Are Jews White? (Revised)

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-19ioGniZ88

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:-

facial composites
Roma IQ.

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.

Posted by Svigor on August 30, 2007, 08:56 PM | #

Silver, you’re a piker.  You haven’t done your homework.  Like the vast majority of the (fill in your title here) legions, in your ignorance you oppose what you don’t even understand, not even in a superficial way.

You’re contemptible.  Not for being a wog, or a Serb, or a darkie, or anything ethnic or racial, but because you’re a piker.

Withdraw your tattered body, lick your wounds, and then start reading.  Do LOTS and LOTS of reading.  At least understand the basics of what you claim to oppose (something you are literally incapable of at this point in time), and come back to us when you’ve learned your ABCs, you twit.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 30, 2007, 09:15 PM | #

You’re not “talking” about anything of any substance, Guessed.

Don’t be cheeky.

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part refers to the actions of the State in:-

1) Promoting culture war in all its manifestations against its own people,

2) Importing racial aliens in numbers calculated to displace and dispossess the people,

3) Acting to promote that process through preferential treatment of aliens in the areas of housing, employment and education,

4) Curtailing the ancient freedoms of speech and association.

Is that helpful to you?

phenotype must, inevitably, be the identity I settle on.

Look, phenotype is not skin or hair colouring.  Try to think of genotype as being immortal and phenotype mortal ... the expression of genes in time and place.

So phenotype is not an “identity”.  It is a fact.

What I am trying to pull you towards is a proper and rounded understanding of how ineffably light and transient is the voice in you that “chooses” in the liberal sense.  A man is, or should be, more than that.  Liberalism, remember, started off on the wrong foot with the tabula rasa.  And from there it only got worse when the seventeen Jewish Marxist thinkers (and one Catholic) who made up the Institute for Social Research did not recognise the fact of the goyim’s nature, and lumped everything into their schematic for an attack on his cultural hegemony.

I am also trying to raise in you a little ire at the fact that you’ve been royally screwed by the zeitgeist.  You are a conformist thinker, no doubt, and you have duly conformed ... never considered for one moment that things might not be as they seem.  That’s not your fault.  But it’s not appropriate to be the creature of others’ thoughts and actions.  Don’t “identify”.  Be free.

Posted by desmond jones on August 30, 2007, 09:35 PM | #

people have the right to mate with whom they wish.

They also have a right to know the impact of that decision. However, that portion of the equation is being suppressed. Somehow they believe there will be some sort of racial commonality. The right to mate with whom they wish, also does not give those that govern them the right to replace them with mass genetically distant immigrants. Marriage is local. No mass immigration, a much lower propensity for interracial marriage.

In addition, “First marriages in which the husband and wife are both members of the same race/ethnicity are more likely to succeed than those in which the spouses are of different race/ethnicity. After 10 years of marriage, interracial marriages have a 41% chance of disruption and same-race marriages have a 31% chance of disruption.”

Let them have access to all the facts, then let them chose.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 30, 2007, 11:00 PM | #

“It’s (c) we are talking about here.” (—GW, 8:03 PM)

There’s (b) also (“causing mental harm in the targeted race”) and (d) as well, very much so (“Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”).  These son-of-bitch bastards can in principle be nailed on all three, (b), (c), and (d).

Posted by 2R on August 30, 2007, 11:22 PM | #

Silver yeh neh Serbski, dah lee govoreeteh? Neh plahshehteh seh.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2007, 12:11 AM | #

“They also have a right to know the impact of that decision.” (—Desmond)

And white men have a right to compete in a marriage market that isn’t rigged by government in favor of Negroes, a marriage market where competition to see who gets the white girl is fair and on a level plaing field rather than one where, as at present, income, jobs, promotions, and associated prestige, all so necessary for impressing the girls, get taken away from (generally better qualified) white men and showered instead on (generally less qualified) Negroes.  The less clever white girls — and not a few of the more clever — are thus fooled by artificial government race-equalization policies into thinking Negro men compared to whites are as-good-or-better providers for wives and children.  They’re not, of course, and if the girls but knew it there’d be way fewer willing to fraternize. 

Thus do government race-equalization policies handicap young white men looking for white brides by taking away their hard-earned money and their jobs, things girls look for in a man.  White men would do better in competition for the white brides they covet if allowed, for one thing, to keep that portion of their wages that gets taken away every paycheck and spent on Negroes, enabling the Negroes to preen before the white girls and seem more desirable than they naturally are.  The same goes for jobs and promotions:  it’s harder to impress that white girl you’ve had your eye on when a government-mandated race quota has just denied you that job or promotion.  When that job or promotion goes to a Negro (which is of course precisely why the government denied it to you — so it could bestow it on a Negro), he, the Negro, will look better to the girl than you will, the whole thing completely artificial and entirely by government design.  Young white men have a right to compete on a level playing field in the white marriage market, rather than a playing field government has unfairly rigged against them.

In an unrigged system Negroes can’t compete with white men for white girls.  It’s no contest.

Posted by Tommy G on August 31, 2007, 01:49 AM | #

“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.”

Too late for that. So far, I have a white wife, three kids, and four grand kids.

FYI, I don’t HATE anyone except white liberals.

Posted by silver on August 31, 2007, 03:47 AM | #

back through my Gobineau and HS Chamberlain just to find out, since the “six million” is a lie, what else they have been lying to me about.  I’m partial to Revilo Oliver; what a prize specimen that man is.  Surely anyone would have to conclude that I’ve established at least baseline familiarity with the vectors of white idenity.

Take Stirpes, for instance.  Does my breezy critique really miss the mark by that wide a margin?  If white racial anxiety doesn’t characterize the site, doesn’t it at least pervade it?  There was a Bulgarian member there whose concluding remarks in one post were something like “...and pray for depigmentation”.  Bulgarians, as they are currently pigmented, one figures, make for neither good Bulgarian nationalists nor good Europeans, nor, by extension, good WNs (however defined). 

“Withdraw your tattered body, lick your wounds, and then start reading.  Do LOTS and LOTS of reading.  At least understand the basics of what you claim to oppose (something you are literally incapable of at this point in time), and come back to us when you’ve learned your ABCs, you twit.”

I’m curious, Svigor: would you say the same to Steve Sailer?  Has he done his reading?  He’s probably done a lot more than I, since he’s been at it longer and gets paid to do it.  What do you make of the man?  Is he an undercover WN, hoping to gently steer white consciousness in that direction, or does he really believe in his “citizenism”? 

Scrooby:

“Let them have access to all the facts, then let them chose.”

And why stop there? 

Why not have an agency to catalogue the size of the male population’s members?  Females report preference for larger penises, so why deny them this potentially crucial information?  We could stamp it on men’s ID cards.  That way no women need waste time with a man sure to prove underwhelming. 

Better put IQ on there, too.  Most people can roughly detect the intelligence of the other during casual conversation, but we risk by being fooled by the verbally fluent, so let’s take no risks.

Then again, why even bother with that?  Why not just gather everyone’s genetic history into a database and have the computer match us all up?

Okay, it’s easy to get silly with all this, but there are clearly issues that need to be worked through.  Just what people “need to be told” isn’t as clear-cut as you might think.

“1) Promoting culture war in all its manifestations against its own people,

2) Importing racial aliens in numbers calculated to displace and dispossess the people,

3) Acting to promote that process through preferential treatment of aliens in the areas of housing, employment and education,

4) Curtailing the ancient freedoms of speech and association.

Is that helpful to you?”

I’ve never claimed there aren’t any problems with the current order.  It’s that I don’t see anything that can’t be resolved without resorting to.. what should I even call it?  WN apparently is no good.  “Majorityrights.com-ism”.  It’s unnecessary (and worse).

Posted by silver on August 31, 2007, 03:48 AM | #

“Silver yeh neh Serbski, dah lee govoreeteh? Neh plahshehteh seh.”

That’s the strangest transliteration I’ve ever seen.

Posted by silver on August 31, 2007, 03:57 AM | #

“Look, phenotype is not skin or hair colouring.  Try to think of genotype as being immortal and phenotype mortal ... the expression of genes in time and place.

So phenotype is not an “identity”.  It is a fact.

....

A man is, or should be, more than that.”

He should, I gather, be his phenotype.  Live it, religiously. 

But why “should” he?  Why must phenotype be the most important aspect of a man?  This ‘ought’ you’ve snuck in is like every other ‘ought’ that philosophers have debated.  And philosophy has debated a zillion oughts.  The world is hardly compelled to jump on this one on the strength of your say-so.

“You are a conformist thinker, no doubt, and you have duly conformed ... never considered for one moment that things might not be as they seem.”

Oh, I’m well aware that they are not as they seem.  Yes, I originally “conformed”; accepted what I was told only because I was told it. I’ve had many an illusion shattered since then.  But I’ve come to understand for myself the value in what I was told.  This despite things not being quite what I’d always been assured they were. 

And please: our common EGI. I want to hear more about it.

Posted by silver on August 31, 2007, 04:26 AM | #

“back through my Gobineau and HS Chamberlain just to find out, since the “six million” is a lie,”

Damn, the beginning of that paragraph was cut off.  What I was saying to Svigor was that I’ve read a great deal of the material on his site, including all the issues of TOQ and AmRen.  I may not be as widely as others on here, but I think what I have learnt is sufficient to allow me to form an intelligent opinion.

Posted by desmond jones on August 31, 2007, 04:49 AM | #

Just what people “need to be told” isn’t as clear-cut as you might think.

What do you fear, that men or women might chose a mate based on MRism and not Silverism?

Better put IQ on there, too.

It’s already happening. University grads marry other university grads. It’s called assortative mating.

WN apparently is no good.  “Majorityrights.com-ism”.  It’s unnecessary (and worse).

Shouldn’t people be allowed to make that choice for themselves? Or must they conform to Silverism? Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of choice only if it conforms to the doctine of Silver.

Posted by Rnl on August 31, 2007, 05:09 AM | #

“Continued silence” - sheesh!

Continued silence about your devastating refutation of racialism.

I’m not averse to racial and cultural change, but the pace of it must be slow enough to be almost imperceptible.

It now turns out, despite all his anti-racist posturing, that Silver opposes American and British immigration policy on racial grounds. He is not an impeccable liberal. Impeccable liberals believe that racial diversity is a precious resource: the more of it you import the more enriched you become. You can never have too much diversity, just as a miser can never have too much gold.

Many non-Whites are currently entering the US and the UK, so many that the pace of racial and cultural change is very fast and very perceptible. Import a million Zulus into the US and you’ll have substantial racial and cultural change wherever they take up residence. Silver would oppose that. So would everyone here.

I think God made all people good. But if we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them in Virginia, which group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia? ("This Week With David Brinkley,” 1/8/91)

All rational people would think that the obvious answer is the correct answer. But as Pat Buchanan discovered, the obvious answer is also the “racist” answer.

Buchanan’s Racism
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/7874/

Numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. (Enoch Powell)

Rivers of Blood
http://www.vdare.com/misc/powell_speech.htm

So Silver is in good company, despite all his previous attempts to avoid it. He isn’t a racialist, but he is sensible enough to be a Powellite, which isn’t bad. Why he spent so much effort convincing us that he is an obnoxious idiot is a different issue.

Posted by Scimitar on August 31, 2007, 05:22 AM | #

So phenotype is not an “identity”.  It is a fact.

There is no reason why a phenotype cannot serve as an in-group/out-group boundry marker.

He should, I gather, be his phenotype.  Live it, religiously. 

That doesn’t make any sense. There is nothing supernatural about one’s complexion. It is completely material. Your analogy to religion is facile.

But why “should” he?  Why must phenotype be the most important aspect of a man?

Obviously, it doesn’t have to be. In some cultures, historically speaking, complexion has been a salient aspect of one’s personal identity. That was true of American culture for about three centuries. In others, it hasn’t.

You claim to be a Serb. If that is so, I don’t consider you to be “white” at all, nor do I see how racial nationalism would make any sense in the political context of your Balkan nation.

This ‘ought’ you’ve snuck in is like every other ‘ought’ that philosophers have debated.  And philosophy has debated a zillion oughts.  The world is hardly compelled to jump on this one on the strength of your say-so.

And philosophy hasn’t come up with many compelling answers that are relevant to our lives either. Should you blink your eyes? Should you breathe? Should you go to sleep tonight? Why? The behavior of human beings like all other creatures is overwhelmingly instinctive and habitual.

Take Stirpes, for instance.  Does my breezy critique really miss the mark by that wide a margin?  If white racial anxiety doesn’t characterize the site, doesn’t it at least pervade it? 

Is this AWAR?

Posted by silver on August 31, 2007, 06:08 AM | #

“AWAR”?

(Off to work, back later.)

Posted by Al Ross on August 31, 2007, 07:23 AM | #

Silver’s familiarity with the writing of Prof. Revilo Oliver may not extend to the fact that, although the great man’s rhetoric was often provocatively pessimistic with regard to the future of Whites, in private he evinced a cautious optimism on our prospects for survival.

http://www.natvan.com/adv/2004/10-16-04.html

Posted by Scimitar on August 31, 2007, 08:46 AM | #

silver,

Who are you at Stirpes?

Posted by Proofreader on August 31, 2007, 11:45 AM | #

Scimitar:
A well-read man such as you should know that Serbs are white in every sense of the definition. Or perhaps your problem is that you’ve read tooo much and traveled too little.

Unless your definition of “white” only includes NW Euro’s, which I find hilarious.

Posted by Svigor on August 31, 2007, 01:28 PM | #

I’m curious, Svigor

Stay curious.  I’ll answer your questions and address your points when you answer and address mine.

Posted by 2R on August 31, 2007, 02:38 PM | #

Silver if you are a Serb, you must at least know how to say “hello” in Serbian.  Lets hear it!  Say hello in Serbian right now.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 31, 2007, 04:36 PM | #

2R, this piece of excrement is no Serb.

Posted by Matra on August 31, 2007, 05:05 PM | #

You claim to be a Serb. If that is so, I don’t consider you to be “white” at all

Scimitar, why do you say that?

Southern Serbs are darker in features than those in Belgrade but I’d still consider them to be white. There are millions of Americans of Serbian descent: Do you consider them to be white?

Posted by ben tillman on August 31, 2007, 06:03 PM | #

“...people have the right to mate with whom they wish....”

That’s as ludicrous as stating that people have the right to kill whom they wish.

Posted by Al Ross on August 31, 2007, 09:34 PM | #

Silver is likely to be a nominally Muslim, Albanian whose forebears, unlike the majority of Serbs, were not tough enough to resist the Ottoman colonial pressure to convert to Islam and interbreed with the hated Turks.

Here’s what ‘silver’ probably looks like and it isnt ‘White’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Belushi_in_Animal_House.jpg

Posted by Al Ross on August 31, 2007, 09:37 PM | #

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Belushi_in_Animal_House.jpg

Posted by Al Ross on August 31, 2007, 09:42 PM | #

How very odd. The first part of the website reference (wikipedia) which I typed didnt appear.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 31, 2007, 09:47 PM | #

There you go, Al ...

Posted by Tommy G on August 31, 2007, 09:58 PM | #

“Here’s what ‘silver’ probably looks like and it isnt ‘White’."-- Al Ross

John Belushi? Nah, He probably looks more like this:

http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/original/2005_0308_urkel.jpg

Posted by Proofreader on August 31, 2007, 10:01 PM | #

Nonsense! John Belushi was Albanian, not a Serb. And he was a Catholic Orthodox, not a Muslim. Here´s a picture of James Belushi, his younger brother:

http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/67/14/0000036714_20070102183631.jpg

I´d say he´s White, just like his brother.

Posted by Scimitar on August 31, 2007, 11:10 PM | #

Proofreader,

I consider “white” to be not only a descriptor of “Nordics” or people of Northern European ancestry with pale skin, but also a marker of personal and national identity. Americans, for example, have thought of themselves as being “white” for almost four centuries now. I find this to be true even today under the anti-racist status quo. “Whiteness” has traditionally been the most important defining aspect of the American sense of identity. The context of living amongst “non-whites” like Indians and the negro heightened the salience of race in America in a way that didn’t happen in Europe.

As GW pointed out above, “White Nationalism” makes no sense in a European context or, more accurately, there was no rationale for “White Nationalism” in Europe until recent times, as Europe was racially homogeneous. “silver” here is a typical example of what I call the “raw European.” He doesn’t have any sense of racial consciousness or awareness of the importance of his bloodline. As someone who lives in a racially homogeneous area, I am in no way surprised by this. “silver” is correct when he says that he isn’t “white” in any meaningful sense of the word. Neither are the vast majority of his countrymen. At best, I would categorize him a “potential white.”

You speculate that maybe I haven’t travelled enough abroad. Actually, I am only half American by ancestry. My mother is a German-speaking immigrant from Austria. My grandparents still live there. I have travelled to Central Europe many times. What I recall most about that experience was the lack of anything resembling racial consciousness in Europe. There was no sense of being “white” like there is in, say, Alabama or Mississippi. It was strange and unfamilar. As it happens, my professional interest is U.S. foreign relations, so perhaps I tend to be more aware of what distinguishes Americans from other closely related peoples.

Posted by Jean West on September 01, 2007, 12:13 AM | #

“Silver” is a diverter.  His mission is to divert you from your original course.  Who cares what race or nationality he is?  You’ve been had.

The topic of this thread was not “Who is Silver.” The topic was “Are Jews White.” There were a few relevant responses, including mine.  Then the diverters appeared.  This happens often enough in forums to be recognized as a strategy.  In fact, a Jewish strategy.

Recognize when you’re being diverted from the topic at hand.  Don’t follow.

JW

Posted by Reiv on September 01, 2007, 04:14 AM | #

Posted by Jean West on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 12:13 AM | #

“Silver” is a diverter.  His mission is to divert you from your original course.  Who cares what race or nationality he is?  You’ve been had.

The topic of this thread was not “Who is Silver.” The topic was “Are Jews White.” There were a few relevant responses, including mine.  Then the diverters appeared.  This happens often enough in forums to be recognized as a strategy.  In fact, a Jewish strategy.

Recognize when you’re being diverted from the topic at hand.  Don’t follow.

JW

---Finally, objectivity shines through the fog, reminding folks that the original question was “Are Jews White?”, which was not intended to start a pissing contest about “I’m More White Than You Are, naa, naa, naa.”

Reiv

Posted by danielj on September 01, 2007, 04:30 AM | #

Jews are not white.

Jews are not human.

They are the demonic offspring of the Devil! (Or a super-evil black scientist)

By the way how come nobody warned me that Boston was absolutely full of them like Swiss cheese is full of holes?

They are everywhere out here!

Posted by 2R on September 01, 2007, 05:07 AM | #

“Jews are not human.  They are the demonic offspring of the Devil! (Or a super-evil black scientist) “

I’m a strong believer that comments like this, don’t really help anything.  If you have legitimate input regarding the Jewish Question, then by all means, please contribute.  But statements like these turn off people who are new to the struggle and don’t at all, add to the discussion.  Its this “the Jews are the seed of Satan” talk that has gone nowhere for the last 40 years.  Lets not keeping making this same mistake.  Our biggest problem is not Jews, but some sort of internal weakness within the Occidental people that allows us to be taken advantage of by Jews.  I’m not picking on you, so don’t take this personally.  I just consider MR a step above SF or VNN where this type of talk passes for legitimate discussion.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 01, 2007, 07:07 AM | #

Daniel,

That comment seems to represent a serious shift in your previous thinking.  We’ve seen this before, most notably in the case of Geoff Beck, who moved from being a conservative and Christian American to a full-on anti-semite.

Obviously, the question of whether Jews are white rests entirely on where within Caucasianism one places the boundary.  So I think Silver’s commentary is germaine, and we have not been “had”.

The position of the boundary is a subjective matter, and clearly Daniel in his new robes of anti-semitism will have a more restrictive view of “white” than some others, including me. 

On offer here as a boundary is Scimitar’s Nordicism, Silver’s more general northern and western Europeanism, Daniel’s wider but still highly exclusive Euro-Americanism and Robert’s very similar European Caucasianism.  Elsewhere, ignoring all such rigour as Robert’s attempt to pin the issue down genetically, Jared Taylor has famously argued that Jews are white because they look like us ... and we (that’s ECs) are white.

It seems to me that Jared’s view is falsified by the paucity of any defense of whiteness by Jewish actors, and the great surfeit of pro-anything-but-white analysis and activism.  So Jews exclude themselves from our racial comity, placing the barrier at European-Caucasianism.  Actually, we have no need to consult anyone further.

Posted by danielj on September 01, 2007, 07:49 AM | #

Actually, I was just joking.

I’m not sure where I stand on the issue.

As I am half Sicilian I get the feeling that I am more despised by some in the movement than Jews are. I have good Jewish friends that are well aware of my beliefs and agree with some of them.

I am not an anti-semite GW.

I am however, as you state correctly, in “transition.”

Although, I currently argue (in fights/discussions with people I’m trying to convert defend myself from attack) that descendants of European Christendom are White which would exclude Jews.

Posted by danielj on September 01, 2007, 07:51 AM | #

sorry… (in discussions with people I am trying to convert, or in fights with people that I must defend myself)

Posted by 2R on September 01, 2007, 08:19 AM | #

“White” has traditionally meant nothing to most Europeans.  In America, this of course, is not so.  That is why I prefer Occidental or Western when describing “us.” Had the Byzantine empire not been taken over by Turks, the former “White” area now known as Turkey would be part of the West as well.  The West is much more than just a biological concept.  Greeks are closer to Iranians than they are to Danes biologically but as far as my classification, they are “Western.” Therefore, they are with us, as well as Sicilians. 

Silvers big “weapon” against us is to split Mediterraneans from Alpines or Nordics.  He will point to American “Whites” who are 1/64th Cherokee and attempt to exploit this.  He will also point to Mulattoes, as part White too.  This is what his big “secret” is.  But, as I’ve pointed out, the biological is only part.  Just as the Jews are a race/culture/religion/Nation, we are, and must, be the similar in concept.  However, when we do attain living space, we will practice racial hygiene.

Posted by Proofreader on September 01, 2007, 09:39 AM | #

Scimitar:
I stand corrected as to your knowledge of Europe. But I don´t quite follow your reasoning: just because Europeans don´t share your sense of whiteness - as you say, an artifact of the American experience- you deny it to them.

Why not acknowledge that your definition is merely local, peculiar to the New World and redefine yourself as a European in exile when dealing with Europeans?
A Serb, for instance, would describe himself as Serb first, then Kossovar, then European ad/or Orthodox, then White.
On the other hand, many Europeans don´t define themnselves as white because it simply follows from being European.
If Euros are to survive, we should stress our common European identity, which is not only racial, but also cultural and geographical. Christian identity used to be useful but I´m afraid it no longer is.

To answer the original question, Jews are white in the anthropological sense of the term; i.e., they fit the scientific definition. Off course, they´re neither European nor Christian, so that pretty much excludes them from being part of “us”.

Posted by Scimitar on September 01, 2007, 09:48 AM | #

Back to the subject of this thread. Are Jews “white” in any meaningful sense? In my mind, this mostly a question of:

1.) Do Jews appear “white” physically? Do they look like other Northern Europeans? In many cases, this is obviously so. There are Jews who can pass for white on the basis of appearance. No doubt about that. At the same time, we should keep in mind that this is also true of some negroes (see Walter White of the NAACP)

2.) Do Jews think of themselves as being “white”? Generally, no. In some cases, especially in America, yes.

Unfortunately, historically speaking, Jews were able to pass for white and were for that reason let into the United States. They were granted full citizenship and equal rights with other citizens. This was not the case initially with the Indians or the negro who were unambiguously “non-white.”

“White” is an unscientific term that came into general use in the American colonies during the mid-seventeenth century. “Nordic” is a later, broader anthropological refinement of “white” that went into circulation in the early twentieth century. It was popularized by Madison Grant.

The true measuring stick of “whiteness” is the extent to which any given individual is related to the original, idolized pale-skinned, ruddy complexion of the Elizabethian Englishmen - the type that would colonize America. The roots of “whiteness” trace back deep into the culture of Medieval and Early Modern England:

“In England perhaps more than in southern Europe, the concept of blackness was loaded with intense meaning. Long before they found that some men were black, Englishmen found in the idea of blackness a way of expressing some of their most ingrained values. No other color except white conveyed so much emotional impact. As described by the Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning of black before the sixteenth century included, “Deeply stained with dirt; soiled, dirty, foul . . . Having dark or deadly purposes, malignant; pertaining to or involving death, deadly; baneful, disastrous, sinister . . . Foul, iniquitous, atrocious, horrible, wicked. . . . Indicating disgrace, censure, liability to punishment, etc.” Black was an emotionally partisan color, the handmaid and symbol of baseness and evil, a sign of danger and repulsion.

Embedded in the concept of blackness was its direct opposite - whiteness. No other colors so clearly implied opposition, “Beinge colours utterlye contrary”; no others were so frequently used to denote polarization:

“Everye white will have its blacke,
And everye sweete its sowre.”

White and black, purity and filthiness, virginity and sin, virtue and baseness, beauty and ugliness, beneficence and evil, God and the devil.

Whiteness, moreover, carried a special significance for Elizabethian Englishmen: it was, particularly when complemented by red, the color of perfect human beauty, especially female beauty. This ideal was already centuries old in Elizabeth’s time, and their fair Queen was its very embodiment: her cheeks were “roses in a bed of lillies.” (Elizabeth was naturally pale but like many ladies then and since she freshened her “lillies” at a cosmetic table). An adoring nation knew precisely what a beautiful queen looked like.

Her cheeke, her chinne, her neck, her nose
This was a lillye, that was a rose;
Her hande so white as whales bone
Her finger tipt with Cassidone;
Her bosome, sleeke as Paris plaster,
Held upp twoo bowles of Alabaster.

Shakespeare himself found the lily and the rose a compelling natural coalition.

‘Tis beauty truly blent, whose red and white
Nature’s own sweet and cunning hand laid on.”

By contrast, the Negro was ugly, by reason of his color and also his “horrid Curles” and disfigured lips and nose.

Winthrop D. [removed], White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 7-8

The founding settlers of the American colonies inherited this conception of “whiteness” from sixteenth and seventeenth century England. Later, it would take root in America and develop a new meaning. The Elizabethian Englishman, surrounded in the New World by Indians and his negro slaves, would become the American “white man” as he went “native” in North America:

From the first, then, vis-à-vis the Negro the concept embedded in the term Christian seems to have conveyed much of the idea of we against they: to be Christian was to be civilized rather than barbarous, English rather than African, white rather than black. The term Christian itself proved to have remarkable elasticity, for by the end of the seventeenth century it was being used to define a species of slavery which had altogether lost any connection with explicit religious difference. In the Virginia code of 1705, for example, the term sounded much more like a definition of race than of religion: “And for a further christian care and usage of all christian servants, Be it so enacted, by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that no negroes, mulattos, or Indians, although christians, or Jews, Moors, Mahometans, or other infidels, shall, at any time, purchase any christian servant, nor any other, except of their own complexion, or such as are declared slaves by this act.” By this time “Christianity” had somehow become intimately and explicitly linked with “complexion.” The 1705 statute declared: “That all servants imported and brought into this country, by sea or land, who were not christians in their native country, (except Turks and Moors in amity with her majesty, and others that can make due proof of their being freed in England, or any other christian country, before they were shipped, in order to transportation hither) shall be accounted and be slaves, and as such be here bought and sold notwithstanding a conversion to christianity afterwards.” As late as 1753 the Virginia slave code anachronistically defined slavery in terms of religion when everyone knew that slavery had for generations been based on the racial and not the religious difference.

It is worth making still closer scrutiny of the terminology which Englishmen employed when referring both to themselves and to the two peoples they enslaved, for this terminology affords the best single means of probing the contents of their sense of difference. The terms Indian and Negro were both borrowed from the Hispanic languages, the one originally deriving from (mistaken) geographical locality and the other from human complexion. When referring to the Indians the English colonists either used that proper names or called them savages, a term which reflected primarily their view of Indians as uncivilized, or occasionally (in Maryland especially) pagans, which gave more explicit expression to the missionary urge. When they had reference to Indians the colonists occasionally spoke of themselves as Christians but after the early years almost always as English.

In significant contrast, the colonists referred to Negroes and by the eighteenth century to blacks and to Africans, but almost never to Negro heathens or pagans or savages. Most suggestive of all, there seems to have been something of a shift during the seventeenth century in the terminology which Englishmen in the colonies applied to themselves. From the initially most common term Christian, at mid-century there was a marked drift toward English and free. After about 1680, taking the colonies as a whole, a new term appeared - white.

So far as the weight of analysis may be imposed upon such terms, diminishing reliance upon Christian suggests a gradual muting of the specifically religious element in the Christian-Negro disjunction in favor of secular nationality: Negroes were, in 1667, “not in all respects to be admitted to a full fruition of the exemptions and impunities of the English.” As time went on, as some Negroes became assimilated to the English colonial culture, as more “raw Africans” arrived, and as increasing numbers of non-English Europeans were attracted to the colonies, the colonists turned increasingly to the striking physiognomic difference.

[removed], 94-96

All of this is rather interesting, it gives us a better idea of the meaning of whiteness, but our question remains unanswered. Are the Jews “white”? In a limited sense, given the criteria above, Jews can pass for white. I believe that Robert has correctly shown though that looks can be deceiving. At the genetic level, which is the most compelling and refined yardstick of kinship, Jews cluster with other Semitic populations.

So no, even if that may have been the case in the past, I don’t think we can honestly say now that Jews are “white.”

Posted by Proofreader on September 01, 2007, 10:32 AM | #

Scimitar, what is your definition of White?
If White= unmixed NW European, then that leaves out most Europeans and even white Americans. If white= Nordic, then perhaps less than a third of NW Euros can be defined as such.

Posted by Scimitar on September 01, 2007, 11:12 AM | #

But I don´t quite follow your reasoning: just because Europeans don´t share your sense of whiteness - as you say, an artifact of the American experience- you deny it to them.

It would be more accurate to say that this is something they deny themselves. To my knowledge, the Serbs don’t think of themselves as “whites.” “Whiteness” has never been an important aspect of their culture like it is here. That’s understandable. Serbs tend to be more darker skinned than Americans. They don’t live amongst non-whites and thus don’t have the same incentive to define themselves in terms of race that we do.

Of course the opposite is equally true. Americans haven’t traditionally thought of themselves as “Serbs,” “Slavs,” “Orthodox Christians,” or “communists.” Being olive skinned has never been a status marker in the United States. I’m sure that “silver” is objectively more of a Serb than I am. He is more closely related to other Balkan populations like the Albanians. Similarly, I am less of a Scandinavian than a Swede or a Dane. I don’t feel demeaned by that at all. Yet for some reason there are people who take offense at the notion that they are “less white” than others.

Why not acknowledge that your definition is merely local, peculiar to the New World and redefine yourself as a European in exile when dealing with Europeans?

Perhaps I should qualify my argument. This sense of the importance of “whiteness” is not exclusive to the New World. Rather, it simply has the highest frequency here and elsewhere in the “periphery” or the “diaspora,” above all else in America. There are other examples of this that come to mind. As some of you know, the white colonials of Sub-Saharan Africa often developed a similar sense of racial consciousness. I have been researching the issue as of late.

In Europe, the British came to think of themselves as “whites” in a more limited sense from the time of the Sepoy Mutiny in India to decolonization during the 1950s and 1960s. The British developed a thinner sense of racial consciousness as the task of managing their multiracial empire became more difficult. Racial attitudes hardened considerably during the Victorian Age before slacking off after WW2.

On the other hand, many Europeans don´t define themnselves as white because it simply follows from being European.

Yes, that is my point: the sense of being self-consciously “white,” which is so ubiquitous in America, even amongst ostensibly non-racialists, is far less common in Europe. There was never any point of defining oneself in terms of race in Europe because all the non-whites lives abroad. Instead, European tribalism came to be based on other issues like religion, ethnicity, and class.

If Euros are to survive, we should stress our common European identity, which is not only racial, but also cultural and geographical.

I agree. This can often be an uphill climb though with Europeans. “silver” here is a good example of that.

Posted by Scimitar on September 01, 2007, 11:36 AM | #

Scimitar, what is your definition of White?

I consider “white” to be an unscientific, but useful term. It is not something that can be precisely defined as “whiteness” is a phenotype that shades into others. It means essentially being a European with a fair complexion: light skin, light eyes, light hair. The “white” ideal was at first the pale-skinned, ruddy Elizabethian Englishman who colonized North America. Later, it was broadened to include closely related populations like the Dutch, Danes, Irish, Germans, and so on.

If White= unmixed NW European, then that leaves out most Europeans and even white Americans. If white= Nordic, then perhaps less than a third of NW Euros can be defined as such.

I define “whiteness” (the physical aspect of it) in terms of its original reference point: the pale-skinned Elizabethian Englishman. Let’s call him the nucleus of “whiteness.” There are shades of “whiteness” which extend outwards from him in degrees of complexion and kinship. The Nordic type of Northwestern Europe would form the first inner circle. The next level would be other Northwestern Europeans, followed by Northern Europeans in general, and then Southern and Eastern Europeans. I’m sure this can all be written up nicely in terms of genetic distance charts. As noted above, the Jews cluster with their fellow Semites and are thus not white in any meaningful sense of the word.

Posted by Svigor on September 01, 2007, 12:42 PM | #

2.) Do Jews think of themselves as being “white”? Generally, no. In some cases, especially in America, yes.

I don’t buy that.  Being “white” means (inter alia) being qualified for white guilt.  Jewish “whiteness” does not qualify.  It’s the chameleon’s coloring.

Given that I cast a rather wide net in considering whiteness for the purposes of defining Euroman for WNism (or what have you), my reasons for disqualifying jews as white are mostly not genetic (though the fail on strictly racial grounds, insofar as they are genetically jewish); in other words, it takes little fudging for me to “pass” them if genetics are the only criterion.

No, it’s the tribal thing.  Announcing oneself as jewish makes identification as white impossible.  The two are mutually exclusive.  Having jewish ancestry is one thing; “I’m jewish” is quite another.  Being anti-white is written into the definition of jewishness.

Posted by danielj on September 01, 2007, 01:01 PM | #

Yet for some reason there are people who take offense at the notion that they are “less white” than others.

I’m not a weak-kneed and delicate flower.

I don’t take offense and I don’t think the “others” in my boat do (well, some might), but I think we need to come to a consensus to determine who is allowed in the community.

For instance, I like my atheist jewish friend Ian who has all but already renounced his heritage (so to speak) and would consider himself closer to me then a lot of his jewish kinsmen.

Posted by Proofreader on September 01, 2007, 01:28 PM | #

Scimitar:

Your definition of whiteness is certainly peculiar. For instance, “ruddy” and “pale” are not generally applied to the same person, although you need to be relatively pale for ruddiness to show through; a reddish complexion is a function of the vascularity and thinness of the skin, not paleness in itself. It´s basically blood showing through, to put it simply. If you were to measure skin depigmentation, Russians would be on the same scale as British Islanders.

And what do you make of the dark British types (think Sean Connery and countless others), or the decidedly un-Nordic in features (Ringo Starr)? I doubt those would have been seen as less white in Elizabethan England or New England for that matter.  And yet they make a large part of the original British gene pool. Take a look at Elizabethan pictures: Shakespeare for instance.
You´re either white or you´re not: it´s like being pregnant.

What people perceive is variation: some White people are paler, blonder or have ruddier complexions, other less. It happens in the same unmixed polulation, just as this variation occurs within the same family.

Now, if you have a Nordic ideal from which you define whiteness, it´s fine with me. But please state it clearly. It´s your choice, but keep in mind that it´s a very peculiar notion. A notion alien to Europe.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 03:09 PM | #

One important corollary to the answer to “Are Jews white?” (the answer, they’re not European, is given in the log entry) is Jewish élites have since the 1960s Jewish revolution in the U.S. been viciously attacking Euros as both “white” and “European” as part of what clearly is a tribal attack by one tribe on what it sees as an enemy tribe.  Yes, Jewish élites have recruited leftist allies in this who have taken part out of genuinely leftist motives, as well as other allies taking part for a variety of additional motives, but the main thrust of the attack, the central motivating impetus, isn’t leftist but Jewish tribal having nothing whatsoever to do with the standard political concepts of “left” and “right.” Once this becomes clear it is obvious the Jewish élites do not see themselves as European, or they wouldn’t be attacking Europeans racially in this way. 

So, the Jewish élites themselves, the ones funding and taking part in all these anti-white attacks, are telling us independently of the series of genetic analyses cited in the log entry, the answer, as they see it, to the entry’s question:  they do not see themselves as racially European. 

Another question:  which came first, modern leftism or loxism?  My answer:  loxism.  Modern leftism is a weapon loxism wields in battling its enemies but loxism itself, in its core, is not leftist or anything else.  ("Loxism," coined by Alex Linder, is aggressively anti-Euro, aggressively anti-Christian diaspora-Jewish nationalism.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 03:14 PM | #

The ACLU, the SPLC, and the ADL for example are loxist groups.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 03:16 PM | #

The New York Times is a loxist newspaper and Buckley’s old outfit, “National Review,” once Catholic and “paleocon,” is now loxist.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 03:20 PM | #

“but loxism itself, in its core, is not leftist or anything else.”

or anything else than loxist

Posted by Proofreader on September 01, 2007, 05:35 PM | #

What´s the etymology for “loxism”. I looked it up, but I was directed to Tacitus. No such word exist in Latin, to my knowledge.
This poster got the same result:

http://can.mailarchive.ca/politics/2006-09/1732.html

Overall, I would prefer anti-europeism. Admitedly, the jewish brand opf anti-europeism deserves its own name.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 05:51 PM | #

Proofreader, I don’t know but I assume Linder took it from “bagels & lox,” which is known as Jewish “ethnic” food (known as that in NYC at any rate, where I come from).  If loxism doesn’t catch on we should search for another word:  I agree with Linder there’s a need for a word to counter the other side’s “racism” ("racism" is very simply a Jewish-invented-and-wielded anti-Eurochristian tribal attack word and nothing more — that’s what it’s used as, and it has no coherent meaning apart therefrom).  As for your suggestion, “anti-europeism,” I think loxism is better.  Jewish élites have been dishing it out with impunity for decades.  It’s time they began getting a taste of their own medicine.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 05:55 PM | #

Change that to:

“I agree with Linder there’s a need for a word to counter the other side’s use of the word “racism” as a tribal accusation word, a tribal blame word, a tribal shaming word, a tribal attack word.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 06:19 PM | #

“Loxism," coined by Alex Linder, is aggressively anti-Euro, aggressively anti-Christian diaspora-Jewish nationalism.

A big part of the reason for loxism’s success (loxism the thing, not loxism the word) is Jews maneuver and fight differently from Europeans, in ways Europeans don’t quickly recognize.  And they are definitely very nepotistic.  Loxism isn’t the cakewalk for Jews in the Near East that it’s been for them in the Eurosphere because the Semites over there, who are their cousins, instinctively know them in ways Euros don’t so their advantage is lost.  It’s like when an alien plant or animal species is introduced into a new place and rapidly takes over because there isn’t the resistance to it, aren’t the checks on it, there were back home.  How do resistance and checks evolve?  Well, by pressures exerted over time, changing certain traits of populations.  Euros unfortunately are going to have to go through a genetic bottleneck in the process of emerging from the present life-or-death threat to their existence.  They’ll come out the other end of the bottleneck slightly changed but there’s no way to avoid that.  Euro genes such as certain of Heidi Klum’s, for example, will be reduced in frequency, while there’ll be no reduction in frequency of the genes of a Euro woman who rejected for herself the choice which Klum embraced.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 06:24 PM | #

A big part of the reason for loxism’s success (loxism the thing, not loxism the word) is Jews maneuver and fight differently from Europeans, in ways Europeans don’t quickly recognize.

That’s partly an inborn difference between Euros and Jews, a racial difference.

Posted by Proofreader on September 01, 2007, 06:34 PM | #

Fred, “loxism” sounds good, despite its mundane etymology. LOL!

Klum´s genes might survive in the white gene pool, unfortunately, if her white daughter (the baby she had with Flaviatore) marries a White man. Heidi´s white grand-children might inherit her bad taste.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 10:42 PM | #

I just looked around via google:  loxism refers to the phenomenon of Jewish hatred of whites, according to the guy who coined it, Alex Linder.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 11:00 PM | #

The point is, and I only figured this out within the past couple of years or so, the Jewish élites who attack whites as racists or for this or that other reason don’t consider themselves white:  they’re not attacking Jews; not attacking themselves.  Whites who attack whites as racists are attacking their own group out of a sense of right and wrong, of fairness:  “If we do wrong, we’ve got to admit it, got to mend our ways, got to do better, make amends if possible, set things to rights, set an example for our kids, compensate the one we’ve wronged.” Jews who attack whites as racists aren’t saying any of that about themselves, but are attacking what they see as a tribal enemy, and not for reasons of right and wrong but purely of tribal animosity.  Their attacks also for the most part aren’t “leftist.” They’re tribal.  Obviously they can’t say, “We’re attacking Eurochristians out of tribal animosity,” so they make up things like “racism” and attack them supposedly for those.

Posted by Tommy G on September 01, 2007, 11:04 PM | #

David Duke has a better label: “Jewish supremacism.”

Btw--Silver, here’s my favorite ‘white’ athlete when I was growing up:

http://www.geocities.com/sheikfan/

Sorry if that offends you, Fred.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2007, 11:11 PM | #

What was it that might offend me, Tommy?

Posted by Tommy G on September 01, 2007, 11:56 PM | #

It doesn’t offend you that I categorize a Syrian as White?

Posted by wjg on September 02, 2007, 12:36 AM | #

“Are Jews White?”

When it serves their interests they are White.  This primarily comes to pass when they need the support of Whites either as customers or voters.  When it doesn’t serve their interests they are a “poisecuted minority”.  Since they currently control what the vast majority of people think and hold dear their dynamic “whiteness” is relevant.

From the perspective of real Whites of course they are not White.  They are of foreign stock that hates us (and all Goyim) if current events and thousands of years of history is any guide.  This has its roots in their religion which selected genetically for the traits demanded by their “God” - be they deceit, hubris, etc. - which are considered psychopathic to a healthy Aryan.  When the shtf in their hosts, which they have subverted, they always transform into whatever new identity serves their purpose.

Our weakness is in treating them as fellow Aryans; open to debate and to appeals of decency and fairness.  We have (with one notable exception in recent history) shown incapable of adapting to this reality.  It may prove a fatal weakness.  Revilo Oliver (earlier mentioned) was not moralistic about Jewish interactions with us.  By his naturalistic standards they were simply the stronger organism, we the weaker.  Will it always prove so?

I agree with Jean West; please stop feeding the troll.  It is kosher, whether by birth or spawning and words are wasted on it.  It should only be spoken through not to.

Posted by Scimitar on September 02, 2007, 12:45 AM | #

Scimitar:

Your definition of whiteness is certainly peculiar. For instance, “ruddy” and “pale” are not generally applied to the same person, although you need to be relatively pale for ruddiness to show through; a reddish complexion is a function of the vascularity and thinness of the skin, not paleness in itself. It´s basically blood showing through, to put it simply. If you were to measure skin depigmentation, Russians would be on the same scale as British Islanders.

The point I was making is that this was the original ideal of “whiteness.” There certainly are individuals of British ancestry who would fit this description: extremely pale, often with the red flush. Here in America, these people are often derisively known as “rednecks.” They sunburn very easily. If we are to discern “who is white,” we need to grasp first what “whiteness” actually means: it was the complexion of the original American settlers.

We need some point from which to measure the relative whiteness of populations. I’m trying to make sense out of a pre-scientific term. You bring up the light skin of the Russians. See, you are already onto something there. Once Americans developed the habit of thinking of themselves as “whites” as opposed to “Englishmen,” the scope of their in-group began to widen in a way that did not happen in Europe. Suddenly, the Irishman began to look rather white, and the Irish and other closely related groups were allowed into immigrate to America. Eventually, the Irish, Dutch, Germans, Swedes etc. who settled here would become “white” themselves and intermarry.

Indeed, although this has largely been forgotten, the pale skinned Irish would prove to be exemplary whites. Although there was some tension at first, the old antagonism between the Irish and English would eventually evaporate in America.

And what do you make of the dark British types (think Sean Connery and countless others), or the decidedly un-Nordic in features (Ringo Starr)? I doubt those would have been seen as less white in Elizabethan England or New England for that matter.  And yet they make a large part of the original British gene pool. Take a look at Elizabethan pictures: Shakespeare for instance.

Obviously, I dismiss the notion, so popular in Europe, that Britain or other European countries are racially or ethnically homogeneous whereas America is not. The French are far more diverse in complexion than Americans are. The same is true of the Italians. There are all sorts of various sub-races in Europe. I think that is fairly well established. In Britain, there is a well known Mediterranean strain.

Personally, I don’t consider myself a Nordicist. It is not something that I get worked up about. The case of the Jews shows that appearances can be misleading. I would not be surprised if many of the more Mediterranean looking British are more closely related at the genetic level to their more Nordic contemporaries than phenotype alone would suggest.

You´re either white or you´re not: it´s like being pregnant.

I would argue that, at the physical level, there are shades of whiteness. At the social level, it is more black/white. You are either accepted as “white” or not. To use “silver” as an example, there are shades of being “Serbian.” Some populations are more closely related to the “Serbs” than others.

What people perceive is variation: some White people are paler, blonder or have ruddier complexions, other less. It happens in the same unmixed polulation, just as this variation occurs within the same family.

That’s true. Obviously, the idea of “whiteness” is based on this variation that people perceive in phenotype.

Now, if you have a Nordic ideal from which you define whiteness, it´s fine with me. But please state it clearly. It´s your choice, but keep in mind that it´s a very peculiar notion. A notion alien to Europe.

My position is that I am not a Nordicist like Anon, as I don’t perceive subracial differences as being as important as the larger racial ones, but I have no objection to the Nordic ideal per se. I’m not interested in shuffling up Europe (or North America) like a deck of cards.

Re: the origins of Nordicism. I’m only vaguely familar with this topic, but I believe it got started over here in the nineteenth century, although I could be wrong. Eventually, it was either transplanted to Germany, independently arose there, or came from some other country.

Nordicism would play a very influential role in the Third Reich, especially the SS.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 02, 2007, 01:02 AM | #

“It doesn’t offend you that I categorize a Syrian as White?” (—Tommy)

Certainly not — before this log entry was posted I’d have called Syrians white (I always used white synonymously with Caucasian, viewing Euros as a proper subset of Caucasian, therefore a proper subset of white).  Since its posting, I’m inclined to give in to claims by some that the word white is reserved for northwest-European-descended individuals.  Since my own race is a mixture of one-fourth Rhineland German and three-fourths a combination of Russian Euro and Austrian Jewish I don’t qualify as white by, let’s say, Scimitar’s definition.  I myself am a wog, basically, by that definition.  So no, I’m certainly not offended by your categorizing a Syrian as white.  I hope everyone sees, by the way, that none of this sort of discussion in any way changes or weakens the case against forced race-replacement.  Furthermore, I like racially restrictive definitions such as Scimitar’s of “white.” I like peoples, races, ethnocultures, languages, dialects, and so on, that defend and preserve themselves; that fight against those trying to eradicate them; that know how to survive and do survive unabashedly, unapologetically.  I dislike the opposite:  peoples, races, ethnicities, etc., that roll over and die on some enemy-ethnicity’s say-so.  I can’t stand those, really abhor them.

Posted by ben tillman on September 02, 2007, 04:53 AM | #

If White= unmixed NW European

How many times do we have to go through this?  “White” is defined by our enemies, and the term encompasses much more than the “unmixed NW European”, and it sure as hell doesn’t include Jews.

Posted by silver on September 02, 2007, 06:56 AM | #

“It now turns out, despite all his anti-racist posturing, that Silver opposes American and British immigration policy on racial grounds. He is not an impeccable liberal. Impeccable liberals believe that racial diversity is a precious resource: the more of it you import the more enriched you become. You can never have too much diversity, just as a miser can never have too much gold.”

That’s the modern, leftist liberal view. It’s not mine.  What should I call myself then?  A “neocon”?  I wouldn’t necessarily dispute that, if only neocon-ism was more amiable to taking racial reality into consideration and disowned Israel; there’s hope for the former, with the likes of Charles Murray et al involved; there’s no apparent hope for the latter.

Diversity is clearly not an inherent good.  It’s the diverse state that requires qualification, not the homogeneous; nobody ever challenges racialism/WN on the grounds that a state composed only of whites would “never work”.

Diversity is a risk, a massive risk.  The kind of “conscious” diversity promoted today, however well-intentioned, is… plainly insane.  If continued, it will lead to its own downfall. 

That naturally leads to the question of if it’s so risky, and there’s no apparent upside, why pursue it?  Well, the truth of it is, if it had been up to me, if I were some autocrat with sweeping powers, I never would have attempted it. 

That, however, is now neither here nor there.  *Someone* would have attempted it.  We can know that because someone *did*.  And here we are.

Despite the risks that inhere in any diverse society, diversity, I believe, and not only because circumstances force me, is manageable.  And I don’t mean by “manageable” by armies of makework “diversity consultants”. 

I mean racial differences can be and, elsewhere, are and have been, subsumed under a greater common “national” or religious identity.  This requires suppressing differences, however; not exaggerating them, bringing them to the forefront of conscioussness and then demanding people tell pious lies about how great those differences are. 

Now, Australia is not America, and, having lived in America, I understand how great the damage already wrought and how desperate the situation.  The reality of Negroes (Mexicans, too, but far, far less so) was stark but I managed to suppress it. I guess I just did like everyone else.  I knew where to walk and where to avoid.  And if I’m to be honest, I’d always done the same thing with Aborigines in Australia (which is much easier, because they are so fewer, especially in Melbourne). 

What I want to stress, though, is that I don’t hate Negroes as Negroes.  There is much about them—and Mexicans, and Asians, and Subcons—that I like.  I don’t necessarily object to living alongside them.  Far and away the greatest problem with the Negro is his aggression, his lack of morals, his hatred, his uncontrolled passions.  His intellectual shortcomings, to me, don’t matter nearly as much, even though those do carry an economic cost. 

The Negro once understood he wasn’t the white man’s equal and I think—certainly I hope—he can be made to understand it again.  That is a lot like asking a formerly rich man to content himself with the loss of his riches, which is no easy task, but it is not an impossible one. 

If some lower-order whites choose Negroes for spouses, well, that’s a small price to pay.  With the institution of a program of benign eugenics the lower orders, in which the Negro predominates, will begin to diminish anyway.  With respect to my cousin.  The unvarnished truth is that while I do “support” her, I did consider it a rather bizarre, myopic choice.  An even dirtier secret is that it gave me some relief, as it does when any white chooses a black.  I suppose I’m not too different to Alon Ziv, then: no, I’d never take one for myself, but it’s nice that some whites do.

Posted by silver on September 02, 2007, 07:11 AM | #

“I think God made all people good. But if we had to take a million immigrants in, say Zulus, next year, or Englishmen, and put them in Virginia, which group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia? ("This Week With David Brinkley,” 1/8/91)

All rational people would think that the obvious answer is the correct answer. But as Pat Buchanan discovered, the obvious answer is also the “racist” answer.”

Growing up, I naively believed that Australia was a “Christian country”.  There were some rather questionable characters, the type my mother and the Bible both warned me about, such as the boy at my primary ("elementary") school singing “O come let us destroy Him...”, which shocked, horrfied and saddened me, but on the whole the people were, or tried to be, good Christians.

This image was shattered as I entered my teenage years.  However, perhaps even more naively, I continued to think of Australia as a “British country”.  There were large numbers of obviously not-Britons, such as my own family, who had immigrated following the war (perhaps as a reward for being wartime allies), but I had always considered this a “once-off” event.  It never occurred to me that it was simply a part of a “program” of ongoing immigration.  So it made all the sense in the world to me why it was completely proper to “fight racism”.  After all, on what moral principle would you allow a people into your country only to attack them and despise them and denigrate them? 

Up until maybe six or seven years ago, that is, well into my twenties, I even assumed that British citizens had a right to live in Australia whenever they chose; and that this right was reciprocated. 

So, for all my liberalism, I would have certainly answered, loudly and clearly, that of course a million Britons would be a better fit for Australia than even a thousand Zulus. 

Normalcy and common sense are in short supply in liberal circles, I have since learnt.

Despite this, I cannot countenance a “white nationalism” as an appropriate political solution—not at this late stage, or, if you prefer, not even at this late stage.

Posted by silver on September 02, 2007, 07:29 AM | #

“silver,

Who are you at Stirpes?”

I don’t post there, just read.  I might start, though.  (Come to think of it, I might have made a couple of posts, but I can’t recall the username.)

“Silver if you are a Serb, you must at least know how to say “hello” in Serbian.  Lets hear it!  Say hello in Serbian right now.”

Well, I would have ample time to find out by name, but anyway: “Zdravo”.

On page 1 I asked Scrooby if it would take me speaking in Serbian for him to believe (sta treba?  da ti govorim na srpskom?). 

I’m not sure whether you were attempting to speak Serbian to me in the post I said used the “strangest transliteration I have ever seen”. (Which is true: that is assuredly not standard Serbian Latin transliteration.)

The first part of your question didn’t make sense to me—“yeh neh Serbski”—I don’t know what you were trying to say.

“yeh neh Serbski, dah lee govoreeteh?” Did you mean to ask me whether I speak Serbian?  “Govoris li srpski?  or “je li govoris srpski”? would be the correct way to ask that. 

“Neh plahshehteh seh”—“don’t be afraid”; correctly: “ne plasite se”.

Scrooby: “2R, this piece of excrement is no Serb.”
Scimitar: “You claim to be Serb”.

Why is it so difficult to believe?  Dukakis was obviously Greek but had little qualm advancing policies detrimental to whites.  Is it really so suprising that another “white” or “potential white” might do similarly?

Posted by silver on September 02, 2007, 07:53 AM | #

That should have read: “I would have had ample time to find out by now...”

Posted by desmond jones on September 02, 2007, 08:08 AM | #

If memory serves, didn’t Mark Richardson make mention of Serb Zdravko Micevic killing David Hookes in a brawl in some hotel. Hatred of Anglo-Aussies begins to make sense. If things were so bad for the Serbs in OZ, why did they stay? No one held a gun to their head.

A young David Hookes

Zdravko Micevic

No phenotypical difference there.

Posted by silver on September 02, 2007, 08:30 AM | #

Why the sarcasm anyway?  Surely even the proponents of “Serbs are white” don’t deny differences—even substantial ones—in phenotype, do they?

Posted by Svigor on September 02, 2007, 01:43 PM | #

After all, on what moral principle would you allow a people into your country only to attack them and despise them and denigrate them?

Silver seems to think there was a plebiscite or a referendum on the matter.

Obviously, if a group shares a territory and say, 10% (e.g., the elite) love the idea of race-replacement and tell a lot of sweet-sounding lies to accomplish it, and say, 10% (e.g., “nativists") despise the idea despite the sweet-sounding lies, and the former get their way, then “you” in Silver’s quote isn’t really “you” at all in the group sense.

The right of a group not to be race-replaced is a fundamental, natural right that has never been acknowledged in the west, but it is no less a right for that.  Even if the latter 10% do not exist, the former 10% are ipso facto aggressors against their own group.  Sane, healthy people in possession of the facts do not choose suicide.  Successful race-replacement programs are by definition (genocidal) fraud, since they involve disguising suicide as something else.

Westerners seem to think it’s okay to paint a .357 magnum full of hollow points bright, cheerful colors, slap some fun stickers on it, write “fun gun” on the side, tell people that it shoots “joy bullets,” and try to convince them to put it to their temples and pull the trigger.

It’s all kosher - free will at every turn.

Posted by silver on September 02, 2007, 02:43 PM | #

Svigor, I’ll put it down to your blind zeal, your eagerness to foment revolution, but just know that you come across like a blithering idiot.  Out of all that I said in the previous few posts, out of all the concessions to reality I made, this is what you chose to zero in on?  And in this unhinged manner?  Impatiently summarising what any imbecile—even a tyro like me—must surely be expected to already know and thus dismissing whatever I had to say for failure to take such established “knowledge” into account? 

I apologise for the inanity with which I made my appearance here. I’m troubled and unsettled both by what I already see around me—uninspiring but tolerable—and what it portends for the future—turmoil—and this plays havoc with my attempts to position myself. 

I won’t—I cannot—ever consider myself one of you but there are certain things that could be discussed, even if it does require keeping me at arm’s length.  If you wish to simply talk amongst yourselves, attending to such pressing issues as dissecting the finer points of “national bolshevism” then be prepared to remain forever at the margins.

Posted by Svigor on September 02, 2007, 04:33 PM | #

Go back and deal with everything you skipped over in this thread previously if you want a proper response from me.

Posted by a Finn on September 02, 2007, 04:50 PM | #

Silver wrote: “The Negro once understood he wasn’t the white man’s equal and I think—certainly I hope—he can be made to understand it again.  That is a lot like asking a formerly rich man to content himself with the loss of his riches, which is no easy task, but it is not an impossible one. 

If some lower-order whites choose Negroes for spouses, well, that’s a small price to pay.  With the institution of a program of benign eugenics the lower orders, in which the Negro predominates, will begin to diminish anyway.  With respect to my cousin.  The unvarnished truth is that while I do “support” her, I did consider it a rather bizarre, myopic choice.  An even dirtier secret is that it gave me some relief, as it does when any white chooses a black.  I suppose I’m not too different to Alon Ziv, then: no, I’d never take one for myself, but it’s nice that some whites do. [....]

So it made all the sense in the world to me why it was completely proper to “fight racism”.  After all, on what moral principle would you allow a people into your country only to attack them and despise them and denigrate them?  [....]

So, for all my liberalism, I would have certainly answered, loudly and clearly, that of course a million Britons would be a better fit for Australia than even a thousand Zulus.  [....]

Normalcy and common sense are in short supply in liberal circles, I have since learnt.

Despite this, I cannot countenance a “white nationalism” as an appropriate political solution—not at this late stage, or, if you prefer, not even at this late stage. [....]

Why is it so difficult to believe?  Dukakis was obviously Greek but had little qualm advancing policies detrimental to whites.  Is it really so suprising that another “white” or “potential white” might do similarly?”

- Here Silver shows some rudimentary understanding, so it is worth writing some words. It is still indifferent to me what he decides. Despite what he understands, he incubates pathetic hatreds inside. Despite their pathetic nature and the powerful contrary facts, he let’s them rule over him. If millions of British would immigrate to Serbia, because of liberal Serbian elite’s manipulation, wouldn’t it be natural to Serbs to resist and oppose the British? Wouldn’t it be natural for Serbs to want to preserve their own communities? Wouldn’t it be natural that because Serbs are humans, one of the means of protecting their threatened community would be not to be so nice towards the British, especially when the elites have prevented the more constructive ways of preserving and protecting their communities? What have you done to find constructive, mutually beneficial ways of co-habitation with the British Australians? What have done to understand the situation of the receiving people, who have given you possibilities beyond the dreams of Serbian Serbs? What have you done except to interpret the whole world through your delicate little princess sensitivity? And here we have Americans who, despite your despicable hatred towards them, are ready to give you the hand of friendship. How do you thank them? Continuing your pathetic hatred? In my opinion they are offering you much too much, they are too friendly. Grab their offer, fast, or go your own way.

-------------------

To Danielj. There certainly are jews who are pro-White and oppose also the anti-White hatred coming from the jews. When White communities are established their bonds are more than friendships and while the individuals are important, community’s interests are more important than individuals’ interests. Jews have thousand of organizations whose members are only jewish. We need our own independent organizations. We have tortured history of jews being in our organizations to manipulate them, because of malice or jewish tendencies and bonds.

Keep the jewish Ian as your friend. Genuinely pro-White jews should be rewarded in many ways. Being in our organizations is not one of them. Ian is of course anytime honored guest. By the way, could Ian establish the first jewish pro-White organization, that opposes also the anti-White jewish organizations, like Adl, Splc, Aclu, Ford foundation, liberal jewish organizations’ immigration coalition, etc.

Posted by a Finn on September 02, 2007, 04:54 PM | #

Addition: And also the jewish owned media, of course.

Posted by silver on September 02, 2007, 05:58 PM | #

Finn said: “What have you done to find constructive, mutually beneficial ways of co-habitation with the British Australians?”

This is vague.

“What have done to understand the situation of the receiving people, who have given you possibilities beyond the dreams of Serbian Serbs?”

I dare say I’ve done a great deal more than any other Serb, or perhaps even any other non-white [at least not consciously white, not by Australia standards] in this country. 

This isn’t clear to you because I’ve spent most of my time here “defending” (however pathetically and dishonourably) the remnants of the liberalism I still cling to—the MR position, if I can call it that, remains morally, and certainly practically, problematic for me. 

“What have you done except to interpret the whole world through your delicate little princess sensitivity?”

It’s understandable that a man being asked to question his very existence might seem excessively sensitive.  Having said that, is it really I or is it you who is demonstrating excessive sensitivity?

Posted by Guessedworker on September 02, 2007, 06:18 PM | #

Silver,

Anyone who can characterise race-realism in terms of normalcy and common-sense has something.  That’s already a major step, and I commend you for it.  But it is only one step on a road without end.  In isolation it is not the means to free you from faith in the liberal prescription.  You can still believe, for example, that every person can be free to choose, even if you can’t buy the trope that every person is fundamentally the same as every other person.  It just means you are a right-liberal rather than left.

In my long comment on Wednesday August 29, 2007 @ 11:30pm I tried to introduce you to the strange and true notion of human plasticity ... the ownership of personality by the zeitgeist.  This is the human theatre in which you indicated to me that chosen identity was an existential fact and, by dint of its universal acceptance, a proof of liberalism’s philosophical veracity.  In other words, four billion flies can’t be wrong.

But we are not flies.  We are men.  I still think this line, the line of human depth and beauty, is the best one to take with you ... that an understanding of enacted liberalism as human superfice is what will chime the most in your heart.  Certainly, more than the usual if by no means suspect arguments about black biology.

So I urge you to consider the outcome in human terms of advanced liberalism.  Don’t distance yourself from us by reacting to Svi’s perfectly fair observation that the “you” in the passage he quoted was the Australian elites, not the Aussies themselves.  We may be at the margins - perhaps forever - but we are the people.  You must follow the light and join us, you and all the millions like you.  That’s the revolution we are trying to foment.

Posted by James Bowery on September 02, 2007, 06:34 PM | #

Ecological correlations with Jews.

Ecological correlations with Whites.

Ecological similarity profile between Jews and Whites.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 02, 2007, 07:59 PM | #

An example of how the Jews fall back on the “anti-Semitism” accusation no matter what.  Because of this sort of utter nonsense trotted out constantly by Jews, all charges of anti-Semitism can be disregarded completely.

Posted by Al Ross on September 02, 2007, 10:58 PM | #

Silver speculated that the reason for a Serb immigrant presence in Australia may be that it represented a reward for World War 2 assistance provided to the Allies.

America is employing a similar logic vis-a-vis its relentless, anti-White push for Turkey’s EU admission when it lectures the Europeans on Turkey’s ‘invaluable’ NATO contributions, its excellent relations with Israel (so important for the Jew-run US foreign policy) and its purported ‘moderating influence’ on Middle Eastern countries.

Posted by desmond jones on September 02, 2007, 11:49 PM | #

Why the sarcasm anyway?  Surely even the proponents of “Serbs are white” don’t deny differences—even substantial ones—in phenotype, do they?

Of course they do. How else can WN work? How else can Europeanism work? The Serbs entered Oz when the White Australia policy was still enforced. The justification for each successive wave of immigration pushed the genetic distance further and further from the founding nation people. It’s viewed as the pre-eminent strategy for survival for the European diaspora populations. European nationalism is petty. White racialism is the only path to survival even though minority European populations, at least in Canada, see multiculturalism as a means to ensure their own distinctiveness in a predominately Anglo diaspora population.  Services in their own language; money for cultural events, centres, media and schooling [more and more faith based]. The dumb thing is the Anglos don’t do the same thing.

You still didn’t answer the question. If life for Serbs was so difficult under the bigoted Anglo-Aussies, why didn’t Serbs leave?

Posted by Scimitar on September 03, 2007, 12:15 AM | #

Silver speculated that the reason for a Serb immigrant presence in Australia may be that it represented a reward for World War 2 assistance provided to the Allies.

I would not be surprised if there was something to that. In the United States, the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed during WW2 out of love for our wonderful little ally, Chiang Kai-Shek.

Posted by Rnl on September 03, 2007, 05:55 AM | #

Scimitar wrote:

I don’t consider you to be “white” at all, nor do I see how racial nationalism would make any sense in the political context of your Balkan nation. ... “silver” is correct when he says that he isn’t “white” in any meaningful sense of the word. Neither are the vast majority of his countrymen. At best, I would categorize him a “potential white.”

Silver is an Australian. You mistakenly concluded that he lives somewhere in the former Yugoslavia.

But let’s assume he is a Serb living in Serbia. It is for Serbs, not you, to decide whether whiteness is a valuable concept in their country. Perhaps it isn’t. Croats are just as white as Serbs. Whiteness, as a physical fact, fails to distinguish Serbs from most Albanians, whereas Christian vs. Muslim does. But that’s much different from saying Serbs aren’t White.

As GW pointed out above, “White Nationalism” makes no sense in a European context or, more accurately, there was no rationale for “White Nationalism” in Europe until recent times, as Europe was racially homogeneous.

GW doesn’t say he isn’t White. He believes that race is not a category around which interests and sentiments coalesce in his country. From that we don’t conclude “he isn’t ‘white’ in any meaningful sense of the word.” As an English nationalist he doesn’t, rightly or not, attach the same significance to race that we do.

Serbs were bombed because they were identified as European oppressors intolerant of difference and eager to inflict nazi-like atrocities against defenseless Muslims. That judgment was far from the truth, and in fact Serb Yugoslavia was more ethnically diverse that the rest of the country, but it was on that propaganda basis that NATO launched its humanitarian war against Milosevic.

Seeing Yugoslavia Through a Dark Glass
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/1Yugo.htm

If Serbs want to understand why they were bombed, rather than celebrated as defenders of Europe against Islam and KLA terrorism, they would be wise to think of their whiteness. They became nazis, despite their distinguished anti-nazi past. Any European who asserts his ethnic/racial identity and interests risks being transformed into a nazi - i.e. a White person whom one may kill with impunity.

One advantage of White nationalism is that it helps us to see commonalities. The Clinton-Blair bombing campaign and the Clinton-Blair enthusiasm for open borders shared an underlying anti-racism. They were not discrete events but elements in the same anti-national program.

… Americans developed the habit of thinking of themselves as “whites” as opposed to “Englishmen” ...

Spanish colonizers also made the distinction White vs. non-White. It wasn’t a special American invention, though Americans enforced it more rigorously. The fact that Whites form a group different from other racial groups came to the attention of Europeans as a natural effect of the Age of Discovery. The non-Whites the colonizers encountered were generally primitive and militarily inconsequential. They seemed backward in contrast to the nations of Europe, and when they were not backward their cultures were brutal and sanguinary (e.g. the Aztecs). To the distinction White/non-White was therefore understandably added the distinction civilized vs. uncivilized (savage), which may have been unfair but which nevertheless reflected a reasonable inference, given normal ethnocentrism. None of these common generalizations about the Other(s) were exclusively American. The distinction White/non-White was, moreover, a _discovery_ of racial differences, not a construction of differences where no meaningful differences existed. Dutch and Spaniards have more in common with each other than they do with Bantus or Amerindians. That visible physical fact, assisted by the obvious cultural fact that both Dutch and Spaniards inhabited European Christendom and the Others didn’t, could become widely recognized only after Europeans had came in significant contact with Africans and Amerindians.

At any rate, even if all of the above is false, the discoverers of a fact shouldn’t declare their ownership of it, even if they make greater use of it than others. 

I see nothing wrong with your earlier observation, in another thread, that Westerners on the periphery of the West may have a better understanding of its racial contituents than Europeans. In other words, we’re right to look at whiteness and they’re wrong to ignore it. We see more clearly.

Long before they found that some men were black, Englishmen found in the idea of blackness a way of expressing some of their most ingrained values. No other color except white conveyed so much emotional impact. As described by the Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning of black before the sixteenth century included, “Deeply stained with dirt; soiled, dirty, foul . . . Having dark or deadly purposes, malignant; pertaining to or involving death, deadly; baneful, disastrous, sinister . . . Foul, iniquitous, atrocious, horrible, wicked. . . . Indicating disgrace, censure, liability to punishment, etc.” Black was an emotionally partisan color, the handmaid and symbol of baseness and evil, a sign of danger and repulsion.

I think this paragraph is misleading. Black is bad in many languages, including some African languages. The underlying distinction is likely dark vs. light, night vs. day. Hence blackness is dangerous and frightening. It is also easily associated with the idea of dirtiness. The negative connotations of blackness would, I suspect, appear in an historical dictionary of almost any language, not only English. It is present in Latin, for example. It seems unlikely that the English sense of blackness was unusual, as Winthrop [removed] believes.

We need some point from which to measure the relative whiteness of populations.

We’d be much better off without it.

White = person of European descent. Whether Southerners in 1820 or colonists in 1620 would have agreed or disagreed is irrelevant. Anything that suggests a hierarchy of whiteness is toxic today.

The true measuring stick of “whiteness” is the extent to which any given individual is related to the original, idolized pale-skinned, ruddy complexion of the Elizabethian Englishmen - the type that would colonize America.

Why should that be the true measure? We don’t live in history; we live now.

Posted by Rnl on September 03, 2007, 06:01 AM | #

In Europe, the British came to think of themselves as “whites” in a more limited sense from the time of the Sepoy Mutiny in India to decolonization during the 1950s and 1960s. The British developed a thinner sense of racial consciousness as the task of managing their multiracial empire became more difficult.

Taylor has some interesting comments:

The Racial Ideology of Empire
http://www.amren.com/0502issue/0502issue.htm#cover

Posted by Rnl on September 03, 2007, 06:14 AM | #

Silver wrote:

So, for all my liberalism, I would have certainly answered, loudly and clearly, that of course a million Britons would be a better fit for Australia than even a thousand Zulus.

That answer presupposes a White Australian perspective. Zulus would be unlikely to share it. If there were a million Zulus in Australia, they would want a million more, and they would be angry at anyone who suggested that more Zulus might constitute a cultural problem. Nor would Chinese in Australia or Mexicans in the United States accept that their presence in large numbers threatens Australian or American nationhood. They want more Chinese and more Mexicans. They are, leaving room for occasional exceptions, at best indifferent and at worst actively hostile to the cultures that preceded their arrival. From a Chicano perspective, bringing more Mexicans into America makes America a more accommodating place for Mexicans. It improves the country - for them. Importing a million Englishmen and depositing them in Los Angeles would have the opposite effect. We who are not Mexicans regard the matter differently. Our perspectives are irreconcilable.

Multiculturalism is the name for the balkanization that large-scale multiracial immigration inevitably causes, and most non-White immigrants want more balkanizing immigration, not less. They correctly regard all talk of a common culture as a threat to their respective identities, which they plan to preserve intact, and as a result of their growing presence “common culture” dwindles into “tolerance for diversity,” which has become an allegedly distinctive American virtue, British virtue, Canadian virtue, etc etc. It is no longer morally legitimate, for fear of “racism,” to define a core culture based on the nation as it existed prior to their arrival, since the nation was then overwhelming White and Eurocentric, and even if it were legitimate, most non-White immigrants wouldn’t care to join in any case.

In practice cultural arguments against large-scale immigration are not much different from racialist arguments. Conservatives have great difficulty grasping that few non-Whites have any desire to preserve a common culture and a common sense of historical nationhood. Importing non-Europeans has a different cultural effect from importing Europeans. I’m sure the world will change quickly, and for the better, once conservatives start noticing the obvious, none of which is rocket science. Anyone who cares about culture and nationhood should also care about race. There are signs that this is already beginning to occur.

Coulter on Bush’s Roach Motel
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56054

Posted by Rnl on September 03, 2007, 06:23 AM | #

American Renaissance systematically deletes readers’ posts critical of the Jews

And why on earth would they delete such posts?

Jews are not human. They are the demonic offspring of the Devil!

WN discussion of Jews is a trash magnet. I used to think otherwise, but it seems increasingly clear that Taylor’s decision to avoid the subject was wise.

Posted by Top on September 03, 2007, 07:08 AM | #

Good discussion with Silver.  He is the type of person that needs to be convinced to remain at least neutral in order for WN goals to be succesful.  There are many more people in the Euro-world like Silver than hard-core WNs right now.  They just don’t make it to sites like this - yet.  As the demographics swing they will be forced to.  They will seek their natural allies.  And if not than than who cares - it won’t matter anyway.

Notice that Silver pretty much agrees with much of what’s being said here.  He just can’t make the final jump.... why?  Because he buys into the caricature of a WN that our enemies (anti-white professors, ‘mainstream’ media people, ‘progressive’ think-thanks, ‘human-rights’ champions, etc. -> huge non-white influence ) have created.  Defending white rights is by their definition evil.  Many people today sincerely believe that.  Yet they make all the same observations we do, they see the same trends and patterns, and they realize that something is wrong.  Yet anyone defending white indigenous rights is evil.  So it’s a dilemma for them.

The other problem is that the modern WN movement is very young.  It doesn’t have strong leadership and it doesn’t even have solid intellectual footing.  It’s mostly based on the fact that we all (for the most part) recognize that something is wrong.  People like Silver (correct me if I am wrong please) think that the feeling of ‘something is wrong’ is not enough to start a movement for change.  But what is their solution?  Only to have more of the same?  Only to have the same trends extended to their logical conclusion?  Surely people like Silver realize our system is based on 90% propaganda when it comes to ‘diversity’.  Surely he can see the parallels to the former-communist regimes.

Another problem is the whole silly discussion of ‘who exactly is white’.  The secret is that for WN to work it doesn’t need to define who white is exactly.  Humanity has never worked that way and it doesn’t have to today.  White nationalism will be different for every region.  We don’t need a precise definition of what WN movement is either.  I for example define it as defending the rights of European indigenous people.  But I am willing to talk to other WN people who don’t have that exact same definition.  And I am willing to ‘eye-ball’ and improvise much of the border-line decisions as to who is white.  In reality I am not concerned with slotting every invidual - and I think it’s silly to even attempt that.

Instead, I think of White Nationalism more as an umbrella of new political and intellectual ideas more than anything else.  Or I also look at it as a frame-work for alliance structures across Euro-lands.  It’s about recognizing common problems and perhaps implementing common solutions.  Once you start thinking of in this way Silver maybe than it will make more sense.  Remember WN is what we want to make it and not what some semite wrote in their ‘immigration’ pamphlet. 

Germans, Serbs, and Australians don’t need to be the same and they don’t need to have the same way of doing things.  What unites them are common problems:

Ex. Mass immigration.
Ex: Declining population growth.
Ex. Aggressive, immigration-pushing semite elites. 
Ex. The Muslim threat
Ex. Black crime
Etc.

Serbia may not have all the same problems today but it will most likely have them tomorrow.  And of Serbs don’t think they have the same problems than they don’t have to join the WN movement.  No one is forcing them.  But I know a few Serbs and most of them agree with my positions to some extent.  When we then discuss how to tackle the common problems we are engaging in White Nationalism as far as I am concerned.  And we don’t have to be exactly the same - that’s the beauty of it. 

Every country will therefore have its own set of solutions.  In my opinion it would be nice if Euro countries and indigenous Euro people everywhere cooperated completely.  But that’s not necessary.  In reality we just need partial cooperation for good things to start happening - and to reverse the bad trends.  Most of all we need to get the conversation going.

Posted by desmond jones on September 03, 2007, 09:13 AM | #

Multiculturalism is the name for the balkanization that large-scale multiracial immigration inevitably causes, and most non-White immigrants want more balkanizing immigration, not less.

Not just multi-racial but multi-ethnic. M/C arose initially, at least in Canada, because other European immigrant groups saw it as a means to retain their particularism, in the face of what they viewed as a hostile Anglo majority. It’s the Silver saga. All immigrant communities lobby for more immigraton. If their was no issue with white immigration there would not have been a 1924 restriction.

Conservatives have great difficulty grasping that few non-Whites have any desire to preserve a common culture and a common sense of historical nationhood.

Few white immigrant communities desired a common culture. They desired preservation of their culture and ethnicity.

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not...It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

Posted by danielj on September 03, 2007, 12:43 PM | #

Jews are not human. They are the demonic offspring of the Devil!

WN discussion of Jews is a trash magnet. I used to think otherwise, but it seems increasingly clear that Taylor’s decision to avoid the subject was wise.
Posted by Rnl on Monday, September 3, 2007 at 06:23 AM | #

You obviously didn’t read my second or third posts.

I don’t actually believe that.

It was a joke poking fun at the idea that ashkenazi jews with serious Euro admixture aren’t White.

Jared Taylor needs to do things his way and others need to do things their way.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2007, 01:30 PM | #

An excerpt from the Ann Coulter column of a couple of months ago, linked in Rnl’s comment a few above (I’ve always loved Ann; this only makes me love her twice as much):

In 1965, Teddy Kennedy overhauled immigration law with the specific purpose of effecting a dramatic change in the nation’s demographics. Bobby Kennedy had civil rights, so Teddy needed something big: He would preside over a civil rights bill for the entire Third World! My word, but that man could drink in those days.

With his 1965 immigration act, Kennedy embarked on entirely transforming American culture for no good reason. (You know how people always say the same arguments against illegal immigrants today were once made about the Irish to show how silly those arguments are? If only the U.S. Senate had had an “Irish Need Not Apply” sign!)

Until that point, immigration law basically [had] country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional immigration patterns. Most immigrants to America had historically come from Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavian countries. Consequently, immigration quotas roughly reflected that balance, with smaller numbers of immigrants admitted from other countries.

But in an angry, long-awaited payback to WASPs, Kennedy decided he was going to radically transform the racial composition of the country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from China. Payback’s a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!

[...] Most immigrants still come from a handful of countries; Kennedy simply changed which countries those would be. In 2005, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the overwhelming majority of immigrants came from only 10 countries, none of which had sent a lot of immigrants to America for the country’s first 200 years: Mexico (161,445), India (84,681), China (69,967), the Philippines (60,748), Cuba (36,261), Vietnam (32,784), the Dominican Republic (27,504), Korea (26,562), Colombia (25,571) and Ukraine (22,761).  [Scroob note:  Coulter here is talking about legal immigrants, one part of the problem:  what that bastard Kennedy and his Jewish allies changed was the legal immigration set-up, changing it to favor not only races other than the founding northern- and northwestern-European and German sources traditional to this country, but races that weren’t even European at all!  All because the Irishman Kennedy wanted to get the WASPs back and the Jews wanted to get the Eurochristians back.  The 1965 law was an ethnic vendetta, period, full stop, end of story.  Illegal immigrants, of course, now mainly Mexican but also including non-whites from all corners of the globe, dwarf the legal immigrant problem.  Both problems have to be mended and the damage they’ve caused must not be tolerated or left in place as a fait accompli (which the other side wants) but humanely reversed.  We will never accept what’s been done to us as a fait accompli.  That which we had before is going to be humanely restored and all demographic damage, all, humanely reversed.  How are we going to do it?  Don’t worry, we’ll do it.  Let’s agree on that first and work out details later, shall we?  Yes?  Good then, we’re agreed on that much!]

In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.

We needed to have “more discussion” about Iraq for nearly two years before finally invading. When will we be allowed to begin discussion of a government policy enacted by stealth 40 years ago specifically intended to decimate one particular ethnic group in our own country?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2007, 02:12 PM | #

Good comments thread here, by the way, with first-rate contributions by Top, Rnl, Scimitar, Desmond, GW, several others:  one of the best.  Top, incidentally, is definitely arrived.  His stuff has always been excellent — maybe he’d already fully arrived before first posting here, I don’t recall, but whether before or since, he’s definitely fully arrived now.  He’s there.  He has no more to learn.  He gets it, he’s done.  He can teach now, he can lead, set an example, persuade, whatever you want to call it.  This site has no more to teach him, but he can start teaching others (from his last comment, it looks as if that’s some of what he’s been doing).  Another is VanSpeyk:  again he’s always been good and I don’t know if he’d arrived by the time he first showed up, but he’s defo arrived now.  He’s got it.  I knew it immediately on reading a pair of comments he posted the other day over at the Occidental Dissent blog.  “OK Van Speyk’s got it,” I said to myself.  “He’s done.  He has no more to learn.  He’s arrived, he’s there.” He can teach but no one here has anything to teach him.  Rnl, Desmond, Scimitar, and others of course have always been there, they’re not the type of participant I’m talking about.  I’m talking about ones who, when they first showed up, didn’t necessarily signal by their comments that they got the whole thing but who sure as hell get the whole thing now!

Hey this site’s turning out graduates!

May God grant it and others like it turn out millions more!

Posted by Svigor on September 03, 2007, 02:33 PM | #

Another problem is the whole silly discussion of ‘who exactly is white’.  The secret is that for WN to work it doesn’t need to define who white is exactly.  Humanity has never worked that way and it doesn’t have to today.  White nationalism will be different for every region.  We don’t need a precise definition of what WN movement is either.  I for example define it as defending the rights of European indigenous people.  But I am willing to talk to other WN people who don’t have that exact same definition.  And I am willing to ‘eye-ball’ and improvise much of the border-line decisions as to who is white.  In reality I am not concerned with slotting every invidual - and I think it’s silly to even attempt that.

Indeed.  The salience for this question is external in origin; it comes from our opponents and enemies.  In my experience they are far more interested in the question than we are, and they generally ask it in bad faith.  This question, and the that of how to ethnically cleanse a WN territory are the two biggies vis-a-vis opposed liberal bad faith.

Bo Sears would no doubt explain how these rhetorical questions are attacks, not queries, with greater eloquence than I.

Posted by Steve Edwards on September 03, 2007, 02:44 PM | #

That was an excellent column by Ann Coulter. I always thought she was a tiresome partisan hack, but it seems she has now acquired the ability to think independently. I think President Bush’s treasonous amnesty plan has inadvertently precipitated a genuine seachange in public opinion. May the elite submit a new amnesty plan to Congress every month between now and the next election!

Posted by Fr. John on September 03, 2007, 02:55 PM | #

“If a Serb thinks he has anything racially in common with Englishmen or a German he is thoroughly deluding himself.”

Oh?

“At first we were confused. The East thought that we were West, while the West considered us to be East. Some of us misunderstood our place in the clash of currents, so they cried that we belong to neither side- and others that we belong exclusively to one side or the other. But I tell you, Irenaeus, we are doomed by fate to be the East in the West and the West in the East, to acknowledge only heavenly Jerusalem beyond us, and here on earth--no one.” - St. Sava (of Serbia) to Irenaeus,
13th century

I think the Serbs, indeed, ALL European Christians, have MUCH more in common with each other, than ANY Albanian, Bogomil, Muslim, Turk, or Jew.

That modern apostates like the author quoted above thinks differently, is proof of the EVIL of the Deicide’s ‘divide and conquer’ strategy.

Posted by Fr. John on September 03, 2007, 03:01 PM | #

“ I don’t consider myself “white”—never have and never will. “ - tarnished Silver

Ah. Then he is not a Serb, no matter what his ID card says. You are not a European, unless you are white. Indeed, one is not a Chrisitan, unless one is a European. “The Faith is Europe, Europe, the faith” - Hilaire Belloc.

The departure of that truism is the reason for all the error and heresy afflicting Christianity today, including but not limited to Roman catholi-schism.

Silver is to Serb, as Jew is to American.
Clear as day.

Posted by ff on September 03, 2007, 07:50 PM | #

Rnl,

It is for Serbs, not you, to decide whether whiteness is a valuable concept in their country.

And it’s not for you to decide how “whiteness” is defined in America.

Spanish colonizers also made the distinction White vs. non-White. It wasn’t a special American invention, though Americans enforced it more rigorously.

That’s putting it mildly. “White” in Brazil, or even Argentina, means nothing like what it does in America. Genetic studies prove Brazilian and Argentinian “whites” have substantial non-Cauacasoid admixture. 

White = person of European descent. Whether Southerners in 1820 or colonists in 1620 would have agreed or disagreed is irrelevant. Anything that suggests a hierarchy of whiteness is toxic today.

Toxic? What is your ethnic background?

Define “white” however you like; the facts on the ground won’t change. Greeks are genetically more similar to Iranians than they are to the English.

Why should that be the true measure? We don’t live in history; we live now.

“Creole”, originally the Portuguese/Spanish/French term for colonial born whites, is today applied to everyone from heavily admixed Latin American “whites” to entire classes of mulattoes, as in Louisiana. Is that the sort of elasticity you’d like to see for “white”?

Already we see the DOJ classifying mestizo criminals as “white”. The Census Bureau records Middle Easterners as “white”.

If “white” is going to be retained or reclaimed as a meaningful term, lines have to be drawn somewhere. Arbitrarily calling everyone descended from Europeans or born in Europe (equally) “white” is only one possibility, and not necessarily the most useful one in North America.

Regardless of how one defines “white”, racial gradations among Europeans will continue to exist, and should be recognized by any honest and consistent racialist.

Posted by ff on September 03, 2007, 08:14 PM | #

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”.

Note: this is the fantasy not only of anti-WN “silver”, but of several self-consciously Med racialists I’m aware of. I’m sure some of you remember Mynydd’s soap opera cyber-romance with that chubby redhead, as well as “Jose Medina’s” breathless tale of how a blonde girl let him sit by her and even gave him her phone number (no follow-up on whether it actually worked; I got the impression this was the first time “Jose” had talked to a female since before puberty).

Since one rarely sees the reverse (Northwestern European males fantasizing about obtaining Med females), some sort of racial hierarchy is clearly at work here, in the minds of Meds if nowhere else.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2007, 09:08 PM | #

“Since one rarely sees the reverse (Northwestern European males fantasizing about obtaining Med females [Scroob note:  or Jewish females]), some sort of racial hierarchy is clearly at work here, in the minds of Meds if nowhere else.” (—ff)

It’s at work in the minds of Jews too, Jews being non-Euro meds in some ways similar to Euro meds.  Loxist socio-political targeting of Euro men is partly motivated by lust for the blonde female:  constantly denigrating Euro men as oppressors of women and of non-whites, lobbying for rules denying them jobs or promotions (on pretext of “compensating for past racism and sexism” through anti-Euro-male quotas), making normal courtship behavior a felony under anti-sexual-harrassment laws that are never applied to the behavior of non-white men toward white women since 1) “that would be racist” and 2) white women “owe Negro and other non-white men sexual favors as compensation for past racism,” and so on — all of it has the effect of reducing competition from Nordic men for the Nordic women Jews covet for themselves.

Posted by Rnl on September 03, 2007, 09:24 PM | #

Desmond Jones wrote:

M/C arose initially, at least in Canada, because other European immigrant groups saw it as a means to retain their particularism, in the face of what they viewed as a hostile Anglo majority.

Canada had defined itself as a union of two founding peoples - French and English. Other White ethnic groups reasonably concluded that they should be recognized also. A core culture is difficult to defend if you already have two of them. Belgium, where voting is massively ethnic and regional, is another example.

Quebec should have been either assimilated into English Canada or allowed to separate. Once a nation has conceded that it is two nations, each with a different language and a different founding people, it is difficult to argue that it shouldn’t become five or ten or more. The policy of multiculturalism, which is different from the fact of racial balkanization, must have been difficult to oppose in Canada, given Canada’s initial unsuccessful melding of two distinct and antagonistic peoples into a single bicultural and bilingual nation. 

I realize you are an Anglo-Saxonist who isn’t especially fond of non-Anglo ethnic groups. You therefore want to cast Irish and Slavs as though they were white-colored versions of Nigerians. But surely you can see a substantial difference between, say, importing Slavs and importing Muslims.

Silver’s father helped construct a Serb Orthodox church in Australia. That is culturally much different from constructing a mosque. If you have a choice, even if you are an Anglo-Saxon Protestant who doesn’t much like Slavs, between a thousand Orthodox churches and a thousand mosques, your preference should be clear.

For neophytes, Anglo-Saxonism has nothing to do with White nationalism. In a North American context they’re practically antonyms.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

As Scimitar pointed out the last time you posted this quote, there is nothing controversial here. I’m not an Anglo-Saxon. I don’t dispute that America has an Anglo-Saxon core, even though Anglo-Saxons ceased to be the majority long ago. Other European ethnic groups have been acculturated to the core, while enriching the broad American culture. That’s the standard, pre-multiculturalist account of how the nation developed. Perhaps Anglo-Saxons shouldn’t have allowed Irish and Poles and Italians to enter the US. But they did. We live now, not a century or two centuries ago.

EVERYONE HAS seen a speeded-up film of the cloudscape. What appears to the naked eye to be a panorama of almost immobile grandeur writhes into wild life. Vast patterns of soaring, swooping movement are suddenly discernible. Great towering cumulo-nimbus formations boil up out of nowhere, dominating the sky in a way that would be terrifying if it were not, in real life, so gradual that we are barely aware that anything is going on. This is a perfect metaphor for the development of the American nation. America, of course, is exceptional. What is exceptional about it, however, is not the way in which it was created, but the speed.

‘“We are a nation of immigrants.” No discussion of U.S. immigration policy gets far without someone making this helpful remark. As an immigrant myself, I always pause respectfully. You never know. Maybe this is what they’re taught to chant in schools nowadays, a sort of multicultural Pledge of Allegiance.

But it secretly amuses me. Do they really think other nations sprouted up out of the ground? ("Autochthonous" is the classical Greek word.) The truth is that all nations are nations of immigrants. But the process is usually so slow and historic that people overlook it. They mistake for mountains what are merely clouds.

Time to Rethink Immigration?
http://www.vdare.com/pb/time_to_rethink.htm

Posted by Rnl on September 03, 2007, 09:36 PM | #

“White” in Brazil, or even Argentina, means nothing like what it does in America. Genetic studies prove Brazilian and Argentinian “whites” have substantial non-Cauacasoid admixture.

Hopefully you’re smart enough to recognize your comment’s irrelevance to the subject. Spanish colonizers defined themselves as White. That was my point. The genetics of the Portuguese in modern Brazil has nothing to do with the self-definition of Spanish colonists in the Americas.

What is your ethnic background?

People on this board often ask about posters’ ethnic backgrounds. I think the question is stupid. But for what it’s worth, I’m German-American. My family has been here since the 1700s.

Now, do you disagree with me more or less than you did before?

Posted by ff on September 03, 2007, 09:59 PM | #

Spanish colonizers defined themselves as White. That was my point.

They also distinguished between “whites” born in the colonies and those born in Europe.

The genetics of the Portuguese in modern Brazil has nothing to do with the self-definition of Spanish colonists in the Americas.

The genetics of modern Latin American “whites” have everything to do with colonial definitions.

Anyway:

Spaniards in Latin America recognized themselves as racially distinct from Negroes and Amerinds.

Northwestern Europeans in North America recognized themselves as racially distinct from Negroes and Amerinds.

This does not mean Spaniards are racially identical to Northwestern Europeans or have ever been recognized as such.

Leave Americans to decide how they will use words in their own language.

People on this board often ask about posters’ ethnic backgrounds. I think the question is stupid.

Do you think it is stupid to attempt to ascertain posters’ racial backgrounds?

But for what it’s worth, I’m German-American. My family has been here since the 1700s.

If your family has been here since C18, I find it very unlikely you are unmixed German, and surprising that you would identify as “German-American”.

Now, do you disagree with me more or less than you did before?

You are wrong either way. But one likes to distinguish between misguided co-ethnics and hostile outsiders.

Posted by ff on September 03, 2007, 10:16 PM | #

Rnl,

Would you like to explain exactly why you think recognizing gradations of “white” is such a bad idea? Throwing around pejoratives like “toxic” isn’t much of an argument.

Posted by desmond jones on September 04, 2007, 02:58 AM | #

Canada had defined itself as a union of two founding peoples - French and English.

Not true. Canada, the nation, law, culture and institutions, has a British foundation built by British people. The French were no more influential in the political and cultural construction of this nation than the aboriginals.

Other White ethnic groups reasonably concluded that they should be recognized also.

Why is that a reasonable expectation? You sound like a liberal multiculturalist. Now we hear the same tome except it’s non-white ethnic groups that have the reasonable expectation. The best hope for Anglo-Saxons in Canada is to embrace the multi-cult. Become a distinct ethny, with a distinct culture and distinct needs. The problem is that Anglos don’t think of themselves as English/Scot/Irish people living in Canada, as many Italians, Greeks or Ukrainians do; they think of themselves as Canadian which only serves to further their undoing.

A core culture is difficult to defend if you already have two of them. Belgium, where voting is massively ethnic and regional, is another example.

And it is even more difficult to defend when other white ethnies join with the French, Jews, Africans, Sikhs, Chinese et al to diminish the founding ethny on the principle that they serve their own ethnic interest in so doing. The other issue that you, Jared Taylor and Scimitar and it appears, Americans in general, will not address is class. Whether the Jamaican riots, the Constitutonal Act in Quebec, or slavery in the South, the division amongst elite and yeomanry was essentially as strong as racial divisions. Thus the Quebec question was not dealt with after the conquest because English elites felt a greater bond to the French seignury class in Quebec, than with the yeoman English Protestant merchant class.

Quebec should have been either assimilated into English Canada or allowed to separate. Once a nation has conceded that it is two nations, each with a different language and a different founding people, it is difficult to argue that it shouldn’t become five or ten or more. The policy of multiculturalism, which is different from the fact of racial balkanization, must have been difficult to oppose in Canada, given Canada’s initial unsuccessful melding of two distinct and antagonistic peoples into a single bicultural and bilingual nation.

The product of multiculturalism is racial/ethnic balkanization and laid the ground work for the bicultural/bilingual nation. Until WWII Canada was most definitely British. It was the destruction of the Empire, aided and abetted by WWI/WWII and American politicians like FDR that broke that structure.

I realize you are an Anglo-Saxonist who isn’t especially fond of non-Anglo ethnic groups. You therefore want to cast Irish and Slavs as though they were white-colored versions of Nigerians.

Not true. The point is that those non-Anglo ethnic groups have always worked to diminish Anglo EGI in an effort to preserve their own. IMO, that’s an unreasonable position. It simply makes no difference if they are Irish Catholic, Slavs or Nigerians, the end result is exactly the same; an attempt to diminish Anglo EGI in an effort to further their own EGI. You see it in the US as well. Irish Catholics allying with genetically distant immigrant groups in an effort to preserve the distinct Irish Catholic ethny in the US.

But surely you can see a substantial difference between, say, importing Slavs and importing Muslims.

Objectively there is no difference because fundamentally the end point is the same, extinction for Anglo-Saxon people, institutions and culture. That is the point the restrictionists were making. One step leads to the other.

Posted by desmond jones on September 04, 2007, 03:09 AM | #

ff,

With all due respect, IMO, the point is moot. It doesn’t really matter if Serbs are whiter than Anglos, it simply matters to them that they are a distinct ethnic group and that their first instinct is to protect/further that distinct EGI. Yes, per Salter’s table they are closer, measured on a child loss basis than Nigerians, to the Anglo/Australian, however, it does not mean they will give up, more easily, the distinctiveness that thousands of years of evolution has bestowed upon them.

Posted by Scimitar on September 04, 2007, 03:35 AM | #

The other issue that you, Jared Taylor and Scimitar and it appears, Americans in general, will not address is class. Whether the Jamaican riots, the Constitutonal Act in Quebec, or slavery in the South, the division amongst elite and yeomanry was essentially as strong as racial divisions.

No, I have addressed this argument. It is complete nonsense. The class division between the planters and yeomanry was as strong as the racial division between negroes and whites?

That’s an interesting perspective, Desmond. The negro was the property of white men like his home or cattle. No one “owned” an independent white yeoman farmer. He was a free man. The independent yeoman farmer in the American South, unlike his counterparts in Europe, had full voting rights, civil equality, and enjoyed a level of social equality in the old backcountry that was utterly foreign to Europe, in particular class ridden Victorian England.

What abou the Jim Crow South? Was the negro the equal of the working class white in those times?

“As punitive and prejudicial as Jim Crow laws were in the North, they never reached the intensity of oppression and degree of violence and sadism that they did in the South. A black person could not swim in the same pool, sit in the same public park, bowl, play pool or, in some states, checkers, drink from the same water fountain or use the same bathroom, marry, be treated in the same hospital, use the same schoolbooks, play baseball with, ride in the same taxicab, sit in the same section of a bus or train, be admitted to any private or public institution, teach in the same school, read in the same library, attend the same theater, or sit in the same area with a white person. Blacks had to address white people as Mr., Mrs., or “Mizz,” “Boss,” or “Captain” while they, in turn, were called by their first name, or by terms used to indicate social inferiority — “boy,” “aunty,” or uncle.” Black people, if allowed in a store patronized by whites, had to wait until all white customers were served first. If they attended a movie, they had to sit in the balcony; if they went to a circus, they had to buy tickets at a separate window and sit in a separate section. They had to give way to whites on a sidewalk, remove their hats as a sign of respect when encountering whites, and enter a white person’s house by the back door.”

Richard Wormser, The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2003), pp.xi-xii

Posted by Scimitar on September 04, 2007, 04:06 AM | #

It was the destruction of the Empire, aided and abetted by WWI/WWII and American politicians like FDR that broke that structure.

How exactly did FDR destroy the British Empire? That seems a bit counterintuitive. After all, it was the U.S. Navy and USAF that won the Pacific War and saved Britain’s imperial possessions in the Far East from Japan. It was U.S. material aid that kept Britain’s war effort alive in Europe. Later, the U.S. would intervene militarily in the Second World War - the culmination of a long British espionage campaign to manipulate the American press and get America into the war.

Yes, FDR did not care much for imperialism, but so what? FDR died in early 1945. His policies were never enacted. Name for me a single British colony that became an international trusteeship after WW2. You can’t. It didn’t happen. Truman and his successors propped up the declining European empires and caught enormous flak for it in the U.N. This was necessary at the time because the British, French, and Belgians were NATO allies and the fight against communism was the overriding priority of American foreign policy after Keegan.

It is hardly the fault of the United States that an indigenous nationalist movement existed in India. That had long been the case. It is not the fault of the United States that the British dominions themselves, in particular your native Canada, had been agitating for years for a loser relationship with Britain. It is not our fault that the British were already engaged in decolonization before the Second World War - see the independence of Ireland. The stated objective of British colonial policy had long been eventual independence. In this respect, the Gold Coast (or Ghana) had long been the apple of Britain’s eye - the model it wanted to impose on the other colonies.

It is truly ridiculous that Canadians of all people would blame Americans for the dissolution of the British Empire. Probably no one in the Empire played more of a rule in weakening it and encouraging decentralization than you did.

Not true. Canada, the nation, law, culture and institutions, has a British foundation built by British people. The French were no more influential in the political and cultural construction of this nation than the aboriginals.

That’s interesting. The Québec Act which 1.) extended civil equality to French Catholics in Québec and 2.) put the American Midwest under Québec’s administration was cited as one of the Intolerable Acts that justified the American Revolution. The French-speakers of Québec had nothing to do with the founding of Canada?

The problem is that Anglos don’t think of themselves as English/Scot/Irish people living in Canada, as many Italians, Greeks or Ukrainians do; they think of themselves as Canadian which only serves to further their undoing.

Doesn’t this call into question your theory that ethnicity is immutable? Is it possible that the Anglos of Canada have lived in Canada for so long that they can justifiably call themselves Canadians?

You see it in the US as well. Irish Catholics allying with genetically distant immigrant groups in an effort to preserve the distinct Irish Catholic ethny in the US.

Pat Buchanan is an Irish Catholic. George W. Bush is an Anglo Protestant.

Posted by Scimitar on September 04, 2007, 04:40 AM | #

Few white immigrant communities desired a common culture. They desired preservation of their culture and ethnicity.

This stretches the truth. Honestly, how many “German-Americans” now speak German? My mother is an Austrian immigrant and even I can’t speak fluent German. What about “Irish-Americans”? Are these people even really a distinct group? What about the Scandinavians who settled the Upper Plains? All of these groups have been considerably “Americanized” over the past several generations. This is even true of a lot of “Italian-Americans.” There has been a lot of intermarriage over the past two generations, especially within religious groups (Catholic Irish and Catholic Italians, Protestant Anglos and Protestant Scandinavians).

It would be inaccurate to compare European immigrants to America with, say, the weird ethnic problems of Canada or Belgium. There is no movement in the United States for Louisiana to secede and establish a separate nation affiliated with France. The most notorious population that resists assimilation would be, of course, the Jews, but even this most clannish of peoples are being absorbed now, unfortunately.

As for “Anglo-Americans,” I can speak here from experience living in the South. The sense of being an “Anglo-American” is close to non-existent. Southerners think of themselves as “whites” and “Christians” and “Americans” and “Southerners,” but almost never as “Anglos.” That makes sense. They have lived here for so long that they are “native” to North America. As it should be.

The problem with Canada is that its thin identity as a nation is based largely on Anti-Americanism. Traditionally, Americans have practiced Anglo-conformity and racial nationalism when dealing with immigration populations: racially compatible “white” immigrants were accepted and expected to assimilate to American norms. Canadians define themselves in opposition to America and thus embrace what is called “multiculturalism” which is an official government policy in Canada, but not in the United States. Defining themselves against “America” enables English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians to unite around something they have in common. Also, the sense of racial identity is much weaker there, so ethnic problems are naturally more salient. The same is true of “Europe” today.

Here in the United States, the existence of Canada along our northern border has played only a minor role in our sense of common nationality. Americans defined themselves racially as “whites” in opposition to the Indian and the negro and also in terms of republican political principles against the monarchies of Europe. The typical American doesn’t give much thought to Canada because, relatively speaking, it is such a small nation. In contrast, Canadians tend to be very aware of the hundreds of millions of Americans living to their south.

Posted by Rnl on September 04, 2007, 04:47 AM | #

ff wrote:

Note: this is the fantasy not only of anti-WN “silver”, but of several self-consciously Med racialists I’m aware of.

In the only statement he made about his sexual tastes Silver told us he doesn’t especially like Nordic women. You interpret that to mean that he prefers them, and you then start generalizing about the alleged preferences of Mediterraneans, not Slavs.

Med racialists

The smartest poster on this blog is a “Med racialist.”

Do you think it is stupid to attempt to ascertain posters’ racial backgrounds?

No.

If your family has been here since C18, I find it very unlikely you are unmixed German,

That would be _my_ point. It is incredibly unlikely, very close to impossible.

and surprising that you would identify as “German-American”.

You asked me. I answered.

Would you like to explain exactly why you think recognizing gradations of “white” is such a bad idea? Throwing around pejoratives like “toxic” isn’t much of an argument.

Anything that excludes or seems to exclude people of European descent weakens White nationalism. Our strength is in our numbers. We are still the majority. Fractious Nordicists turn us into a series of related minorities.

The various European ethnic groups are culturally and racially compatible. There has been significant intermarriage. We meaningfully form a single people, and in most cases we have no difficulty identifying one another. There is no good reason to transform the category White, which is socially recognized by almost everyone, into a dozen or so squabbling sub-groups.

You apparently dislike Italians. You think they’re lusting after Nordic women, so you’ll toss them out of the category White, despite their own self-identification. Others might eject the Irish who, as Desmond Jones has documented on several occasions, have played an important role in fostering anti-Anglo politics. There won’t be much left at the end of this process.

No one frets about Irish-Americans marching about and dressing in green on St Patrick’s Day. Ethnic particularism doesn’t threaten multiracialism. Multiethnic whiteness does threaten multiracialism. It is the most powerful weapon we have, but it is worthless if we are divided.

I was just speaking to someone who is Irish and Slovak. It would never occur to him that there are racialists who don’t think he is White or assume that he is less White than someone with different European ancestry. None of this Nordicist esoterica occurs to anyone until they arrive on racialist webforums. It is socially meaningless and politically destructive.

Most people of European descent think they are white, though they may attach no political significance to the fact. We have no interest whatever in sending non-racialists back into their family trees to figure out whether their ancestry is optimal or non-optimal. White should be good enough. 

***

16. Q. Why do you use the term “European-American”?

A. All Whites are descended from European immigrants. The term European-American has political significance for two reasons. First, it recognizes that most people in the U.S. of European extraction have intermarried to such an extent that it is no longer possible to identify American Whites as “Irish” or “German” or “Italian”. But more important, use of the term “European-American” is intended to recognize that white elites in the United States have exploited differences based on religion and European national origin to divide European-Americans, with the intention of rendering us unable to defend ourselves against non-white demands.

Yggs’s WN FAQ
http://www.whitenationalism.com/wn/wn-06.htm

... although the success of the intellectual movements reviewed in this volume is an indication that people can be induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such altruism will continue if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of European-derived groups is decreasing while the power of other groups increases. The prediction, both on theoretical grounds and on the basis of social identity research, is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual orientation, social class differences, or religious differences, will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Eventually these groups will develop a united front and a collectivist political orientation vis-a-vis the other ethnic groups.

Whither Judaism and the West?
http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/whither.htm

Posted by Scimitar on September 04, 2007, 04:57 AM | #

I’m sure some of you remember Mynydd’s soap opera cyber-romance with that chubby redhead, as well as “Jose Medina’s” breathless tale of how a blonde girl let him sit by her and even gave him her phone number (no follow-up on whether it actually worked; I got the impression this was the first time “Jose” had talked to a female since before puberty). [/quote[

Ah yes, I remember. I have a long history with “Mynydd.” The American girl you are speaking of was the owner of the Skadi forum which was about Germanic racial and cultural preservation. I want to say she was from California. “Mynydd” once told me that he was some kind of fugitive on the run being persecuted by the Spanish government on account of his nationalism.

Have you browsed the “Stirpes” forum, Anon? “Colonials” there are set to an “Alien” usergroup and not allowed to post. They have an especially intense hatred of “Anglos,” generally. “Pan-Europeanism” is a phenomenon endorsed almost exclusively by American White Nationalists. It stems from the well-known “outward gaze” of Southern culture and the tendency of Americans to think of themselves in racial terms. In my experience, “pan-Europeanism” is rarely reciprocated. It is a noble idea to wish other “whites” in Europe well. Unfortunately, very few of these people have any awareness of being “white” or any appreciation for this fancy of American racialists.

Posted by desmond jones on September 04, 2007, 05:13 AM | #

That’s an interesting perspective, Desmond. The negro was the property of white men like his home or cattle. No one “owned” an independent white yeoman farmer. He was a free man. The independent yeoman farmer in the American South, unlike his counterparts in Europe, had full voting rights, civil equality, and enjoyed a level of social equality in the old backcountry that was utterly foreign to Europe, in particular class ridden Victorian England.

Bolton’s scholarship, the letters of Lee and Grant are compelling evidence to the contrary. It’s only your opinion.

david cannadine ornamentalism

In October 1865, a local rebellion by peasantry in Jamaica was put down with the utmost ferocity by the island’s governor Edward John Eyre. Eyre’s actions generated considerable debate in Britain. Most of those who defended his viciousness did so on the grounds, not that Jamaicans were black, but that they were no different from English workers. ‘The negro’, observed Edwin Hood, ‘is in Jamaica as the costermonger is in Whitechapel; he is very likely often nearly a savage with the mind of a child.’ The liberal Saturday Review suggested that ‘the negro is neither ferociously cruel nor habitually malignant. He often does cruel and barbarous things, but then so do our draymen and hackney-coachmen and grooms and farm servants, through want of either thought or power of thinking.’

How exactly did FDR destroy the British Empire?

Roosevelt’s understanding of the threat posed to world peace by the continuation of imperialism, was recorded by his son Elliott in his book, As He Saw It. FDR told his son,

``The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements--all you’re doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you’re doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.’’

At the Casablanca conference in January of 1943, Roosevelt was even more emphatic:

``I’m talking about another war. I’m talking about what will happen to our world, if after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery! Don’t think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn’t been for the shortsighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now.’’

Roosevelt was trying to bring Indian independence leader Mohandas K. Gandhi into an alliance against the Japanese in return for support for India’s independence. Churchill was doing everything in his power to prevent that, making it impossible for U.S. diplomats to even speak with the Indian leader. Churchill considered independence for India a “criminally mischievous” proposition. The Indians, he had written, were “a beastly people with a beastly religion.” And he was not prepared to allow Roosevelt to interfere with British India. “The concern of the Americans with the strategy of a world war was bringing them into touch with political issues on which they had strong opinions and little experience,” Churchill complained. In this project too, Roosevelt probably figured he would have the support of Stalin.

Matra posted a similar quote earlier.

Probably no one in the Empire played more of a rule in weakening it and encouraging decentralization than you did.

Allegations with no evidence. It appears a common component of your rhetorical style.

The Quebec Act had nothing to do with the founding of Canada, but then one wouldn’t expect a foreigner, especially an American, to have that knowledge.

Doesn’t this call into question your theory that ethnicity is immutable?

How does that change there ethnicity?

Pat Buchanan is an Irish Catholic. George W. Bush is an Anglo Protestant.

Which proves what? The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform is make believe?

Posted by desmond jones on September 04, 2007, 05:49 AM | #

The problem with Canada is that its thin identity as a nation is based largely on Anti-Americanism.

It’s unclear what Americanism, however, it is little wonder that Canucks are suspicious of American intentions. Let’s see, there is the Fenian Raids, Wilson’s turning a blind eye to German Embassy in Washington, organising attacks on Cdn bridges during WWI (mustn’t upset the neutrality, you know) Ogdensburg, the nuke-tipped Bomarc missiles (according to McNamara pieces of shit used only to draw potential Soviet fire away from US targets) and of the CIA’s involvement in ousting the Canadian PM who considered Kennedy’s attempt to bring the world into over Cuba puerile nonsense.

With friends like the Yanks, who needs enemies.

By R.B. Bennett
Leader of the Conservative Party 1927-38, Prime Minister of Canada 1930-1935
House of Commons Debates, June 7, 1928, pp. 3925-7.

. . . Read the history of the United States, read what is written in every magazine in that country by thoughtful men, and you will find that the principle of the melting pot has failed; and they are quite apprehensive. Every thoughtful man in the United States, every keen observer, every man who travels, every author, everyone who shapes and moulds public opinion in the universities and in the great foundations-all these are bewailing the fact that uncontrolled immigration has been permitted into that country, to such an extent that there is now in the United States a polyglot population, without any distinctive civilization, and one about which many of them are in great despair . . . it is because we desire to profit by the very lessons we learned there that we are endeavouring to maintain our civilization at that high standard which has made the British civilization the test by which all other civilized nations in modern times are measured . . .

. . . These people [continental Europeans] have made excellent settlers; they have kept the law; they have prospered and they are proud of Canada, but it cannot be that we must draw upon them to shape our civilization. We must still maintain that measure of British civilization which will enable us to assimilate these people to British institutions, rather than assimilate our civilization to theirs. That is the point; that is all that may be said with respect to it, and it is the point I desire to make at this time. We earnestly and sincerely believe that the civilization which we call the British civilization is the standard by which we must measure our own civilization; we desire to assimilate those whom we bring to this country to that civilization, that standard of living, that regard for morality and law and the institutions of the country and to the ordered and regulated development of this country. That is what we desire, rather than by the introduction of vast and overwhelming numbers of people from other countries to assimilate the British immigrants and the few Canadians who are left to some other civilization. That is what we are endeavouring to do, and that is the reason so much stress is laid upon the British settler, not upon the Englishman as the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) said, but upon the British settler as indicating that standard of civilization on which we build our institutions and to which we hope to be able to make those who come to us not conform but assimilate, so that they may play the part in it that we ourselves play, that they may realize that the same conditions exist as in days gone by, when the people said “wherever the king’s writ ran, there was freedom and liberty of conscience.” So everyone who lives under British institutions in that part of the Empire which we call Canada may have freedom and liberty, regard for law and order and a desire for an ordered government of which they and we may well be proud. That I say to my hon. friend is our reason, rather than the reason which he suggested this afternoon.

As far as I can see it is the purpose of all governments to maintain that position; that is the intention of all governments, but we do say that there has been a singular lack of appreciation of that position during recent years by the present government. In various sections of western Canada they have planted colonies from far-off lands, who have settled upon the soil and maintained their own peculiar civilization rather than become assimilated to that British civilization which should prevail in this country, because there has not been a sufficient leavening of it to ensure that result. That is one of the complaints we make . . .

Antii-Americanism...the CNN version is so much simpler.

Posted by Matra on September 04, 2007, 05:49 AM | #

Pat Buchanan is an Irish Catholic.

From his autiobiography Right From The Beginning:

My father’s people on his father’s side are Scotch-Irish; they came out of the Ulster “Plantation,” and before that the Scottish Highlands…

He goes on to say some of his ancestors were in Virginia before 1776 and were slave-holders and secessionists. Some of them went on N Carolina and others to Mississippi and some were rabidly anti-Catholic.

So Buchanan has old stock ancestors. That may, at least in part, explain his lack of Ellis Island romanticism compared to other Irish Catholics.

Posted by Scimitar on September 04, 2007, 05:58 AM | #

Rnl,

Silver is an Australian. You mistakenly concluded that he lives somewhere in the former Yugoslavia.

I’m going to throw in the towel here. If I recall, he was at first something else. Then he became a Serb. Now he is an Australian? Or is he a Serbian-Australian? I haven’t been following the comments of this troll with any real interest.

But let’s assume he is a Serb living in Serbia. It is for Serbs, not you, to decide whether whiteness is a valuable concept in their country. Perhaps it isn’t.

My comment was descriptive. As an American, I can describe the religion of the Serbs, their complexion, facts about their culture which are widely available. Of course I would like the Serbs to think of themselves as “whites.” Maybe that would innoculate the “silvers” of the world against endorsing miscegenation with their own families. I’m simply observing that at the present moment that is not the case. “Whiteness” has not played a similar role in the history of Serbia that it has in the United States.

Croats are just as white as Serbs. Whiteness, as a physical fact, fails to distinguish Serbs from most Albanians, whereas Christian vs. Muslim does. But that’s much different from saying Serbs aren’t White.

I was saying above that the Serbs are not “white” in the sense as that they conceive of themselves as being “white.” Being “white” is not really an important aspect of their identity in the way that Orthodox Christianity is. The Serbs are not “white” in the same sense that I am not a Serbian communist.

GW doesn’t say he isn’t White. He believes that race is not a category around which interests and sentiments coalesce in his country. From that we don’t conclude “he isn’t ‘white’ in any meaningful sense of the word.” As an English nationalist he doesn’t, rightly or not, attach the same significance to race that we do.

I haven’t figured GW out yet. I’m sure he accepts the existence of racial differences, but it would be more accurate to describe GW as an “ethnonationalist.” That’s fine. Is he a “White Nationalist?” I don’t think so. I’m still not clear on whether or not he is a British nationalist or a Little Englander. I get the impression that he thinks of himself as “white” and “English.” So yes, GW is “white” in both the physical and self-identification sense.

Re: the bombing of Serbia. I am already on record expressing my revulsion at that.

One advantage of White nationalism is that it helps us to see commonalities.

This is true. I have written previously about how racial identity has muted class and ethnic antagonisms in America.

Spanish colonizers also made the distinction White vs. non-White. It wasn’t a special American invention, though Americans enforced it more rigorously.

That’s true. I have written about this myself. Like the United States, Latin America also developed racial hierarchies, albeit more complex ones not based on the one drop rule. I’m not saying that “whiteness” was a unique American invention. Indeed, South Carolina was founded by “whites” from Barbados who brought their racial doctrine with them from the Caribbean. It would be more accurate to say that this feeling of the importance of “whiteness” is more pervasive in the U.S. than elsewhere.

The fact that Whites form a group different from other racial groups came to the attention of Europeans as a natural effect of the Age of Discovery. The non-Whites the colonizers encountered were generally primitive and militarily inconsequential. They seemed backward in contrast to the nations of Europe, and when they were not backward their cultures were brutal and sanguinary (e.g. the Aztecs). To the distinction White/non-White was therefore understandably added the distinction civilized vs. uncivilized (savage), which may have been unfair but which nevertheless reflected a reasonable inference, given normal ethnocentrism. None of these common generalizations about the Other(s) were exclusively American. The distinction White/non-White was, moreover, a _discovery_ of racial differences, not a construction of differences where no meaningful differences existed. Dutch and Spaniards have more in common with each other than they do with Bantus or Amerindians. That visible physical fact, assisted by the obvious cultural fact that both Dutch and Spaniards inhabited European Christendom and the Others didn’t, could become widely recognized only after Europeans had came in significant contact with Africans and Amerindians.

I agree with all of this.

At any rate, even if all of the above is false, the discoverers of a fact shouldn’t declare their ownership of it, even if they make greater use of it than others. 

I don’t recall saying that Americans owned the concept of “whiteness.” Again, I have been writing extensively about another case of this in the Belgian Congo as of late.

I see nothing wrong with your earlier observation, in another thread, that Westerners on the periphery of the West may have a better understanding of its racial contituents than Europeans. In other words, we’re right to look at whiteness and they’re wrong to ignore it. We see more clearly.

Yes, I am still very careful about this, though. “Whiteness” took an importance in the United States, especially in the Jim Crow South and Jim Crow West, that was not the case elsewhere, at least to the same extent. I know less about Canada, but I believe that “whiteness” was considered important to a lesser extent there as well. In Latin America, of course, there were racial hierarchies, but more complex ones. The Afrikaners combined ethnonationalism, racial nationalism, and Protestant nationalism. The Belgian Congo had a policy of racial segregation based on “whiteness.”

Generally speaking, “whiteness” tends to show up much more in what I call the “periphery” than the “core”: the regions that Europe colonized, not Europe itself. The colonials who lived amongst non-whites drew a racial distinction and often enough defined themselves in opposition to them. The history of Australia would be worth researching here. To what extent has “whiteness” been important to Australians? Wasn’t there a “White Australia Policy”?

I think this paragraph is misleading. Black is bad in many languages, including some African languages. The underlying distinction is likely dark vs. light, night vs. day. Hence blackness is dangerous and frightening. It is also easily associated with the idea of dirtiness. The negative connotations of blackness would, I suspect, appear in an historical dictionary of almost any language, not only English. It is present in Latin, for example. It seems unlikely that the English sense of blackness was unusual, as Winthrop [removed] believes.

That excerpt is taken from the very beginning of the book. [removed] is outlining the preconceptions of the English about “whiteness” and “blackness” before they developed extensive colonial possessions. He does a good job of showing how “whiteness” evolved during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

When the English first established themselves in Jamestown, “whiteness” was not a major aspect of their identity. “Christian” and “English” and “free” were more often used and carried much of the same racial content. Later, this would change. As negro slaves were imported into Virginia and the other colonies in incredible numbers, as the colonists fought against the Indians, and as non-English settlers began arriving around 1700, the “Englishmen” of Colonial America became “whites.”

The reason this is so important is that “whiteness” would become a dominant theme in American culture. It was the first real marker of an emerging American ethnos.

We’d be much better off without it.

The problem with that is that “white” is a pre-scientific term which generates considerable confusion. Thus, we have debates like “Are the Jews White” or “are Italians white?” The term “white” was originally used to refer to the fair complexion of the colonial settlers. By that standard, viz the Italians or Serbs, the English are objectively more “white,’ and vice versa, Northwestern Europeans are objectively less Mediterranean, brown, tawny, tan, what have you.

White = person of European descent. Whether Southerners in 1820 or colonists in 1620 would have agreed or disagreed is irrelevant. Anything that suggests a hierarchy of whiteness is toxic today.

That’s a novel definition of “white” that creates all sorts of ambiguity and endless debates about the subject. The Italians and Greeks really are less “white” in complexion than most Americans, and vice versa. “European” is a geographical designation.

I can see your point: you want to avoid sub-racial conflicts between “white” Americans. I have no objection to that. Even Anon agrees that Americans of Northern and European ancestry share a common interest viz the negro, mestizo, Jew, and other Asiatic immigrants.

Why not simply use “American” instead? “American” could be used with the understanding that it is synonymous with “white.”

Why should that be the true measure? We don’t live in history; we live now.

Historically speaking, it is the true measure of “whiteness.” Why should it be the true measure, today? That’s not what interests me. I was trying to show that “white” is a pre-scientific term and that to the extent American racialists have adopted it as the locus for “White Nationalism” it will create problems of definition. I was in explaining mode, not advocate mode above.

I advocate downplaying sub-racial conflict. It is a distraction from more pressing issues. My view on that has been stated clearly numerous times.

Posted by Matra on September 04, 2007, 06:28 AM | #

Rnl:Anything that excludes or seems to exclude people of European descent weakens White nationalism. Our strength is in our numbers. We are still the majority. Fractious Nordicists turn us into a series of related minorities

So what about fractious non-Anglo-Saxons living in Canada, Australia, and the US buying into the “nation of immigrants” myth and siding with non-whites against the founding peoples? Personally, I don’t care about Nordicists - I’ve never even met one! But I have met plenty of ethnic Europeans who don’t sound much different from non-whites when it comes to the alleged injustices of the past.

I used to think that the darker our societies got the more Europeans would find they have in common but it would seem that the Irish, Italian, Polish, etc, chip on the shoulder isn’t going away any time soon. It wasn’t Nordicists who forced Italians and Irish to join forces with Asians, Latinos and blacks for baseball’s recent Heritage Week. Nor do Nordicists force European ethnic organisations in Canada to lobby for more immigration and more guilt money for things that happened decades ago. Apparently the incentives to join the multicultural parade are too great to turn down.

I should also point out that it isn’t just Anglo-Canada that ethnic Europeans have a problem with. They are actively undermining Canada’s other founding nation in Quebec. In the 60s the Italians even rioted over their kids being sent to French schools and today their descendants vote overwhelmingly against the interests of the founding nations of Canada no matter which part of the country Italians happen to be living.

How is that kind of intra-European diversity a strength?

Posted by Scimitar on September 04, 2007, 06:48 AM | #

Bolton’s scholarship, the letters of Lee and Grant are compelling evidence to the contrary. It’s only your opinion.

No, it is not only my opinion. It is a fact that the white yeomanry was not on the same civic, political, or social level of the American negro. That you would even suggest that was the case - when negroes were chattel slaves - speaks volumes about your ignorance of the matter. Even anti-racist historians of the Antebellum South don’t make that argument.

How exactly did FDR destroy the British Empire?

Your excerpt doesn’t answer my question. Neither India, Vietnam, Gabon, Nigeria or any Western colony was placed under one of the U.N. trusteeships that FDR advocated. Thus, the argument that FDR destroyed the British Empire is absurd. The British themselves long been planning to grant independence to their African colonies, as they never ceased to remind everyone.

As noted above, FDR died before the end of WW2. Truman became president and repudiated one by one FDR’s policies. It was Truman who started the Cold War with the USSR, got the U.S. entangled in NATO, and supported the French effort to hang onto Indochina. It was also Truman who threw the weight of the executive branch behind desegregation. Crybabies in the U.N. like the USSR were making much of “racism” in America at the time.

Allegations with no evidence. It appears a common component of your rhetorical style.

Really quick. I’m going to throw you a football. Who was William Lyon Mackenzie King?

The Quebec Act had nothing to do with the founding of Canada, but then one wouldn’t expect a foreigner, especially an American, to have that knowledge.

Nope. The French-speakers of Quebec had nothing to do with the founding of Canada. It just so happens that Quebec was given control of the American Midwest and Catholics were put on a level of equality with Protestants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act

The Quebec Act of 1774 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the area of Quebec.

Principal components of the act:

Expansion of territory to take over the Canadian portions of the Indian Reserve (1763) that had separated Quebec from Rupert’s Land including much of what is now southern Ontario

Expansion of territory to take over land that is now in the United States (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota).

Upheld the continued use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.

How does that change there ethnicity?

Because, as you have said yourself, they are ethnically “Canadians” now, not “Anglos.”

Which proves what? The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform is make believe?

What is the Irish Lobby?

It’s unclear what Americanism, however, it is little wonder that Canucks are suspicious of American intentions. Let’s see, there is the Fenian Raids, Wilson’s turning a blind eye to German Embassy in Washington, organising attacks on Cdn bridges during WWI (mustn’t upset the neutrality, you know) Ogdensburg, the nuke-tipped Bomarc missiles (according to McNamara pieces of shit used only to draw potential Soviet fire away from US targets) and of the CIA’s involvement in ousting the Canadian PM who considered Kennedy’s attempt to bring the world into over Cuba puerile nonsense.

Okay, you have listed all sorts of obscure incidents that 99% of Americans have never heard of. None of these things are really markers in American history. Our sense of identity tends to be based on more significant incidents like the conquest of the American West or the Civil War.

With friends like the Yanks, who needs enemies.

Canada doesn’t have enemies because it sits comfortably under the American nuclear umbrella with a military Get Out of Jail Free card like all sorts of other parasites in NATO. It has always been sort of a hanger on, whether it was with Britain during the early twentieth century or with the United States today. Aside from Ireland, which eventually was ceded independence, Canada was the disrupting force with the Empire advocating more autonomy and decentralization.

During the early twentieth century, the British had many of the same problems with Canadians that Americans now have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lyon_Mackenzie_King

Canadian autonomy

Throughout tenure, King led Canada from a colony with responsible government to an autonomous nation within the British Commonwealth. During the Chanak Crisis of 1922, King refused to support the British without first consulting Parliament, while the Conservative leader, Arthur Meighen, supported Britain. The British were disappointed with King’s response. After the King-Byng Affair, King went to the Imperial Conference of 1926 and argued for greater autonomy of the Dominions. This resulted in the Balfour Declaration 1926, which announced the equal status of all members of the British Commonwealth (as it was known then), including Britain. This eventually led to the Statute of Westminster 1931.

In the lead up to World War II, King played two roles. On the one hand, he told English Canadians that Canada would no doubt enter war if Britain did. On the other hand, he and his Quebec lieutenant Ernest Lapointe told French Canadians that Canada would only go to war if it was in the country’s best interests. With the dual messages, King slowly led Canada toward war without causing strife between Canada’s two main linguistic communities. As his final step in asserting Canada’s autonomy, King ensured that the Canadian Parliament made its own declaration of war one week after Britain.

King’s government introduced the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1946, which officially created the notion of “Canadian citizens”. Prior to this, Canadians were considered British subjects living in Canada. On January 3, 1947, King received Canadian citizenship certificate number 0001.[6]

Posted by Al Ross on September 04, 2007, 11:03 AM | #

Settle down ,chaps, we’re Aryans. after all.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 04, 2007, 12:12 PM | #

“Pat Buchanan is an Irish Catholic.”

Buchanan is half-Irish, half-German:  his Irishness is diluted by half, by genes conferring better sense.  (Forgive me if someone has pointed this out — haven’t had time to read the whole thead this morning; will later.)

Posted by Scimitar on September 04, 2007, 06:18 PM | #

Al Ross,

I don’t want anyone here to get the impression that I am “anti-Canadian.” That’s not the case at all. I’m pro-Canadian, pro-Anglo, pro-British Empire. My website is about racial and cultural preservation in North America. Aside from the United States, Canada is the only other country subsumed under that rubric. Obviously, the cultural preservation part implies that I believe Anglo-Canadians and French-Canadians have the right to preserve their own cultures and chart their own destinies. That’s fine with me.

It is not true that American White Nationalists (and I consider myself an American racialist, not necessarily a WN) want to homogenize Canada or any European country. Rather, Americans tend to be well-wishers of our racial kin abroad, especially the Anglo-Saxons. “White Nationalism” is simply the notion that we share a common racial struggle and that we should support each other in the goal of racial and cultural preservation. What racialist could object to that?

What irks me is the notion that the United States is somehow responsible for the fall of the British Empire. That isn’t true. I know that to be false. Ireland, for example, had long been a disintegrating force within the Empire. It won its independence without American assistance. Aside from Ireland, it was Canada that was the leading voice for the decentralization of the Empire and the principle of equality of the dominions. Canadian nationalism was a constant source of irritation for the British who favored closer, more hierarchial cooperation between the colonials and the metropole. In the end, Canadians got what they wanted and became an independent country altogether with Canadian citizenship.

Now, how on earth am I to blame for that as an American? How am I to blame for Gandhi and his crowd of agitators? And what of the African colonies? It had long been British policy that the African colonies were eventually to be granted independence. The British spent decades preparing Ghana for just that.

Posted by Scimitar on September 04, 2007, 06:22 PM | #

@Anon,

“Mynydd” has resurfaced and is sharing some thoughts about us at Stirpes. Was in a malicious mood this morning. I busted some knee caps.

http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/09/04/stirpes-part-two/

Posted by Guessedworker on September 04, 2007, 06:39 PM | #

“I haven’t figured GW out yet. I’m sure he accepts the existence of racial differences, but it would be more accurate to describe GW as an “ethnonationalist.” That’s fine. Is he a “White Nationalist?” I don’t think so. I’m still not clear on whether or not he is a British nationalist or a Little Englander. I get the impression that he thinks of himself as “white” and “English.” So yes, GW is “white” in both the physical and self-identification sense.”

That’s an irresistible invitation.

Self-definition is inevitable.  We all do it.  But it is done, naturally enough, with conscious thought - a “passing presence” and a quite rough and inadequate implement for capturing and analysing something as elusive as the self.

I am more interested in who and what I actually am, rather than how I perceive myself.  Personality is a liar, but blood and bones are honest.  They dictate allegiances - that’s the main reason I am interested in Salterism - and make a fool of damned choice.

Trying to be a bit more factual, then, and not having availed myself of a genetic assay, these are the roots of the four family names of my grandparents according to one genealogy site on the web:-

First grandparent: patronymic from the medieval personal name Hobb(e), a short form of Robert.

Second grandparent: from a Middle English personal name, Elyat, Elyt. This represents at least two Old English personal names which have fallen together: the male name A{dh}elgeat (composed of the elements a{dh}el ‘noble’ + Geat, a tribal name.

Third grandparent: English (of Norman origin): nickname for a lazy man or a sleepyhead, from Old French dormeor ‘sleeper’, ‘sluggard’.

Fourth grandparent: Old English topographic name for someone who lived near the gates of a walled town, or a metonymic occupational name for a gatekeeper.

Based on these four ancestral names I have Saxon antecedents, then, and Norman French.  But, of course, the further one goes back, the wider one’s connections to the ethny.  There is no such thing as pure blood.  However, insomuch as the English are a particularised Northern European people, I am of that tribe.

In EGI terms, my interest ripples out from the circle of my family to other English men and women, in whom copies of my genes are present.  The next concentric circle is the Northern European root-stocks of Saxon Germany and Norse France.  Among them are people in whom I can sense a strong connectivity - I am a firm believer that we can identify kind phenotypically with great assuredness.

The concentricity carries my sympathy outwards, enveloping Europeans of ever more distant kind, such that by the time I arrive at The Hot Gates it’s culture that weights my preference.  By the time I find myself ally to the Bantu it’s because the Martians have invaded.  Actually, I am not sure even then.  Uma Thurmin looked pretty good as a Martian.

Politically, of course, it’s more complex.  There is the small matter of the universal nature of liberalism, and the necessity of an equally universal replacement.  England’s survival is dependent on Serbia’s, and vice versa.  So I am and am not a Little Englander.  I desire the survival of an ethnically secure England, and know it cannot be obtained in isolation.

Posted by ff on September 04, 2007, 07:03 PM | #

Rnl,

In the only statement he made about his sexual tastes Silver told us he doesn’t especially like Nordic women. You interpret that to mean that he prefers them, and you then start generalizing about the alleged preferences of Mediterraneans, not Slavs.

Pay attention. 

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”.

I wrote nothing about what type of women silver “prefers”. Indeed, the common refrain from Meds who openly fantasize about obtaining Nordic women is that they are not particularly interested in Nordic women. If we take this claim at face value, it only underlines their extreme hostility and/or inferiority complex toward Nordics. How mentally fucked-up do you have to be to seek out (or imagine seeking out) women you are not particulary attracted to in order to spite your perceived ethnic or political enemies?

Silver self-identifies as a swarthy wog. That sounds pretty Med to me.

The smartest poster on this blog is a “Med racialist.”

Unprovable. Irrelevant. Rienzi is bright enough, but I’ve seen nothing from him to suggest he’s smarter than any number of other posters here. And I know some smart jews, but I don’t think they’d be assets to MR.

I think Rienzi agrees with me that intra-European genetic differences must be respected. However, he has in the past promoted ideas I find destructive (e.g. proclaiming “Nordicism” responsible for the death of the white race and pushing DNAprint tests).

No.

“Ethnicity” typically has a significant racial basis and is a major point of identification for most people. I find it bizarre that you acknowledge “racial” differences, but apparently not intra-European “ethnic” differences.

That would be _my_ point. It is incredibly unlikely, very close to impossible. . . . You asked me. I answered.

You are, like Linder, identifying as German based on your surname, or what?

Anything that excludes or seems to exclude people of European descent weakens White nationalism. Our strength is in our numbers. We are still the majority. Fractious Nordicists turn us into a series of related minorities.

Boas’ “scientific” anti-racism started as anti-Nordicism. Convincing Americans intra-European racial differences are environmentally determined started the slide toward the denial of black-white differences.

Intra-European racial variation exists and must be acknowledged by the consistent racialist. Period. If acknowledging differences causes hurt feelings and prevents Europeans from working together where they do share common interests, then any potential coalition is probably not very strong to begin with.

The various European ethnic groups are culturally and racially compatible. There has been significant intermarriage. We meaningfully form a single people, and in most cases we have no difficulty identifying one another. There is no good reason to transform the category White, which is socially recognized by almost everyone, into a dozen or so squabbling sub-groups.

Europeans are not all equally culturally and racially compatible. America has an ethnic core, composed mainly of mixed Northwestern Europeans. Long Island guidos, Albanian refugees, and “white” Miami Cubans are not part of this ethnic core.

There are not many southern Euros in the U.S., relatively speaking. Those who are here are concentrated in the Northeast, plus a handful of urban areas elsewhere in the country. I’m interested in advancing the interests of the American ethnic core, not coddling minority whites (who are unlikely to reciprocate your altruism in any event).

You apparently dislike Italians. You think they’re lusting after Nordic women, so you’ll toss them out of the category White, despite their own self-identification.

You don’t have very good reading comprehension.

No one frets about Irish-Americans marching about and dressing in green on St Patrick’s Day. Ethnic particularism doesn’t threaten multiracialism. Multiethnic whiteness does threaten multiracialism.

Wrong. See Boas. See “The Melting Pot”.

Read “The Dispossessed Majority”.

Minority (including minority white) ethnic particularism is encouraged. Majority ethnic particularism is attacked. Majority institutions and holidays have been universalized. You won’t see a miniseries on PBS celebrating “WASPs”. You will see celebrations of the Irish, Italians, Jews, and negroes.

None of this Nordicist esoterica occurs to anyone until they arrive on racialist webforums.

Quite the opposite. It’s natural for people to identify more with those who resemble them more closely. Telling people not to notice that Southern Italian’s year-round tan is unnatural. Telling people everyone up to the borders or Greece and Russia (but not one mile further) should be accepted as a brother is unnatural.

That sort of ascientific “Pan-Aryanism” is a rather recent innovation. George Lincoln Rockwell was one of the first to try the approach, with interesting results.

“The guy in charge of the print shop--and remember this name
--was John Patler. While I was around there, I had a chance to observe
Patler. His real name was Yanacki Patsalos. He was this dark, greasy-looking
little guy from New York, and he felt bad he was Greek instead of
Swedish or German. It really bugged him. He tried to disguise his origin
by changing his name. He had this feeling of inferiority, and he had an
envy and hatred for people with light eyes, hair, and complexion. I don’t
know exactly where this came from. Maybe it was because he had grown
up in New York and he was from a poor immigrant family and was at the
bottom of the pecking order, and at the top around where he was from
were the English, Irish, and Germans. Anyway, he was organizing the
darker members of the party against what he called the blue-eyed devils.
He was a very aggressive little turd. It was wild, surreal. . . .” (pp. 105-106)

(William Pierce in The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce by Robert S. Griffin)

Rockwell was assassinated by “Patler”.

re: Yggdrasil

I seem to recall Yggdrasil used to promote the “Jews are white” idea, as well.

First, it recognizes that most people in the U.S. of European extraction have intermarried to such an extent that it is no longer possible to identify American Whites as “Irish” or “German” or “Italian”.

Yes, for the American ethnic core (formerly known simply as “Americans"). But I don’t think this is true for Italians. And I find that even mixed Italians tend to identify as “Italian” (see Artie Lange—half-German but calls himself “Italian").

Anyway, Americans in general certainly are not inextricably mixed with Southern Euros.

But more important, use of the term “European-American” is intended to recognize that white elites in the United States have exploited differences based on religion and European national origin to divide European-Americans, with the intention of rendering us unable to defend ourselves against non-white demands.

Not really. In general, I can think of few examples of “white elites” “exploiting differences” between European-Americans specifically to weaken whites in relation to nonwhites.

re: MacDonald

Not seeing how you think the quote from MacDonald supports your position. MacDonald gives a prediction, not a prescription.

More from MacDonald:

In addition, there may well be negative genetic consequences for the European-derived peoples of the United States and especially for the “common people of the South and West” (Higham I 984, 49)--that is, for lower-middle-class Caucasians derived from Northern and Western Europe--whose representatives fought a desperate and prolonged political battle against the present immigration policy. Indeed, we have seen that a prominent theme of the New York Intellectuals as well as the Authoritarian Personality studies was the intellectual and moral inferiority of traditional American culture, particularly rural American culture. James Webb (1995) notes that it is the descendants of the WASPS who settled the West and South who “by and large did the most to lay out the infrastructure of this country, quite often suffering educational and professional regression as they tamed the wilderness, built the towns, roads and schools, and initiated a democratic way of life that later white cultures were able to take advantage of without paying the price of pioneering. Today they have the least, socioeconomically, to show for these contributions. And if one would care to check a map, they are from the areas now evincing the greatest resistance to government practices.” The war goes on, but it is easy to see who is losing.
[. . .]
The effort to develop an intellectual basis for immigration restriction was tortuous; by 1920 it was based on the legitimacy of the ethnic interests of Northwestern Europeans and had undertones of racialist thinking.

MacDonald is obviously aware that America has historically been a Northwestern European country.

Posted by ff on September 04, 2007, 07:51 PM | #

Scimitar,

“Mynydd” once told me that he was some kind of fugitive on the run being persecuted by the Spanish government on account of his nationalism.

That’s hilarious. I seem to recall he made up several different stories about himself.

Have you browsed the “Stirpes” forum, Anon? “Colonials” there are set to an “Alien” usergroup and not allowed to post. They have an especially intense hatred of “Anglos,” generally.

I haven’t looked at Stirpes since around the time it went online. From reading your post today, it sounds like nothing has changed. I’m sure there are some decent posters there (I’ve had people invite me), but from the beginning it seemed to me the forum’s main purpose was to provide an outlet for the founders’ hangups about Americans and Northern Europeans.

“Pan-Europeanism” is a phenomenon endorsed almost exclusively by American White Nationalists. It stems from the well-known “outward gaze” of Southern culture and the tendency of Americans to think of themselves in racial terms.

Perhaps. One still finds people like Norman Lowell and CvH in Europe, with their own strange pan-European visions.

In my experience, “pan-Europeanism” is rarely reciprocated. It is a noble idea to wish other “whites” in Europe well. Unfortunately, very few of these people have any awareness of being “white” or any appreciation for this fancy of American racialists.

From reading Skadi and similar forums, I got the impression of a core Northwestern European group interested in racial preservation, surrounded by sniping fringe Europeans with their own axes to grind. Stirpes was the fringe Europeans breaking off and creating their own forum.

Posted by Rnl on September 04, 2007, 08:53 PM | #

Not seeing how you think the quote from MacDonald supports your position. MacDonald gives a prediction, not a prescription.

He is predicting Euro-American unity. I favor it now.

MacDonald is obviously aware that America has historically been a Northwestern European country.

A fact that isn’t in dispute.

Posted by Rnl on September 04, 2007, 08:57 PM | #

Fred Scrooby wrote:

Buchanan is half-Irish, half-German: his Irishness is diluted by half, by genes conferring better sense.

That’s the sort of comment we don’t need.

***

The Wikipedia articles on Buchanan and Paleoconservatism are surprisingly good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative_-_Paleoconservative_Conflict

Posted by Rnl on September 04, 2007, 09:03 PM | #

Scimitar wrote:

That’s a novel definition of “white” that creates all sorts of ambiguity and endless debates about the subject.

In most cases it is the normal sense of the term, though you are no doubt correct that it can occasionally be ambiguous.

Black = person of African descent. White = person of European descent. Whether “white” is the best word to convey that idea is another matter. It probably isn’t. But since it is understood by almost everyone, I see no reason not to use it. If there is occasional fuzziness, that’s an asset. 

Earlier someone suggested half seriously that White can be defined as the demographic category that is supposed to feel white guilt, the group against which instruction in tolerance and anti-racism is regularly directed. That would match “person of European descent” exactly. Hence the (mis)eductional attacks against Columbus the European explorer, not Columbus the Italian.

Posted by desmond jones on September 04, 2007, 09:26 PM | #

No, it is not only my opinion. It is a fact that the white yeomanry was not on the same civic, political, or social level of the American negro. That you would even suggest that was the case - when negroes were chattel slaves - speaks volumes about your ignorance of the matter.

Life and Labor in the Old South

Book by Ulrich Bonnell Phillips; Little, Brown, 1929.

Infestations by this parasite might have been relieved quite readily by medicine or prevented by the mere wearing of shoes; but its existence unsuspected, no prevention or cure was applied. The victims, “ lank, lean, angular and bony, with . . . a natural stupidity or dullness of intellect that almost surpasses belief “, 5 “the most degraded race of human beings claiming an AngloSaxon origin that can be found on the face of the earth”, 6 suffered the contumely of their contemporaries who might better have given sympathy if they could not afford relief.

These wretchedly genuine “po’ white trash”, scorned even by the slaves, could not embrace opportunities.

Phillips, ignorant, Yankee or foreigner?

Truman became president and repudiated one by one FDR’s policies.

And then of course there was Eisenhower and the Suez.

Nope. The French-speakers of Quebec had nothing to do with the founding of Canada. It just so happens that Quebec was given control of the American Midwest and Catholics were put on a level of equality with Protestants.

And the act was repealed by the British parliament almost ninety years prior to the founding of the Canadian polity, all separate British colonies coming together in common cause as a federal entity. The French/English founding peoples tome is a lie, fabricated by liberals to appease Quebec and ensure unity. The Quebec Act is significant to Americans, but it has nothing to do with the nation of Canada. In case you haven’t noticed we don’t have control of the American midwest.

Because, as you have said yourself, they are ethnically “Canadians” now, not “Anglos.” No, the point was that they don’t identify as English/Scot/Irish. They speak English with a funny accent, eh. The point being, how is a distinct group formed, if they have no distinctness. It does not change their ethnicity.

What is the Irish Lobby?

Did take the word of an ignorant foreigner. Google it and form your own opinion.

Okay, you have listed all sorts of obscure incidents that 99% of Americans have never heard of. None of these things are really markers in American history. Our sense of identity tends to be based on more significant incidents like the conquest of the American West or the Civil War.

Okay, however, your allegations of Canadian kneejerk anti-Americanism seem almost as baseless as Abe Foxman’s charges of anti-semitism.

Canada doesn’t have enemies because it sits comfortably under the American nuclear umbrella with a military Get Out of Jail Free card like all sorts of other parasites in NATO. It has always been sort of a hanger on, whether it was with Britain during the early twentieth century or with the United States today.

What threat exactly were you oh so benevolent Yanks actually protecting us po’ parasitical Canucks from? The only threat the people of the Ice ever faced was from its southern neighbour. Given’ us po’ folk those useless Bomarc missile to defend us against consumation by the Soviet Empire was mighty kind. We’d have been better off throwing rocks from the Peace tower. Canada had nuclear capability in the 1940s but the programme was frowned upon by our more powerful southern neighbour. 

Aside from Ireland, which eventually was ceded independence, Canada was the disrupting force with the Empire advocating more autonomy and decentralization.

During the early twentieth century, the British had many of the same problems with Canadians that Americans now have:

Yeah those 60,000 deaths (more battlefied deaths than the Yanks in WWI) were a figment of our imagination. If memory serves, no Yanks were in the frontlines when the Canucks and Aussies faced the best of Germany at Amiens, in August, 1918.

As his final step in asserting Canada’s autonomy, King ensured that the Canadian Parliament made its own declaration of war one week after Britain.

One week! Wow, King really showed Westminster didn’t he? Westminster was a notoriously fickle lot. They left the colonials near destitute by repealing the Corn Laws for their beloved free trade, then when they got in trouble, Gordon in Khartoum or WWI or whatever, they send the King and Queen to do a tour, to re-enforce the old bonds.

Posted by ff on September 04, 2007, 09:36 PM | #

He is predicting Euro-American unity. I favor it now.

MacDonald says nothing specifically about southern Euros. Besides, if he’s right, you have nothing to worry about. In the meantime, I suspect you will “favor” in vain.

The White Ethnic Revival

History News Network
April 17, 2006

The leader of an anti-racism workshop in the 1990s once noted a disquieting inclination on the part white participants to dissociate themselves from the advantages of whiteness by emphasizing some purportedly not-quite-white ethnic background. “I’m not white; I’m Italian,” one would say. Another, “I’m Jewish.” After this ripple had made its way across the group, the seminar leader was left wondering, “What happened to all the white people who were here just a minute ago?”

The sense of a sentence like “I’m not white, I’m Italian” rests upon several historical preconditions, now loosely relayed in the term “ethnic revival”: the Civil Rights Movement heightened whites’ consciousness of their skin privilege, rendering it both visible and newly uncomfortable. The example of Black Nationalism and later multiculturalism provided a new language for—and perceived cache in—the specificities of an identity that was not simply “American.” After decades of striving to conform to the Anglo-Saxon standard, descendants of earlier European immigrants quit the melting pot. Italianness, Jewishness, or Greekness were now badges of pride, not shame.

“Identity” cannot accommodate the full circuitry of the new ethnicity or its social and political significance. Psychological yearning plays some part in the recovery of lost heritage, but so do wider cultural and institutional forces. After the 1960s the publishing industry, Hollywood, and television all lavished a new attention on ethnic particularity, at some times actually generating ethnic interests (Holocaust) and at others merely reflecting them (Moonstruck, Mystic Pizza). Sociologists and other academics forged a new consensus that America was less a “melting pot” than a “mosaic.” Teachers and students across the country agitated for Italo-American, Irish, and Judaic Studies. Immigration history flourished as a subfield, revising the national narrative and proliferating distinct “ethnic” histories. Ethnic merchandise and marketing practices appeared, from the kitsch shamrock key chain to the tourism industry’s “discover your homeland” packages in Ireland, Italy, or Lithuania. And the government itself became engaged in the construction and celebration of “immigrant heritage” in the Bicentennial, the Statue of Liberty Centennial Gala, and the Ellis Island restoration. Today Ellis Island greets more visitors as tourists than it processed as immigrants, even during its peak years.

Pinning dates on such currents is tricky, but one might begin with the summer of 1963 when, amid much fanfare, John F. Kennedy “returned” to Ireland after his clan’s century-long absence from the green fields of County Wexford. Kennedy had earlier called the United States “a nation of immigrants,” the title of his 1958 volume on the ethnic contributions to American life, and his Ireland visit lent this conceit a new stateliness, pomp, and circumstance. In a speech before the Dublin Parliament, Kennedy waxed eloquent on the special place America held in Irish history, and the special role of the Irish in America. Only a few years earlier one prominent sociologist had asserted with astonishing confidence that the ethnic group “had no future” in American life, that ethnic pluralists were “out of touch with the unfolding American reality.” But Kennedy’s Irish sentiments confounded such facile formulations. By the time Ronald Reagan “returned” to Tipperary and Michael Dukakis ran as “Everyethnic” two decades later, roots talk was everywhere.

The “new ethnicity” flowed from many tributaries. Its most politically potent source was the Civil Rights movement, which introduced a contagious idiom of group identity and group rights on the American scene. Its effect was electrifying not only for people of color, but also for white ethnics, whose inchoate sense of second-class status as non-WASPs required only the right vocabulary to come alive. The group-based mobilization of the movement, the group-based terms of its victories in 1964 and ‘65, and the group-based logic of rising black separatism all suggested a model for action. By 1970 the Ukrainian Weekly could call the notion of Ukrainian Power “a workable and quite feasible concept.” As black grievance achieved a new centrality in national discussion, the popular rediscovery of immigrant forebears also became a way of stressing, “We’re merely newcomers; this nation’s crimes are not our own.” On her heartfelt symbolic attachment to scenes such as the Triangle Factory Fire, writer Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz remarked, “we are so hungry for innocence that images of oppression come almost as a relief.”

Another impetus to ethnic revival was a powerful current of antimodernism, a common notion that ethnicity represented a haven of “authenticity,” removed from the bloodless, homogenizing forces of mass production and consumption, mass media, commodification, bureaucracy, and suburbanization. New pluralists looked to versions of ethnic “authenticity” as a salve to those post-industrial discontents spelled out in books like The Lonely Crowd and The Organization Man . Markers of this tacit connection between ethnicity, “authenticity,” and antimodernism include the explicit appeals to mighty, blood-coursing tradition in popular mainstream productions like Zorba the Greek and Fiddler on the Roof.

A stream of popular literary and cinematic texts charted the rise of this new sensibility. After languishing in neglect for some decades, Abraham Cahan’s novels of the immigrant ghetto, The Rise of David Levinsky and Yekl, found their way back into print in popular paperback editions, followed soon after by Henry Roth’s Call It Sleep, Pietro DiDonato’s Christ in Concrete, Anzia Yezierska’s Bread Givers, and many others. Fresh literary renditions of the ethnic saga like Mario Puzo’s Fortunate Pilgrim and The Godfather also found an eager readership. Audiences flocked to films like Funny Girl, Ragtime, and Crossing Delancey; and television programming turned away from the whitebread world of Ozzie and Harriet in favor of Bridget Loves Bernie, Welcome Back Kotter, Rhoda, Kojak, and Columbo—ethnic ancestors to Dharma Finkelstein, Ray Romano, and The Sopranos. As reflected in the media mirror, the image of white America looked more and more like a big fat Greek wedding.

These developments denote a change in personal feeling for some, perhaps, but a shift in public language for all. It was not the interiority, but the collectivity and the institutional basis of the ethnic revival whose reach in American political culture is most important. A new national myth of origins arose whose touchstone was Ellis Island, whose heroic central figure was the downtrodden but determined greenhorn, whose preferred modes of narration were the epic and the ode, and whose most far-reaching political conceit was the “nation of immigrants.”

The ethnic reverie conflates two distinct themes: immigration as geography vs. immigration as civic incorporation. It is only in the first sense that this is really anything like “a nation of immigrants”--everybody came from somewhere, whether from JFK’s New Ross, Alex Haley’s Kinte-Kundah, or across the land bridge from Asia. But this meaning has eclipsed the second, more profound meaning when it comes to comprehending the body politic. To construct “ America” solely through the eyes of the incoming European steerage passenger is not only to redraw a line around the exclusive white “we” of “we the people,” but to bowdlerize the pageant of the peopling of North America. Steerage, chains, whatever.

The ethnic revival’s political portent is immense. The iconic European immigrant has done double- or triple-duty in American racial politics. Despite recent fixations on Asian American success, for instance, European immigrants remain the nation’s real “model minority”: their saga supplies the “standard” template of incorporation and advancement against which all other groups are judged. It supplied the post-slavery, fresh-off-the-boat innocents who have become the most potent symbol in protests against affirmative action, busing, or reparations. In conservative populism white ethnics represent precisely those little people so in need of protection from the excesses of liberal social policy; and their exemplary mobility--from steerage to ghetto to suburb--is deployed in damning critique of both the contemporary welfare state and contemporary ghetto-dwellers themselves. Consequently, both the immigrant myth and immigration’s living descendants contributed to the swing vote which rendered the Republicans the majority party in the electoral realignment beginning in 1968. Indeed, had he lived into the 1970s and ‘80s, Malcolm X might well have relocated his famous quip about Plymouth Rock a few hundred miles southward down the seaboard: “We didn’t land on Ellis Island, my brothers and sisters—Ellis Island landed on us.”

Paradoxically, in recent decades the “good” immigrant of yore has also been pressed into service in denunciations of the “bad” immigrant of today. Apocalyptic anti-immigrant books like Lawrence Auster’s Path to National Suicide consecrate earlier waves of immigration even while deploring the present one by emphasizing the affinities between Europe and America: that “they were of European descent and came from related cultures within Western civilization made it relatively easy for them to assimilate into the common sphere of civic habits and cultural identity.” But this European tradition is an uncertain fabrication, and such assessments of Italian or Irish immigrants’ “related cultures” have less to do with their actual relationship at the time than with a perceived kinship only after a century’s hindsight. A hundred years ago American commentators sounded remarkably like Auster in their assessments of these incoming Europeans. Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge found in the European immigrants “races most alien to the body of the American people”; they “do not promise well for the standard of civilization of the United States.” The Superintendent of the Census thought they possessed “none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men [for] self-government.” Even the New York Times characterized these newcomers as “unwashed, ignorant, unkempt, childish semi-savages.”

If the first maneuver in recent nativism has been to forget the contemporary reception of European immigrants and the crisis their presence posed, the next has been to canonize their traits and their virtues. In memory, these “alien races” have become clean and moral and hugely striving; they have become joint-stock holders in a unified “European tradition”--they have become, in a word, “ America.” Nothing hinders white Americans’ even-handed acceptance of Third World immigration quite as stubbornly as the mythic, lavishly celebrated, and thoroughly naturalized icon of the European steerage passenger.

The roots obsession, then, has been no simple identity quest, nor can its impact be measured by the attendance at St. Patrick’s Day parades, by box office receipts for Jewtopia, or by the astronomical number of daily hits on genealogical websites. Rather, the ethnic revival recast American nationality, and it continues to color our judgment about who “we” are. Martin Luther King, Jr. decried the notion that this was a “nation of immigrants,” and he cautioned against the damning exclusions inherent in that conception. Citing the line inscribed on the Statue of Liberty which identifies her as the “mother of exiles,” King exclaimed that it is no wonder “the Negro in America cries, ‘Oh Lord, sometimes I feel like a motherless child.’” And yet as late as 2004, Republicans kicked off their national convention on the hallowed ground of Ellis Island. Amid pious talk of diversity, speakers appealed to Americans’ populist conceptions of “the people” by enumerating the many immigrant Bushes, Cheneys, Patakis, and Giulianis whose names grace Ellis Island’s “wall of honor.”

It was fitting, then, that during the Concert for New York in the wake of 9/11, among the most straightforward and applauded expressions of outraged Americanism was firefighter Michael Moran’s exhortation, “Osama bin Laden, you can kiss my royal Irish ass!” Like JFK’s “return” to Ireland in 1963, Moran’s proud Irishness expressed the conviction that to celebrate the hyphen is not to diminish anyone’s “Americanism.” But as our differential greeting of “illegal” Irish and Mexican immigrants affirms, not just any old hyphen will do. Such patterns of presumption and exclusion in our collective sense of naturalized Americanness should command the strictest attention, as should the mythology of the “nation of immigrants” that binds them. These more than anything else constitute the historical weave of that hypnotic political ideal, America.

Matthew Frye Jacobson is Professor of American Studies at Yale and author of Roots Too: White Ethnic Revival in Post-Civil Rights America.

http://hnn.us/articles/23824.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 04, 2007, 09:54 PM | #

“That’s the sort of comment we don’t need.” (—Rnl a couple above)

Right, I wish I didn’t have to make it.  The other one that needed making was Ann’s, “If only there were a ‘No Irish Need Apply’ sign hanging in the U.S. Senate.” God, just imagine what a paradise that would be!  Oops!  I didn’t say anything I wasn’t supposed to, did I?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 04, 2007, 10:12 PM | #

I didn’t actually read Jacobson’s drivel (posted by ff).  Skimming it, the fourth paragraph from last where he talks about Lawrence Auster’s pamphlet caught my eye as showing why one has to talk about race in this game, not culture.  Unless one talks about race there’ll be endless claims by Jewish academics —ones hoping race-replacement will go to completion, which means, essentially, all of them —there’ll be endless claims to the effect there’s no reason to exclude this or that non-Euro immigration — Chinese, say — as long as they can acculturate.  But even if they can acculturate I don’t want my race changed into theirs.  Got it, Professor Jacobson?  If Prof. Jacobson is sooooooooo anxious to see one race changed into another, I move he start by advocating the Jews change into Nigerians.  How’s that?  Would that be OK with the professor? ...

Would it? ...

Professor? ...

Hello? ...

Professor Jacobson? ...

Where’d he go? ...

Hellooooooooo? ...

Professor? ...

Is anybody there? ...

Nobody? ...

Guess not ...

Boy, it’s suddenly so quiet around here you can hear a pin drop ...

Posted by Scimitar on September 05, 2007, 04:31 AM | #

GW,

My surname happens to be “Griffin.” I understand that it is rather common around Southwest England, Wales. Looking at “Nick Griffin” of the BNP, I can obviously see we are related.

Posted by Scimitar on September 05, 2007, 05:33 AM | #

Phillips, ignorant, Yankee or foreigner?

No, I am not sure exactly how the existence of hookworms though proves that working class whites were on the same level as negroes. Southern children of both races liked to run around and play without shoes. The environment it temperate year round here; mild winters, steamy summers.

I did that as a child. Does it mean that I was a chattel slave - the property of another man, universally regarded as socially inferior, and without civic equality or political voting rights? No, it does not. Are you arguing that Phillips is an authority on the Jim Crow South now? Would you be willing to accept his verdict on whether or not Southern whites were the social, civic, and political equal of the negro?

Did take the word of an ignorant foreigner. Google it and form your own opinion.

Why would have I have to do that, Desmond? I work in Washington. Now, what is the Irish Lobby?

And then of course there was Eisenhower and the Suez.

What about Suez?

1.) Egypt was an independent country long before Suez.
2.) Nasser and the Egyptian generals overthrew the monarchy. The British were fine with that until he went after the Suez Canal Zone which was not synonymous with Egypt.

Tell us. How are Americans to blame for the independence of Egypt which was granted to that country by the British themselves?

And the act was repealed by the British parliament almost ninety years prior to the founding of the Canadian polity, all separate British colonies coming together in common cause as a federal entity.

Desmond here ignores the fact that it was the Quebec Act, along with several other provocations, that lost the British most of the American colonies. That, of course, was an epochal event that would shape the entire future of North America, including Canada, which became a favorite destination of American loyalists.

The French/English founding peoples tome is a lie, fabricated by liberals to appease Quebec and ensure unity. The Quebec Act is significant to Americans, but it has nothing to do with the nation of Canada. In case you haven’t noticed we don’t have control of the American midwest.

That seems rather counterintuitive. The American Midwest was once under the administration of Quebec. It was lost, but that has nothing to do with the nation of Canada.

No, the point was that they don’t identify as English/Scot/Irish. They speak English with a funny accent, eh. The point being, how is a distinct group formed, if they have no distinctness. It does not change their ethnicity.

How is “Canadian” not a separate ethnicity from English? Canadians think of themselves as a people like Americans with distinct interests.

Okay, however, your allegations of Canadian kneejerk anti-Americanism seem almost as baseless as Abe Foxman’s charges of anti-semitism.

The above does qualify as kneejerk anti-Americanism. That some Canadians, not all, would dwell on something as ancient and insignificant as the godforsaken Fenian Raids is almost Jewish in malevolence. There were raids on the American North from Canada during the American Civil War. No one here remembers that or nurses such a trivial sleight.

The U.S.-Canadian border is one of the longest, peaceful, demilitarized zones of its kind (it might hold the record here, I haven’t checked). Canadians can criticize, poke fun at Americans all the want in full knowledge that the U.S. military isn’t going to come roaring up towards the North Pole. With friends like the Yanks who needs enemies!

Would you prefer to be Poland alongside Germany, Desmond? How about an Ireland or a Serbia alongside Turkey?

What threat exactly were you oh so benevolent Yanks actually protecting us po’ parasitical Canucks from?

Canada is very nice piece of real estate, especially with global warming going on and all. Canada doesn’t have to maintain a decent military because of its special relationship with the United States and Britain. The U.S.  and Britain will not tolerate a military attack on Canada. As it happens, it was the possibility that the Second World War might spread to North America in the event of a British military collapse that prompted much of FDR’s support for the Allies.

FDR wasn’t exactly the biggest fan of British imperialism, but he preferred British imperialism to German U-Boats in the Western Atlantic and the S.S. washing up on the shore of Newfoundland. That was Churchill’s most compelling argument. Less appealling was his offer of British islands in the Caribbean and their worthless negro populations in exchange for Lend-Lease.

The only threat the people of the Ice ever faced was from its southern neighbour. Given’ us po’ folk those useless Bomarc missile to defend us against consumation by the Soviet Empire was mighty kind. We’d have been better off throwing rocks from the Peace tower. Canada had nuclear capability in the 1940s but the programme was frowned upon by our more powerful southern neighbour. 

Do you honestly live in fear of Irish-American micks marauding across your border to attack the Anglos of Canada? The U.S. has no reason to invade Canada. We can get everything we want from Canada through trade.

Yeah those 60,000 deaths (more battlefied deaths than the Yanks in WWI) were a figment of our imagination. If memory serves, no Yanks were in the frontlines when the Canucks and Aussies faced the best of Germany at Amiens, in August, 1918.

Because that wasn’t our fight. We’re not British. Personally, I wish the U.S. would have stayed out of that war. It was a gross waste of our resources and lives. It earned us nothing but the scorn of Europeans. That was the prevailing view in America for about 20 years after WW1.

In any case, your point is non-responsive. Please recount for us the story of how Canada ceased to be a colony, how Canadians acquired Canadian citizenship, and how by the time of WW2 all dominions were on a level of equality with Britain. You are trying to pass yourselves off here as loyal sons of the Empire.

It must be a bitter source of resentment that you were the ones who demanded your own independence and were amongst the loudest voices for pulling down the British Empire into a decentralized Commonwealth of independent nations.

One week! Wow, King really showed Westminster didn’t he? Westminster was a notoriously fickle lot. They left the colonials near destitute by repealing the Corn Laws for their beloved free trade, then when they got in trouble, Gordon in Khartoum or WWI or whatever, they send the King and Queen to do a tour, to re-enforce the old bonds.

Desmond,

Is it not true that Canadian nationalists, as opposed to the Australians, wanted a looser relationship with Britain prior to the Second World War? Is it not true that Canadians agitated for decades - indeed, harped away for years - about how Canada should do what is in the interests of Canada? Wasn’t it Canada that was the most outspoken of the dominions about equality of status?

I might be an ignorant foreigner, but what is this I read about the Chanak Crisis, about the Imperial Conference of 1926 at which King argued for “greater autonomy of the Dominions,” the Balfour Declaration of 1926 which ceded the equal status, and the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946? It seems to me that Canada was a constant headache, a thorny issue for the British to deal with for many years.

Listen to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lyon_Mackenzie_King

King’s promise not to impose conscription contributed to the defeat of Maurice Duplessis’s Union Nationale Quebec provincial government in 1939 and Liberals’ re-election in the 1940 election. But after the fall of France in 1940, Canada introduced conscription for home service. Still, only volunteers were to be sent overseas. King wanted to avoid a repeat of the Conscription Crisis of 1917. By 1942, the military was pressing King hard to send conscripts to Europe. In 1942, King held a national plebiscite on the issue asking the nation to relieve him of the commitment he had made during the election campaign. He said that his policy was “conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription.”

French Canadians voted overwhelmingly against conscription, but a majority of English Canadians supported it. French and English conscripts were sent to fight in the Aleutian Islands in 1943 - technically North American soil and therefore not “overseas” - but the mix of Canadian volunteers and draftees found the Japanese had fled before their arrival. Otherwise, King continued with a campaign to recruit volunteers, hoping to address the problem with the shortage of troops caused by heavy losses in the Dieppe Raid in 1942, in Italy in 1943, and after the Battle of Normandy in 1944. In November 1944, the Government decided it was necessary to send conscripts to Europe. This led to a brief political crisis (see Conscription Crisis of 1944) and a mutiny by conscripts posted in British Columbia, but the war ended a few months later. Over 15,000 conscripts went to Europe, though only a few hundred saw combat.

King was extremely unpopular among Canadian servicemen and women during the war, who were pro conscription. His appearances at Canadian Army installations in Britain (and, after 6 June 1944, in continental Europe) were invariably greeted with boos and catcalls. When he was defeated after the war in his Prince Albert riding, the servicemen’s vote was considered instrumental, and a sign was placed outside the town, similar to those that had been erected in The Netherlands, reading, “This Town Liberated by the Canadian Army.”

You will recall that we unwashed, uncouth Americans instituted the draft even before our entry into the Second World War. How was it that the Canadian government - we’re operating under the theory that Canadians are British here - was only sending conscripts to Europe in November 1944?

In light of these revelations, would you like to re-examine your theory about the United States being responsible for the downfall of the British Empire? Perhaps you can come up with a better explanation next time of how the Americans made you do it.

Posted by desmond jones on September 05, 2007, 08:55 AM | #

No, I am not sure exactly how the existence of hookworms though proves that working class whites were on the same level as negroes.

Refute his position with historical sources rather than posting some tangential nonsense about hookworms. The Southern planter population, and their Negro slaves, viewed po’ white trash as “the most degraded race of human beings claiming an Anglo Saxon origin that can be found on the face of the earth”. Phillips is still Southerner’s go to guy for all things racialist and you blow off his assertion with some anecdotal reference to you childhood. Too funny.

If you work in Washington then unearthing the views of the Irish Lobby will be a breeze.

What about Suez?

Your point was the robust support the US provided for French/British Imperialism post FDR. Yet here we have an example yet again of an American foreign policy bent on undermining European interests in the Middle East, by siding with a despotic wog like Nasser. Upon which the petty Egyptian dictator shows his appreciation to his new found American ally by flipping them the bird and moving into the Soviet sphere. The new Arab Stalinist encourages other Arab demagogues, like Saddam Hussein, to set up shop and butta boom butta bing, American boys are dying in Iraq to protect US interests in the region.

Desmond here ignores the fact that it was the Quebec Act, along with several other provocations, that lost the British most of the American colonies. That, of course, was an epochal event that would shape the entire future of North America, including Canada, which became a favorite destination of American loyalists.

You ignore the fact that the British colony of Quebec would have existed with or without United Empire Loyalists. It’s an entirely separate issue to Canada.

The above does qualify as kneejerk anti-Americanism. That some Canadians, not all, would dwell on something as ancient and insignificant as the godforsaken Fenian Raids is almost Jewish in malevolence. There were raids on the American North from Canada during the American Civil War. No one here remembers that or nurses such a trivial sleight.

You were the one who raised the issue, or at least the CNN version, of Canada defining itself solely as ant-American. Now you whine about the fact that even if we concede your position, for arguments sake, there was a bounty of good reasons for that sentiment. Oi vey. A substantial number of Canadians did serve in the Civil, most on the Union side.

The U.S.-Canadian border is one of the longest, peaceful, demilitarized zones of its kind (it might hold the record here, I haven’t checked). Canadians can criticize, poke fun at Americans all the want in full knowledge that the U.S. military isn’t going to come roaring up towards the North Pole. With friends like the Yanks who needs enemies!

Up until 1936, the US did have an invasion strategy to deal with Canada.

Would you prefer to be Poland alongside Germany, Desmond? How about an Ireland or a Serbia alongside Turkey?

Now that would take a tectonic shift; which only reconfirms the position that the only threat to Canada has been its southern neighbour.

Canada doesn’t have to maintain a decent military because of its special relationship with the United States and Britain.

A decent military? Your countrymen are not complaining about Canuck efforts in the Stan.

The U.S.  and Britain will not tolerate a military attack on Canada.

The point is moot because there is no threat to Canada.

As it happens, it was the possibility that the Second World War might spread to North America in the event of a British military collapse that prompted much of FDR’s support for the Allies.

Self interest then, nothing to do with neighborly good graces.

The only threat the people of the Ice ever faced was from its southern neighbour. Given’ us po’ folk those useless Bomarc missile to defend us against consumation by the Soviet Empire was mighty kind. We’d have been better off throwing rocks from the Peace tower. Canada had nuclear capability in the 1940s but the programme was frowned upon by our more powerful southern neighbour. 

Do you honestly live in fear of Irish-American micks marauding across your border to attack the Anglos of Canada? The U.S. has no reason to invade Canada. We can get everything we want from Canada through trade.

Interesting segue. How do you get from Soviet empire to Irish micks?

Because that wasn’t our fight. We’re not British. Personally, I wish the U.S. would have stayed out of that war. It was a gross waste of our resources and lives. It earned us nothing but the scorn of Europeans. That was the prevailing view in America for about 20 years after WW1.

It wasn’t our fight either, but ethnic kinship is funny that way. That wasn’t your original point though.

In any case, your point is non-responsive. Please recount for us the story of how Canada ceased to be a colony, how Canadians acquired Canadian citizenship, and how by the time of WW2 all dominions were on a level of equality with Britain. You are trying to pass yourselves off here as loyal sons of the Empire.

Over a hundred thousand dead; over a million and a half served, how exactly do you define loyalty?

Is it not true that Canadian nationalists, as opposed to the Australians, wanted a looser relationship with Britain prior to the Second World War? Is it not true that Canadians agitated for decades - indeed, harped away for years - about how Canada should do what is in the interests of Canada? Wasn’t it Canada that was the most outspoken of the dominions about equality of status?

I might be an ignorant foreigner, but what is this I read about the Chanak Crisis, about the Imperial Conference of 1926 at which King argued for “greater autonomy of the Dominions,” the Balfour Declaration of 1926 which ceded the equal status, and the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946? It seems to me that Canada was a constant headache, a thorny issue for the British to deal with for many years.

And why do think that was? Clue, the answer is in your post.

French Canadians voted overwhelmingly against conscription, but a majority of English Canadians supported it. French and English conscripts were sent to fight in the Aleutian Islands in 1943 - technically North American soil and therefore not “overseas” - but the mix of Canadian volunteers and draftees found the Japanese had fled before their arrival. Otherwise, King continued with a campaign to recruit volunteers, hoping to address the problem with the shortage of troops caused by heavy losses in the Dieppe Raid in 1942, in Italy in 1943, and after the Battle of Normandy in 1944. In November 1944, the Government decided it was necessary to send conscripts to Europe. This led to a brief political crisis (see Conscription Crisis of 1944) and a mutiny by conscripts posted in British Columbia, but the war ended a few months later. Over 15,000 conscripts went to Europe, though only a few hundred saw combat.

Who do you think King, indeed Liberal PMs to this day, relied upon to keep them in power?

King was extremely unpopular among Canadian servicemen and women during the war, who were pro conscription. His appearances at Canadian Army installations in Britain (and, after 6 June 1944, in continental Europe) were invariably greeted with boos and catcalls. When he was defeated after the war in his Prince Albert riding, the servicemen’s vote was considered instrumental, and a sign was placed outside the town, similar to those that had been erected in The Netherlands, reading, “This Town Liberated by the Canadian Army.”

King was extremely unpopular among English Canadian servicemen and women during the war, who were pro conscription.