Are Jews White? (Revised)
Are Jews White?
by
Robert E. Reis
The Southern Poverty Law Center has declared war on Professor Kevin MacDonald, but the SPLC has not declared war on Jared Taylor and American Renaissance.
The SPLC notes that American Renaissance systematically deletes readers’ posts critical of the Jews. The SPLC describes American Renaissance as “100% clean” white nationalism.
Jared Taylor and American Renaissance provide camouflage to modern non-Orthodox Jews by claiming that Jews are white.
Are Jews White?
by
Robert E. Reis
The Southern Poverty Law Center has declared war on Professor Kevin MacDonald, but the SPLC has not declared war on Jared Taylor and American Renaissance.
The SPLC has good things to say about American Renaissance and about Jared Taylor.
The SPLC notes that American Renaissance systematically deletes readers’ posts critical of the Jews. The SPLC describes American Renaissance as “100% clean” white nationalism.
Jared Taylor and American Renaissance provide camouflage to modern non-Orthodox Jews by claiming that Jews are white.
E. Michael Jones believe that the American Renaissance is “the white man’s version of the NAACP, which is to say, one more organization which manipulates the race issue in the interests of the revolutionary Jews. The main purpose of the American Renaissance is to convince deracinated Protestants that Jews are white, and, therefore, no threat to their interests.”
If non-Jewish white people see Jews as white people in the context of the relationship between whites and blacks in America or in the context of non-white immigration to white countries, then Jews disappear from the radar screens. Ordinary white people will not suspect the policy recommendation made by Jews and Jewish groups of having hidden motives.
Are Jews white? Or are they a genetic clustering that is “acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 1:15).
Many years ago Senator Joseph McCarthy was asked how he identified a communist. He responded that if something looked like a duck, waddled like a duck, quacked like a duck and hung around with a lot of other ducks, he had found a duck.
Science has advanced a lot since then.
It is a politically correct opinion to hold that races do not exist. Even those scientists who promote this doctrine have to admit there are genetic clusterings; recognizable groups of people who look more like members of their group than they look like members of other groups. It would be an aberrant scientist who did not see a difference between native Swedes, Germans, and Poles and native Chinese, Koreans and Japanese.
Many scientific studies of the DNA of various groups of human beings have been done.
One study allocates Iranians, English people, Danes and Greeks to a tight cluster, Japanese and Koreans to another cluster, Khmer, Micronesians, and Malays to another cluster, and Bantus, Nilo-Saharans, and West Africans to yet another cluster. Near Easterners are located about as far from Iranian, English, Danish, Greek cluster as the Chinese are located from the Micronesians.
Another study recognizes seven genetic clustering in the following order of genetic distance: African, Caucasoid, Northeast Asian, Arctic Asia, America, Southeast Asia, New Guinea and Australian.
This same study, confusingly enough, also recognizes nine genetic clusterings in the following order of genetic distance from Africans: Africans, Non-European Caucasoids, European Caucasoids, Northeast Asians, Arctic Northeast Asians, Southeast Asians, Amerindians, New Guineans and Australians, Pacific Islanders.
Another analysis identified five major human clades, [groups that include all descendants of one common ancestor]: sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Australopapuans and Amerindians.
It is fair to say that a minimal definition of whiteness must be restricted to the European Caucasian genetic clustering. I have witnessed and also read the reports of ethnic rioting in Europe where groups of non-European Caucasians attacked European Caucasians and verbally abused them as “whites”. When members of the Near Eastern genetic clustering talk about “whites”, they are not talking about people from the Non-European Caucasian clustering from Iran or India.
Is there a recognizable Jewish genetic clustering? If the Jewish genetic clustering exists, is it part of the European Caucasian genetic clustering?
Both before and after the discovery and use of DNA evidence, scientific research has examined the biological relationships among Jews and between Jews and the non-Jewish populations among whom they lived.
Mourant, Kopec, and Domaniewska-Sobczak reported that blood group data support the relative homogeneity of the main historic Jewish communities and that Jews are essentially a single people with a limited genetic resemblance to the populations among whom they dwell
Sachs and Bat Miriam reported impressive similarity between the Jewish populations in nine countries in North Africa, the Middle East and Central Europe while they found important genetic differences between the Jews and the non-Jews in the same countries.
Studies of blood group data published in 1977 and 1979 found no significant difference in Jewish populations from Iraq, Libya, Germany, or Poland. They estimated that the genetic distance between Gentiles and Jews living in the same area is three to five times greater than for Jews living in the different nations studied. The earlier study concluded that not much admixture has taken place between Ashkenazi Jews and their Gentile neighbors during the last 700 years or so.
Mille and Kobyliansky discovered in studies of dermatologlyphics, the science of the study of skin patterns, data that Eastern European Jews are much more similar to Middle-Eastern Jews than they are to the non-Jewish Eastern Europeans.
Kobyliansky and Livshits estimated that Jews in Russia were six times more distant from Russians than Russians were from Germans. They also reported the Jews to be completely separate from the twenty-four other ethnic groups studied in Russia, Germany, and Poland.
Sofaer, Smith, and Kaye compared modern Jews and the skeletons of 3,000-year old Jewish skeletons discovered in the Middle East. The ancient Jewish skeletal group turned out to be far more similar to the modern Jewish populations than to every non-Jewish group studied except for one, an Arab Druse group from the 11th century.
Livshits, Sokal and Kobylianskyt investigated the genetic affinities of Jewish populations. They concluded that Jewish populations are more like one another than they are to non-Jews and that pairs of Jewish populations from different locations are more alike than pairs of non-Jewish populations. They maintain that the most economical explanation of their findings is that the modern Jewish population throughout the world is derived from a common original gene pool which underwent few changes during the dispersion of the Jewish people. They also report that it is highly likely that the common origin of the Jewish populations must be more recent than that of the non-Jews.
In 2001, the scientific journal Human Immunology published a keynote research paper by the Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena and others, showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical. The research team had found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically different from other people in the region. The Jewish reaction was intense, abusive, threatening and effective. Human Immunology’s editor was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article. Human Immunology urged its members who had already received copies containing the article to rip out the offending pages and thrown them away.
The evidence is conclusive. Jews are part of an identifiable genetic clustering. This clustering is part of the Near Eastern genetic clustering. The Near Eastern genetic clustering is part of the Non-European Caucasians clustering. Jews are not white.
Posted by Robert Reis on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 03:36 PM in Jewish Diaspora
Comments (234) | Tell a friend
Comments:
Posted by 2R on August 27, 2007, 01:00 AM | #
I wonder why the Jews would be upset with findings that prove they’re not Europeans? After all, if they were European then they would have no right to call Palestine their ancient homeland. They should be happy about this finding.
If the SPLC is writing good things about Amren, then the power structure must be getting nervous?
“The Jewish reaction was intense, abusive, threatening and effective. Human Immunology’s editor was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article. Human Immunology urged its members who had already received copies containing the article to rip out the offending pages and thrown them away.”
Are you sure the above didn’t happen in the Soviet Union? Its very entertaining watching Jews on one hand claiming they have no power in this country and on the other hand having the ability to actually get an editor to tell subscribers to tear out pages from an academic journal. Even better was the recent cancellation of Walt and Mearsheimer’s presentation of their new book in Chicago.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 27, 2007, 02:45 AM | #
“The evidence is conclusive. Jews are part of an identifiable genetic clustering. This clustering is part of the Near Eastern genetic clustering. The Near Eastern genetic clustering is part of the Non-European Caucasians clustering. Jews are not white.” (—from the log entry)
I thought “white” was synonymous with “Caucasian” but the log entry seems to say “white” is properly reserved specifically for Euros among the overall Caucasian group, and no others. OK, if that’s its proper use I’ll accept that and modify my usage accordingly. I actually like that better than having to say “Euro-white” which, we’re now told, is redundant: for designating Euros, “white” by itself is enough.
The leftist attack on whites (on Euros) which began in the ‘60s wasn’t leftism so much as a Jewish tribal attack on a rival race: Jews were attacking whites as a tribal thing, not a leftism thing, but made it seem like a leftism thing as a smokescreen, since the other motive, the true one, would look bad. The Jews of course recruited allies for the attacks: clueless, frustrated, depressed, malcontent women; homosexuals; Negroes; genuine leftists; and others.
The reason this tribal attack by one tribe (the Jews) on another (the Euros) gradually narrowed its target from “whites” to “white males” is that when you’re going after a group to destroy it you go after its men, not its women. You may be able to use its women later for your own purposes, and even if you can’t, they’re no threat to your campaign against the group as a whole. Women can’t mount any defense. It’s the men who can mount a defense and who are the potential counter-threat and must therefore be targeted specifically. The vicious gratuitous aspersions cast on “DWEMs” (Dead White European Males) starting in the ‘70s and continuing without let-up to the present, the whipping-up of Euro women against their own men through women’s lib, affirmative action and racial quotas, and all the other aggression against Euro men by “the left” was simply a huge Jewish tribal attack on Euros, targeting the Euro menfolk preferentially, for the above reasons. Of course as time passed following the Jewish-engineered 1965 “It’s Good For The Jews” Immigration Holocaust Act, and the country began filling up with non-whites exactly according to plan, the Jews garnered gradually more and more allies in their war on whites. In the beginning it was essentially just them though, and it still is mainly them.
But isn’t leftism just Jewishism? No, they’re different. Jewishism, or “loxism” as it’s been called (both are names for aggressively anti-Euro, aggressively anti-Christian Jewish nationalism) doesn’t believe in leftism but believes in using leftism as a club wherewith to batter Euros into submission. Jewishism, or “loxism,” not only endorses but vigorously promotes every tenet of leftism that holds out promise of inflicting harm on Euro societies, while rejecting those tenets of leftism that threaten Israel or the Jews. Liberals and leftists support the Palestinians, for example, while loxism, normally ultra-liberal/leftist, rejects the liberal/leftist stance in this matter, supporting Israel over the Palestinians. Liberal/leftist support for the Palestinians was what made lots of formerly liberal or leftist Jews, such as David Horowitz and Norman Podhoretz, abandon leftism/liberalism.
2R you’re right of course, the Jews have plenty of power, which they wield in undemocratic ways such as censorship of views they dislike, and the equivalent of book-burning (refusing to let a book be published is the equivalent of book-burning). These behaviors are alien to the European mentality and character. I well remember when the Jews, including Jewish academics, flipped at the publication of that research, mentioned in the log entry, claiming close genetic similarity between Jews and Palestinians. These are the same Jews who’ve been telling Euros for a hundred years there’s no difference between Euros and Negroes, and they go ballistic at the suggestion there’s little difference between them and Palestianians. Clearly on display here is one facet of the difference between left/liberalism and Jewishism.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 27, 2007, 03:51 AM | #
Look what I just ran across: curious what Prof. Carol Swain looked like after reading this review of her book tonight by Steve Sailer, I looked for a photo of her at Google Images and came to this page. It shows the immigration specialists among the faculty of Vanderbilt University. But what’s wrong with this picture? Well ... other than Carol Swain they have only race-replacement advocates represented. The ones other than Prof. Swain consist of two Jews who, according to their blurbs, are aggressively touting race-replacement immigration and/or praising the effects it’s had so far on the targeted country, one affirmative-action hire with a Mexican name whose schtick is listing all the ways in which whites must sacrifice in order to teach unteachable Mexican peasant kids who shouldn’t be here in the first place, and one Middle-Easterner who says he sees his role as educating “women and minorities” and who claims his outlandish-sounding name is typically American. I want to know the ethnicity of the person/persons responsible for the above situation at Vanderbilt University. I don’t even need to know his name. I just want his ethnicity.
Posted by Englander on August 27, 2007, 12:10 PM | #
The 2001 Human Immunology paper by Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena (I remember hearing about it at the time) seems to contradict the other studies mentioned above.
Posted by Robert Reis on August 27, 2007, 12:25 PM | #
Good news!
Jared Diamond now says Israeli geneticists have found ways to tell who is a Jew. Whites and Africans still a skin shade apart.
Posted by Guessedworker on August 27, 2007, 04:54 PM | #
Do you have a link to that, Robert?
Posted by Jean West on August 27, 2007, 06:40 PM | #
When Jared Taylor finally made his implicit acceptance of Jews explicit in his letter April 2004 letter, I canceled my long-time subscription to the AR newsletter and unsubscribed from the AR mailing list, which I had joined with reservation anyway, remembering that the original AR list had closed down in 1/99 as a direct response to some of its subscribers expressing support for David Duke. But this crystal clear demonstration of AR’s inseparable bond with Jews was certainly not news to the many AR supporters who had already been discussing the problem of Jews in AR for years and Jared Taylor’s refusal to be open about where he stood. Yet many remained in the fold--they had nowhere else to go, and at least AR was fighting immigration, they reasoned; at least they were standing up against Blacks and Mexicans.
If Jared Taylor and AR have animus against Jews that they keep hidden “for fear of the Jews” destroying them, then Race, as in Jews are White, is the rock behind which they hide, so as not to have to confront them.
E.M. Jones gives his animus free reign, but he, too, avoids unconditional confrontation: Religion is the rock behind which he hides. “No Christian can in good conscience be an anti-Semite, but every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be anti-Jewish,” he writes.
To Jews it makes no difference whether non-Jews use Race or Religion to neutralize their power, limit their numbers, and justify their failure to fight back.
And so Jared Taylor and AR pretend not to see that Jews have played and continue to play the largest role in bringing about and perpetuating the very problems they endlessly write about and hold conferences about--their claim to fame--a complete sham.
And W.M. Jones pretends not to see that Jews do not convert themselves to adapt to their environments: they convert environments to adapt to them, whether it’s a group, a nation, or the infallible Catholic Church. Jews must chuckle at Jones’ “The main purpose of the American Renaissance is to convince deracinated Protestants that Jews are white, and therefore, no threat to their interests.” How nice for them, that Catholic dissidents are programmed to squander anger against Protestants that might otherwise be directed toward them. Catholics and Protestants united: a force too great to be reckoned with?
How many times do intelligent people have to see this process unfold before their eyes, before they acknowledge that it’s real, face the fearful truth that this is the unchangeable nature of the Jew, and the task is to decide what they are willing to *try* to do about it: for the defense of their own present and future families, for halting the continued destruction of superior Western civilization, and yes, for retaliation for the countless crimes committed by Jews against non-Jews.
Recently I reread Sobran’s The Church and Jewish Ideology (http://www.sobran.com/jewid.shtml) and a Hoffman critique of Sobran’s good Jew/bad Jew thinking: http://www.revisionisthistory.org/sobranphrenia.html. The two combined address the same problem Robert Reis draws attention to in his last two Majority Rights articles, Theology and our Issues: The E. Michael Jones Problem and now Are Jews White.
Of all the weapons in the Jewish arsenal, one that disarms to the point of crippling is their strategy of grafting themselves into every group that could conceivably become a viable opponent--whether it’s Blacks, Whites, Nazis, Christianity, Catholicism, American Renaissance, Culture Wars, VDARE, or WASPS, Jews entwine themselves, with the result that they themselves don’t stand alone in the crosshairs and so that no potential anti-Jewish group can achieve enough single-mindedness to strike a blow against them.
There is no such thing as “Judeo-Christianity.” Christians must unyoke these two--Christians will be the winners. Jews and Whites are observably and measurably separate races. Whites must unyoke these two-- Whites will be the winners.
Jean West
Posted by Guessedworker on August 27, 2007, 10:20 PM | #
Thanks for that, Jean. I’ve said many times that I have no issue with Jews contributing here. Any contributor may make his point. We are not a party or a movement. But, of course, the free speech rule always applies. And therein a certain, rather vigorous comity does, in fact, take hold, based on the majority interest and on sheer honesty.
It’s a model that works among thinking people, and I’m not confident that it would do so among those who need gaudy flags and political semaphor to tell them they are at home, and what passes for movement leadership to point the way.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 27, 2007, 11:05 PM | #
As doubless everybody does, I often start a comment then put it away half-finished to come back to later, most of the time never getting back to it, so I’m constantly going through the accumulated clutter and erasing these partly-written posts. Here’s one I was just erasing with a bunch of others when I thought it might have some oblique relevance for this thread (I don’t know which recent thread it was originally intended for — something I saw the other week or so: it must’ve been someone who was criticising the way Israel was founded):
______
The Ashkenazis did what they had to to make a country for Jews. They were tough and, when called for, ruthless because no one was going to help them and they were up against extremely resistant peoples on all sides who weren’t about to give an inch, ones moreover who would slit every Jewish throat they got their hands on, man, woman, and child, if given the chance. Naturally the Ashkenazis covered up their ruthlessness so all we hear is how innocent, persecuted, and idealistically pure they were during that period, the way all we hear is how innocent, persecuted, and idealistic the American pioneers were during the three centuries of Indian Wars when they were committing outrages and atrocities right and left against the Red Man (and yes, the Red Man gave as good as he got, atrocity-wise: so much for the left’s claims of the Red Man’s innocence and purity). Does the United States advertise the very many atrocities and war crimes its armies committed in World War II? Some it can’t cover up, such as Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki but it damn well doesn’t advertise any of the rest, of which there’s a ton.
How the Jews carved out a country for themselves isn’t any of my business. The Arabs were squatting on Jewish land as the Turks are squatting right now on Greek land, the Byelorussians on Polish land, and the Poles, Russians, and Lithuanians on Prussian land (this last thanks to U.S. Jews in the Roosevelt/Truman administrations collaborating with their Jewish brethren in Moscow who together carried out a vindictive genocide against the Germans in the closing stages of the war and after the surrender, killing millions as Jewish revenge and literally wiping most of Prussia off the map). It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone if lands return to their rightful owners, as the Greek lands now occupied by Turks and the Prussian lands by Poles will, one day:
“He fell on his knees, and raised his hands, and returned thanks that the lawful master and the ancient stock were restored to their rights.” (—from Wuthering Heights)
Land, which has a spirit, is home to a particular people and not to another. Not ever. Squatters should figure out what’s coming once the wheels have been set in motion, and take steps to get out of harm’s way: the lawful master and the ancient stock are to be restored to their rights.
The problem isn’t how the Jews wrested Palestine from the Arabs — that’s between Jews and Arabs — but ongoing malign Jewish influence on the Eurosphere.
What’s the purpose of Israel? Does it exist so that Jews can have a country and start being normal (and stop harming those they dwell among)? Was the advent of Israel supposed to normalize Jews and as a result normalize their relationships with the world?
Well, it’s not happening. They’re not normalizing.
Jewish attempts to deny race (Jared Diamond, et al) and their aggressive leadership in the push to get as much of the Eurosphere replaced with Negroes as possible in the shortest time (Bull Foxman and his ADL, the SPLC, the ACLU, and literally dozens of other Jewish anti-Eurochristian hate groups all rendered very influential by the surrounding support web of entrenched Jewish media power and other Jewish power) show no signs of slackening as a result of the advent of Israel. Neither does malignant Jewish influence in ways apart from race-replacement.
When’s Israel’s advent finally going to have a moderating influence on all this virulent Jewish destructiveness? Are Jews going to normalize or not?
There are signs Israel isn’t being run in such a way as to make it into a normal country. What its intended role is isn’t clear. Everyone thought it was clear once. It no longer is. There are plenty of Jews both in Israel and here who want it to be a normal country but there’s sort of an international Jewish mafia that may see its own interests as different, and its influence may be preponderant.
The Jews have a country now and are called upon to start acting normal. Cut the fanaticism for communism, cut the race-replacement agitation, cut the Jewish worship of Negroes, worship in the same way and for the same reason a soldier in the heat of battle worships his favorite weapon.
The world is waiting.
No one expected Jews to normalise overnight. Israel was born in 1948. No one expected Jews to normalize in 1949. Everyone knew it would take time.
But they were expected to normalise.
Now it’s 2007 ... and we still have Johann Hari writing his loxist columns, Jewish publishers publishing Hari’s loxist pathology, Jared Diamond still denying race — denying race! — in the year 2007!, Bull Foxman the anti-Christian Jewish Pit Bull breathing hatred and annihilation on anything and everything Euro or Christian he can find in his giant magnifying glass named Christian Slayer through which he peers daily as his life’s work. A prominent Israeli Jew, I can’t recall his name, one who’d served in the Knesset or held some Israeli government post I think, said he had more and more the impression that “being Jewish consists of two things: extracting money and protesting.” He forgot a third: breathing destruction and death on Eurochristians.
Posted by hennoed on August 28, 2007, 12:13 AM | #
Whites, caucasians, indigenous European peoples (so including Albanians and Saami)… who are you guys? Don’t you know?
I think it counts in Taylor’s favour that while one of his best friends was Sam Francis, another is Mark Weber of IHR.org. Even Wintermute recognised the practical limits of honesty re. Js when he told us about a dinner party conversation he ended by saying only that Anne Frank died in a hospital.
Posted by danielj on August 28, 2007, 10:14 AM | #
The reason this tribal attack by one tribe (the Jews) on another (the Euros) gradually narrowed its target from “whites” to “white males” is that when you’re going after a group to destroy it you go after its men, not its women.
I’m not sure about that Fred.
I think going after the women is a better idea. After all, if they don’t wanna procreate withing their own taxonomic boundary, then one can avoid the more arduous task of destroying the men of the tribe.
Posted by silver on August 28, 2007, 11:00 AM | #
“Land, which has a spirit, is home to a particular people and not to another. Not ever. Squatters should figure out what’s coming once the wheels have been set in motion, and take steps to get out of harm’s way: the lawful master and the ancient stock are to be restored to their rights.”
So this is what a mind coming unhinged looks like.
I shouldn’t gloat, as I’m you’re suffering, but what the hell, it IS fun to watch; keep it up.
Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste? Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you? Even now. Especially now. They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin. Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl. But think of the progeny of such unions. Darker skin AND more caucasian features. Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT. Face it white boy, your end is nigh.
Here’s to keeping you awake at night.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 28, 2007, 12:22 PM | #
The final chapter is a long way from written, Silver. We’ll see won’t we.
Posted by silver on August 28, 2007, 04:06 PM | #
You’re caught in a paradoxical dilemma with regard to time: you have to believe it is both working in your favor and against you.
You must be confident that in time, when enough whites receive sufficient information on their “plight” they will act so as to turn things around; or that when enough whites perceive themselves as endangered, not necessarily “racially”, but physically or culturally, they will scour the internet—because they won’t be hearing anything from mainstream sources—seeking remedies, at which point they will encounter the racialist argument and be convinced of it. In this sense, time is working for you.
On the other hand, much time must pass before sufficient numbers of whites encounter such racialist information and, because of rejections, even more time before their “plight” becomes so dire that the racialist epiphany is reached. Each year, racialism must contend with ongoing immigration and miscegenation. It is conceivable that at some point, no matter how intensely racialism is accepted, due to insufficient numbers to politically mobilise effectively, it will not be able to fulfill its separatist aspirations. As Richard McCulloch states, separation is the essential precondition for racial survival, so no matter the intensity of racialist feeling, in time, racial destruction is assured—the most fervent Catholics (and Jews!) intend passing their fervor on to their children only to be disappointed.
There are also reasons to doubt the efficacy of internet racialist advocacy.
You cannot have failed to note the reluctant acceptance of racialism (as understood by its typical advocates, such as yourself) on the part of your racial kin. Many will explore any alternative, no matter how great their dissatisfaction with the status quo, before coming to terms with your views. And this even though there exists a paucity of refutations of racialism on the internet; at least of the sort that grant the racialist some of his premises. That is because there is for now little point in or need for engaging them. Should racialism ever threaten to become more widespread than the fringe movement it currently is—one beset with contradiction and internal bickering—there are a great many counter-arguments that could be employed against it (quite devastatingly, imo).
I won’t spell out what I consider your most glaring weakness (I certainly do not owe it to you), though I’ll hint that you, Scrooby, have touched on it, and are maybe aware of it than is apparent but consider it less of a weakness than I do.
Anyway, Scrood-by[insert non-white race], I recall you once demanding a suspected “Subcon gentleman” come forward. It was amusing listening to you—*you*—grant that such a being could exist; this after constant derogatory references to “Negros” and “Subcons” and such like. Beneath all human contempt you are. I wish you—I can only wish you—all the worst.
Posted by Byron the Bulb on August 28, 2007, 04:20 PM | #
“Should racialism ever threaten to become more widespread than the fringe movement it currently is—one beset with contradiction and internal bickering—there are a great many counter-arguments that could be employed against it (quite devastatingly, imo).”
By “racialism” you must mean only “white racialism”, as I suspect you belong to a group that has no qualms about practicing racialism itself.
I got a good chuckle out of your notion of “devastating” counter-arguments, just waiting for the right time to be unleashed. Hording them away, are you?
Posted by Lurker on August 28, 2007, 04:45 PM | #
Yes, come on Silver, space is cheap on the net and there is plenty of it right here for to roll out these devastating counter-arguments. You dont have to go into too much detail, just sketch them out, not all at once either Im sure instalments would be fine as well.
Its funny that the egalitarian big guns havnt been using them already. They certainly must be well organised to keep their powder so dry. Nothing in the MSM, academic journals, websites, forums, comment boxes etc.
Posted by Tommy G on August 28, 2007, 04:47 PM | #
“Anyway, Scrood-by[insert non-white race], I recall you once demanding a suspected “Subcon gentleman” come forward. It was amusing listening to you—*you*—grant that such a being could exist; this after constant derogatory references to “Negros” and “Subcons” and such like.”
Well, Silver, maybe you’ll find the following video a bit amusing too?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 28, 2007, 05:26 PM | #
Silver’s explanation of the way in which time is working both for and against opponents of forced race-replacement is fundamentally right in sort of a trivial, obvious, almost tautological sense, but this “dilemma” as he calls it doesn’t pose any insurmountable obstacle to victory by our side. With time, also, the array of forces ranged against each other changes, alliances change, relative strengths change, numbers of activists change, quality of participants changes. As I’ve said elsewhere the other side has taken and is right now taking its best shot. We are only starting to awaken out of a slumber as of about three or four years ago. Our best shot is still to come. Once we’re suited up and methodically hitting back we’ll see what the battle lines look like.
“It is conceivable that at some point [...] due to insufficient numbers to politically mobilise effectively, [...white] racial destruction is assured [...]” (—Silver)
Sort of conceivable, with difficulty. I’m confident enough will wake up in time, and act.
“there exists a paucity of refutations of racialism on the internet; at least of the sort that grant the racialist some of his premises. That is because there is for now little point in or need for engaging them. Should racialism ever threaten to become more widespread than the fringe movement it currently is — one beset with contradiction and internal bickering — there are a great many counter-arguments that could be employed against it (quite devastatingly, imo).”
Racialism has more than one part and Silver seems here to be lumping its parts together in a way that doesn’t stand up. Part can’t be refuted: the part about the relative traits, inborn and acquired, of different human races and different human species. Part can: the part about what we should do about those inborn and acquired differences. He’s right that there’s a paucity of counterargument to the second part and that the reason for the paucity is the other side doesn’t feel threatened, and wrong about those counterarguments “now held in reserve” being devastating to our side. They’ll all be easily disposed of.
“I won’t spell out what I consider your most glaring weakness (I certainly do not owe it to you), though I’ll hint that you, Scrooby, have touched on it”
I’m on tenterhooks! Let’s hear it, Silver!
“Anyway, Scrood-by[insert non-white race], I recall you once demanding a suspected ‘Subcon gentleman’ come forward.”
I said a Subcon who was a gentleman would join our side in opposing forced Euro race-replacement, and that GC didn’t know the meaning of the word gentleman.
“It was amusing listening to you—*you*—grant that such a being could exist; this after constant derogatory references to ‘Negros’ and ‘Subcons’ and such like. Beneath all human contempt you are.”
Why is the term Negroes in quote marks there? Is it wrong usage or something? As for Subcon, it’s short for Indian Subcontinental which encompasses Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis. Is something wrong with shortening that? Euros is Europeans shortened. Same idea, no? Where are my constant derogatory references to Negroes and Subcons? I’ve never made any about Subcons, gratuitous or otherwise, and if I’ve made any about Negroes they weren’t gratuitous but the result of being fed up with what’s being rammed down white throats.
Posted by silver on August 28, 2007, 07:50 PM | #
“ I got a good chuckle out of your notion of “devastating” counter-arguments, just waiting for the right time to be unleashed. Hording them away, are you?”
I’m sure you did get a good chuckle. With the quality of opposition that racialists have been accustomed to, I would have chuckled, too.
I don’t have anything with which to “devastate” an already committed WN (at least not of the Nordic variety; the rest I could at least challenge). A WN is only willing to socialize with other whites; the only human beings he even wants to see walking the streets are other whites. That’s the sum of it. Besides moral appeals, there’s little left to say; but moral appeals are not what I consider “devastating”.
I had in mind arguments that counter the implicit view of WNs that WN naturally flows from the fact that races can be proven to biologically differ. It’s natural that WNs would seize on the facts of biology (or psychometrics or whatever) to bolster their case, but WNs were committed to racial separation regardless of what biology or psychometrics might have ever said about race; am I wrong? Simply because repression or obfuscation of the facts might have helped advance racial egalitarianism does not imply that dissemination of the facts *necessarily must* advance WN to the point of victory.
Furthermore, where will the facts be disseminated? On obscure fora such as WM or Vdare? Big deal. Fact is, most whites will barely get a whiff of them. And of those that do, most will take a great deal of convincing, and skepticism will abound. Few will maintain interest long enough to get to the bottom of matters; not with busy lives to lead and assurances that things will be “just fine” despite momentarily unpleasant facts. Quite simply, the “paradigm shift” required is so large that there will be nothing like a mass movement towards WN. In the meantime… tick tick tick…
How many whites does one miscegenation inure, and secure for anti-racism? Certainly not just the white involved in the act. My estimate is 3-5 people. Tick tick tick.
“I’m on tenterhooks! Let’s hear it, Silver!”
No guesses? I can assure you, have at a minimum touched on it; perhaps there’s a more complete discussion of it on here (or elsewhere) but I haven’t seen it. I know it’s childish to play games, but I honestly do consider it glaring and overlooked.
“I said a Subcon who was a gentleman would join our side in opposing forced Euro race-replacement”
If Euro’s were indeed being “forced” to mate with non-whites, yes, any gentleman worthy of the title would protest that. But “race-replacement”? As in Subcons (which seemed derogatory at first glance, but I’ll accept isn’t; Negroes, well… if you say so) immigrating to white countries? Why would a Subcon gentleman naturally oppose that? That’s hardly in his, what’s it called, EGI, is it?
Does “danielj”, who was a proud little white American, or so he thought, only to have the door coldly slammed in his face by a whiter Nordic, still post here? Or would I find him over at Occ Dissent?
“Well, Silver, maybe you’ll find the following video a bit amusing too?”
I confess I’m on dial-up. Let me guess: something denigrating Negroes [arghh, that jarred; is this really preferred to “blacks”?]?
Posted by 2R on August 28, 2007, 08:46 PM | #
“I know it’s childish to play games, but I honestly do consider it glaring and overlooked.”
The only way White Nationalism can be stopped, is by turning America into a total police state. And all that will do is slow us down.
If our arguments are so weak, it wouldn’t require so much lying and miss-representation of who we are and what we say. You know this too. You can act like you’re confident about our destruction but the very fact that you come here proves that you’re a phony.
If we were so foolish, they wouldn’t threaten our lives and get us fired from our jobs. They would just let people laugh at us and call us fools. In stead, they have to hang signs on the wall that say “diversity is strength” because they know we’re right. They have to use every form of deception to keep our ideas from spreading. These are not the actions of the confident.
If you have an argument, say it, if not, don’t come around with here playing some kind of a “I know something you don’t know” game. Go away, isn’t Sean Hannity on now?
Posted by Fr. John on August 28, 2007, 09:42 PM | #
“E. Michael Jones believe that the American Renaissance is “the white man’s version of the NAACP, which is to say, one more organization which manipulates the race issue in the interests of the revolutionary Jews. The main purpose of the American Renaissance is to convince deracinated Protestants that Jews are white, and, therefore, no threat to their interests.”
While I disagree vehemently with ‘Novus Ordo Jones’ (as a convert to Holy Orthodoxy, I KNOW what pre-Vatican II Rome was, and what she nowadays is NOT- that is, “catholic” in the old sense) on the matter of his philo-semitism: “No Christian can in good conscience be an anti-Semite, but every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be anti-Jewish,” I applaud his honesty in the quote above. This group of sentences clearly is giving vent to the utter FRUSTRATION I have felt since I attended my first (and only) revisionist conference, and had dinner with Mr. and Mrs. Zundel, when I was but a babe in the knowledge of the evil of the Deicides. [Christ killers] I was astounded then, and wondered at the STUPIDITY of men who cared for European civilization, to have jews in their number, speakers on their roster, and attendees in their conference!!!
I clearly articulate that older, pre-Judaizing infiltrationist mindset, of both Tridentine Rome as well as the Entire edifice of pre-apostate Constantinople:
One MUST be an anti-semite, IF one is TRULY a Christian. And if one is not, they are accursed with the same curse as the Jews called down upon themselves on Good Friday: “His blood be upon us, and upon our children.”
THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. CHRIST’S DEATH ON THE CROSS IS THE ANSWER TO JEWISH PERFIDY.
“But if the Jews were to say, that the word, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” means this, that those born of Isaac should be reckoned to him for a seed, then the Edomites, {Modern Jews} too, and all those people, ought to be denominated his sons, since their forefather Esau was a son of his. But now so far are they from being called sons, that they are the greatest possible aliens...”
- St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Romans, Homily XVI.
“No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key of history, and why history is so often confused is that it has been written by men who were ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves.” - Benjamin Disraeli
If Auschwitz is true, then there is a human suffering with which that of Christ simply cannot be compared...In this case, Christ is false, and salvation will not come from him.... Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ.” - Claude Lanzmann
Both John [Judas] Paul II, and the current Benedict [Arnold] are fanning the ‘smoke of Satan,’ which has never left Rome since 1958. I am amazed that a man like Jones, who can say such brilliant insights as began my post, chooses to stay within a graceless communion.
Posted by silver on August 28, 2007, 09:44 PM | #
2R, I don’t think you’ve understood me at all. This isn’t so much about being “right” or “wrong” as much it is me gloating over your demise, which I regard as nigh on inevitable. I admire great numbers of individuals of your race. But it would be highly detrimental to me—to my happiness, dignity and well-being—to see you organize yourselves as members of it (first, before any other identification, which is what WN is). Mercifully, most of you long ago discarded such identifications and realized that getting on famously with individuals of other races was quite possible, and hardly the blot on your EGI that WM would have us believe. However, given some rather unwelcome—from a humanistic point of view—facts about humankind (unpleasant to *all* people, not just non-whites, btw—who’d have wished his own kid thus hamstrung by heredity?), and the scale of mass immigration, coupled with well-intentioned but cosmically wrongheaded domestic policies impemented to deal with the influx, WNs have been invigorated to seize the day. Well, no, dammit; I won’t sit idly by and watch the genuine humanistic progress made since the war evaporate in an orgy of white phenotypomania. I *am* heartened that their efforts—*your* efforts*—are coming to naught and I am determined to do my best to ensure that they do.
Having said all that, yes, I say again, there is a glaring weakness in your position that I see unadressed. No, I am not in any particular hurry to draw your attention to it because there’d be little in it for me, expect perhaps a flurry of excitement in noting the exasperation of bunch of dehumanisers whom I despise. But that’s a pleasure I can reserve for a time of my choosing.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 28, 2007, 09:58 PM | #
Erratum: in my comment above, where I wrote,
“Part can’t be refuted: the part about the relative traits, inborn and acquired, of different human races and different human species. Part can: the part about what we should do about those inborn and acquired differences,”
that should’ve been,
“Part can’t be refuted: the part about the relative traits, inborn and acquired, of different human races and different human species. Part can‘t be refuted but can be disputed, by anyone who wants to try: the part about what we should do about those inborn and acquired differences.”
“A WN is only willing to socialize with other whites; the only human beings he even wants to see walking the streets are other whites. That’s the sum of it.” (—Silver)
No that’s not the whole story. You’re leaving out the most important part. Before the other side began shoving races down our throats (I’m not the Nordic variety of white, by the way, but more central- and eastern-European and darker) we had nothing in particular against them; didn’t even think about the subject. You might have nothing against chicken and mushrooms but if someone came along and started ramming chicken and mushrooms down your throat you’d quickly turn against chicken and mushrooms. The other side is ramming races down our throat, not just discomfiting us thereby, bad enough by itself, but deliberately changing our own race, and we’re furious and demand that it stop. Don’t expect gushing displays of hospitality from us toward other races while they’re being rammed down our throat. You wouldn’t expect it of anyone.
“the implicit view of WNs that WN naturally flows from the fact that races can be proven to biologically differ.”
Where races differ significantly and someone takes significantly different races and rams them in wildly excessive volumes down a population’s throat WN naturally flows. It’s not natural, not normal, for it not to. WN is simply normalness. It’s not normal to show something other than normalness in your behavior, in your reactions. WN is mere normalness.
“WNs were committed to racial separation regardless of what biology or psychometrics might have ever said about race; am I wrong?”
Yes you’re wrong but understand that the arguments against forced race-replacement have been sound since Aristotle and before. They don’t depend on modern genetics though modern genetics reinforces them.
“Simply because repression or obfuscation of the facts might have helped advance racial egalitarianism”
Since races aren’t equal, “racial egalitarianism” has no referent, any more than “bird egalitarianism” does: chickens can think they’re equal to ducks all they want, until they drown following the ducks into the water for a swim. I don’t see what can “help advance racial egalitarianism,” a non-entity, something that doesn’t exist.
“does not imply that dissemination of the facts *necessarily must* advance WN to the point of victory.”
I have no doubt truth will prevail in this matter, leading the people to reject race-replacement (and punish the perps).
“Furthermore, where will the facts be disseminated? On obscure fora such as WM or Vdare? Big deal. Fact is, most whites will barely get a whiff of them. And of those that do, most will take a great deal of convincing, and skepticism will abound. Few will maintain interest long enough to get to the bottom of matters; not with busy lives to lead and assurances that things will be ‘just fine’ despite momentarily unpleasant facts. Quite simply, the ‘paradigm shift’ required is so large that there will be nothing like a mass movement towards WN. In the meantime… tick tick tick… How many whites does one miscegenation inure, and secure for anti-racism? Certainly not just the white involved in the act. My estimate is 3-5 people. Tick tick tick.”
We’ll see what we can do.
“If Euro’s were indeed being ‘forced’ to mate with non-whites”
Through forced governmental population-transfer projects races can be forcibly replaced without forcing any particular individual to marry or procreate with any particular other individual.
“As in Subcons [...] immigrating to white countries?”
As in the racially unlike entering in excessive volumes.
“Why would a Subcon gentleman naturally oppose that? That’s hardly in his [...] EGI, is it?”
Same reason I’d oppose it being done to Korea. A gentleman opposes what’s wrong.
“Does ‘danielj’, who [… had] the door coldly slammed in his face by a whiter Nordic, still post here?”
Someone told him he had poor reading comprehension skills. Nothing terrible. You sound utterly confused about what happened.
“Negroes [arghh, that jarred; is this really preferred to ‘blacks’?]?”
Why use “Negroes” if you don’t like it? I use it because it’s unambiguous, doesn’t signal the implicit acceptance of PC anti-white-ism that scrupulous use of the various PC terms does, is perfectly polite, and for other reasons as well. Furthermore, since a self-respecting Negro wouldn’t object to “Negro,” by retaining that perfectly polite term one is treating Negroes as if they had self-respect, itself a sign of respect and politeness.
What race are you, Silver? Oriental and Negro are possible but I take you for a Subcon (and a man, not a woman). Are you a Subcon man? If so, what kind? What country are you a citizen of and where are you posting from?
Posted by TG on August 28, 2007, 10:07 PM | #
Silver, obviously, is a crazy mixed up mulatto...probably his mother is white and his father is black. I’ve known many like him.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 28, 2007, 10:14 PM | #
“Mercifully, most of you long ago [...] realized that getting on famously with individuals of other races was quite possible, and hardly the blot on your EGI that WM would have us believe.” (—Silver)
No one concerned about forced race-replacement doubts that we can “get on famously with individuals of other races.” If Silver thinks the crux of our objection to what’s going on is a view that we can’t “get on famously with individuals of other races” he has no conception of what race-replacement is and betrays thereby a level of intelligence too low to be worth anyone’s time responding to his nonsense. Bye-bye, Silver. Your dimwittedness will waste no more of my time, for one. Come back when you’ve had an IQ boost — I think they’re on sale this week down at the local mall. Toodle-pip!
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 28, 2007, 10:15 PM | #
Tommy, I think you’re right. I was mistaken to take him for a Subcon. He’s a Negro.
Posted by silver on August 28, 2007, 11:20 PM | #
“No one concerned about forced race-replacement doubts that we can “get on famously with individuals of other races.” If Silver thinks the crux of our objection to what’s going on is a view that we can’t “get on famously with individuals of other races” he has no conception of what race-replacement is “
Okay, Scrooby, at what point do you begin screaming “race replacement” then? After the first miscegenation? After the 100th immigrant? When?
McCulloch was quite clear: complete racial separation is key; anything else is a fantasy.
Therefore, if one were to take as hardline view of it as he, there would not be any getting along famously with any racial alien in your midst because good relations would incur the risk of misce...excuse me, race-replacement; this being foremost among sins. Just how is that you would take a lenient view of racial aliens, bond with them, share a cultural space with them, if always in the back of your mind you’re calculating the “racial average”?
Perhaps what I wrote sounded like the leftwing tripe you’re used to being fed but clearly there was a greater point being made: congenial relations are useless to you because they risk infecting your gene pool. You, Scrooby, have the choice, as an individual, of screaming bloody murder about the appearance of an alien in your town but if in the view of moral men who make laws such an occurence is permissible then your choice is limited to stewing alone or in the company of likeminded...dare I say it?...bigots.
“What race are you, Silver? Oriental and Negro are possible but I take you for a Subcon (and a man, not a woman). Are you a Subcon man? If so, what kind? What country are you a citizen of and where are you posting from?”
Yes, let’s cut to the chase here. I’m a Paki British citizen. Comments?
Posted by silver on August 28, 2007, 11:29 PM | #
“Silver, obviously, is a crazy mixed up mulatto...probably his mother is white and his father is black. I’ve known many like him.”
“Tommy, I think you’re right. I was mistaken to take him for a Subcon. He’s a Negro.”
Lol. And in the same breath you advise me to scrounge up some more IQ.
Yeah, I admit it: I lack this ability to deduce one’s race from the smattering of writings on display here.
I marvel at the precision, too. TG, what was it that gave not just me away, but the racial pairing of my parents? ie why not a black mother? Just a case of playing the odds, or was there some particular insight?
Posted by Guessedworker on August 28, 2007, 11:41 PM | #
Okay, Scrooby, at what point do you begin screaming “race replacement” then? After the first miscegenation? After the 100th immigrant? When?
Technically, when the first loss in carrying capacity occurs. Actually, when the first non-European arrives uninvited.
Silver is a Sydney boy.
Posted by 2R on August 29, 2007, 12:02 AM | #
“But it would be highly detrimental to me—to my happiness, dignity and well-being—to see you organize yourselves as members of it (first, before any other identification, which is what WN is).”
Why would it be “highly detrimental to you, your happiness, dignity, and well-being” if we organize ourselves as a race? Don’t you realize that when the White race is operating at full capacity it will be beneficial to all humanity?
Posted by silver on August 29, 2007, 12:27 AM | #
2R, let’s just say something—many things—in my personal history suggest it would be.
I think even a hardnut WN could appreciate that one need not be a Negro to feel, at a minimum, rather miffed that all his friends have now, all of a sudden, discovered that he is, afterall, a grave threat to their EGI, and all that that implies. It’s probably expecting just a wee bit much to ask someone to put such trifling matters as one’s immediate saftey aside and think of the glorious future that would await humanity if only whites could be freed to operate a full capacity.
If you’re gonna play for keeps, so am I. And you can bet I’ll join forces with the Jew boys to carry you fellows beyond the point of no return. In fact, verily I believe you’re almost there and that I couldn’t prevent it even I wished to. (Bearing in mind the “glaring weakness” ace still up my sleave.)
Now, if I haven’t done my dash completely, I might ask: just when and where do you folks expect the first serious immigration restriction legislation will be enacted? Five more years? Ten? I think the latter is Brimelow’s expectation, isn’t it? (I could be wrong.) Yes, I think even by then you’ll be quite close to done for.
GW: Close, but worth the cigar. Melbourne.
Posted by Svigor on August 29, 2007, 12:35 AM | #
That is because there is for now little point in or need for engaging them. Should racialism ever threaten to become more widespread than the fringe movement it currently is—one beset with contradiction and internal bickering—there are a great many counter-arguments that could be employed against it (quite devastatingly, imo).
“My dad can beat up your dad.”
Bring him over for his ass whuppin’ then.
Lol!
What’s next? Leftists have a Unicorn waiting in the wings? Or maybe a Basilisk? Oh, oh, I know! A white stag! Right?
I don’t have anything with which to “devastate” an already committed WN (at least not of the Nordic variety; the rest I could at least challenge).
You’re tipping your hand already. What, the Nordics are using the Meds? Or, Meds are negrified? Or will you astonish me and use something I’ve never seen before?
A WN is only willing to socialize with other whites
Wrong. I’d explain but I “owe” you nothing more than you claim to “owe” us above (i.e., not even common courtesy).
the only human beings he even wants to see walking the streets are other whites.
Same answer as above; wrong.
That’s the sum of it. Besides moral appeals, there’s little left to say; but moral appeals are not what I consider “devastating”.
Your diction leaves much to be desired - all after the semicolon seem to imply that you’ve made some argument...have you?
I had in mind arguments that counter the implicit view of WNs that WN naturally flows from the fact that races can be proven to biologically differ. It’s natural that WNs would seize on the facts of biology (or psychometrics or whatever) to bolster their case, but WNs were committed to racial separation regardless of what biology or psychometrics might have ever said about race; am I wrong?
The 1st sentence is a straw man (for several reasons). WN flows naturally from human nature and reason. You are correct in a sense that the scientific literature does not underpin WNism, because WNs do not need to read anything to understand what their senses scream at them, any more than we need to read anything to understand that the sky is often blue.
Simply because repression or obfuscation of the facts might have helped advance racial egalitarianism does not imply that dissemination of the facts *necessarily must* advance WN to the point of victory.
Sans your “necessarily must” nonsense (show me an absolute in human society worth discussing)… it implies just that!
Egalitarianism depends on that obscurantism absolutely.
Furthermore, where will the facts be disseminated? On obscure fora such as WM or Vdare? Big deal. Fact is, most whites will barely get a whiff of them. And of those that do, most will take a great deal of convincing, and skepticism will abound. Few will maintain interest long enough to get to the bottom of matters; not with busy lives to lead and assurances that things will be “just fine” despite momentarily unpleasant facts. Quite simply, the “paradigm shift” required is so large that there will be nothing like a mass movement towards WN. In the meantime… tick tick tick…
How did the long march through the institutions play out? Masses of Joe Sixpacks and Sally Soccermoms reaching political enlightenment? Or a dedicated minority? Tick, tick, tick…
“Convincing”? “Skepticism”? Neither is a factor. The herd will shift where the shepherds will. Egalitarianism is a fad. It’s “the thing to do.” A mile wide and an inch deep. It will fall into the graveyard where all used-up “things to do” now rest.
How many whites does one miscegenation inure, and secure for anti-racism?
You mean anti-whitism. Mulattos are certainly not “anti-racist.” I grew up around negros. I know them well. Shall I regale you with my tales of colorism? Maybe the mulattos you know, raised in white milieus, are “anti-racist” (as well as having the wonderful sensation of belonging to a race of one - a heritage a “hater” like myself would wish on no one).
For now, things are going your way. I hope you are young, and live long enough to see the pendulum swing. Your way is much more fragile than you may think (or not, since you can’t bring yourself to ignore us). A slight change in the wind and the whole house of cards will collapse.
Better get that Internet thing handled soon. Tick, tick, tick…
P.S., I know you have no arguments. But, perhaps you could explain your motivations? Are you a healthy-minded jew, or a sick-minded something-else?
P.P.S., just what the fuck is wrong with the commenting code here? Preview does not update in Firefox.
Posted by Guessedworker on August 29, 2007, 12:46 AM | #
I’m on record as saying that the advanced liberal milieu in which the West is immersed has, at the present rate of decay, until around 2025 before something must give. That is, it will fail within most of our lifetimes, and while whites are still in the majority everywhere.
You see, it’s not just the process of white genocide itself that is obviously destabilising, it’s the capacity of advanced liberalism to actually deliver the internationalist programme. It is too weak, and shot through already with deceit, injustice, repression and treachery.
At the onset of grave political instability the elites will have to institute a security solution. They will do this, certainly. But then the game changes totally - nothing could be more unifying for our people.
So, although we look finished to you now, you must judge us, as Fred has said, by the weight of negative measures employed to keep things under control ... and the fateful weight of such measures that must follow later. We have a chance to survive which, obviously, we will try to take.
Posted by Byron the Bulb on August 29, 2007, 12:52 AM | #
Great. And when this white-less future that you predict comes to pass, your descendants’ reward will be to live in an Australia that has become functionally no different from Pakistan. A Pakistan south, if you will. That’s some prize.
Silver’s position can be succinctly put as follows: Whites must be exterminated so that he can escape other Pakis, if only temporarily. And yet he has the temerity to try and claim the moral high-ground. What balls.
Posted by Svigor on August 29, 2007, 12:54 AM | #
This isn’t so much about being “right” or “wrong” as much it is me gloating over your demise, which I regard as nigh on inevitable.
I think you have the trend line reversed there. WNism is growing, not shrinking.
But it would be highly detrimental to me—to my happiness, dignity and well-being—to see you organize yourselves as members of it (first, before any other identification, which is what WN is). Mercifully, most of you long ago discarded such identifications and realized that getting on famously with individuals of other races was quite possible, and hardly the blot on your EGI that WM would have us believe. However, given some rather unwelcome—from a humanistic point of view—facts about humankind (unpleasant to *all* people, not just non-whites, btw—who’d have wished his own kid thus hamstrung by heredity?), and the scale of mass immigration, coupled with well-intentioned but cosmically wrongheaded domestic policies impemented to deal with the influx, WNs have been invigorated to seize the day. Well, no, dammit; I won’t sit idly by and watch the genuine humanistic progress made since the war evaporate in an orgy of white phenotypomania. I *am* heartened that their efforts—*your* efforts*—are coming to naught and I am determined to do my best to ensure that they do.
Humanism? If humanity is your banner, why bother with whites? They’re already on board. Looks like you need to convince your own group, all the non-white groups. Yet you’re bothering with the group doing the least resisting against your “humanism.” Why is that?
Don’t you have oodles and oodles of work to do in China, Japan, Korea, the Middle East, Africa, etc? Hell, Israel is hell and gone from your idea of “humanism” (actually, it’s better described as anti-humanism). You have your life’s work ahead of you in just that tiny Levantine state.
Why plow seeded ground?
I object to your shallow characterization of “egalitarianism.” “Egalitarianism” is nothing like the sanguine, rosy picture you paint. It’s about worldwide hegemony for the Globalist/PC dream/nightmare. It’s about an absolutist opposition to self-determination. I’d be okay with it if it weren’t about denying self-determination for all white people, everywhere (and only white people), but that’s precisely what it is about; we mustn’t have a single state, not even one the size of Lichtenstein, for ourselves. We MUST welcome you wherever we go and wherever we are.
So, consider the enmity 100% mutual, for obvious reasons.
Having said all that, yes, I say again, there is a glaring weakness in your position that I see unadressed. No, I am not in any particular hurry to draw your attention to it because there’d be little in it for me, expect perhaps a flurry of excitement in noting the exasperation of bunch of dehumanisers whom I despise. But that’s a pleasure I can reserve for a time of my choosing.
You’re a gimp. Seriously, is this supposed to put us all on pins and needles or something?
You’ve got nothing. We know you’ve got nothing, because your entire side has nothing. You may think you’ve got something, but in that case your illusion persists only because you’re keeping it to yourself. When we’re done with it, it’ll look like a two dollar whore on “friends ride free” night.
Keep it to yourself, or not, as you wish. We’ve heard it all before.
Posted by 2R on August 29, 2007, 12:56 AM | #
“ I might ask: just when and where do you folks expect the first serious immigration restriction legislation will be enacted? Five more years? Ten? I think the latter is Brimelow’s expectation, isn’t it? (I could be wrong.) Yes, I think even by then you’ll be quite close to done for.”
Immigration “restriction?” Why would we want that?
Posted by hennoed on August 29, 2007, 12:57 AM | #
I asked: Whites, caucasians, indigenous European peoples (so including Albanians and Saami)… who are you guys? Don’t you know?
What followed made me think WOW! You guys - Fred, GW, RR, really do have a problem saying who YOU, collectively, are. The evasion is important, since you advocate a politics founded on collective identity.
You have to know this and be able to communicate it and justify it when asked.
Posted by Svigor on August 29, 2007, 12:57 AM | #
Silver’s position can be succinctly put as follows: Whites must be exterminated so that he can escape other Pakis, if only temporarily. And yet he has the temerity to try and claim the moral high-ground. What balls.
Yes, some kind of South Asian is a good guess. They have a tendency toward extreme, unjustified arrogance (funny how there some of the most racist sons of bitches in the world too - no one snobbier than a subcon).
And yours is a good summation btw.
Posted by Svigor on August 29, 2007, 12:59 AM | #
You have to know this and be able to communicate it and justify it when asked.
Maybe if you were literate enough to ask a precise question, you’d get a precise answer.
Posted by Svigor on August 29, 2007, 01:00 AM | #
They’re, not “there.”
Posted by ben tillman on August 29, 2007, 01:09 AM | #
You’re caught in a paradoxical dilemma with regard to time: you have to believe it is both working in your favor and [working] against you.
Here Silver reveals his subjectivity, his unselfconsciousness, his utter unwhiteness. To any objective person, it would be obvious that he and his fellow misanthropes face the same dilemma. They know that time is both working in their favor and working against them.
Posted by hennoed on August 29, 2007, 01:31 AM | #
I think it’s clear enough Svigor.
You try and square the circles: RR’s post, Scroob’s Jewish family, EGI, ethnic-nationalism, and GW’s recent aunt-inspired philo-semitism.
You’re all collectively advocating politics of collective identity that would exclude one another.
Posted by Reiv on August 29, 2007, 01:31 AM | #
Posted by hennoed on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 12:57 AM | #
<
You have to know this and be able to communicate it and justify it when asked.>>
---Evasion, eh? Have you ever considered that identity is often discovered in the concept of “What we are not.”? Sort of like jews (although the analogy may be too primitive for the tastes of some): “We are not goyim.” So if they are “not goyim”, they can only be one other thing, right?
Reiv
Posted by hennoed on August 29, 2007, 01:36 AM | #
Wintermute had it wrong. There aren’t four or five different blogs competing against each other here: there are millions, precisely as many millions as individuals included in the various permutations of collective that Stormfront, Vdare, MR et al, have ever come up with. And then all the maiden aunt’s favourite exceptions too.
Tell me Svigor… who, whom?
Posted by hennoed on August 29, 2007, 01:39 AM | #
Reiv, I don’t want you to tell me who I am - I want to know who you are.
(And don’t let the resistingdefamation.org boys hear you say that.)
Posted by Desmond jones on August 29, 2007, 01:59 AM | #
You’re all collectively advocating politics of collective identity that would exclude one another.
How is that different from the history of Europe, or any people for that matter? It’s evolutionary. It’s part of the manner in which natural selection functions. Even the meanest collective on the block, the Jews, cut lose, at least according to Charles Murray, fellows Jews who did not measure up. The unique factor is that, unlike any other period in the history of mankind, the invader is unopposed and in fact aided and abetted by those that will be replaced.
And not unexpectedly, a nature like wintermute’s has no time for Darwin.
Posted by hennoed on August 29, 2007, 02:24 AM | #
How is that different from the history of Europe, or any people for that matter?
It isn’t any different from European history - but it’s unusual for a politically minded collective.
Are you saying this forum is for a ‘European people’ DJ? Oh…
Posted by Lurker on August 29, 2007, 02:54 AM | #
Why are you asking the question exactly?
You already know who we are.
We are the ones who get to be accused of the racism, the ones who must give way when it comes to affirmative action and quotas and to pay for that with our taxes. We are the ones who have to apologise for our history. We are the ones who must allow you to live in our countries. We are the ones who must endorse multiculturalism and the politicians who support it to the exclusion of anything else.
So actually its easy for us to know who we are.
Yes there are some grey areas like those Italians in Oz who seem to think that their alliance should perhaps be with the Lebanese muslims. I wonder if their friendship will be rewarded if the Lebanese ever gain the upper hand?
Posted by Reiv on August 29, 2007, 03:15 AM | #
Posted by hennoed on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 01:39 AM | #
<
(And don’t let the resistingdefamation.org boys hear you say that.)>>
I’m Reiv (and you are hennoed, by the way). That’s not too simple, is it?
Please don’t report me to the “boys”, whoever they may be.
R.
Posted by desmond jones on August 29, 2007, 03:34 AM | #
Are you saying this forum is for a ‘European people’ DJ?
No, I’m saying your point is moot ‘cause it’s as old as the hills and twice as dusty.
...but it’s unusual for a politically minded collective.
Is it? For one Murray’s piece in Commentary on the Jewish collective shows it’s not. It points to an elite group diverging from collective interests.
Show us some examples.
Posted by Steve Edwards on August 29, 2007, 04:20 AM | #
“Yes, some kind of South Asian is a good guess. They have a tendency toward extreme, unjustified arrogance (funny how there some of the most racist sons of bitches in the world too - no one snobbier than a subcon).”
I have noticed this myself when watching satellite TV. Sometimes they have current affairs panels with folks from different parts of the world - say a Chinese or other East-Asian, a Subcon, an Arab, an Englishman, etc. One thing I’ve noticed is the staggering contrast between the way that Chinese invariably conduct themselves in public debate (very politely, deferentially, considerately), and the manner of the Subcons, who invariably shout down anyone who demonstrates the slightest disagreement on even the most trivial point, accompanying their vitriol with wild accusations as to their counterpart’s motives. Arabs can be like this as well. I have found this alarming tendency (over-the-top aggression and aimless bluster) to be present in both personal and public encounters with many Subcons. It’s definitely not their most endearing characteristic.
However, for this reason I always look forward to watching televised debates between a group of Indian and Pakistani academics on, for example, Kashmir or the nuclear issue. Guaranteed hilarity every time!
Posted by silver on August 29, 2007, 05:27 AM | #
2R said: “Immigration “restriction?” Why would we want that?”
Gee...dunno.... why on earth would you?
I guess you’re counting on the “southern strategy” then, eh? Let the country fill up first with “unassimilable” non-whites, and when everyone figures out horrible such an existence is—helped along of course by WN advocacy—then whites everywhere will finally see the same picture. I think this strategy’s doomed.
It’s almost “cheating”. Sure, the whites most likely to come see their interests as primarily racial are precisely those hardest hit by the deluge, but if takes the country filling to the brim with non-whites for them to see it, it kinda defeats the purpose. The trick would be to convince them of their racial interests without having to so fill the country that the realization can only arrive when too late to counter proceedings.
“Silver’s position can be succinctly put as follows: Whites must be exterminated so that he can escape other Pakis, if only temporarily. And yet he has the temerity to try and claim the moral high-ground. What balls.”
Er..."exterminated"? If I were to impregnate a white girl (which I will, be sure of it...more if I can, now that I have added incentive), I would hardly think that I have “exterminated” her.
The big question is civilizational decline. Actually, that’s already in full swing. Let’s just say living standards. The browning will, it is to be expected, lower them. There’s a neat and humane, non-WN eugenics solution to that, though. I see no cause for alarm here.
I’m not Paki, btw. I was just curious to see what reaction that would ellicit.
I’m Serbian. (Test me, if you like.) I don’t consider myself white—for good reason: I’m not—nor other Serbs “whites”, and it galls me to see them playing that game. If a Serb thinks he has anything racially in common with Englishmen or a German he is thoroughly deluding himself. Yes, I’d welcome a “negrifying” of Serbia, too. My father was Kosovo raised, and I’ve heard all the stories, but the place holds nothing special in my heart. My liberal credentials are, I would think, quite impeccable.
Posted by Rnl on August 29, 2007, 06:52 AM | #
I’m Serbian.
Serbs are nazis. Hence the humanitarian bombing of Belgrade. Silver may not feel White, but not so long ago his fellow Serbs became very White.
Posted by Guessedworker on August 29, 2007, 09:04 AM | #
Ah, an “arrogant” Serbian!
Let us, then, savour those famous words of Gen. Wesley Clark, then in command of U.S. troops in Serbia and now a Democratic presidential candidate, talking to a CNN reporter in 1999:-
“There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That is a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”
So, Silverić, who is the “we” here, exactly? Nato? Some other organisation or group? Humanity at large ... you know, folks from Albania? Or, indeed, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Senegal ...? And how, anyway, does this “we” come to include you? Why do you think you are not a victim of this crash programme of multi-ethnicisation, ie de-ethnicisation (or, if you prefer, race replacement of Europe’s native peoples)?
But let’s not stop there, now we know (I hope) that you are of European descent. Let’s tackle your mad notion that you are not white - a kind of “none of the above”, open-ended, choice-led human being, perhaps. Or, perish the thought, a Titoist Non-Aligned Movement human being.
I mean I guess I am right here. You believe in “identity” rather than descent, yes? Did your Dad think that? And his Dad? Were they Tito’s men, but still Serbians in every bone? Would they have agreed with We-Wesley that Serbians have to be replaced? Would they have agreed with you that Serbs are not “white” or “European”?
But, then, you don’t really think that, do you? You see “white” not as a proscriptive shorthand for “European-Caucasian”, which is what it is, but as something oppressive ... something, I expect, to do with the insufferable “Anglo” majority in Oz, which enjoys the “privilege” of cultural hegemony and the presumptions of ownership to all things Australian. Could it just be that you react ethnically against Anglo-Australians, Silverić? Is this race hatred or just something you absorbed in your sociology classes at Macquarie (it couldn’t have been serious Melbourne)?
Do provide some answers for me.
Posted by Guessedworker on August 29, 2007, 09:19 AM | #
My liberal credentials are, I would think, quite impeccable.
Can you eludicate for me, please, how:-
1) racial egalitarianism and,
2) Race replacement
... are “liberal”?
Posted by Svigor on August 29, 2007, 11:20 AM | #
You try and square the circles: RR’s post, Scroob’s Jewish family, EGI, ethnic-nationalism, and GW’s recent aunt-inspired philo-semitism.
Squaring circles, as you put it, is much easier than coming up with a one-liner to satisfy your question I guess (assuming a bit of bad faith on your part - sorry, long experience).
EGI and ethnic nationalism don’t need any “squaring” since EGI is a hierarchy of interests and ethnic nationalism fits within it. I know nothing of GW’s recent “philo-Semitism.” Scroob’s jewish ancestors mean nothing to me since the enmity between jewry and Euros is 99 parts tribal, and one part racial, and Scroob is obviously not jewish.
Don’t know what needs squaring in RR’s post or GW’s “philo-Semitism, but both are academic since this is a forum for tossing around ideas, inter alia, and agreement on everything would be a bit odd.
If you want a one-liner, try the 14 words. That’s as good as anything, I suppose. Or you could say our commonality is those worried about Majority Rights, or those dedicated to the ideal of self-determination. Nothing too complicated about a political alliance, is there?
Posted by Tommy G on August 29, 2007, 12:14 PM | #
silver wrote: “I marvel at the precision, too. TG, what was it that gave not just me away, but the racial pairing of my parents? ie why not a black mother? Just a case of playing the odds, or was there some particular insight?”
TG: You guys aren’t that hard to spot. You stick out like a fly in a bowl of buttermilk (learnt that one from a black coworker). I’m quite sure you are the same fellow that calls himself “Black Insurgent” over at AR. The tone, substance, style and demeanor of your posts are too similar to be a coincidence. For example:
>>>“Sorry, Stillwarm, in a little less than a century, spanning the 19th and 20th century both, white nations were quite successful in racking up a rather lengthy list of atrocities and were quite proud of it. I haven’t even add the atrocities before this period (the genocide of the Native Americans among them) and afterwards (including their white supremacist military and economic global proxy wars).
And, as I say again, because it never seems to get through your collective thick neanderthal skulls, the Trans-Saharan slave trade paled in size (by nearly three orders of magnitude) and character (enslavement was neither total, heritable, or inescapable) with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (where they were bred and sold like pigs).
As for my mother, she may be white (like Nordos, who ironically don’t fit the contemporary definition of white, nor have the vain and arrogant Anglo white supremacist mindlessness), but she sure isn’t an Anglo man. Big difference. LOL!
Posted by Black Insurgent at 1:27 AM on October 4 “
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/09/shelby_steele_t.php
--------------------------------
TG: Of course there are many more examples I could dredge up, but we can let the readers decide.
Posted by silver on August 29, 2007, 03:25 PM | #
“So, Silverić, who is the “we” here, exactly? Nato? Some other organisation or group? Humanity at large ... you know, folks from Albania? Or, indeed, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Senegal ...?
You’d be better off asking Clark. I certainly don’t know who is thinks he was speaking for. If I had to guess, I’d go with something like “humanity at large”. That seems quite reasonable, knowing Clark’s liberal leanings.
“And how, anyway, does this “we” come to include you? Why do you think you are not a victim of this crash programme of multi-ethnicisation, ie de-ethnicisation (or, if you prefer, race replacement of Europe’s native peoples)?"”
Because (a) I support it; and (b) I’m an Australian citizen. I really don’t see myself, nor anyone here, nor anyone who arrives on these shores, as partaking in or suffering from some race-replacement gambit.
“But let’s not stop there, now we know (I hope) that you are of European descent. “
By all means, let’s stop just right here: am I of European descent? What does that even mean? And how does it relate to this concept of “whiteness”? Assuming I am “of European descent”, what assimilative value does that endow me with, if any? I mean, if I was previously a worthless Subcon, what’s now changed? If it changes nothing, then being “of European descent” is a wholly worthless point to zero in on.
“I mean I guess I am right here. You believe in “identity” rather than descent, yes? Did your Dad think that? And his Dad? Were they Tito’s men, but still Serbians in every bone? Would they have agreed with We-Wesley that Serbians have to be replaced? Would they have agreed with you that Serbs are not “white” or “European”?”
Sure, I “believe” in identity—who doesn’t? I consider identities fluid, flexible things; not rigid or set in stone.
My father doesn’t really know what he thinks. He was a committed Yugoslav but knew next to nought about communism (except how “good” it was). He was a Serbian patriot whose notions of “Serbness” probably ran along the lines formulated in the 19th century. Strong Yugoslavism and patriotic Serbness were really contradictory notions, but he was untroubled by this even through the wars, believing in “Yugoslavia” even as the other nationalities, especially the Croats, whom he never forgave, rejected it.
Having grown up in Pristina, he hates Albanians and detests Clark, Clinton and “America”. He’d be sickened at the thought of Bantus multiplying in Belgrade. He’s sickened by the sight of Africans and Asians here in Melbourne, as they’ve slowly “changed” the neighborhood where he first settled and helped erect a Serbian church. I’ve never heard him use the word “white”, and he’d probably be confused about the concept of “Europe”, though he’d place Serbia (and himself) in it, still for all that I’m sure he’s as an unregenerate racist as anyone who can pin “whiteness” down to the allele.
“But, then, you don’t really think that, do you? You see “white” not as a proscriptive shorthand for “European-Caucasian”, which is what it is, but as something oppressive ... something, I expect, to do with the insufferable “Anglo” majority in Oz, which enjoys the “privilege” of cultural hegemony and the presumptions of ownership to all things Australian.”
I think it can be both those things. There’s little doubt in my mind that when used by “Anglos” in Australia, as a positive identification, it carries with it the latter conotation.
“Could it just be that you react ethnically against Anglo-Australians, Silverić?”
I’m not sure what you’re asking. If I’m provoked along ethnic lines, yeah, sure, I will react “ethnically”. It’s not some chip I carry around though. I’m not on some mission to disadvantage Anglos. To answer what I suspect you’re driving at: I’m not some “Jew” with an inferiority complex determined to exact vengeance on Anglo Australia for every slight ever suffered by myself or “my people”. (This is the Fred Scrooby view of it, though one perhaps shared by many others, is it not?)
“Is this race hatred or just something you absorbed in your sociology classes at Macquarie (it couldn’t have been serious Melbourne)?”
Neither. I am of the opinion that miscegenation is set to gather steam. I have no doubt, actually. “Race-replacement” is a non-issue for me. I came on here to goad, not because I “hate Anglos”, simply because I detest the views sites like this propound. And perhaps more still because if the project of securing a “white homeland” is to succeed anywhere, Australia seems like a likely redoubt. (Few Nords are really interested in Russia, and it thoroughly annoys me to see those slavic gits bedazzled by Duke’s WN piffle, when it’s really the Jews he’s consumed by.)
As for Macquarie, are you sure you haven’t been doing some snooping around on me? I did attend that university, but it’s located in Sydney, not Melbourne. Not a real hotbed of anti-racism, as I recall it, though I wasn’t really paying huge attention.
Posted by Robert Reis on August 29, 2007, 03:47 PM | #
`Human Genetics: Jewish Lysozymes’ by Jared Diamond, Nature (1994) 368:291. (a News and Views article discussing the discovery that various Ashkenazi genetic diseases consist of several independent mutations with similar effects). A broad overview of Tay-Sachs disease and different views concerning its evolutionary significance can be found at the medline site.
`Who Are the Jews’ by Jared Diamond, Natural History (November 1993)
In an article that appeared in NATURAL HISTORY, Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: “There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.” 5
The implication here is obvious. The Zionist elite is planning to refuse a person the right to settle in Israel if they do not have “Jewish genes.”
NATURAL HISTORY, November 1993, p.12.
Posted by JLH on August 29, 2007, 03:50 PM | #
Let’s parse some of this comment by “silver”:
This isn’t so much about being “right” or “wrong” as much it is me gloating over your demise, which I regard as nigh on inevitable.
Here is a guy who wills the destruction of a people, or at least the self-identified remnant of a people, but we’re the haters. His is the “correct” position, and it is dripping with venom.
I admire great numbers of individuals of your race.
Some of my best friends are honkies.
But it would be highly detrimental to me—to my happiness, dignity and well-being—to see you organize yourselves as members of it
Any attempt on the part of whites to define themselves, to organize as a people around not only a culture (which springs from race) but from a common blood, triggers an immediate response of fear and horror. (It would seem that our demise is not so inevitable if signs of life issuing from us are so greatly feared.) Those who wish our demise have no trouble defining us. “We” are those who are targeted for extinction. “We” are the object of all the anti-discrimination laws. “We” are the ones who are expected to alleviate all the disease, starvation and strife in all the non-white countries of the world, as well as make room for all the non-whites fleeing these hellholes. But silver’s happiness, dignity and well-being are dependent upon us not opposing our own demise, which he so triumphantly awaits.
Mercifully, most of you long ago discarded such identifications and realized that getting on famously with individuals of other races was quite possible
Getting on famously = L.A. and Cincinnati riots, http://www.wichita-massacre.com/ Wichita massacre, Christian/Newsom murders, http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp
95 percent of interracial crime black on white, thousands of white women raped by blacks every year, up to 40,000 whites slain by blacks since 1965 (10 times the number of 1880-1960 lynching victims): getting on famously = lie down and die, honky.
well-intentioned but cosmically wrongheaded domestic policies
deliberate policies of racially motivated revenge against whites.
Well, no, dammit; I won’t sit idly by and watch the genuine humanistic progress made since the war evaporate
Progress: whites driven by savage mayhem from their own cities; our education system destroyed by having to protect the self-esteem of 80 IQ negroes; and our culture debased and coarsened by crotch-clutching, pimping idiots.
If you are white and you object up to any of this, you are “dehumanisers” whom (silver) despise(s).
But of course we’re the haters, not silver.
Posted by silver on August 29, 2007, 04:02 PM | #
“Can you eludicate for me, please, how:-
1) racial egalitarianism and,
2) Race replacement
... are “liberal”?”
I could, but I’m not here to debate the finer points of politics. I simply meant that I consider what’s good for your goose good for my gander. I’m not playing favorites here. Serbs miscegenating, “race-replacing” themselves, bothers me—as far as phenotype goes—no more than Americans or Frenchmen or anyone doing it. Phenotypes changing doesn’t bother me, and I don’t think it should bother anyone, and, given the harm excessive focus on phenotype can wreck, I intend to see to it that WN fails.
To the extent that this site does discuss “politics”, it’s all done with a view to preserving phenotypes. It’s not even political discussion, properly understood. It’s simply an exploration of which political position would offer the best possibility of advancing WN aims, of which the sine qua non is always phenotype preservation. If Constantin somehow convinced you that “National Bolshevism” was it (exercise your imaginations), that’s what you’d pounce on. Of course, no such consensus is remotely likely to form. Meanwhile, the clock keeps ticking while you try to rally white racial consciousness and steer it towards WN conclusions.
Posted by JLH on August 29, 2007, 05:47 PM | #
Phenotypes changing doesn’t bother me, and I don’t think it should bother anyone
When phenotypes change, culture changes, usually in directions that disadvantage the phenotype that is being altered.
What this guy and others like him are saying is, “You’re going to get wiped out, and you’re going to like it.”
No thanks
Posted by James Bowery on August 29, 2007, 06:03 PM | #
Phenotypes include things like breathing, and most likely a host of things whose vital functions we may not yet have identified simply because we’re human and therefore suffer from limited self-knowledge.
Posted by Svigor on August 29, 2007, 06:54 PM | #
I could, but I’m not here to debate the finer points of politics. I simply meant that I consider what’s good for your goose good for my gander. I’m not playing favorites here. Serbs miscegenating, “race-replacing” themselves, bothers me—as far as phenotype goes—no more than Americans or Frenchmen or anyone doing it. Phenotypes changing doesn’t bother me, and I don’t think it should bother anyone, and, given the harm excessive focus on phenotype can wreck, I intend to see to it that WN fails.
Rough going there, but you seem to be implying that you’re universalist in your opposition to anti-racism. I don’t see how that can possibly be the case, since Euros are the least offenders from your (ostensible) P.O.V., yet here you are beating the dead horse. What about Israel? The world’s only (ostensibly) western ethnostate doesn’t interest you, but Anglophone Euros do? China, Japan, Nigeria...they don’t bother you?
As for harm, don’t make me laugh. Egalitarianism and anti-racism were right at the top of the commie list. Shall we compare body counts between Commies and Nazis?
Given the harm excessive focus* on egalitarianism and anti-racism can wreak, we intend to see that liberalism fails (not really necessary since it carries the seed of its own destruction, but I’m going for some rhetorical symmetry here).
*what an odd choice of words, since any focus on (white) EGI whatsoever is “excessive” to “egalitarians.”
Own up to your totalitarianism silver. Admit that you are opposed to self-determination. Admit that it’s your way or the highway. You’ll feel better.
Posted by Svigor on August 29, 2007, 06:55 PM | #
That should be “opposition to ethnocentrism,” not anti-racism.
Posted by desmond jones on August 29, 2007, 07:12 PM | #
Anglo hatred is not a new phenomena in Australia or any of the Dominions. Mark Richardson, if memory serves, commented regarding the Cronulla riot that his students (of Southern European origin, Greek and others) wished to join the fracas, on the side of the Lebanese. In Canada, Ukrainians and Italians (interned by Anglos in WWI & WWII) are quite happy to join a rainbow coalition of Japanese, Chinese, Sikhs, Jews, Africans and others, in an effort to disenfranchise the founding Anglo-Saxon/British race.
Posted by Guessedworker on August 29, 2007, 11:30 PM | #
Thanks, Silver, for the honest responses, and especially those words about your father, who I imagine is a fine man, and which I appreciate.
If, by the way, I really thought you were really brown-skinned I wouldn’t bother with you, because your ethnic genetic interests can never be congruent with mine. Since we now know you are European, we can hope to build a discussion on a congruent EGI (yes, even self-hating liberals who project onto their own people in a hopeless attempt to self-heal ... even they have EGI, even if they don’t know it).
Now, to have a meaningful discussion with you, I have first to introduce you - bring you up, really - to our metapolitical level. Presently, you do not understand enough about us or the kind of politics we espouse to grasp the meaning of what we say. That is why you have such a narrow, racialised view of it, and why you keep saying, “WN ... WN!” It might help at this juncture to treat with us in a more questioning spirit. Liberalism loves labeling what it cannot compute, but the itch to label things does not indicate the presence of a desire to understand. It indicates the presence of the desire to moralise - an inferior sentiment.
For our part, we know liberals and liberalism because we live in the zeitgeist. We cannot avoid it. We have pondered it, critiqued it, rejected it. In a political and philosophical sense, then, you are among sighted people ... non-conformists ... free-thinkers who are not “far right” or “racialists” or even, particularly, “nationalists”. We exist independently of these labels, and outside the Psychology 1 political spectrum.
So, to begin ...
You say, “Sure, I “believe” in identity—who doesn’t? I consider identities fluid, flexible things; not rigid or set in stone.”
I do not “believe” in identity as an ultimate value because it is simply not an ultimate value - neither is freedom - and it is not me.
Let’s suppose my personality - the me that is acquired from birth from my surroundings - is that of a middle-aged Macquarie sociology professor ... a twice-divorced, childless male feminist, perhaps, and an avowed atheist, but a positively evangelical vegetarian. Now let’s take a trip back to John Locke’s newly pacified England. Same lil old me. But this time one of “the godly” - a Puritan with fourteen children, six surviving - and a mirthless scourge of all opponents of separatism and freedom of conscience. Shift again. We are in rural Gauteng, outside Pretoria. It’s the 1950s, and the story this time is of a proud, race-conscious member of the Bruderbund, a pillar of Afrikaner society and a renowned horse-breeder and farmer who treats his black workers well.
You understand that “me 1”, “me 2” and “me 3”, although they are very unalike, are the same human product. The point of difference is the author of their particularity ... the culture, which is itself described philosophically and politically within the metapolitical globus, the zeitgeist of the day. So what is real? The “me” or the zeitgeist? If “me” can be turned into anything, where does the power lie? And where is that fabled liberal quality of the unfettered will?
What is real, of course, is human plasticity, and what is powerful is the formative agency. For being plastic means being formed, being influenced, being the receptive principle. Thus, since liberalism is the zeitgeist today, it follows that a little Macquarie me madly unfettering my will is as imprisoned as any harsh Puritan or horse-whip handy Afrikaner. The mere fact that the zeitgeist promises something does not make it so. The Puritan’s Jehovah is only a thought by a Jewish thinker. The horse-breeder’s confident power and wealth were not permanent. And there IS no unfettering of the will. The religion of the individual is a fake.
In that regard, our personality - that which is acquired, and not essentially of us - is itself also falsity and enslavement. Esoteric spirituality has always taught transcendence of it. Abstract individualism, meanwhile, never freed a single soul, and we are engaged today on the long process not of gaining more freedoms but losing those we have gained over the centuries by other means. We are losing freedoms right up to and including the freedom of whole peoples to exist sovereign in their own lands and in their traditions as they collectively desire ... right up to and including the slow loss of humanity’s greatest and most creative race.
Only environmental collapse is more dangerous for mankind than such an outcome.
Outcomes are everything. Politics is the battle to dictate the future. Metapolitical awareness means that one understands not merely the nature of the zeitgeist, but its historical dynamic ... its outcome.
We are, of course, heading for the consumer-slavery of Leviathan, dispossessed and deracinated to a double-digit IQ, manageable, threatless, untermensch in absolute. That is where liberalism is leading, ably steered by its self-interested managerial elites. That is what you, Silver, and all fool-liberal apologists are actually supporting.
So that’s the start-point. Not your liberal presumptions. Not your anti-racist faux-morality. These things are acquired in sleep and have no objective meaning. They are mere obstructions to your understanding. Let us hope that they will be short-lived.
Posted by EC on August 29, 2007, 11:59 PM | #
Phenotypes changing doesn’t bother me, and I don’t think it should bother anyone, and, given the harm excessive focus on phenotype can wreck, I intend to see to it that WN fails.
Right. Phenotype is simply akin to a pair of shoes. If I don’t the red ones, I’ll simply change to the brown ones. Silly WNs, don’t you all know that racial differences, ie phenotype, is only skin deep! LOL
I could easily say Silver is an immature moron though fear of offending immature people and morons. At least he has given himself the name of “Silver” which is about right. Smart as horse, this one.
Another gem:
I am of the opinion that miscegenation is set to gather steam. I have no doubt, actually. “Race-replacement” is a non-issue for me. I came on here to goad, not because I “hate Anglos”, simply because I detest the views sites like this propound.
Wishful thinking to say the least. I certainly do not see that at all. What I see is the pendulum of “tolerance” having clearly begun to slow. You rarely see miscegenation outside the major metropolises and I personally have seen things recently that I only hoped would happen. That being intolerance to racial extortion exhibited by your average white guy and gal. Both instances occurred out of the blue and against blacks who began bleating about “racial discrimination and racism”. Never did I see before white people piping up and telling said blacks to STFU. And, believe it or not, said blacks did STFU. As little as 2-3 years ago, I would never have heard such intolerance and anger. Most whites, as we are all too familiar, would have said nothing. This PC blowback will be quite spectacle to see when it arrives in full force.
No, this type of unnatural thinking that Silver espouses, is not gathering steam. Despite billions spent on forcing people to miscegenate, it is only a certain flawed few that reside in the centers of depravity that imbibe the nectar. Most want to stay with their own kind despite the pablum fed them via the MSM and education system. A great many children just do not buy this stuff and they are the ones who are on the front lines of the war. To be more precise, the loudest proponents of such unnaturalness are either the weakest minded ones or ones that have had miscegenation come home to roost. A perfect example of misery loving company.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 30, 2007, 12:57 AM | #
“At least he has given himself the name ‘Silver’ which is about right. Smart as a horse, this one.” (—EC)
And his comment has been given the name “post,” for containing as much intelligence as the post the horse is tied to.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 30, 2007, 01:12 AM | #
I don’t know whether to feel sorry for GW for making that heroic but absolutely doomed effort (a few posts above) to communicate with this ... this individual ... or to stand back in sheer drop-jawed awe at his saintliness in persisting in the teeth of utter hopelessness and write the Vatican nominating him for canonization. Either way it’s rare phenomenon we’re witnessing there.
Posted by a Finn on August 30, 2007, 02:24 AM | #
Good answers to silver and hennoed. So, silver if your identity is so fluid, then make a statement and show with your concrete actions to others that you really support miscegenation. Concrete actions mean something, not slapping air with your jaw. Take a wife that is maximally different from you. Wife from Congo, from among Australian aboriginals or Bantu from Africa. And then let’s see whose descendants are better off after hundred years. And remember to teach your children fluid identity, so that they are more easily controlled and governed by those that have permanent identity, moving from generation to generation without changing the crucial aspects.
Yes, I can see how the miscegenation and mixing of ethnicities goes here in Finland. Losers, who have no other possibilities than to accept mixed marriages and/or who are mentally too weak to resist the liberal brainwashing are the ones who fall victim to liberal politics. Those liberals, who produce liberal brainwashing avoid mixed marriages like it would be incurable plague. Like the great majority of people.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 30, 2007, 02:38 AM | #
“And remember to teach your children fluid identity, so that they are more easily controlled and governed by those that have permanent identity, moving from generation to generation without changing the crucial aspects.” (—Finn)
Very well put by Finn!
Posted by a Finn on August 30, 2007, 04:24 AM | #
To Fred: Yes, I was referring to this statement of silver: “Sure, I “believe” in identity—who doesn’t? I consider identities fluid, flexible things; not rigid or set in stone.”
Posted by silver on August 30, 2007, 04:34 AM | #
Guessed, that’s all very well, but it’s really all beside the point at this late stage in the game. To call it ivory tower doesn’t quite capture it. Everything you fear is already here. I apologize for the brief reply, but at bottom, your interests are simply not my interests (mine could be yours, but yours never mine). Good luck with the revolution. (Oh, and if you don’t think I am (or can be) “brown”, you must not know very much about southern europe, or its balkans half at any rate.)
“If you are white and you object up to any of this, you are “dehumanisers” whom (silver) despise(s).
But of course we’re the haters, not silver.”
It’s obviously a certain form of objection that I object to.
“What about Israel? The world’s only (ostensibly) western ethnostate doesn’t interest you, but Anglophone Euros do? China, Japan, Nigeria...they don’t bother you? “
I oppose Israel. It was wrong and I don’t think it will survive as an ethnostate. Japan bothers me, yes. I don’t think their fanatical sense of self will last long, though. As for the rest of the world, it’s nationalism I oppose, everywhere and at all times.
“As for harm, don’t make me laugh. Egalitarianism and anti-racism were right at the top of the commie list. Shall we compare body counts between Commies and Nazis?”
I’m not a communist, so I don’ t see the point of making comparisons. Liberalism doesn’t require evicting people from their homes, “repatriating” them or forcing limitations on whom one can marry. WN on the other hand…
“what an odd choice of words, since any focus on (white) EGI whatsoever is “excessive” to “egalitarians.”’
I don’t know why you insist on calling me an “egalitarian”. I don’t even know what you mean by that.
And you’re wrong about the focus on “egi”, which imo is massively overstated. I can hardly oppose a white noticing and being concerned about the venom that today emanates from black (and other) quarters. That’s hardly “excessive” at all now, is it? What would be excessive, I’ll leave to your imagination…
“Anglo hatred is not a new phenomena in Australia or any of the Dominions. Mark Richardson, if memory serves, commented regarding the Cronulla riot that his students (of Southern European origin, Greek and others) wished to join the fracas, on the side of the Lebanese. In Canada, Ukrainians and Italians (interned by Anglos in WWI & WWII) are quite happy to join a rainbow coalition of Japanese, Chinese, Sikhs, Jews, Africans and others, in an effort to disenfranchise the founding Anglo-Saxon/British race.”
“Disenfranchise”? No. Live alongside, interact with, intermarry with, build prosperity and a common culture with—yes. But the Anglo-Saxon racialist will entertain none of that. The moment I set foot here I began the disenfranchisement. Naturally, then, I or any Serb, Italian, Greek, Arab, Ukrainian, Russian, etc is going to oppose such a harsh view of matters.
I take it thenthat you and Scrooby don’t quite see eye to eye?
“So, silver if your identity is so fluid, then make a statement and show with your concrete actions to others that you really support miscegenation. “
Why should I? I don’t need to demonstrate my support for abortion by insisting my wife abort.
My cousin is engaged to a Carribean Negro. Her brother is a vehement racist who grumbles incessantly about “Asians” and “Muzzies”. He’s quite beside himself over it. I, on the other hand, completely support her right and her decision to marry the man she loves. I’d say that’s pretty “concrete”, isn’t it?
Now, I myself? In the interests of full disclosure, no, I doubt I would ever find myself betrothed to a Negro or an Asian. I’ve had short term relationships with both, including with one rather stunning South African “colored”. I was never particularly interested in Nordic girls. I never raved about or craved “blonds”. But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.
“And remember to teach your children fluid identity”
It’s not something you need to teach. Identities are fluid. Just because WNs have settled on one overriding identity doesn’t mean they don’t, even if subconsciously, subscribe to others.
“Losers, who have no other possibilities than to accept mixed marriages and/or who are mentally too weak to resist the liberal brainwashing are the ones who fall victim to liberal politics. Those liberals, who produce liberal brainwashing avoid mixed marriages like it would be incurable plague. Like the great majority of people.”
More or less. Which is why WN appears doomed. And?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 30, 2007, 05:44 AM | #
“I take it then that you and Scrooby don’t quite see eye to eye?” (—Silver, aka Dumb as a Post)
If GW buys your story that you’re white, he and I most definitely don’t see eye to eye, no. At first I thought your creepy worthless hide was Subcon, then someone suggested Negro and immediately that seemed more likely. You’re obviously not Serb or any variety of European, Balkan or otherwise: you are not a white man; that’s clear. You’re either some variety of Subcon or you’re a Sub-Saharan; whether mulatto or the full monte, it makes no difference. I have no more time to waste with your creepy crawly ilk. Were I not a guest here the same as you, you’d hear an earful from me right now that people would still be talking about on the internet in fifty years. I’ve soiled my hands by typing a reply to you: must go wash them. It won’t happen again.
Posted by a Finn on August 30, 2007, 06:34 AM | #
My answers start with -.
silver: “Why should I? I don’t need to demonstrate my support for abortion by insisting my wife abort. My cousin is engaged to a Carribean Negro. Her brother is a vehement racist who grumbles incessantly about “Asians” and “Muzzies”. He’s quite beside himself over it. I, on the other hand, completely support her right and her decision to marry the man she loves. I’d say that’s pretty “concrete”, isn’t it?”
- No it is not. I say there are advantages in marriages inside an ethnicity, both short term and long term. If you don’t show with your personal actions the “good” in mixed marriages, your words doesn’t mean anything. You are just a hypocrite, which there are plenty already. Don’t expect me to change my views when you marry a negro, but then I take your views seriously.
It is mistake to compare marriages to abortion. Abortion is done when e.g. accident has happened to prevent unwanted development. But marriages, at least when they are started, are positive, happy and good developments. By marrying a negro you would have an added bonuses of blurring the races irremovably further; showing with your own personal actions that races don’t matter; removing the alleged
possibility of monoethnic/monoracial bigotry of your descendants; increasing the understanding between relatives of different races and races in general; increasing liberalism and fluidity in everything concerning races; etc. If you refuse to take these enormous added liberal bonuses, your views concerning the races doesn’t mean anything.
“I never raved about or craved “blonds”. But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.”
- My thanks from the heart goes to you if you do that. You remove from the gene pool one more member who doesn’t have enough genetic predisposition to ethnocentrism. Mixed marriages leave behind more and more those that have genetic inclination to ethnocentrism, which means among other things genetic inclination to aversion and opposition to mixed marriages.
“It’s not something you need to teach. Identities are fluid. Just because WNs have settled on one overriding identity doesn’t mean they don’t, even if subconsciously, subscribe to others.”
- Yes, it is true that if any special identity is not taught to children, their identities are often fluid if they don’t have enough genetic predisposition to ethnocentrism. It is fine with me if you teach them like that. I just wanted you to make sure with teaching that they have more fluidity.
Your’s is wishful thinking. My identity is singularly ethnocentric. But I know many liberals, who are subconsciously ethnocentric, and it shows in their actions and decisions too.
I wrote: “Losers, who have no other possibilities than to accept mixed marriages and/or who are mentally too weak to resist the liberal brainwashing are the ones who fall victim to liberal politics. Those liberals, who produce liberal brainwashing avoid mixed marriages like it would be incurable plague. Like the great majority of people.”
“More or less. Which is why WN appears doomed. And?”
- No, you are doomed by those who have less fluidity and more ethnocentrism than you; by various muslim groups, by jews, by WN’s, by ethnic nationalists, by peoples following tribal laws and customs, by peoples who put their own people’s interests first, etc. And?
P.s. I pretended you are what you say you are. For my part this discussion ends here. It is for me insignificant what you think.
Posted by desmond jones on August 30, 2007, 06:57 AM | #
“Disenfranchise”? No. Live alongside, interact with, intermarry with, build prosperity and a common culture with—yes. But the Anglo-Saxon racialist will entertain none of that. The moment I set foot here I began the disenfranchisement. Naturally, then, I or any Serb, Italian, Greek, Arab, Ukrainian, Russian, etc is going to oppose such a harsh view of matters.
If that’s the case then why advocate mass non-white immigration? It’s simple Mendelian genetics. Absorption by East Asians, South Asians or Africans means extinction. In the end, then, all you are advocating is genocide. The opposition to Anglo-Saxon racialism also portends disaster for the European immigrant. If you advocate the mass immigration of non-whites there will be no common culture. There will only be replacement of one culture by another. In other words if 300 million Chinese or Indians immigrated to Australia, there will not be a mixed occidental/oriental culture. There will only be one culture. Chinese or Indian.
Darwin:
On the Extinction of the Races of Man.- The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known. Humboldt saw in South America a parrot which was the sole living creature that could speak a word of the language of a lost tribe. Ancient monuments and stone implements found in all parts of the
world, about which no tradition has been preserved by the present inhabitants, indicate much extinction.
Your position is contradictory. Your desire to build a common culture will only serve to make your “common culture” extinct, most certainly replaced by a distinct culture of the tribe or race that supplants you with little or nothing left to attest to the glory of your “common culture”. It’s a fundamental principle of evolution.
Posted by Guessedworker on August 30, 2007, 07:43 AM | #
Silver,
Desmond used the words “fundamental principle”. He is interested in the unchanging laws of Nature and their creative suzereignty over Man. You speak of “Identities” which are “fluid”, and seemingly cannot raise yourself to the understanding that fluidity merely signals a lack of personal substance. Insubstantial personalities are incapable of “choosing” anything. The choice and individualism you think you are given (by what aspect of Nature? If not Nature, where does it come from?) JUST DOESN’T EXIST!
Weakness is not strength.
Perhaps you have been reading too much Bauman, I don’t know. “Identity” has been a preoccupation of Jewish intellectuals in the diaspore since the 1920s. The idea that there are “margins” of “identity” to “explore” is highly useful in the subversion of goy societies (a particularly good example features in James Bowery’s post on prison rape here). It’s not targeted at “freeing” anyone.
Subversion is not freedom.
An understanding of human personality without the Culture Theory pill is crucial if you are to escape spiritual rape in your own prison. I urge you to reflect upon the notion not of “fluid identity” but of “human plasticity”. In other words, look at the formatives from birth, and break with the idea that some “little me” can choose to fly, baby. He can’t. He merely reveals his lack of substance.
John Locke and his tabula rasa have a lot to answer for.
Finally, here are a couple of Dienekes Pontikos articles that might have a bearing on your truly oddball fascination with a brown-skinned Balkans:-
I assume you are not Serbian Roma. But that is the only non-European population in Serbia.
Posted by EC on August 30, 2007, 03:22 PM | #
This guy, if a Serb at all, is some form of bastardized Serb.
Second, ...My cousin is engaged to a Carribean Negro. … is more than enough information. As I said yesterday, these people are usually the weakest minded ones or ones where miscegenation has come home to roost. I suspect Silver is not a full Serb which allows him to be “open” to the miscegenation idea and this compounded with Cousin Negro explains enough.
I agree with Fred on this, no need to spend more time with this one.
Posted by Lurker on August 30, 2007, 04:10 PM | #
Well I for one am still waiting to hear Silver’s vaunted 50 megaton city buster arguments. Or have we had them and I didnt notice?
The race replacement you (Silver) are looking forward to. Apparently its a purely natural process, one its immoral for us to even argue against. If its inevitable why then does it need the ongoing activist support of the state and other institutions?
You think that Japan’s ethnocentrism is going to end soon. How soon? Next week? Next year, ten years time, what sort of timescale are we looking at exactly and where does this belief come from? A feeling in your water?
You like the current racial make up of Australia I presume. So if Chinese immigrants came to dominate Oz that would be fine too? Even though its quite different to the current set up. Im sure in a technocratic sense Oz would carry on in much the same way just with the hated Anglos displaced by Asians. Trouble is have the Asians got the memo from you about how race doesnt matter filed properly. Once they are in charge they might not turn out to be quite so laid back as you would like. In fact try moving to China now, you could save yourself the hassle of waiting for this nirvanah.
What about of muslims come to dominate though, obviously from a technocratic point of view things would start to decay pretty fast, still at least the hated Anglos would be out of the way eh?! The power cuts, the violence, the corruption, the water shortages all the stuff that goes with a middle eastern country would now be yours to enjoy. Doesnt matter though, race is unimportant isnt it. In fact try moving to Lebanon now, you could save yourself the hassle of waiting for this nirvanah.
Maybe PNG immigration into Oz will be the coming wave, in fact dont they still eat people sometimes. Now thats what I call diversity! Obviously in quality of life terms this would destroy things even more totally than a muslim majority. In fact try moving to PNG now, you could save yourself the hassle of waiting for this nirvanah.
Perhaps in a completely natural laid back way Australia will enjoy a mixture of all these groups. And apparently you can be sure that whatever the mixture is or whether one group dominates it will always be better than the present Anglo dominated one. Pointless to ask I suppose exaclty how you can be so sure about that.
You dont think of yourself as ‘white’, the problem is in the end its not you that gets to do the deciding is it. That gang of feral Somalis down the street, the lebs hanging out at the beach, (or even that group of very hungry boys fresh from PNG!) they see you and they know what you are.
Posted by silver on August 30, 2007, 04:10 PM | #
Scrooby: “If GW buys your story that you’re white, he and I most definitely don’t see eye to eye, no. ... Were I not a guest here the same as you, you’d hear an earful from me right now that people would still be talking about on the internet in fifty years. I’ve soiled my hands by typing a reply to you: must go wash them. It won’t happen again.”
Reply to me? I didn’t even direct the question to you. Still, it seems it hit a little too close to something to evoke such fury. How’s it feel knowing your “darker” central-east European presence is but one part of the Ellis Islanders’ procession of dispossession and disenfranchisment of America’s founding Nordic population?
And give me that earful, go on. Though it’s mind-boggling that someone of obvious intellect can engage in such thinking as sloppy picking my ethnicity out from a few scattered thoughts, and reduce himself to name-calling (eg my “dimwittedness"), and give weighty consideration to such tommyrot like TG’s claiming I am “obviously” some “crazy” mulatto, you’re otherwise an eloquent bugger and I’m big enough to take it.)
ps—Sta treba brate? Da ti govorim na srpskom pa di mi vjerujes?
Afinn: “It is mistake to compare marriages to abortion.”
Is it just my “unwhite thinking” or have you completely missed the point?
I suppor the right to mixed marriage. I support the right to abortion. I support the right to consume alcohol; or shoot a needle up your vein; or take a man’s penis up your rear. I don’t need to engage in any of those practices to permit them to take place.
EC: “Second, ...My cousin is engaged to a Carribean Negro. … is more than enough information. As I said yesterday, these people are usually the weakest minded ones or ones where miscegenation has come home to roost. I suspect Silver is not a full Serb which allows him to be “open” to the miscegenation idea and this compounded with Cousin Negro explains enough. “
There’s an interesting, or perhaps “worrying”, from your perspective, twist to this one. Her brother was livid when he first heard, threatening to “disown” her were she to go ahead—much the same way he did in “warning” me that were I to ever bring an Asian home (I was known to associate with them, and was planning a vacation there) I’d no longer be welcome in his home. Well, for all that, it seems he’s managed to come to terms with it and no longer fulminates about or even speaks disparagingly of his sister’s fiance. This is a hopeful development and, if authentic, bodes well for the future.
Posted by EC on August 30, 2007, 04:37 PM | #
There’s an interesting, or perhaps “worrying”, from your perspective, twist to this one. Her brother was livid when he first heard, threatening to “disown” her were she to go ahead—much the same way he did in “warning” me that were I to ever bring an Asian home (I was known to associate with them, and was planning a vacation there) I’d no longer be welcome in his home. Well, for all that, it seems he’s managed to come to terms with it and no longer fulminates about or even speaks disparagingly of his sister’s fiance.
Oh brother. A family being forced to accept it, wow, what a “twist”. Yes, a family either accepts it or it doesn’t. I have seen both extremes. Nothing like the accepting family wanting everyone to miscegenate because they have experienced it first hand.
Posted by Guessedworker on August 30, 2007, 05:13 PM | #
Well, for all that, it seems he’s managed to come to terms with it and no longer fulminates about or even speaks disparagingly of his sister’s fiance.
More weakness masquerading as choice.
Silver, you do seem to be the racist here, as Lurker makes pretty plain. If you won’t debate me on the issue of the unfettered will - that is, the ability you think you have to choose not to be your own phenotype - will you engage on what is or is not racism? I do assure you I’m not trying to “beat” you or “win the thread”. That’s of no interest to me.
Posted by Rnl on August 30, 2007, 05:13 PM | #
Silver (once a Paki, now a Serb) wrote:
I never raved about or craved “blonds”. But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.
You’re a childish little man.
By definition no White nationalist thinks you are a wog, so your idle threat to miscegenate with Nordic blondes was a waste of your time and ours. It’s possible Richard McCulloch or Desmond Jones might get irritated. No White nationalist will. There is a Serb Forum at Stormfront; there is no Wog Forum. From a WN perspective you cannot physically carry out your imaginary plan to “make WNs puke,” even if you could find hordes of willing blondes.
You told us earlier that you have a devastating refutation of WN; you haven’t yet provided it. You prefer instead to make infantile threats in the hope of provoking anger. You’re like a young teen who threatens to put a ring in her nose to upset her parents. You have already acknowledged that “it’s childish to play games,” but you keep playing them anyway.
Tell us your refutation of racialism, the glaring weakness you have allegedly spotted. If you don’t, we’ll conclude that you are a liar, which is already my opinion. I don’t believe you have any refutation.
Your continued silence will only confirm our prejudices: (a) that you are a fraud; (b) that liberal anti-racists have nothing substantial to say.
Posted by Guessedworker on August 30, 2007, 05:30 PM | #
Self-evidently, he has no refutation, RNL. There are no refutations, as Svi has already said. But our friend is an interesting laboratory specimen. The lying does not matter. Neither does the puerile desire to goad. I have already pegged him as an insubstantial sort of guy, and he has not tried to argue. He won’t argue the charge of racism, either.
Silver has shied away from real ideas. Probably, his IQ is better than Macquarie entry level (say 115) but below abstract thinking capacity (124). He’s in over his head.
Posted by silver on August 30, 2007, 06:45 PM | #
Phew! It’s 4:30am here, I’m doing the best I can to reply promptly. “Continued silence”—sheesh!
Guessed, I had written a substantial reply to you which was lost when I got blue-screened (twice!).
Give me a moment.
EC:"Oh brother. A family being forced to accept it, wow, what a “twist”. Yes, a family either accepts it or it doesn’t. I have seen both extremes. Nothing like the accepting family wanting everyone to miscegenate because they have experienced it first hand.”
Exactly. So how many potential WNs did she take down with her? Let’s see:
-- Two (white) children from the previous marriage. These could go either way, because the biological father is as hardened a racist as her brother was. Still, she’s doing the raising, and he’s too much of a hothead to command more than superficial respect from his kids. Add the educationists and, hmm, I think they’re safe for my side.
-- Her brother’s three white kids. They seem pretty happy with it and are generally appalled at their father’s racist rantings (eg any time an Asian gets more than 20seconds play on TV). Safe.
-- A couple of white “best friend” females. Females are a safe bet to take a sympathetic view despite any kneejerk misgivings they might initially have (which can’t be taken as a given with females as they can with males).
These are just the “definites”. So that’s six and up. Hamas would approve.
Now, the brother, I think what can often happen with these hardnuts is that the initial reaction is mortification. (Oh, btw, my own parents were aghast—does that speak towards my being a “real” Serb?) As time goes on the venom wanes and stalls out. That’s not at all unusual. Sometimes, however, I think an inflection point can be reached, where after waning and then stalling, the opposite view starts being trumpeted vigorously My cousin always was the faddish type, unconcerned with consistency, so it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
Posted by silver on August 30, 2007, 07:07 PM | #
“Well I for one am still waiting to hear Silver’s vaunted 50 megaton city buster arguments. Or have we had them and I didnt notice?”
I never promised *you* any megatons. The point was that even “the facts” about race, heredity etc becoming more widely known is not the boon to WN many seem to think it is. There are a million and one alternatives to consider before settling on WN. Most people have always had at least an inkling that race is real (duh!) and that races differ and yet have had minimal inclination towards WN. It’s that such people can be warded off WN by consideration of intelligently formulated alternate views that take into account racial facts that is “devastating”, not necessarily the arguments themselves.
“You think that Japan’s ethnocentrism is going to end soon. How soon? Next week? Next year, ten years time, what sort of timescale are we looking at exactly and where does this belief come from? A feeling in your water?”
I’m not predicting an ultimate end to it. Some will always remain uncompromising. Most will continue to soften, I think. A larger trickle of immigrants will greatly aid that. Liberalism, whether rightish or leftish, really is the way of the future. Some people will always concoct philosophical objections to it and Fukuyama may have been premature, but we’ll make it in the end. Japan’s no exception to this. (Nor Israel.)
As for who comes to “dominate” Australia. Let’s get some perspective here. I’m not some loony multiculturalist. And I don’t take a deceived view of racial and cultural differences. This stuff matters. It’s not everything, but it’s not nothing, either.
Naturally I would consider it insane to swamp Australia with millions of Chinese (or millions of anyone) in a short period of time. I’m not averse to racial and cultural change, but the pace of it must be slow enough to be almost imperceptible. Moving too fast risks social upheaval.
The greater the racial differences, the stronger the common culture must be. Our current regime ignores this obvious fact and papers it over with buzzwords like “diversity”. That simply has to change.
Any IQ related decline can be arrested and reversed by implementing a program of “benign eugenics”. There’s no need at all to delve into WN.
Posted by Tommy G on August 30, 2007, 07:36 PM | #
silver wrote: “...and give weighty consideration to such tommyrot like TG’s claiming I am “obviously” some “crazy” mulatto...”
TG: Well guy, here’s a few of YOUR roting claims which which lend credence to my claiming you’re a crazy mixed up mulatto.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1)"Face it white boy, your end is nigh.”
2)"Should racialism ever threaten to become more widespread than the fringe movement it currently is—one beset with contradiction and internal bickering—there are a great many counter-arguments that could be employed against it (quite devastatingly, imo).”
3)"If I were to impregnate a white girl (which I will, be sure of it...more if I can, now that I have added incentive)”
4)"Yes, let’s cut to the chase here. I’m a Paki British citizen. Comments?” [no, wait!]
“I’m not Paki, btw. I was just curious to see what reaction that would ellicit. I’m Serbian...”
5)"Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, in order:
1. You spew racial slurs against whites like a negro/mulatto. 2. You bluster like a negro/mulatto. 3. You have the family and moral values of a negro/mulatto. 4 You lie like a negro/mulatto. 5. You demonstrate an overinflated sense of self (so typical of Negroes), and go on to describe your physical apperrence as that of a negro/mulatto (a wog).
If it walks, talks, speaks, acts and looks like a (typical) negro/mulatto, it must be silver. LOL
Posted by Guessedworker on August 30, 2007, 07:49 PM | #
Silver,
Drop the labeling, for pity’s sake. “WN” is a purely American phenomenon, and has little or no meaning in the European homelands. You mean “racial consciousness”. Substitute it for every WN usage in your last comment, and you will begin to see how wrong-headed you look to us, thus:-
“The point was that even “the facts” about race, heredity etc becoming more widely known is not the boon to racial consciousness many seem to think it is. There are a million and one alternatives to consider before settling on racial consciousness. Most people have always had at least an inkling that race is real (duh!) and that races differ and yet have had minimal inclination towards racial consciousness. It’s that such people can be warded off racial consciousness by consideration of intelligently formulated alternate views that take into account racial facts that is “devastating”, not necessarily the arguments themselves.
Oh yes, and let us not forget, “There’s no need at all to delve into racial consciousness.”
Posted by Guessedworker on August 30, 2007, 07:51 PM | #
“intelligently formulated alternate views”
Such as?
Posted by silver on August 30, 2007, 07:59 PM | #
“Drop the labeling, for pity’s sake. “WN” is a purely American phenomenon, and has little or no meaning in the European homelands. You mean “racial consciousness”. Substitute it for every WN usage in your last comment, and you will begin to see how wrong-headed you look to us, thus:-”
Nevertheless, others do use it, Guessed. What was that recently held conference in Russia all about then?
Indeed, what does “white” have anything to do with it. without the WN, these are just purely nationalist issues. I can’t see why they need to focus on the “white race”. Even though none of them are willing to admit “whites” of the other lands into their own (well, the Nords want to keep the south and east out, though the latter often seem keen on being let in), this idea of whiteness seems to suggest a sort of pact where if whiteness is overrun in one country, the other countries could become a redoubt. Is that what it is? I really can’t make sense of them.
Posted by Guessedworker on August 30, 2007, 08:03 PM | #
How about prison stats ... would they count as an “intelligently formulated” argument for deciding to die?
Great Britain:
White: 82% of prison population (88% of overall population)
Black Caribbean: 8% of prison population (1% of overall population)
Black African: 4% of prison population (0.8% of overall population)
Other Black: 3% of prison population (0.2% of overall population)
Pakistani 2% of prison population (1.4% of overall population)
Indian: 1% of prison population (2.1% of overall population)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/mar/s95race05.pdf (page 101)
+++++++++++++
United States Prison Population:
Black: 40% (12.8% of overall population)
Hispanic: 19% (14.4% of overall population)
White: 36% (66.9% of overall population)
American Indian: 1% (0.2% of overall population)
Asian: 1% (4.3% of overall population)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/pji02pr.htm
+++++++++++++
Canada
White: 71% of prison population
Black: 6% of prison population (2.2% of overall population)
Native Canadians: 12% of prison population (3% of overall population)
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r144/r144_e.shtml
+++++++++++++
Netherlands:
White Dutch: 50% of prison population
Surinamese: 11% (1.7% of overall population) [black]
Moroccan: 8% (1.3% of overall population)
Turkish: 5% (1.6% of overall population)
Antillian: 7% (0.6% of overall population) [black]
http://www.keithwilmot.com/ComparativeCJMinoritiesCrimeCriminalJustice.ppt
+++++++++++++
No convincing enough for you, Silver? No, well it wouldn’t convince me of the vibrant wonders of diversity, either.
Do try to be aware of the seriousness of this matter. Here’s Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
You get it? It’s (c) we are talking about here. Have you got any “intelligently formulated” argument to deny or overide that?
Posted by silver on August 30, 2007, 08:08 PM | #
“1. You spew racial slurs against whites like a negro/mulatto. 2. You bluster like a negro/mulatto. 3. You have the family and moral values of a negro/mulatto. 4 You lie like a negro/mulatto. 5. You demonstrate an overinflated sense of self (so typical of Negroes), and go on to describe your physical apperrence as that of a negro/mulatto (a wog).
If it walks, talks, speaks, acts and looks like a (typical) negro/mulatto, it must be silver. LOL”
Tommy, give it a break okay. I don’t consider myself “white”—never have and never will. I originally came to goad and stir the pot a bit, and that’s not because I hate “whites”, but because I hate whites that insist on “defending” their race by slurring everyone else and seem intent on causing maximum feasible pain to those would “betray” there race by following through on their constitutionally safeguarded heart’s desire and mating with non-whites. I find it repugnant and morally indefensible. However, I’m a reasonable person at heart and am willing to engage you folks in discussion so I’ve put aside (to the best of my ability --it’s not easy) the kidding around, especially since it emerged that I may perhaps be “white”, so I’m now worth the trouble of engaging.
The only thing I have left to say to you tommy, is if you hate negroes and mulattoes and mestizos or whatever so badly, then don’t marry one and avoid them as best as you can. Speak the very worst of them if you must. But there’s no getting around that with freedom surely, if such freedom is to be worth anything, comes the simplest, most obvious freedom of being permitted to choose your own mate. If you can’t find it in your hear to do that, then I cannot consider you a good person and I must wish your hopes be dashed.
Posted by desmond jones on August 30, 2007, 08:12 PM | #
Naturally I would consider it insane to swamp Australia with millions of Chinese (or millions of anyone) in a short period of time. I’m not averse to racial and cultural change, but the pace of it must be slow enough to be almost imperceptible. Moving too fast risks social upheaval.
If it’s slow enough to be imperceptible then you won’t have racial/cultural change.
British Immigration Policy since 1939: The Making of Multi-Racial Britain
Book by Ian R. G. Spencer
Over the three centuries down to the Second World War the Asian and black population fluctuated in size, probably reaching a more sizeable proportion of the population as a whole in the latter half of the eighteenth century before declining. Contemporary guesses then—at the size of a population notoriously difficult to estimate—put the largely slave-related black population of Britain at anything between 10,000 and 40,000 and London’s black population most often at 20,000. Recent research indicates that the size and composition of Britain’s black population was quite volatile but that a figure upwards of 10,000 for the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century is most likely to be accurate. 4 After the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 very few black people were brought to Britain and inter-marriage by the largely male black population appears to have been the cause of its visible decline. By the outbreak of the First World War the size of the permanently settled black population had fallen to ‘several thousands’. 5
The black phenotype, that portended racial/cultural change was “bred out” by intermarriage with the dominant race/cultural. The change was imperceptible because there was no change at all. Its not like making a cup of coffee. Adding milk and stirring is not how Mendel’s genetics work.
~250,000 mostly non-white (8 of 10) immigrants arrive in Canada annually. The trend has not been toward inter-racial union. The trend is balkanization. Half of the Chinese immigrants to the the province of British Columbia live in one city, Richmond. As Sikh/Hindu immigration has increased, intermarriage has, in fact, lessened, because of a preference of those communities for their own people. The default point, genetically, is uni-racial, uni-cultural not commonality.
Posted by Guessedworker on August 30, 2007, 08:15 PM | #
without the WN, these are just purely nationalist issues.
Partially correct. They are conservative, revolutionary conservative and nationalist ideas. The question is, do you know what these labels actually refer to? I am certain that you do not.
Indeed, what does “white” have anything to do with it.
It is certainly too loose. The accurate term is European-Caucasian, as I already said. But European will always do. You and I are members of the European racial grouping, among which are sub-groupings - such as Slavs - and further groupings such as Serbs, all identifiable as genetic clusters.
As a man of the Balkans you, of all people, should be interested in the question of how a people can be preserved, for all peoples desire that - as does any living organism. For personal psychological reasons you might not be able to understand the survival impulse today, but as a democrat (I assume you are a democrat) you should be willing to grant that the will of the peoples must be respected, be it in Sarajevo or Sydney.
Nowhere is there a desire among European peoples to negrify. But that’s what an obedient liberal, brought up on Culture Theory, should think.
Posted by silver on August 30, 2007, 08:21 PM | #
So if a negro breaks into your car, and negroes do this at 10 or 20 times the white rate, it constitutes an attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, the white race?
You’re not “talking” about anything of any substance, Guessed. That’s really why I don’t bother engaging any of your “identity” arguments. I started to reply, but I know the whole point of is to get me to agree that phenotype must, inevitably, be the identity I settle on. You’re like the Marxists in that regard, forever sounding ominous alarms about one or another “crises” of capitalism until you finally agree with them that yes, despite how swell things seemed, you really are as unhappy under the capitalist order as they claim you are. See, if you take race out of the equation, then all you’re left with is turning me towards a pet philosophy. That’s all fine, but we know how drawn out those conversations get and I didn’t come here to debate philosophy and my position can be succinctly stated without having to do so: people have the right to mate with whom they wish. Full stop. And they will. Sufficient numbers will such that no one in his right mind is going to put everything aside in order to separate the races out and organize a Classfications Board sort out the questionables.
Now, if you want to convince people that it’s bad business to betray your race, go ahead. Others will continue to insist it’s a matter of minor importance. We’ll see who wins.
Btw, you never did around to explaining how it is, now that it turns I am (or may be) “white” after all, you and I share some EGI. Wanna have a go?
Posted by silver on August 30, 2007, 08:26 PM | #
I’m off to bed.
Posted by Svigor on August 30, 2007, 08:41 PM | #
I oppose Israel. It was wrong and I don’t think it will survive as an ethnostate. Japan bothers me, yes. I don’t think their fanatical sense of self will last long, though. As for the rest of the world, it’s nationalism I oppose, everywhere and at all times.
You didn’t quite get my point. My point is if you’re really interested in opposing “racism,” if you’re anything even approaching proportional in this interest, you don’t have time for us. We’re a small clique of bloggers, for God’s sake. Israel is an actual “western,” “white” ethnostate.
I’m posing a rhetorical question - clearly you’re not at all interested in “anti-racism” in any way approaching universalism or proportionality. I don’t need your answer; your presence here is answer enough.
I’m not a communist, so I don’ t see the point of making comparisons. Liberalism doesn’t require evicting people from their homes, “repatriating” them or forcing limitations on whom one can marry. WN on the other hand…
Lol. Your cheap dodge isn’t going to work. You implied the ole slippery slope argument: racism>death camps. I took your double-edged sword and beheaded you with it (anti-racism>gulags).
I don’t know why you insist on calling me an “egalitarian”. I don’t even know what you mean by that.
Fill in whatever shorthand you like. Label yourself concisely and I’ll defer.
And you’re wrong about the focus on “egi”, which imo is massively overstated. I can hardly oppose a white noticing and being concerned about the venom that today emanates from black (and other) quarters. That’s hardly “excessive” at all now, is it? What would be excessive, I’ll leave to your imagination…
You’ll need to be a little more explicit. I can’t draw any meaning of significance from that passage.
“Disenfranchise”? No. Live alongside, interact with, intermarry with, build prosperity and a common culture with—yes.
Opposing self-determination is attempted disenfranchisement.
But the Anglo-Saxon racialist will entertain none of that. The moment I set foot here I began the disenfranchisement. Naturally, then, I or any Serb, Italian, Greek, Arab, Ukrainian, Russian, etc is going to oppose such a harsh view of matters.
Nonsense. Don’t pretend to speak for Serbs, Italians, Greeks, Arabs, Ukrainians, or Russians.
What’s harsh about “my house is mine”?
“So, silver if your identity is so fluid, then make a statement and show with your concrete actions to others that you really support miscegenation. “
My cousin is engaged to a Carribean Negro. Her brother is a vehement racist who grumbles incessantly about “Asians” and “Muzzies”. He’s quite beside himself over it. I, on the other hand, completely support her right and her decision to marry the man she loves. I’d say that’s pretty “concrete”, isn’t it?
I support her right to marry who she will, as well. Doesn’t make me “anti-racist.” Just as I support the individual’s right to choose a partner, I support the people’s right to choose its members. Of course, you do not support self-determination for individuals or peoples.
Now, I myself? In the interests of full disclosure, no, I doubt I would ever find myself betrothed to a Negro or an Asian. I’ve had short term relationships with both, including with one rather stunning South African “colored”. I was never particularly interested in Nordic girls. I never raved about or craved “blonds”. But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.
Let me get this straight; you, as an individual of Euro stock, are “taunting” us with the prospect of (refusing to breed with a black or a yellow or a brown and) breeding with a Euro?
Are you a “low-confidence learner,” by any chance?
It’s not something you need to teach. Identities are fluid.
Nonsense. I am a human. Nothing fluid about that. I am of Euro stock. Nothing fluid about that. I am of northwest Euro stock. Nothing fluid about that. I am a male. Nothing fluid about that. All of these things rightfully inform my identity, far more profoundly than any topical, fluid identifiers like political persuasion or philosophy.
What wretched creatures (fill in name that suits you, Silver) are, rejecting out of hand for the purposes of identity precisely the things which most profoundly (and satisfyingly) inform who we are.
Just because WNs have settled on one overriding identity doesn’t mean they don’t, even if subconsciously, subscribe to others.
Is this supposed to be news (not giving an inch to his straw man “overriding” btw)?
Guessed, I had written a substantial reply to you which was lost when I got blue-screened (twice!).
I suppose GW was right, you have either a below 120ish IQ, or are simply in over your head due to inexperience (people with experience in this medium know to save their work).
These could go either way, because the biological father is as hardened a racist as her brother was. Still, she’s doing the raising, and he’s too much of a hothead to command more than superficial respect from his kids. Add the educationists and, hmm, I think they’re safe for my side.
Don’t be too sure. (Fill in a name you prefer for your shallow belief system here) requires an environment much like the mushroom to grow; you’ll need to keep those kids in the dark and feed them bullshit. With a racist father, that isn’t possible. Hell, with a parent who only teaches critical thinking and curiousity, it isn’t possible. It really doesn’t take much nudging AT ALL to puncture (fill in your name for your bullshit here). I know from experience.
Posted by Svigor on August 30, 2007, 08:46 PM | #
Liberalism doesn’t require evicting people from their homes, “repatriating” them or forcing limitations on whom one can marry. WN on the other hand…
In my haste, I missed this sentence. WNism doesn’t require repatriation, or marriage restrictions. You don’t even have a clue what you’re opposing. If you’re going to play in this game, you’re going to have to learn how to hit lefty pitching - every white racialist with a supra-110 IQ is a lefty pitcher, silver.
Liberalism does require denial of self-determination. This is something that obviously makes you squirm, since you’ve yet to acknowledge the point. Are you hoping I’ll forget the issue?
I won’t. It’s a bit too central for that.
Posted by desmond jones on August 30, 2007, 08:48 PM | #
So if a negro breaks into your car, and negroes do this at 10 or 20 times the white rate, it constitutes an attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, the white race?
Yes. If whites live in a neighbourhood that becomes increasingly black, then the threat to their safety grows exponentially.
La Griffe du Lion:
John is white. He is married with two children. He wears a blue collar when he leaves his shabby, inner-city house to go to work. Life has been a struggle for John, but now he faces his most difficult challenge. John’s neighborhood is turning black.
In John’s city, neighborhoods do not integrate, they go black. He has seen it happen elsewhere. He knows what to expect. John and his family will soon face intolerable hardships. They will have to move. Inevitably the last whites able to leave, will. High among their reasons will be fear—fear of becoming victims of violent crime. As his neighborhood turns black, John and his family will notice many changes, but none will be more dreaded than the prospect of being violently victimized.
The data reveal two causes of white victimization by blacks. First, a black is 3 times more likely than a white to commit violent crime. However, as a neighborhood turns black, this factor could increase black-on-white violence at most by a factor of 3, and then only when a neighborhood is virtually all black. The observed level of white victimization is much too high to blame on general tendencies of blacks to be violent. A more important reason is simply that blacks prefer white victims.
The best and most complete evidence comes from the Justice Department. Its annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) canvasses a representative sample of about 80,000 Americans, from roughly 43,000 households. From this survey, a picture of crime is painted by its victims. The last full report of the NCVS was issued in 1994. From it we learn that blacks committed 1,600,951 violent crimes against whites. In the same year, whites committed 165,345 such offenses against blacks. Despite being only 13 percent of the population, blacks committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial crime. Less than 15 percent of these had robbery as a motive. The rest were assaults and rapes.
Next entry: Hitler as a political Britney Spears
Previous entry: Livingstone in mind
Existential Issues
Of note
Recent Comments
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/15/10, 11:17 PM. (go) (view)
Desmond Jones commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/15/10, 07:50 PM. (go) (view)
John commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/15/10, 06:18 PM. (go) (view)
Dan Dare commented in entry 'Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.' on 03/15/10, 04:43 PM. (go) (view)
Englander commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 03/15/10, 12:03 PM. (go) (view)
MsAnnThrope commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 03/15/10, 11:17 AM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/15/10, 10:02 AM. (go) (view)
Captainchaos commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/15/10, 08:09 AM. (go) (view)
John commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/15/10, 08:07 AM. (go) (view)
Guest Lurker commented in entry 'The evolution of gang violence in Australia' on 03/15/10, 07:55 AM. (go) (view)
Englander commented in entry 'It’s Official – fake money is as good as the real thing (if not better)' on 03/15/10, 02:11 AM. (go) (view)
martin_uk commented in entry 'It’s Official – fake money is as good as the real thing (if not better)' on 03/15/10, 01:47 AM. (go) (view)
andrew muhling commented in entry 'The evolution of gang violence in Australia' on 03/15/10, 12:49 AM. (go) (view)
john rackell commented in entry 'It’s Official – fake money is as good as the real thing (if not better)' on 03/15/10, 12:38 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/14/10, 10:58 PM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.' on 03/14/10, 10:38 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/14/10, 10:06 PM. (go) (view)
Captainchaos commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/14/10, 09:09 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/14/10, 08:55 PM. (go) (view)
Dan Dare commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/14/10, 08:06 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry 'Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.' on 03/14/10, 07:48 PM. (go) (view)
John commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/14/10, 07:46 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry 'Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.' on 03/14/10, 07:36 PM. (go) (view)
John commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/14/10, 07:31 PM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.' on 03/14/10, 07:15 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/14/10, 06:51 PM. (go) (view)
Wandrin commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/14/10, 06:33 PM. (go) (view)
Captainchaos commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/14/10, 06:13 PM. (go) (view)
jamesUK commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/14/10, 05:38 PM. (go) (view)
Søren Renner commented in entry 'It’s Official – fake money is as good as the real thing (if not better)' on 03/14/10, 03:23 PM. (go) (view)
John commented in entry 'Europe's Future: Is this what "they" want?' on 03/14/10, 01:23 PM. (go) (view)
John commented in entry ''Enlightened' Child Abuse' on 03/14/10, 11:30 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry 'Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.' on 03/14/10, 11:11 AM. (go) (view)
John commented in entry 'Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.' on 03/14/10, 11:05 AM. (go) (view)
John commented in entry 'Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.' on 03/14/10, 10:49 AM. (go) (view)
Recent Posts
- Apologies for the down-time
- It’s Official – fake money is as good as the real thing (if not better)
- Wadham and the EHRC win. The existential will go ballistic.
- DDR or Third Reich, which would you choose?
- Greece thwarts Barbarossa, yet again
- Europe’s Future: Is this what “they” want?
- ‘Enlightened’ Child Abuse
- My latest teleology
- The Revolution of Kai Murros
- Linda Carty, the Reprieve lie machine, and the bleeding heart of Clive Stafford Smith
- Humour and the English Disease
- True Science is Barbaric
- The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (1853)
- Cameron on Griffin and the MultiCult
- Absurd assumptions about life’s advantages
- Was It Real For You?
- ‘A Dark Intrigue…’ The Revolutions of 1848
- Pay-Back for the BNP
- The End of Teleology
- Just Add the ‘R’ Word
General News
Science News
Science Categories
All Categories
The Writers
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Links
Endorsement not implied.
Crime
General
- American Renaissance
- Age of Treason
- Balder
- Brussels Journal
- Civic platform
- CofCC
- Chronicles
- Crosstar
- Culture Wars
- Dissecting Leftism
- Face Right
- Fallen Freedom
- Fred on everything
- Freedom Site
- From The Wilderness
- Frontierist News
- Gates of Vienna
- God help Britain
- Hogtown Front
- I am an Englishman
- Inductivist
- iSteve
- Modern Tribalist
- National Policy Institute
- Occidental Dissent
- Occidental Quarterly
- Our Way of Life
- Oz Conservative
- ParaPundit
- The Political Cesspool
- Romanian National Vanguard
- Rusty Mason
- Renaissance Press
- Right Now magazine
- Salisbury Review
- Sam Francis Column
- Scotchfriend
- Signals From The Brink
- Spoils of War
- Snouck Hurgronje
- Songlight for Dawn
- Stop ACLU
- Tomorrow in Vinland
- Turnabout
- UK Commentators
- Viking Observer
- Western Survival
- White civil rights
Immigration
- American Patrol
- Immigration watchdog
- Immigration Watch Canada
- Limits To Growth
- Migration Watch
- Minutemen
- Numbers USA
- Private police
- Project USA
- Team America
- Vdare
Islam
Jews
- 9/11 – #1, #2
- Banking – #1, #2
- Eric Hufschmid
- Holocaust – #1, #2, #3, #4, #5
- Immigration
- Jewish deception
- Judenfrei
- Michael Delaney
- Subverted nation
- Why the Jews?
Nationalist Political Parties
- British National Party
- Front National (FR)
- Nationaldemokraterna
- Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands
- Vlaams Belang
New Right
Science
Whites in Africa