Are Jews White? (Revised)

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. Jordan, 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.

Jordan, 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 Jordan 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…