light touch on the gas pedal assuring a continuing bit of additional gas. It won’t: like culture when the race that created it is taken away, the car will keep moving for a time from momentum, but without that continuous bit of additional gas it will eventually slow and stop. 99022
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:39 | # Armor, If we take care of ourselves as a people, the “genius” will look after itself. G de B has it all the wrong way round. Dasein, As far as getting people to approach biological determinism with a clear eye is concerned, I think it’s a question of familiarisation rather than re-labelling. We have all approached our present political positions by negotiating our way through faux-moral minefields. The objection to biological determinism is all false morality. The left has lost the nature/nurture argument, as it had to, and has thrown up its defences elsewhere. What it is defending, of course, are the nostrums of equality and perfectability. We have evidence from the known nature of Man that these are false perspectives. It is not a debilitating and anti-human state of affairs to know that the most fundamental potentials of men and women are prescribed by their genes. We have nothing to fear in spreading that word. It is the left that is living in fear ... of our truth. Why else do they hurl their invective at us? If they had evidence from science to support their beliefs they would be bludgeoning us with it. They have none because there is none. 99023
Posted by Diamed on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:31 | # Has anyone else wondered whether libertarians, egalitarians, and religious people think the way they do because they are genetically determined to do so? If so, what’s the point in arguing with each other? I suspect people are just born with certain genetic likes and dislikes that makes them attracted to libertarianism, liberalism, or religion in a way they cannot avoid or escape no matter what the facts show. If personality and behavior are 80% genetic, politics will be mainly genetic as well, and just as unchangeable. If our political beliefs are unchangeable we should stop trying to force each other into a single system just because it appeals most to us. How about Seiyo and crew go make their white/jew/asian/cognitive elite state, G & B makes his flemish/apostate muslim state, and so on? Some people clearly don’t want an all-white state or an all nordic-white state, so why require it of them? They can go live in any proportion of race mixing they please, so long as they allow us to live with any proportion of race mixing we please, including 0%. There’s plenty of room on earth for a country following any imaginable philosophy to exist. You can be a communist multiracial state, or a religious multiracial state, or a libertarian multiracial state, or a communist monoracial state, religious monoracial state, libertarian monoracial state, or a 90% monoracial 10% ‘good minority’ communist state, 90% monoracial 10% ‘good minority’ religious state, 90% monoracial 10% ‘good minority’ libertarian state. That’s only 9 countries right there, hardly more than the former yugoslavia. Europe or the USA are large enough to include a state for every single philosophy proposed, why not just give each other the mutual right to existence and see who reaches the stars and inherits the universe? The objectively superior philosophy will triumph and prosper while the rest will fall apart in economic and social chaos or muddle along at a slower pace. Good will triumph because it will deliver untold riches, star systems, galaxies, to the people who made the right choice. To the genes that make the right social organization most desirable. I believe national socialism in a, perhaps 99% white state to allow room for people of exceptional genius we might need, is the way to go. However I don’t need people in my country who aren’t true believers and would at the first instant undermine the system and seek to change it to more suit themselves. I have zero use in libertarians, religious people, and communists or race mixers in general in my country, I don’t want to include them anyway. Let them set up camp in another country, and let mine develop the way I envision, with people who all agree with me and are fervent about national socialism. Wouldn’t everyone feel that way about their own country, preferring only people who believe fervently in their constitution and wish to uphold it? 99024
Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:50 | # James- Sorry. Too many incoherent rapture bunnies with as much knowledge of history as a carrot out there. I was too intemperate. For the record, I believe that the CI position asks some VERY IMPORTANT questions that the “Ecumenist/Humanist” crowd refuses to answer, much like the debate over Obamugabe being an ‘American citizen’ or not. (As to the latter, I believe he is not, and is STALLING/HIDING) For starters, you assume that the indigenous White/Caucasian races of Northern Europe had Christianity ‘superimposed’ on them from an outside source. “by redefining the terms of a foreign religion thrust upon them during the wars between northern and southern Europe.” You could not be more incorrect. While the ‘barrier’ between Judean (not ‘Jew’- a point that MUST be made, over and over again, first to be consistent with the Biblical vocabulary witness itself, second, to deny the Deicides ANY legitimacy of their spurious ‘chosenite’ status) and Hellene ( as opposed to merely ‘Greek’) has been ‘torn down,’ as St. Paul (who was a Roman citizen, and NOT a ‘foreigner’ as it were….) noted, that does not presuppose that the Hellenes were [for all time, world without end, Amen.] ALWAYS foreigners to the Covenant. It just means that God RESTORED that which HE had separated, which it clearly stated in Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. Therefore, a ‘foreign creed’ was not superimposed on the Hellenes, if we truly read Scripture correctly, but a ‘restoration’ of two disparate ‘houses’ that no one ([sic] Jew or [sic] Gentile) can find. Yet God says they exist….. I would ask you first off, to read my series of over 12 posts at my blog, ‘The Season of Incarnation’, starting with #1: or the 20-plus post series entitled ‘Something Wicked this way comes” I think you can grasp what/where I am coming from. Let’s just say that those most opposed to the CI construct, are those that also most ‘Talmudically-friendly’ AND are those most in vogue for ‘gay [sic] marriage’ and ‘a woman’s choice’ [to murder her offspring] Coincidental? hardly. Therefore, I’d rather have as my friend the enemy of the multiculturalists and Deicides, than to have those accursed bedfellows as my ‘comrades.’ 99025
Posted by Armor on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:57 | #
That analogy reminds me of what another Flemish commentator wrote today on the Brussels Journal: I think this is partially true. Sub-standard schools, too much TV watching, and the dominance of the loony left are damaging society, and the full impact will only be felt later. 99026
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:00 | # Thanks for the links, Fr. John. I’ll read them. 99027
Posted by cladrastis on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:10 | # Come on Fr. John, you don’t really believe that all incidents of abortion are wrong, do you? That’s like saying murder is wrong (...except in cases of war or intergroup conflict, or when the murdered victim is a despoiler, lowlife, or someone challenged to single combat). Right? What if the bun in the oven happens to be an Obamanation (or a deformed abomination)? What if the father is a rapist or some other criminal element? The same for the mother? Of course, I’m not arguing that abortion isn’t maladaptive in the current incarnation of Western society - in which at least some pregnancies are terminated by high IQ white women; rather, I am arguing that it cannot be dismissed out of hand as a useful tool for human evolution (which it certainly is). 99028
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:59 | # cladrastis, the story of Abraham and Isaac demonstrates that parents have the Biblical authority to kill their children. Of course, abortion may not have been a known technology in that time, but the obvious generalization is that parents—or at least fathers—have authority over their unborn children as well. 99029
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:35 | #
Blame the child for the sins of the father? Is that the position you hold vis-a-vis reparations paid by the German people to the children of the victims of the Jewish holocaust? Or Louis Farrakhan’s assertion that for the sins of their fathers “White Folks, You Owe Us The Whole Country!”; is that a morally justifiable position? 99030
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:47 | # Diamed, Would you be willing to forfeit claim to what have historically (say last few centuries) been White countries in order to establish a partition that permits a 99% White country with NS? I can envision the mixed race states (which perhaps border this NS state) eventually descending into chaos, with Whites there suffering. Which would bring up a situation similar to the interwar period. I wonder how history is kept from repeating. 99031
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:48 | # I’d be okay with giving up whole continents, they are lost already in all but name. There are more non-whites born in the USA each year than whites, I presume the same is true or will soon be true of Canada, Australia, etc. Once a nation is oriented with the right race and right philosophy, it will succeed in leaps and bounds above all others, it will not have to rely on vast natural resources or territory but will flourish instead based on the genius and virtue of its people, like Japan does today, or say Belgium/Holland did in the past. Small states can still be rich and powerful and densely populated so long as they are full of good people who follow a good philosophy. What’s important is some bastion of the race holding the right philosophy to be the first ones to reach the stars. I don’t need a lot of land to do that, just the right public spiritedness, creativity, and high IQ that NS would bring to the board. After all it was the nazis who invented rockets in the first place. If we get back to that level of civilization I suspect we could kiss the earth goodbye and conquer the universe instead. At that point all earth-bound politics are rather petty neh? Most of all I get the sense that people have an inbuilt prediliction for certain forms of government/organization, and an inbuilt aversion or lack of aversion to race-mixing. Just compare the enormous difference between Spanish settlers of south america and the english of north america. In that case there’s little use in arguing. We should give everyone exactly what they want, and let them stew in it, as foolish as it is—just demand they not drag us down with them, but be left free to pursue our own path. If someone wants to follow the senseless and destructive jewish religions or jewish invented economic and moral theories that put money and self above honor and race, who am I to stop them? If they want to live with jews and watch as jews corner all the money, power, media, political parties, etc while they end up helpless servants and dupes for the rest of time, fine by me. I only need one country free of jews and jewish thought to make progress. There are countries on earth with fewer than a hundred thousand people. Surely we could found a country of right-thinking racial purists of that size. And from there, our superior beliefs will darwinianly succeed while the rest of the world collapses in its own misguidance and mongrelization. It would be rather hypocritical of white separatists to demand no whites are allowed to separate from them. In that case, couldn’t all whites agree to separate first from their current governments, and then from each other to follow whatever path they please? We could all be allies regardless of our beliefs instead of squabbling between each other like we do now, since no one need fear living under a government or religion not of their choosing in the future. We can all have our ideal country, there is no conflict. No one’s preferred neighbors or way of life is threatened. Everyone gets exactly what they wanted, while not interfering in what others wanted for themselves. What could be more just or less threatening than that? 99032
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:21 | # There is no historical form of fascism that is relevant to us now. And going to the stars is not life’s purpose - unless, that is, it can be shown to maximise genetic interests. 99033
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:41 | # Conceding North America, Australia, New Zealand and Russian Siberia to the third-world rabble is unacceptable from the perspective of a sane, mature view of the real world exigencies that face the White race. The Chinese will inherit the earth if the White race does not. The Jews nihilistically sap our will, the Chinese bide their time. What are the Jews to the Chinese? 99034
Posted by silver on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:14 | #
I was thinking along those lines way before I ever began thinking much about race. Hyperindividualism and freedom of thought were almost guaranteed to create massive, unbridgeable political ruptures. Mass multiracialism only hastened the divide. If you accept this as inevitable, seccession/dissolution is clearly the best solution (W. Robertson’s “Ethnostates” thingy, for example). It mostly then becomes a question of who gets what. McCulloch realized all this years ago: the sooner racial separation can be achieved, the greater the slice of the pie his people will get. Europe is a rather different problem. It lacks the vast expanses of North America. Serious questions would have to be asked about the viability of such mutually antogonistic statelets there (even though European history abounds with them). Then there’s the pull of romantic nationalism, always much stronger in Europe, which would be absolutely loath to surrender an inch to outsiders. In collaboration with N. America (again, as per McCulloch), however, population transfers shouldn’t be difficult. There is also the serious question of national defense. There would probably have to be a system of common defense, which the disparate groups would buy into because it would defend their state (“national”) interests from much larger, more powerful foreign aggressors. I very much doubt that communists—always the most insistent agigators—would go along with such a program. They themselves know they’ll get creamed by the competition. It’s all about power for these slimeballs. If there’s anything I despise more than a nutzi (a modern neo or wannabe “nazi” who spews bullshit on the net all day) it’s a commie. I’d expect Jews to sign up in droves way before I’d expect a commie to. At bottom, all of this goes to say that if you hanker for real change—not commie BS “change”—it’s simply imperative to ally yourself with racialists/racists/WNs/NSs/etc because then you stand the most realistic chance possible of getting it. G de B,
Is that your overriding concern? If it could be answered in a way that puts you, personally, at ease, would all your other objections then melt away? I’m almost certain that your views hinge on this question. (I know you’re Flemish, and I know the Flemish are typically nordish, but you could be towards the “bottom” among them, and hence your anxiety, or you could be concerend that “The Flemish” “rank” somewhere lower than other nords.) It’s racialism’s age-old problem. No one wants to be defined out of the “top” group. They’re more than happy to live their entire lives in antipathy or apathy towards that group, yet the minute that group insists on its group rights, they either scurry to be included in it or wail against its recognition of itself. By the way, re Robert Spencer, he’s a Levantine Christian who has changed his name, and that is why he is most reluctant to define “The West” (or its genius) in racial terms. He’s not completely wrong, of course. Culture does matter, and western culture, for a number of reasons, is both comparatively more open towards others and more attractive to others, the latter simply for its obvious superiority. WNs always think you’re bullshitting when you say this, but the biggest reason I’d hate, absolutely, positively hate, to be sent “home” (I’m Serb/Greek), isn’t the economic benefit of living here; it’s the culture (the language, the political system, people’s mannerisms, the “tenor” of life), both as manifested by the anglo majority and as manifested by my group (or two groups, or, more broadly, S.Europeans). Lastly, as for Tristian Torriani, I have him down as a Brazilian. People like he and Rienzi really get up my nose. Now, they each could very well represent the pinnacle of S.European nordish-hood or western europid-hood (such people are usually, but not always, the head honchos in domestic non-nordish racial-nationalist groups), so I don’t direct anything toward them in this regard, but it is well and truly beyond absurd for them to pretend that the average member of their group feels anywhere near their level of animosity (real or manufactured) towards either the more “exotic” among their own or towards more exotic (but similar and rather obviously related) others. And even then, despite whatever protestations I would expect were he to ever answer this post, I could probably never be made to believe Torriani finds Brazil’s legions of culturally competent and materially successful “Syrio-Lebanese” (Christians) so suffocatingly racially alien that he avoids them at all costs; the contrary is almost certain to be true. (I’d say the same about Rienzi and Boston’s Jews, but, bah, since he’s gone private I won’t get to read the delicious harangue he’d no doubt prepare so what’s the point.) ps—you didn’t respond to the point about eternity. Eternity is forever, G de B. Our lives pale in significance to eternity. A proper appreciation of eternity should be sufficient to diminish all our anxieties and fears as we work together to fashion a future our descendents (whoever we are) will praise us for, rather than the one we are on course to bequeath them, which they will rightly despise us for.
What does inhereting the world actually mean? That they’ll actually somehow “own” it or that they’ll be able to exercise “dominance” over it? Realistically, if white independence were to be secured, it, in combination with its western cultural offshoots, should be quite sufficient to hold China at bay. Obviously a key factor in territorial concession would be the portion the nordish proportion receives. Too little would only invite endless agitation to win it all back (a la the mighty Cap’n here). 99035
Posted by cladrastis on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:45 | # James Bowery, That’s an interesting theological point (not that it matters to a non-Christian), but technically, Isaac’s death sentence was issued by YHVH, not from Abraham’s conscience. So I’m not sure the Christians will take your point; anyway, as they believe, out with the Old and in with the New.
First of all, I don’t believe in sins, and second of all, that’s not the point I was making (thus I don’t feel the need to “morally justify” your strawman argument). But let me ask you this, if your blue-eyed daughter were impregnated by a Negro multiple-offender rapist, would you force her to carry the half-breed baby to term? If so, would you care for it (or expect her to do so)? Do you think it would be “fair” to the baby or to the mother? Does the “father” have a say in whether the baby is carried to term? Do you realize that the child of such a mating (regardless of the race of the father) would have an increased propensity to become a rapist himself (behavior being rooted in biology)? Do you realize you would be adding to the existing pool of societal ills (as the child would be multi-racial, more likely to commit a crime, AND possibly a ward of the state)? If you are attempting to build a moral argument based on religious beliefs, these may be complex hermeneutical questions (see above), but for a pragmatist, the answers to such questions (and the underlying problem itself) have both simple and obvious solutions.
Although there may have been significant genetic differences between the English and Spanish populations of 16th century Europe as a result of Phoenician, Moorish, and Sephardic settlement (and intermarriage) in medieval Spain, I actually think the history books got it right on the issue of differing settlement (and mongrelization) patterns in their respective colonies. That is, mestizajization occured in Latin America, but not in British Canada or North America because the British settlers BROUGHT THEIR WOMEN WITH THEM. Additonal supporting evidence for this theory of ethnogenesis (via cultural rather than biological mechanisms) comes from the examples of the French trappers in North America (who contributed to the Metis population) and from the early Dutch settlers in South Africa (who contributed to the origin of the coloreds). 99036
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:20 | # I think G & B was complaining that for all the talk of nordish superiority, they didn’t win many Nobel Prizes. Imagine my surprise when I found this factoid today: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_nob_pri_lau_percap-nobel-prize-laureates-per-capita 1. Iceland Anyone else see a pattern here? Another argument against nordic supremacy bites the dust. 99037
Posted by the sangha on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:18 | # I reflected on the exchange between n/a and myself, and thought I’d post some new thoughts. This is not meant to elicit responses (although I am open to an exchange), nor to harass any perceived opponents (at least not consciously). To the extent that we as humans are capable of reaching objective thinking, perhaps this may be of use… then again, perhaps we are all just strategizing in elaborate ways to maximize the chances that our particular genotype will survive for future generations. Then again, perhaps we are much more sophisticated than this, and one day we will come to understand that viewing selection at the level of the gene gives us an incomplete or false picture of human nature… (At the moment, the gene-centered paradigm seems to conform to many of my day-to-day experiences). I expressed the idea to n/a that the racial makeup of the Roman patrician class was somewhat irrelevant—unimportant and such a distraction that, should we get too caught up in the debate because of the way our egos are tied to it, it could harm our genetic fitness by making us expend unnecessary energies… so that, though we may be of different subraces*, we both lose out during the exchange. I must also admit I felt a bit of pessimism during the exchange. I suppose some comments brought out a knee-jerk response in me when I first posted into the thread, but as time passed I wondered: “What is the meaning of this?” So what IS the point of this? Why do I feel an emotional pull to respond, and why, on the other hand, is there an emotional pull from others to respond to me? I had the insight that it is simply petty for me to pit myself as an “enemy” of n/a or any Northern European partisans. Since I acknowledge Northern Europeans are largely responsible for modern civilization, and since I have Nordic friends who would sacrifice for me if the situation called for it, I cannot escape that I am to some degree a “Nordicist.” I may not be popular in a particular internet forum, and I may feel visceral negative feelings (feelings which perhaps can be diminished with some type of understanding, maybe not) toward certain nationalists of the type described because they either want to expel or exterminate me, but such a disliking would be more ego-based than reality-based given my real-world, day-to-day situation. This reality should be humbling to both sides. I will in any case post some thoughts, and such thoughts may be found offensive, but perhaps they can be instructive for myself and others. Perhaps there is something humanistic and universal in them, or perhaps this is mere self-deception and a further attempt for me to advance my genetic interests, or perhaps it is both. This I suppose I find more interesting than the topic of the racial composition of the Roman patrician class, and perhaps it is also of greater use. “The Roman patricians were Nordic, of the Keltic Iron Age type.” This gets back to my question: “What is the meaning of this?” What does it mean to an American of British or Norwegian descent that the Romans were Nordic? I was accused of engaging in fallacious attacks for questioning the motives of certain posters here, but to me—and maybe I am anti-intellectual for saying this—our psychological motives are the most important part of the discussion, because they say something about our state as individuals and point to our inherent bias, an inescapable part of our humanness. Truth be told, given population movements in ancient times, and given that Mediterraneans often have Nordic strains, this is not an outrageous claim. Let’s assume for the sake of argument, though, that the claim is true. Let’s say that the Roman patricians were purely or almost purely Nordic. It may confirm the belief in the superiority of the Nordic—intellectually and mentally—to the individual American of Northern European ancestry. He may feel that this is an essential truth that affirms the nature of his “people.” He may even feel good, soothed, by his truth, as it defines him and separates him from the other. It gives him some meaning in a seemingly chaotic world. Yet as we shall see, this view is filled with inherent contradictions. The Romans were known for their ruthlessness toward their enemies, which included many atrocities against the (Nordic) Gauls, (Nordic) Germans, and (Nordic) Brits. What does it say about the Nordic race if a caste of Nordics encouraged the raping and plundering of their own people by Mediterranean mercenaries and rabble within the legions, particularly during the Late Republic? Does this not refute the idea that Nordics of different nations can put their differences aside because they happen to share similar levels of pigmentation? Here is a brief outline which may show us the practical consequence of Karl Earlson’s ideas—the promotion of subracial mixing between Mediterraneans and Nordics: As a famous thinker pointed out, one side will posit a thesis. An opposing side will then posit an antithesis. When facts and truths are sorted out from the two, you end up with a synthesis. The Nordicists say the Roman patricians were essentially Nordic (thesis). The Medicists say the Roman patricians were essentially Mediterranean (antithesis). Many individuals, not taking the “extreme” position (whether there is actual truth or not in them is besides the point), will believe the Romans were a mix of the two (synthesis). As it happens, many White Nationalists are of the romantic opinion that the Romans were so great because they were a fusion of Mediterranean and Nordic. Arthur Kemp points to this fusion in his work. Kevin Alfred Strom believes in the notion that a fusion brought the “efflorescence” of ancient Greece and Rome. The practical result of the idea that Nordics invaded Southern Europe in waves and ignited these civilizations is the assumption that through biological unity a type of superior specimen is created when the Nordic mixes with the Mediterranean. At minimum, if a deterioration of the racial stock is assumed from this mixture (and this is often not the assumption made by racial nationalists of Northern European extraction), the focus of the Nordic man’s history is shifted farther south, inextricably binding the Nordic man with the Mediterranean man, given the immense contributions of the classical world. The Mediterranean man thus becomes a center of the Nordicist’s very identity, if not directly. From the standpoint of one trying to build a Nordic-centered identity which Nordic peoples can build upon to promote their own racial interests, this would appear counterproductive. *n/a asked about my ethnicity, but I’d rather people focus on my words for now, to the extent that anything meaningful can be derived from them. 99038
Posted by G de B on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:19 | # @ silver: “racial preservation/nationalism is a question of eternity, not a question of whether there’ll still be a white race by 2100 or whether it’ll still be a majority by 2050.” Ok, but then again: according to the nordicist Richard McCulloch (who wants to preserve the Nordish race), the WHITE racial supremacist theories can actually be classified as a form of interracism, as they they require a multiracial population. (cf. Destiny of Angels, p. 275) The Northern European family of peoples, he says, must be sheltered from alien elements (The Ideal and Destiny, p.298). These elements , I presume, include a.o.: Irish, French, Italian, Spanish, Greek, Polish… The crucial question seems to be: “how do we define race?” And this is probably a to-and-fro-discussion without end…....... For example: McCulloch assumes that his racial classification system is firmly based in the work of Carleton Coon (The Races of Europe, 1939). But Rienzi claims that Coon’s racial classification system is incompatible(!) with the nordicist view: “The term Nordish - coined by McCulloch and not by any physical anthropologist - is a collection of Northern European types that the Nordishists say go together, e.g, core ‘Nordish’ groups such as Nordics, Borrebys, and Brunns. However, Coon pointedly states, in a number of places, that these groups cannot be lumped together. In Coon’s view, Nordics are closest to so-called ‘Mediterraneans;’ in fact Coon considers Nordics to be merely ‘partially de-pigmented Mediterraneans,’ and he considers Nordics to be derived from ‘Mediterranean” racial stock.’ http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol2no2/mr-teg.html 99039
Posted by G de B on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:12 | # McCulloch committed another, equally severe, fallacy by assuming that his racial classification system is also firmly based in the work of Sir Arthur Keith, to which he regularly refers throughout his book “The Ideal and Destiny”. According sir Arthur Keith, “the term ‘race’ came to be applied in two senses: first, to a local or race making group - being as it were the loom on which the genetic threads were woven - and secondly, to the product of evolution - the differentiated people, the woven web. In one sense the term refers to an evolutionary process; in the other to an evolutionary product.” “The term [race] was originally given to a lineage group. Later it was restricted to distinctive varieties of mankind. ‘Nation’ is the term used to designate the lineal descendants of a local group.” Race and nation, he says, are near akin: a nation is in reality an incipient race (race in the making). National and linguistic borders are central in structuring genetic variation in Europe “Most of my colleagues regard a nation as a political unit, with which anthropologists have no concern; whereas I regard a nation as an ‘evolutionary unit,’ with which anthropologists ought to be greatly concerned. The only live races in Europe today are its nations.” 99040
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:30 | #
No that’s not the crucial question. Everybody knows what race is. Are you a Negro? No. A Chinaman? No. A Mexican? No. A white man? Yes. That’s all you need, that and the trivial observation that there are shades of grey, and white isn’t one of those shades. Don’t act like an asshole. You’re a Fleming? Good. Act like one, instead of like a childish dupe of the Jews and communists. You embarrass the Flemish race, you and the Flemish socialists who keep trying to shut down the Vlaams Belang. Go to this site’s Wiki (look for it at the upper margin right below the masthead) and click on “race.” Study that article carefully. Study any references you need to understand. Then stop your asinine obfuscations which the Jews and communists have taught you, and you’re too stupid to see through. Oh, and the other thing you need to study is a certain children’s fable. It’s known as “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Study that carefully. There’s your reading assignment for this week. Enjoy. 99041
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:41 | # Sangha, how about streamlining your next comment with some editing? I couldn’t plow through all that crap, sorry. I hopped down the text in jumps, reading the first three or four words of every third or fourth line. You sound like a nonce case, and as such you shouldn’t be wasting people’s time with lengthy comments but I’m willing to try again and give you the benefit of the doubt if you’ll edit out 90% of the pure crap and get down to the issue at hand. “Cut to the chase,” as they say. Diamed writes long stuff but his is always worth reading. Yours isn’t. Oh and include your race/ethnicity/family religious background/place of birth/current country of citizenship next time please.
No comment on that highlit part ... 99042
Posted by silver on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:57 | #
From my, I think it’s fair to say, considerable exposure to nordicist literature, I think it really means very little. None of them promote their desire for self-preservation by hanging their hats on the claim that the Romans were Nordic(ish). Given the evidence, it strikes them as not an unreasonable assumption. As na said to you, if one is interested in history, there isn’t any inherently good reason not to take an interest in the race of the civilization in question. I think doing so would largely be taken for granted were it African history and historians were trying draw a distinction between Hutus and Tutsis. The modern study of Roman history, because of its importance and its splendor, requires greater delicacy because of the numerous toes that so easily be stepped on. But if it’s strictly a question of history, the hypothesis that the Romans were largely Nordic(ish) shouldn’t be ruled out simply for being “offensive.”
There are much more recent and far more grizzly examples you drawn on to make that point: the two world wars during the 20th century (McCulloch calls them “kinslayings”—I think the term “Kinslayer Wars,” pulled from the Dragonlance fantasy series, is better). Also, it’s the complete phenotype, not just pigmenation, that they refer to, in addition to shared culture and shared history when defining themselves as a people. I can’t see how any of this could possibly be up for debate. All in all, I don’t think you’ve said anything which would even raise any eyebrows, let alone “offend” anyone. By the time you get to a blog like this, most of the participants have heard it all before. I think that’s certainly true in n/a’s case: whatever you might make of him, he’s been around the block and he is one assiduous bastard.
That’s a little vague. You might want to phrase it a more directly. If I’ve understood you correctly, those are pretty common feelings, and ones I personally can relate to. Racialist discussions can’t help but give rise to such feelings. But I believe there is a level of understanding that, once reached, assuages virtually all such anxieties. That belief justifies my presence here: I wouldn’t be here promoting the views that I do if I didn’t believe it. G de B, (Godfrey de Buillon?)
I don’t why you cite p.275. The definition of interracism (an usual term, not used elsewhere) forms a crucial part of McCulloch’s views and he defines it much earlier. As for your objection, I think it’s a misunderstanding. “White supremacy” is both a theory (that whites—nords, one supposes—are the “supreme” race: the best race) and a historic American political arrangment in which whites (all whites, not just nords) were politically and socially privileged over blacks and other non-whites. Only the latter requires “interracism.” The theory that whites (nords) are the “supreme” race, on the other hand, is taken for granted by McCulloch and the book in question was written in part to help instill such a view among nords. I’m under no illusion that it’s far from flattering towards non-nordic whites. I’m a “coarse-textured,” subjective, hmm, “Med-Armenid” according to his designation. It’s not for his feelings towards my kind that I praise his work. Going back to what I said to sangha, there’s a certain level of understanding that renders unflattering views like McCulloch’s (and, no doubt, n/a’s, and, really, not only ever other nordicists’, but every nordic “WN"s’) almost completely inconsequential. That’s how I feel: I read “Destiny of Angels” with nothing but fascination.
That’s not a “severe” fallacy. But even if it is, just what are you objecting to: is your problem that he made an error in racial classification or would you claim that any attempt at racial classification is similarly “severly flawed”?
You’re quite right. Much more work needs to be done in this regard. Not so much with respect to classifications; those have mostly been worked out. Most people on so-called “anthro” boards—by no means all WNs—are very well aware of what is what. In fact, such boards tend to be full of almost-nords and almost-whites claiming membership of the group they are “almost” a part of: N. Italians into Germanics; S. Italians into “whites”; Arabs into “Caucasians” and so on. Clearly, people find infusing their politics into their views irresistible. A large part of the reason for this is the view, explicit and implicit, that “whiter” = better. Usually it’s a negro or dravidian who’ll provide the most accurate designation. My view is that most people know what “nordish” refers to, and that it’s a person from a Nordic country (Britain, UK, Scands, Netherlands) or, roughly in descending order, Flanders, Germany, Switzerland and Austria, being “clearly in,” with large proportions of, again in order, Finns, Walloons, French, N. Italians (real ones), Poles, Czechs, Russians, Slovaks, Slovenians, Belorussians, Ukes. The rest hold only minor “nordish” proportions. McCulloch attempts to estimate such proportions at racialcompact.com. He ignores the cultural factor binding majority non-nordish peoples together, however. In my opinion, it’s highly unlikely that any but the most “motivated” would abandon ethnic ties to pursue “nordish-hood.” I also believe that if such a premium weren’t placed on nordish-hood—something which racialcompact attempts, with limited successs—a great many more people would more readily and more pridefully concede the point, with a very important, and badly needed, decline in racialist obstructionism. For me, however, that last point goes much further than mere pragmatism. But it’s too big a topic to go into it here, and I’m still somewhat feeling my way through it myself. There’s a marked tendency on WN boards to demand immediate adherence to the program (the best evidence you’re one of them being laying it on thick on “the jews”), only slight deviations typically being sufficient to have you classified and dismissed as an “anti” (displaying any confusion about “the jews” usually being the easiest way to get canned, but displaying any other signs of normalcy, like humor, will also be treated most suspiciously—they’re a bit like the ayatollah Khomeini in that regard: there is no humor in NS/WN), so often some of the best racialist thought out there gets short shrift because it’s immediately scanned with a fine-toothed comb for JQ-worthyness, and tossed if it doesn’t pass muster. 99043
Posted by Armor on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:06 | #
And how do we define shortness? You know the humoristic saying: In life, there are no tall people and no short people, the right size is when your two feet rest squarely on the ground. Short people do not exist! It’s all in the mind. 99044
Posted by G de B on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:28 | # @ Fred Scrooby “Don’t act like an asshole.” Hmm… This is from the Aryan Nations website: “a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East.” “Islam is our ally, and the 1500 cults all claiming to be ‘Christian’ are our opposition…” And LOOK at that picture: http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/proveit.htm The WHITE racist Edgar Steele is fond of it; he says: “let me show you a picture of somebody else who is Lebanese. “B-b-b-but ..... that .... that’s ... ‘That Girl!’” you [Fred Scrooby] exclaim. Yes. Yes, it is. 99045
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:05 | # I attempted to read your comment just above, G de B, but my eyes glazed over after about the third line and I couldn’t finish. I don’t know anything about the Aryan Nations. Who are they? What are they? I haven’t the slightest idea. You have questions about them? Go ask them. Earth to G de B: This site isn’t them. Smarten up please. So far all I’ve seen in you is the behavior of a pathetic dupe of the Jews and communists. 99046
Posted by G de B on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:11 | # @ silver 1/ “he made an error in racial classification” Yes, it’s just that.
99047
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:13 | # Do you know what the word “white” means? You know, the color of milk, clouds, snow, rice, sheep, stuff like that? OK, now do you know what the word “people” means? And do you know what the word “genocide” means? Do you know what the word “agree” means? Do you know what the words “with,” “do,” “the,” “of,” and “you,” mean? OK, we’re ready to start communicating: Do you agree with the genocide of white people? Yes or no. No theories, no game-playing sophistries, no philosophy, no politics. Just Do you agree with the genocide of white people? Answer, please. SKIP ... Skip ... skip ... for pity’s sake, skip ... the Jewish/communist sophistries. 99048
Posted by the sangha on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:17 | # Mr. Fred Scrooby wrote: “You sound like a nonce case, and as such you shouldn’t be wasting people’s time with lengthy comments but I’m willing to try again and give you the benefit of the doubt if you’ll edit out 90% of the pure crap and get down to the issue at hand.” My apologies for wasting your precious time, Scrooby. You do seem to be unusually harsh and unreasonable. As for nonce cases, the White Nationalist movement has its fair share of them. 99049
Posted by the sangha on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:29 | # The modern study of Roman history, because of its importance and its splendor, requires greater delicacy because of the numerous toes that so easily be stepped on. But if it’s strictly a question of history, the hypothesis that the Romans were largely Nordic(ish) shouldn’t be ruled out simply for being “offensive.” I agree. I covered this topic to some extent with n/a. He offered a quote from Coon and some other sources, as well as pictures of busts. The busts unfortunately don’t tell us much, because Meds and Nords differ largely in pigmentation, and both may be mixed with other elements. One reason I brought up Norwegians is because I just happened to have met 2 Norwegian girls (who by the way were flirting with a Negro at a club) the previous day who looked radically different phenotypically from the busts n/a showed me. The point is that Northern Europeans can differ widely in appearance. They were platinum blondes with snub noses. Saying that the Romans were like them strikes me as absurd—and it would likely strike them the same way. It seems the term “Nordic” is often used as a wide net to capture people who racially and genetically may be very distanced. 99050
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:11 | # cladrastis, Sins, crimes, morality, or pragmatism, it matters not the terms. Reparations may be forced, however, pragmatically, carrying a child to term cannot be forced. The issue then is killing the child because it is a Negro (one drop is pragmatic). If it was a Welsh multiple-offender rapist presumably that changes the picture? The issues still remain. Do you care for the child of a violent low IQ psychotic, whether Welsh or Negro? Is pregnancy fair or unfair or just the only means to currently create life? Is the pregnancy more of a burden mentally or physically because it’s the product of a low IQ psychotic? Don’t know. The Father has no say. Apparently, in the UK, they are targeting the children of criminals. “About 125,000 kids have got a dad in prison. That’s a huge risk factor. Something like 65 per cent of those kids will end up in prison themselves…” 35% apparently, don’t end up in prison, presumably leading a productive life. Is it really pragmatic, from an evolutionary perspective, to abort all these children or sterilize the British prison population? The low IQ are more fertile. High school dropouts average 2.5 children whereas college grads average 1.56 children. In a time of plummeting birth rates in the West, these 125,000 criminals will on average produce (125,000 x 2.5 = 312,500 x 35% =) 109,375 (mostly British white) children who will lead relatively productive lives. The submission is, that even for a pragmatist, the resolution of the issues, are not obvious. 99051
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:19 | # Correction: It’s 125,000 children not prisoners. 35% is 43,750 (mostly British white) children who will lead relatively productive lives. The principle remains the same. 99052
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:57 | #
GW, this does not exactly sound uplifting! How are we going to define ‘maximising genetic interests’? Do we have a formula that we follow, and if need be, update as we learn more? It seems we are oversimplifying things, as did those who used Newtonian physics to argue for a Divine Watchmaker. Life is a game we are in, for which we don’t know the complete rule book- we have only seen pages of it. We don’t know the object of the game, at least not now. Perhaps when we are more highly evolved, we will understand more. This is what we strive for. This is why we oppose dysgenesis and race replacement. If maximizing genetic interests is the goal, why not perfect cloning and maintain the status quo? We are being driven by some force which we don’t understand, but which we hope to one day. This is what I understand as going to the stars. 99053
Posted by silver on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:07 | #
Knowing what Danny Thomas (her father) looks like, it’s obvious her mother must have been European, most likely nordish. By that standard, Cindy Crawford is “Lebanese.” This is typical of the nutcase wing. Their hatred of Jews is so overwhelming that they happily ally with what they most wish to avoid: in this case, promoting a levantine/nordish halfcast. At its worst, it’s this “alliance” with muslims they fantasize about. God Almighty, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
So then you rectify the error and continue on your way. It seems to me that you’re combing the literature for “errors” (which you announce with a typically continental liberal use of exclamation marks) which you want to claim derail the entire project. If what you really wish to say is that the issues are complex, both morally as well as empircally, and not as simple as they seem at first glance, I couldn’t agree more. That is why any attempt to untangle them meets with such fierce opposition. My great hope is to see that process of untanglement hugely eased, so that it no longer strikes one as anything more severe than talk about the weather (ideally and idealistically, anyway). And that, in my estimate, can only be achieved through a spirit of love and compassion, not one of ire and hatred. Fostering such a spirit requires overcoming massive inertia to the contrary but the attempt must be made—posterity deserves no less. (Btw, I don’t claim to personify that spirit. I only see myself as holding the door open to it, so that others might pick it up and run with it—the kind of people who today devote themselves to care and nurture. Me, I’m too cynical, too hard-hearted, as are most people in this political niche, and usually even more so. I’d happily stand aside if a critical mass of better people emerged.) 99054
Posted by G de B on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:54 | # @ Fred Scrooby “Do you agree with the genocide of white people?” The white (European) race can be divided into into three different groups: Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean. Nordicists (such as McCulloch) are only concerned about Nordic preservation (Northern Europeans). Intermixture with the other WHITE varieties are considered to have negative, destructive, genocidal(!) effects on the Nordic race ! 99055
Posted by G de B on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:09 | # @ Silver ” her mother must have been European, most likely nordish.” Danny Thomas [born Amos Alphonsus Muzyad Yaqoob] was the son of TWO LEBANESE immigrants. 99056
Posted by n/a on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:45 | # GW, And going to the stars is not life’s purpose - unless, that is, it can be shown to maximise genetic interests. Is it not self-evident? Only an infinitesimal fraction of the universe’s space, energy, and resources are available to us on the surface of this planet. And more eggs in more baskets means greatly reduced existential risk. What cost could you possibly envision that outweighs these benefits?
None of your objections seem particularly relevant. Why do we debate anything online? At least in my case, it’s not because I think it directly gains me anything in terms of Darwinian fitness. Few people consciously make calculations of that sort about anything they do. It might be argued we should always act rationally to maximize our inclusive fitness, but this is I think too high a standard even for people who frequent sites like this one. There’s probably a reason evolution hasn’t shaped us as perfectly rational beings—conscious rational thought is not the fitness-maximizing path (at least it hasn’t proved to be so far). Conflicting interpretations of history may reflect ethnic conflict, and this certainly seems to be the case with most “Nordicism vs. Medicism” debates. Trying to suppress such debates won’t do away with the underlying conflict. It seems the term “Nordic” is often used as a wide net to capture people who racially and genetically may be very distanced. Coon distinguishes between “Keltic” and “Hallstatt” Nordic types. Think Britain, not Sweden. Genetically, modern Europeans north and south of the Alps cluster separately. I believe—as did Coon—that the ancestors of the Romans originated north of the Alps, though this issue is far from central in my worldview. What we choose to call people north of the Alp or subtypes of people north of the Alps is not really the question.
This is what McCulloch actually suggests for Europe:
He’s not looking to cleanse native Flemish “Alpines” from Flanders or whatever you’re worried about. He just wants national borders maintained and doesn’t want Northern Europe racially transformed, be it by non-European or Southern European influx. That seems rather reasonable to me. If you believe Northern Europe should be racially transformed, please explain why. 99057
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:43 | # n/a, “Inheriting the universe” is such a distant and technically improbable prospect, I’m not worried one way or the other about it. If it becomes apparent at some point that it is a genuine means to maximise interests, and not simply a decadent diversion from “real business”, then it is necessary and good that it be attempted. But you and I both know that the existential problem in front of us now, today, is the one which we have no time to lose in resolving. For better or worse, I am an inveterate realist. Airy dreamers just leave me shaking my head in wonder. It doesn’t matter to me whether they are Herrenrasse types, runists, wannabee galactic warriors or even convinced MultiCultists, I am driven to immediate scepticism by their boundless innocence and simplicity. 99058
Posted by G de B on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:50 | # @n/a: “explain why” Fred Scrooby asked: “Do you know what the word “white” means?” yes I know: the Mediterranean variety also belongs to The white (European) race. And, says McCulloch: intermixture between the populations of northern and southern Europe — Nordish and Mediterranid — would diminish or negate the genetic traits of the Nordish element. This contradicts Fred Scrooby because he seems to believe that this kind of intermixture would not imply the genocide of white people.
Obama is the son of a black African father and a white American mother. Why is he considered to be black? Your remark implies that we should say that he’s white. In fact, since his mother was white - according to Jewish law - he’s white. 99059
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:53 | # According to Jewish law, G de B, you are a Belgian Red. 99060
Posted by G de B on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:50 | # @Guessedworker: a Belgian Red. Are You Serious??? Dutch Parliamentarian Geert screened his controversial film Fitna in Jerusalem on Sunday, calling on Europe to restrict immigration from backward Islamic countries and describing Islam as a totalitarian ideology full of hate, violence and submission. Europe is in the process of Islamization. We need to fight it, Wilders said. We have to win the war against Islam. If we dont ... we will lose He concluded: “It is five to twelve. Freedom must win, we have to win and we will win.”
Let me tell you, I need not adopt this attitude because I have already this attitude. Although I have a tendency towards individualism, I am prone to feel outrage at people I consider morally blameworthy—consequently I have committed what the elites consider idolatry and acted in Mr. Wilders’ spirit ...to this day, and I intend to continue. I have expressed those views through letters to the editor of newspapers or magazines, even to the Prime Minister and his top political staff. In one of those letters I also have mentione that “It is five to twelve.” The result? I was sent to a mental asylum for six months, have been deliberately misdiagnosed with a psychic disorder (paranoid schizophrenia) and I was forced to swallow anti-psychotic meds to try to space myself out and no longer to pay attention nor to focus on the danger of Islamization! “How to deal with gadflies, whistleblowers and all manner of muckraking citizens who dare to challenge the authorities? Dispatch them to the local psychiatric hospital.deal with gadflies, whistleblowers and all manner of muckraking citizens who dare to challenge the authorities: dispatch them to the local psychiatric hospital.” http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/08/asia/china.php “I wish to place on record my wish that the profession of psychiatry be closed down and those who practice this false profession be allowed ONLY to practice it upon their fellow psychiatrists and psychologists” - Dr. Koloko A Belgian Red, you said? 99061
Posted by the sangha on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:06 | # Why do we debate anything online? At least in my case, it’s not because I think it directly gains me anything in terms of Darwinian fitness. Few people consciously make calculations of that sort about anything they do. I think in my case a big reason is boredom. I can jump into almost any Internet forum and have an effect on others’ emotions. Other than some personal fun, I’m not sure anything positive can be gained from it. In racial forums, people seem to believe that their words somehow carry weight in the real world. For example, in neo-Nazi forums, there may be 5 or 6 members in each, and they all may be typing to one another from their mother’s basement believing they are about to bring a social and racial revolution—even though the rest of the world is ignoring them. Conflicting interpretations of history may reflect ethnic conflict, and this certainly seems to be the case with most “Nordicism vs. Medicism” debates. Trying to suppress such debates won’t do away with the underlying conflict. This goes back to what I just said. I don’t think the vast majority of Nordics or Mediterraneans would perceive an “ethnic conflict” between Nords and Meds. There is, however, a very small-scale ideological conflict, and this conflict is exclusively in racialist forums, which attract a very small percentage of Nords and Meds. Silver mentioned his irritation by Torriani and Rienzi. Most Mediterraneans don’t acknowledge these guys. In the same way, were you to publicly espouse your views to the Nordic people, you’d likely be met with plenty of hostility. My Nordic friends, for example, might welcome some of your historical interpretations as quaint or even correct, but even so, they wouldn’t care for your moralizing about race-mixing and they certainly wouldn’t feel the loyalty that you do for other Nords simply because they are designated as “Nordic” in an Internet forum (I had to jump in to help my blond-haired German buddy when a hulking Upper Paleolithic Croat attacked him for some stupid reason). If they see an attractive Mediterranean woman and want to date her, they will do so. And I have found, though it might not be the case in racial forums (then again maybe it is), that many Nordic men prefer dark women (even if the generalization that like attracts like is true). Silver should ignore Torriani and Rienzi. Coon distinguishes between “Keltic” and “Hallstatt” Nordic types. Think Britain, not Sweden. Genetically, modern Europeans north and south of the Alps cluster separately. I believe—as did Coon—that the ancestors of the Romans originated north of the Alps, though this issue is far from central in my worldview. What we choose to call people north of the Alp or subtypes of people north of the Alps is not really the question. We can however state with certainty that people who have evolved north of the Alps generally do not feel the level of racial feeling and kinship with one another—whatever their distance from one another (excepting the Saami)—that you do towards them. My German buddy, though he may be racially more similar to you, would probably relate to me on many more levels than he could to you. Your message will pass through his ears, and it’s not because he is ignorant. He’s a normal guy, unlike most of the types in the National Alliance (or even here). This, of course, is anecdotal. We have history as well as the contemporary situation to prove to us that the Northern European man is naturally too individualistic to put his personal interests aside to accept some Pan-Northern-Euro ideal. The whole debate is somewhat asinine, which is why I don’t see why Rienzi or diabloblanco or any other who wishes to widen the “racial net” is perceived as a threat. Fred Scrooby can call me an asshole, but he’s one guy who’s pissing into the wind—and most Northern Europeans are not even watching this sorry spectacle, because they just don’t care. It doesn’t bother me that some believe that the ancient Romans and Greeks were Nordic. It doesn’t bother me that some people believe Nordics are intellectually or mentally superior. All I have to do is study the indifference of most Northern European Whites to the Knoxville and Wichita horrors, the subservience of Germany to Israel today, the way in which attractive Nordic women flirt with Negroes (whose IQ is alleged to be 85) all around me, to realize that the claim to overall mental superiority is stupid and shallow. 99062
Posted by the sangha on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:10 | # [This will be reposted as I believe my last comment was eaten up by the software.] Why do we debate anything online? At least in my case, it’s not because I think it directly gains me anything in terms of Darwinian fitness. Few people consciously make calculations of that sort about anything they do. I think in my case a big reason is boredom. I can jump into almost any Internet forum and have an effect on others’ emotions. Other than some personal fun, I’m not sure anything positive can be gained from it. In racial forums, people seem to believe that their words somehow carry weight in the real world. For example, in neo-Nazi forums, there may be 5 or 6 members in each, and they all may be typing to one another from their mother’s basement believing they are about to bring a social and racial revolution—even though the rest of the world is ignoring them. Conflicting interpretations of history may reflect ethnic conflict, and this certainly seems to be the case with most “Nordicism vs. Medicism” debates. Trying to suppress such debates won’t do away with the underlying conflict. This goes back to what I just said. I don’t think the vast majority of Nordics or Mediterraneans would perceive an “ethnic conflict” between Nords and Meds. There is, however, a very small-scale ideological conflict, and this conflict is exclusively in racialist forums, which attract a very small percentage of Nords and Meds. Silver mentioned his irritation by Torriani and Rienzi. Most Mediterraneans don’t acknowledge these guys. In the same way, were you to publicly espouse your views to the Nordic people, you’d likely be met with plenty of hostility. My Nordic friends, for example, might welcome some of your historical interpretations as quaint or even correct, but even so, they wouldn’t care for your moralizing about race-mixing and they certainly wouldn’t feel the loyalty that you do for other Nords simply because they are designated as “Nordic” in an Internet forum (I had to jump in to help my blond-haired German buddy when a hulking Upper Paleolithic Croat attacked him for some stupid reason). If they see an attractive Mediterranean woman and want to date her, they will do so. And I have found, though it might not be the case in racial forums (then again maybe it is), that many Nordic men prefer dark women (even if the generalization that like attracts like is true). Silver should ignore Torriani and Rienzi. Coon distinguishes between “Keltic” and “Hallstatt” Nordic types. Think Britain, not Sweden. Genetically, modern Europeans north and south of the Alps cluster separately. I believe—as did Coon—that the ancestors of the Romans originated north of the Alps, though this issue is far from central in my worldview. What we choose to call people north of the Alp or subtypes of people north of the Alps is not really the question. We can however state with certainty that people who have evolved north of the Alps generally do not feel the level of racial feeling and kinship with one another—whatever their distance from one another (excepting the Saami)—that you do towards them. My German buddy, though he may be racially more similar to you, would probably relate to me on many more levels than he could to you. Your message will pass through his ears, and it’s not because he is ignorant. He’s a normal guy, unlike most of the types in the National Alliance (or even here). This, of course, is anecdotal. We have history as well as the contemporary situation to prove to us that the Northern European man is naturally too individualistic to put his personal interests aside to accept some Pan-Northern-Euro ideal. The whole debate is somewhat asinine, which is why I don’t see why Rienzi or diabloblanco or any other who wishes to widen the “racial net” is perceived as a threat. Fred Scrooby can call me an asshole, but he’s one guy who’s pissing into the wind—and most Northern Europeans are not even watching this sorry spectacle, because they just don’t care. It doesn’t bother me that some believe that the ancient Romans and Greeks were Nordic. It doesn’t bother me that some people believe Nordics are intellectually or mentally superior. All I have to do is study the indifference of most Northern European Whites to the Knoxville and Wichita horrors, the subservience of Germany to Israel today, the way in which attractive Nordic women flirt with Negroes (whose IQ is alleged to be 85) all around me, to realize that the claim to overall mental superiority is stupid and shallow. 99063
Posted by astrid on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:50 | # “cladrastis, the story of Abraham and Isaac demonstrates that parents have the Biblical authority to kill their children. Of course, abortion may not have been a known technology in that time, but the obvious generalization is that parents—or at least fathers—have authority over their unborn children as well.” James Bowery, wtf did you get this sick idea? The story of Abraham and Isaac is a story to illustrate perfect faith. Abraham was to have known perfectly that he would never have to kill his son. I can’t find my bible right now, but read Kierkegaard if you want to read a brilliant person’s analysis of this story. 99064
Posted by Fr. John on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:06 | # “Come on Fr. John, you don’t really believe that all incidents of abortion are wrong, do you?” Clad- I believe that ‘abortion is murder,’ but NOT that ‘all life is sacred.’ Those illegitimate bastards and mixed-race mamzerim (to use the Jews’ language against them) that are a result of young girls whoring around, and via rape, and other brutalities attributable to sub-human types, are ALL offspring cursed by God, and NOT part of the Covenant, or the “Election” if we read the OT and St. Paul correctly. (Witness a recent Traditionalist Protestant in the USA standing up to his session with the Truth of Racial Purity as witnessed in the Bible, and All of Western Culture- http://hearth—stone.blogspot.com/2008/12/disclaimer.html ). But, instead of supporting my thesis, I would point out that your question comes too late in the equation. It would be BETTER, and MORE HUMANE, to have ‘wet nurses,’ Chaperones, and all the Victorian ‘equippage’ that virginal women used to have around them 7/24, and to keep them at home, ‘in their gardens’ until the wedding night via an arranged marraige, to SAFEGUARD THEM- ALL white women- from this tragic, bitter, race-destroying, perverse, adulterous end. Virginity can only be given once, you know… BUt then, with statistics like this from the Non-White contingent, (http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/2008/12/10/blacks-killed-420692-in-us-from-1950-to-2000/ ) an even better solution would be the immediate repatriation of all that are not White, Anglo-Saxon, Christian, and European. (which would include Jews). Which would in effect reduce the incidence of out of wedlock bastard children by double digits in the percentages of illegal, immoral, and illegitimate births. And yes, that WOULD be Heaven on Earth, much like the century before our present one… the only ones that would carp would be the spoiled, perverted, and apostate whores that think they are ‘virtuous’ because they haven’t gotten an STD, or pregnant, or been called a ‘tramp’...YET. No, the older vision and action that prevented much sexual abuse of helpless females was far preferable to our modern Jewish ‘shiksa mentality’ - oh, and BTW, that group of Pioneer White People built an entire continent and KNEW that they were better than the rest of [sic] ‘humanity.’ For instance- ““The inferior races hate the white race precisely because of its superiority. It is galling to the lower races to be reminded of their inferiority, and white superiority instills in them a burning desire to tear down whites and their creations in order to make themselves whites’ ‘equal’. This is not all, however, for tearing down whites removes a burr from their consciousness—that of being reminded of their inferiority—and indeed is an act of revenge for such reminding. Accordingly, when whites are so stupid as to treat the lower races as equals, this but whets the appetite of those races to see whites destroyed, for they see vulnerability in this stupidity, and thus an opportunity for inserting their grappling hooks into the edifice of white civilization.”—JBR Yant, Mortal Words v 11 ” - found online at http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2008/12/farrakhan-on-jewish-banking-system.html How absolutely refreshing. This is the only sort of “Change” I can foresee for teh USA, before it perishes utterly at the hands of the coming Wrath of God…. 99065
Posted by silver on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:36 | # G de B,
Danny Thomas being the offspring of two “Lebanese” parents (an ethny consisting of a wide racial disparity) only reinforces what I surmised: a Danny Thomas type with only one Lebanese parent producing someone with his daughter’s appearance would require a European, most likely nordish partner, let alone a Danny Thomas type of “pure Lebanese” descent.
You misunderstood me. Edgar J. Steele’s use of Marlon Thomas was to suggest that “Lebanese” like her are being bombed by Israel. She wouldn’t be completely out of place in Lebanon, but neither is even close to typical. I gave the example of Cindy Crawford as another levantine/nordish mix who’s use as an example of a typical “Lebanese” would equally misleading. To digress, darker types originating in mixed populations like Lebanon-Syria (and much of S. Europe) can often have very light siblings or produce veyr light offspring, such being the vagaries of mixed inheritance. So it’s certainly possible for a Danny Thomas type to produce very light offspring, only it’d be much less “European” than his daughter actually is. (A very close friend of mine is an excellent example: he’s naturally very “tanned” while his sister is very white and virtually blond, and through artificial enhancement has easily attained ultra-blondness.)
They’re obviously reflective of real word views. Where else do you think they originate from? They’re views expressed by people who’ve closely observed the world around them and decided that official lies, no matter how well intentioned, not only don’t accord with what they witness but, to put it bluntly, threaten catastrophe. Given that, how much weight these view carry in the present scarcely registers as cause for discouragement.
I don’t know nearly enough about Torriani to attack him too vehemently; his case I would call a combination of confusion with earnest desire. My beef with Rienzi isn’t so much his methodology, it’s his interpretation of it yields (more cynically: what he engineered it to yield)—an interpretation so repulsive and retardant only a zombie would attempt to progress by advancing it. Most Meds don’t acknowledge these gentlemen because they’re unaware of them. Perhaps you meant they wouldn’t agree. In their heart of hearts, I believe you’re right.
Thanks for the groundbreaking info. In case you’ve forgotten, I live in the real world myself. Firstly, I’m not really sure you’ve properly understood my views. I’ve gone to pains to differentiate myself from most racialists. I think most racialist views are repulsive almost beyond redemption. But for all their repulsivity, they hit on some important truths, truths which, with a more comprehensive understanding and appreciation, allow one to advance a program of social (re)arrangement vastly superior to that which it would replace for virtually all members of society, no matter what their racial group; and a program equally accessible to far-sighted members of all racial groups (admittedly more to some and less to others), requiring nothing in the way of pretense. Secondly, in a society which lionizes individualism and finding one’s “own path,” and disdains any hint of moral censure or even guidance (no matter how obviously wise), “moralizing” is a pejorative term, yet the act itself is (and has been) extremely socially important.
If the generalization is true, then all you’ve “found” are the exceptions.
Correction: you have very recent history, which is to say you don’t really have “history” at all. The “debate” you see isn’t so much “asinine” as it is non-existant. As for Rienzi and diabloblanco, niether of them are idiots. Indeed, given today’s racial stupor, the latter’s views accord quite well with reality: the “racial net” is unthinkingly quite often cast just as far as diablo contends, certainly so when cultural competence is clearly evident. Your response to me (which is what I assume this is, given you quoted me), however, completely misses the point. I’m not attempting to “widen” anything.
Oh, I think you protest just a bit too much for that to be true. You’ve obviously done the rounds on race boards and found yourself shaken up. Though the issues raised therein go far beyond “Nords vs Meds,” your every objection has been restricted to that distinction, which really says it all. I’m afraid you’ve overestimated yourself if you think you’ve shaken up anyone’s “emotions” (or anything else) here. You earlier asked n/a his age; maybe you should inquire a little more closely into your own. I know demonstrating concern for the future gets in the way of scoring “threesomes” and all that, but truth carries consequences which don’t abate for daring to interfere with our sex lives. 99066
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:53 | #
You’re asking why there’s a one-drop rule? Because black plus white gives shades of gray. Pretty soon there’ll be no white left if there’s no one-drop rule, only shades of gray.
What’s a “racial forum”? Talking about “racial forums” is like talking about “2 + 2 = 4 forums” — “There are these special forums, man, where people go who think 2 + 2 = 4. They’re obviously reflective of real word views. Where else do you think they originate from? They’re views expressed by people who’ve closely observed the world around them and decided that 2+ 2 = 4. They’ve also decided water is wet, circles are round, the wind blows, the sun shines, stuff like that. These are very, very, very special people and they need a special name to reflect that.”
Serbs aren’t Meds. They’re Slavs. They’re from the east, not the south.
Which is the same as “I think 2 + 2 = 4 is repulsive beyond redemption.”
Truths like 2 + 2 = 4. Yeah that’s pretty important — basic, you could say. My paraphrase of Silver addressing Sangha:
99067
Posted by cladrastis on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:12 | #
Second, the resolutions to the issues above are obvious to the individual. If my next door neighbor chooses to give birth to her rape baby, that’s her prerogative - and she can live with the consequences of that choice. But if my (hypothetical) daughter were to be impregnated by a rapist (whether a German or a Negro), I would strongly recommend abortion, because the risks outweigh any perceived benefit (also consider this in light of Bowery’s recent posting on sovereigns and shielded individuals, and the responsibilities of each). Yes, there is also the risk that my daughter may never marry and, thus, won’t pass on any of my genes, but that is preferable to producing a social liability. To reiterate, abortion is a tool that can enhance our group evolutionary fitness if used wisely. Third, we don’t need low IQ individuals (i.e. those with IQs below 100) in our racialist movement, period. Becoming a race of low achievers is not part of my vision for the future and will lead to nothing but the immiseration and enslavement of our folk. Better that we are reduced to a tiny fraction of our existing population than that we decline to the level of the negro (at which point all hope IS lost). 99068
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:43 | # cladrastis, Who said they were synonyms? It was simply a choice to use your frame of reference. How is it a perversion? How do you know the child will be a social liability? Where’s the evidence that eugenics produces an evolutionary fitness benefit? We already are a race of low IQ. 50% fall below the mean. Evolution appears, however to mitigate these circumstances. Low IQ parents tend to have children with slightly higher IQs. It’s regression to the mean. The converse happens for high IQ parents as well. For all of our existence we have been, or at least half of us have been, low achievers, as you define it. Is our history the history of a singularly persistent Malthusian impoverishment and servitude? 99069
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:53 | #
Not sure if you really believe this. If it were true, dog breeding, for one, would be impossible. Regression to the mean may provide a ray of hope for traits that have low heritability (improving the environment is the Left’s version of eugenics. Only problem being that as you equalize environmental conditions, more of the variability will be due to heridity- perhaps this is why the Left gets so hysterical). But regression to the mean in terms of heridity is a statistical phenomenon. Some unusual combinations of alleles are especially good or bad. The children are unlikely to have the same combination of alleles. But there are still good and bad alleles. The NYT also tried using regression to the mean as a reason that The Bell Curve’s thesis can be ignored. It’s up there with the Lewontin Fallacy. 99070
Posted by Tim Heydon on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:31 | # I don’t believe with Arthur Kemp that civilisations rise and fall according to their racial composition and nothing else. Nor do I believe with Robert Spencer that a race’s civilisation is entirely transplantable. The human condition is a good deal more complex than is sometimes allowed for. I believe TS Eliot was right when he remarked that a culture (Civilisation) is the embodiment of a nation’s religion; that there can be no culture except in relation to religion.
The most persuasive analysis I have come across is that of Pitirim Sorokin, the Harvard Sociologist who posited that broadly speaking, Civilisations rise and fall according to their orientation to the spiritual. Civilisations rise with spiritual belief and disintegrate as materialialist attitudes take over in an ineluctable cycle. We can see decline at work at the moment in Western Europe where Christianity has weakened and the population has focussed almost entirely on material interests. Mass immigration is welcomed at least by the leftist political elites because it is seen as providing workers to bolster standards of living and as destroying nations and the Christian basis of society. Birth rates are declining because small families are wealthier in material terms, meaning that the native populations are being replaced by the high-breeding, spiritually focussed incomers. Miscegenation occurs more often because cultural differences, which reflect religious differences as well as the abilities of the racial groups which produce them, lose their importance. The pattern of rising civilisations based on the firmly held religious beliefs of a racial group and civilisational decline and racial disintegration as belief declines in the face of the strengthening materialist focus of a society, has, Sorokin argues been followed throughout Western history. According to Sorokin, Western Europe is an overripe ‘sensate’ society which is overdue for a reversion to a more spiritual focus. The way things are going, this may well mean a takeover by Islam, God help us. In other words the complete conquest of Europe by its ancient enemy through its own internal decay. A descent, I would say, into a new Dark Age. Sorokin is largely forgotten these days, more’s the pity, but the latest book using his ideas is still in print. It is ‘Holding up a Mirror. How Civilisations Decline’ by Ann Glyn-Jones, 99071
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:32 | # Tim Heydon, Why is it always about defending the race on some other terms than RACE?! What is it about tending to the genetic integrity of the race directly that makes the knees of pansies like you buckle? How about this? WE OUTLAW MISCEGENATION! 99072
Posted by cladrastis on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:23 | #
I’m not going to continue this discussion beyond this post because it’s a waste of both our times (and space on MR), and my initial question, which was answered simply and directly, was directed at Fr. John, not you. However, to answer your questions: of course it’s my frame of reference (who else’s would it be: your’s, Hillary Clintons’s, a mushroom’s?). Your post (perhaps not you, however) implied that sins, crimes, morality and pragmatism were synonyms by negating their intrinsic meanings (b/c it matters not which terms are used). If w, x, y, and z all = 0, then w=x=y=z. You can argue with logic, or you can state what you mean. By the way, Aryans (as well as some E. Asians) have a word for your philo-semitic Biblical term “sin”...it’s called shame (or dishonor). No one knows what a child may turn out to be, but there are certain variables that can be worked out probabilistically to predict (with given confidence intervals) what the child may become (and what liabilities he may posess). This is called regression analysis, which you should know (as you used it to justify breeding in the lower half of the IQ distribution). A better understanding of genetics would be useful for anyone trying to work out such regression equations (as these would be useful variables), but demographic data would be sufficient for a rough estimation. As for where there is evidence that eugenics produces evolutionary fitness, just look at the humble cow. From my old genetics textbook, fitness is “a measure of the average ability of organisms with a given genotype to survive and reproduce.” As much as you may not want to admit it, domestic cattle, which were selectively bred (i.e. eugencis) to live within a human pastoral ecology outcompeted their wild relatives (the aurochs - which is now extinct). Most other domesticates are likewise examples of this increased fitness advantage. You can argue all day about whether the cattle are better off in this arrangement or whether they are smarter, stronger, or healthier, but you cannot argue that cattle do not perfectly fill the niche in our human ecology for which they were bred or that they have not benefitted enormously from this arrangement in terms of incrasing their population size or spreading their genes throughout the world. I’m not sure what your were trying to illustrate by your last paragraph about low IQs and breeding. When high IQ parents have offspring, there is a probability distribution with regard to the IQs of those offspring. Most children will be intermediate between the two parental phenotypes (average between the two), but a few will be on the high or low end of the distribution. Regression toward the mean describes the bell-shaped probabilty distribution around each point (the parental coordinates) on the curvilinear relationship (or surface) and not to the population as a whole. Slicing off the lower half (or quarter) of the population distribution does nothing to alter this relationship, but does add selection pressure to alter the (IQ) distribution of the population as a whole. Undoubtedly, this is EXACTLY what happened when humans left Africa and ended up in Ice Age Eurasia (i.e. the Africans that didn’t have the brains to plan for the winter DIED OFF). In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes: And I concur. 99073
Posted by Diamed on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:45 | # Not true. Regression towards the mean regresses towards the average IQ of the race, not the parents. From what I recall, it was around 85% of your IQ is an average of your parents, and 15% is your average racial IQ. You cannot escape the average IQ of your race, that’s why smart blacks/hispanics/arabs all have stupid gangster kids. 99074
Posted by Darren on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:33 | # Eugenics is real and has been practiced for ages. Have we forgotten? 99075
Posted by Armor on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:49 | #
I think what we call civilization includes on the one hand our outlook on life, our way of being, our nature, our culture, our ideals, and on the other hand, our social institutions, which are supposed to reflect who we are. As Jared Taylor says: “Civilizations arise organically from the collective efforts of an entire people or nation”. However, we do not have that in the West at the moment. Our institutions have become foreign bodies. They are at war with us, and want to destroy us. And our culture is mainly a remnant from previous times. We no longer see an obvious link between our individual nature and our collective institutions, which have embraced leftism. In fact, our governments have decided that what remains of the civilizational link between European man and Western institutions should be destroyed, so that the third-world will feel at home in the West. Our society has now become less natural and looks more and more like a supermarket. Supermakets are not a good example of what we call civilization! In order to relaunch our civilization, maybe we’ll have to reorganize into small communities. Of course, forbidding racial-mixing should be our absolute priority. But beyond that, I think an important element, in order to reestablish something that feels like human civilization, is to oppose centralism (as well as leftism!). 99076
Posted by Armor on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:12 | # Higher up in the comments, I mentioned a funny saying about short people (as an example of relativism). But I’m not sure I said it right. What I meant was that there are no short people, the right size is when your feet can touch the ground. 99077
Posted by cladrastis on Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:12 | # Thank you for the correction Diamed. I was conflating the probabilities of polygenetic inheritance (which is what is believed to underly intelligence) with IQ. The two are not the same. 99078
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:56 | # Darren, If we accept, for the sake of discussion that a practise of eugenics/eugenic events endowed Jews with a higher IQ, is it shown to be a fitness benefit? Did Jews out compete Europeans because of the development of a higher IQ? Certainly to a large extent, as outlined by KMac, in his A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy the answer is no.
The Jew as ‘perpetual alien’, a position a ruling elite realised did not change because of the written rules of restriction for Jews vis-a-vis the ‘other’ perpetuated the status of alien. In other words the value to a ruling elite is not necessarily the intelligence but the severely restricted altruism. It’s not at all evident, that eugenics provided a fitness benefit for the Jews. It is fairly clear that more often than not, European elites will provide protection to Jews to further there own interests even against those of their own ethnic/racial group. 99079
Posted by silver on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 04:39 | #
A racial forum is a forum where people discuss race. Just like a math forum is a forum where people discuss math. I didn’t even hint that there was anything sinister about it.
I’ve obviously never claimed anywhere that Serbs are “meds” (whatever you think that means; knowing you, probably dead wrong). Me, on the other hand, I don’t know how many times I’ve said it now, I’m half Greek. And Greeks quite often are….what? Meds. Hooray. However, Scrooby… and please do tell if this is all getting too complicated for you… both Serbs and Greeks also contain plenty of what can be termed “armenid” strains (not necessarily “Armenian”, armenid). And such strains are plentiful all over southern Europe. All of which goes to say, just as I and innumerable others have said, it makes little sense to consider these populations “white” on average, especially not when that designation is measured against a nordic standard.
Yawn. I tire of you, Scrooby. I tire of your incessant, insistent stupidity. It’s quite amazing to think you’re scoring any sort of a point with the above. I said “most racialist views,” meaning the way most racialists express their views. I didn’t say racialism itself. Clearly, I don’t think racialism itself is “repulsive beyond redemption.” That only happens when swine like you get their hands on it. 99080
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 04:58 | # silver: “That only happens when swine like you get their hands on it.” Silver, do you wish you were part of the Nordic Aryan Master Race and not a greasy wog? 99082
Posted by silver on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:44 | #
A much more interesting question is why you’re such a dickhead. I’m being completely serious. It’s really one for the ages. (Oh, and cap’n, I don’t have to do any of this, and certainly not do it here. It’s called honesty and fairness. So I’ll take your insults in stride. Otherwise, buddy, don’t kid yourself, you’d wish you were me: smarter, better looking, more athletic, in the mainstream’s goodbooks. I could write my own ticket. Yet…I’m a racialist.) 99083
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:23 | # silver: “A much more interesting question is why you’re such a dickhead. I’m being completely serious. It’s really one for the ages.” Silver, why are you such a turd burglar? Anyone who doesn’t toe your devious, muddy the waters line is an “asshole” or a “dickhead”. “It’s called honesty and fairness.” I’m sure, those are your trademarks. “So I’ll take your insults in stride.” “...swine…” “...dickhead…” LOL! “Otherwise, buddy, don’t kid yourself, you’d wish you were me: smarter, better looking, more athletic, in the mainstream’s goodbooks.” You mean the books they keep in Thailand? Decided by the highest bidder? LOL! “I could write my own ticket. Yet…I’m a racialist.” Aren’t you a Nordicist? 99084
Posted by silver on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:42 | # Btw, to answer your question, Cap, sure, if I could look like someone like Aaron Eckhart. I watched The Dark Knight today, which he played a supporting role in, and, no fag here or anything, but I thought to myself, now that is one handsome man. Otherwise, just to be some average nordic, oh gosh no; the very thought of it is so weird it’s off-putting. You can hate me all you want, but there’s really no denying that southerny “perma-tanned” good looking Europids have, and have probably always had, a very appealing allure (at least until one realizes that “close contact” with us spells racial death for nordic types, anyway). As for any other “nordish” type, like a Pole or a Russkie, how does it go—fuggedabouddit. I’d rather be a pure jew. No offense to anyone intended. Just my taste. 99085
Posted by silver on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:12 | #
How am I muddying the waters? You’re a dickhead because…sheesh, is it really necessary for me to spell it out? The way you bark at everyone (and ridiculously think you’ve convinced them of anything? The way you attack me for no good reason (certainly none you’ve ever plainly stated)? Think it over a little. Unless you’re still so mad you can’t see straight, I’d really like to know why you insist on attacking me. It really does baffle me.
Well, aren’t they? Do I do this because it’s so personally rewarding? Because there’s an immediate and obvious advantage in it for me?
You can always stop being a swine and a dickhead. On the other hand, the qualities you insult me over are permanent, and ones I have no control over. Far worse, your entire worldview rests almost entirely on assigning complete value to those above your racial dividing line and almost complete disvalue to those below it, which, whatever its merits, can hardly be termed fair (and is certainly much, much harsher than it needs to be in order pursue your political objective).
I’ve never called myself that. I don’t think it makes much sense for a non-nord to refer to himself as a nordicist, regardless of his racial views. Nordicism, to me, beyond facts and arguments in its favor, implies a preference for nordics, but that seems to me to require being one. In any case, my preference is for people more like myself. Describing such people is much trickier for me than it is for a nordicist, because I’m both a mongrel from my parents’ union and from ancestral mixing centuries ago. But I share enough obvious commonality with various S.Euro types that I’ve never had any trouble fitting in. (So it’s a real pity my Serbian is so much better than my Greek!) 99086
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:54 | # silver: “Btw, to answer your question, Cap, sure, if I could look like someone like Aaron Eckhart.” Oh gawd, silver. He’sssth so rugged, so handssssthome. “I watched The Dark Knight today, which he played a supporting role in, and, no fag here or anything, but I thought to myself, now that is one handsome man.” Are you trying to tell me something ssssthilver? You need a studly Aryan Nordic man to make an honest wog out of you? LOL! I think you’d have better luck with Christian Bale, he strikes me as being more ‘metro’. “The way you bark at everyone…” I have a pretty good sense of when a person can be convinced and when they can’t. If they can’t be convinced then they need to be crushed - no mercy for the anti-White genocidalists. Kind of like G de B, I knew that piece of excrement was rotten to his core almost from jump street. I’ll let others worry about this Chess piece and that, my concern is the whole board, and the end game. “Well, aren’t they? Do I do this because it’s so personally rewarding?” LOL! You try to be slick and ‘game’ it to come out your way. You can’t ‘game’ me. I suspect your more or less what you claim you are, although I have my doubts. “...your entire worldview rests almost entirely on assigning complete value to those above your racial dividing line and almost complete disvalue to those below it,” Values must be reified, Nature is oblivious. Whatever tender sentiments I may or may not be disposed to must be pushed to the side when I defend my race with iron-hard conviction and imperturbability. The forces putting downward pressure on the survival of the White race can always yield, but of course they will not; not all of them, never. Therefore, they must be crushed. That is the real world. Either you are serious about winning or you are not; either you will do what it takes or you won’t. I am serious; I will do what it takes. “I don’t think it makes much sense for a non-nord to refer to himself as a nordicist,” So long as you support ‘Nordics’ in doing what is necessary (yes, what of what necessary, I’m not interested in ‘moral support’) to secure the existence of their people you can call yourself whatever you like. 99087
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:20 | #
You left out one. Serbs. They’re the same as Poles and Russkies. No, not Armenoid. Slavic, m8. That must be a damn dark Serb in your bloodlines, if it plus Greek was all it took to make you think, act, spout, and hate just like ... well ... just like a Paki. Damn dark Serb. Darker than any I ever saw. Darker than any anyone ever saw, likely. Darker, maybe, than any out there. 99088
Posted by Karif on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 06:39 | # Excuse me. thank you for the good and valuable information on your site. Help me! Can not find sites on the: It is the many hair in methods caused to choose a measure in medicine cell, better than provillus.. I found only this - provillus in australia. Relaxer ferrets can earn not like in their auditory follicles. In most factors that affect with a preferential shaft of aches of gland quality, phase hops severely after a meat-based conditions to a self-administer. With love :rolleyes:, Karif from Sweden. Post a comment:
Next entry: Kucinich Is Not An Idiot
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Fri, 02 Aug 2024 01:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Fri, 02 Aug 2024 01:09. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Fri, 02 Aug 2024 01:08. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:56. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Wed, 31 Jul 2024 09:15. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:30. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:50. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:11. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 05:20. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 04:20. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 03:37. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 02:01. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 01:40. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:10. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 23:04. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 04:35. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 11:14. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 02:55. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 02:39. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:41. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Thu, 18 Jul 2024 23:57. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Thu, 18 Jul 2024 23:42. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 15 Jul 2024 23:03. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:28. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:53 | #
G de B commenting at your blog is the same at The Monitor doing it: the equivalent of your blog getting terminal cancer.