For a conversation with Homo deracinatus

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 28, 2008, 05:31 PM | #

What can one say to that but “Amen,” and hope that such a magnificent statement receive widest possible circulation over the internet.  As GW points out, the other side has nothing, not a thing, wherewith to answer any part of it.

Posted by Arcadia on November 28, 2008, 06:02 PM | #

If race is meaningless, then there’s nothing to choose between racial and multiracial groups.

If there’s nothing to choose, then both are social constructs placing greater value on certain unimportant characteristics than on others.

Both groups are inherently racist, irrational, hierarchical. and if equipped with state power, potentially genocidal.

Posted by snax on November 28, 2008, 06:46 PM | #

(which in England dates from 1948) is illegitimate.

You’re giving it all away here. You’re saying the non-English in England pre-1948 had as much right to England as us; that it is the ‘numbers’ (or Barnes’s ‘space’) which matters. You’re gifting them a sliding scale and subjective opportunity.

Posted by James Bowery on November 28, 2008, 06:52 PM | #

GW writes: Elsewhere, James has posited the evolved tendency to morality that inhabits “the European mind” as a principal and intractible source of the problem.  But what I sense from my exposure to these characters is not a fixation on genuine moral forms at all - that would be welcome.  No, what I sense is a needy clamour for moral superiority, which is not quite the same thing.  The focus has shifted somehow from the social function of moral behaviour to the personal function of status.

These are the sub-humans I’ve previously admitted exist in substantial numbers among Euromen—identifiable by their inability to appreciate the cowardice of their pseudo-altruistic punishment due to the predicament of modern man deprived, as he is, of options either for challenge of “moral authorities” to single combat to the death or self-exile to find a more suitable human ecology—both major selective pressures on the evolution of Euroman’s nature.  They are unable to accord to others their right of freedom of association and even their right of territorial self-defense, and therefore are unworthy of being accorded anything resembling “human rights”.  I maintain, however, that their number among Euromen is lower, sometimes much lower, than it is in most, if not all, other peoples.  The percent of Euromen who would actually recognize the rights of others—by natural temperament—is much higher. 

However, to the point about moral integrity I would argue that once having injected the opiate of personal social status, even the sub-humans among Euromen are more likely to follow their moral vainty to the actual harm of themselves, their families and their ethny—indeed life itself—than are most if not all other peoples.

Posted by John on November 28, 2008, 07:10 PM | #

They not only think that’s possible, they think that’s them.  Being “free”, being an “individual”, being “humanitarian”, “principled” and stationed above the racist, sexist, homophobic history men ... that is the field of status rewards, complete with an oven-ready, pseudo-religious catechism of good and evil, that advanced liberalism, or neo-marxism, provides for them

You are certainly right there. I would only point out that are (imo) more properly ersatz-religious.

This damned word, so killing in the past but so over-worked now, is reversible.  It can be made worthless through the bold assertion that changing us into another people through mass immigration is racist to the very core.

It is racist to deny the existence of the native people.  It is racist to reduce us to a culture, or a socially constructed mirage.  It is racist to deny us our ancestral rights to our land.  It is racist to avoid seeking our consent to mass Third World immigration.  It is racist to hide the meaning of population change from us, or to tell us to “celebrate” it.  It is racist to silence discussion and to lie to us about the nature of Sub-Saharan African and other Third World populations brought into our midst.  It is racist to silence our dissent, in all its forms.  It is racist to dehumanise us as haters, xenophobes and fascists.  It is racist to impose politically correct speech and behavioural codes upon us.  It is racist to indoctrinate our children.

I’ve reversed the racism charge at CiF and elsewhere for a few months now and have been presented with no counter-argument.

IMO, an atheist criticising a fundie preacher shouldn’t call him a “sinner” for banging the organist’s barely nubile daughter. He should point out instead that he’s a hypocrite, thus avoiding legitimizing his (in our case ersazt) religious language.

Posted by John on November 28, 2008, 07:34 PM | #

This has got to be the comment of the year:

Yes lets stop the BNP. If they ever attain power we’ll end up fighting wars killing countless numbers of brown and black people. Your neighbour will become a spy for the government and you’ll be reported and locked up for even the pettiest offense, like not sorting your rubbish. Opposition MPs will be harassed and intimidated. The police will become an instrument of state power, with ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation’ used to shut down political enemies and subversives. Large swaths of the economy will come under direct government control to the benefit of their corporate cronies. All communications would be closely monitored to prevent subversion. They might even bring in ID cards using bio-identification (though I don’t think even they would go that far!). So yes lets stop these evil Nazis in their tracks and save the British way of life.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 28, 2008, 07:52 PM | #

Elsewhere, James has posited the evolved tendency to morality that inhabits “the European mind” as a principal and intractible source of the problem.  But what I sense from my exposure to these characters is not a fixation on genuine moral forms at all - that would be welcome.  No, what I sense is a needy clamour for moral superiority, which is not quite the same thing.  The focus has shifted somehow from the social function of moral behaviour to the personal function of status.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Adam Smith was one of the first to discuss sympathy;

...a natural tendency to care about the well-being of others for no other reason than the pleasure one gets from seeing them happy. He calls this sympathy, defining it “our fellow-feeling with any passion whatsoever” (p. 5). He argues that this occurs under either of two conditions:

* We see firsthand the fortune or misfortune of another person
* The fortune or misfortune is vividly depicted to us

which is the very button that the British slave trade abolitionists pushed with the “lower- and middle-class”.

During the late 1780s and early 1790s, Thomas Clarkson and his associates traveled thousands of miles to circulate petitions among lower- and middle-class Britons; he also collected evidence from slave ships in Liverpool and Bristol to confirm the horrid cruelty of the Middle Passage. Armed with testimony from sailors who witnessed the maltreatment of Africans firsthand as well as thumbscrews and shackles used to confine and torture captured slaves, the society’s movement began to gain momentum and public attention. [...]

But two revolutions—one in France and one in St. Domingue—nearly extinguished the movement altogether. Fearing “homegrown British radicalism and the prospect of French subversion” (241), the government restricted civil liberties throughout the 1790s. The harshest of these restrictions were the Seditious Meetings Act and the Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act of 1795. [...]

But what war could suppress, war could also resurrect. While British officials had worried throughout the 1790s that violent social upheaval akin to that of revolutionary France would break out at home, the first few years of the nineteenth century left Parliament fearing that Napoleon would soon dominate all of Europe. The France that Britain fought was labeled as popish, tyrannical, and “trying to restore” the same system of colonial slavery it had outlawed in 1794 (300). Thus, the “archenemy Napoleon had thereby opened up some political space” for British antislavery to forge a link between “abolition and British moral superiority” (301). To combat France successfully, Britain would have to fashion itself as liberal, Protestant, and antislavery; its Royal Navy would have to serve as a moral policeman throughout the Atlantic world, detaining foreign ships that carried cargoes of chained Africans.

Sounds familiar.

The notion that Krauts were the masters of the world was a bad joke, rendered hilarious by all the goose-stepping and uniforms.

To combat Germany successfully Britain (the Anglo-Saxon world) fashioned itself as non-discriminatory, philo-semitic and morally superior. It appears that those who now wish to destroy the monster are the sons of the original architects of its creation.

Posted by Prozium on November 28, 2008, 08:51 PM | #

Building upon the quote above, this continued into the Cold War. The West adopted the anti-racism of the Soviet Union to successfully compete with them for influence in the Third World. The U.S. State Department pushed for desegregation in the Brown decision because of this.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 28, 2008, 10:27 PM | #

It fundamentally provides an avenue for the shift away from classical liberalism to the underpinnings of a welfare state. At least in Ontario,the small south-western town of Dresden, provided a lightning rod.

While many Canadians turned a blind eye to racial discrimination, often denying its existence, it was incontrovertibly present in Dresden, a small town in south-western Ontario, not far from the American border.51 “The Dresden Story” began in the nineteenth century when the town lay at the end of the “underground railroad” for fugitive slaves and a substantial number of blacks settled in the area.52 Josiah Henson, upon whose life Uncle Tom’s Cabin was allegedly based, is buried nearby.53 By the end of World War II blacks constituted close to 20 per cent of Dresden’s approximately 1,700 inhabitants, but several restaurants and barber shops habitually denied service to them; indeed, even those who did not look like blacks often suffered racial discrimination when members of the community knew their racial heritage. It was, in short, one of the most racially segregated communities in Canada.54[...]

Frost (Premier of Ontario) was initially reluctant to take action. Many of his caucus members were rural Conservatives, as well as members of the Orange Lodge, an organization not known for its commitment to human rights.69 Moreover, even those who publicly denounced discrimination often denied that it constituted a problem. In 1947, for example, the Conservative Minister of Labour, Charles Daley, told Rabbi Feinberg that, “these days, racial discrimination is to a great extent imaginary."70 Finally, anti-discrimination law could be seen as a deviation from the traditional legal principle of freedom of commerce, a shift away from the broader classical liberal notion of laissez-faire.71[...]

As Mark Leier has argued, “[w]hatever the dominant sexual and racial ideologies of the day have been, capital has always been quick to jettison them when they no longer served,” and race discrimination in the immediate post-war period had far less utility than in earlier times.  75 For Leslie Frost, the world was turning to democracy rather than communism for the protection of human rights, and anti-discrimination legislation in Ontario could therefore combine both practical politics and ideological warfare — stealing some of the thunder of Ontario’s communist MPPs as well as demonstrating the virtues of “democratic freedom.” 76[...]
42

Frost also saw discrimination as threatening the class interests of those who, like himself, were interested in speedy economic development. Knowing that immigration from Britain was drying up, he believed that discrimination against new arrivals from countries such as Italy or Greece might interfere with immigration rates, as well as contribute to domestic social problems. His concern was therefore not entirely with “racial” discrimination against blacks, but rather embraced the broader problem of “ethnic” prejudice.77

It was something of a perfect storm, which Jewish Labour leaders like Kalmen Kaplansky, took great advantage.

In specific terms, the story of Dresden suggests that the human rights activists’ success was the result of a unique concatenation of ideas about race and class—a trans-class consensus that the interests of both workers and employers trumped racial divisions. Kalmen Kaplansky began with the notion that racial (and religious) discrimination hurt the working class (defined primarily as trade unionists), and argued that this split workers, playing into the hands of the “enemy”—the employers. At the same time, Premier Frost not only believed that prejudice violated middle-class ideas about respectability, but also thought that it could threaten the interests of capital; discrimination could undermine his plans for Ontario’s economic development. [130]

Moreover, Kaplansky and Frost saw class from a common anti-communist perspective, each believing that his own respective class interest could not be furthered by communism, either at the theoretical or political level. The Kaplansky view was social-democratic, or what some labour historians have called the “reformist” position, committed to the evolutionary growth of the welfare state while rejecting the radicalism of the communist Labour Progressive Party and its supporters. [131] Frost, for his part, was a reform liberal, believing that capitalism was worth saving by means of astute political tinkering and patching. Human rights legislation, therefore, was intended to help make the world safe for both socialist and liberal democracy.

Posted by Diamed on November 28, 2008, 11:09 PM | #

I do not think these arguments will prevail against decades of indoctrination with the mass media and, as you say, the penalty of low-status if they were to change sides, and the benefit of high-status if they are anti-hate.  It commonly comes down to such a simple formula as “I have to say these things to get laid.” What is more important, the truth or your girlfriend?  It’s one thing for honest people to come to this website seeking answers to their own troubled minds, and another to parachute into a liberal circle and start preaching.  It might do some good, who knows, but it won’t be enough to change the overall picture.  Only a deep commitment, a religious epiphany, could make anyone join such a hated side as the ‘racists.’ Reasoned argument will not change anyone’s mind, there must be a spark of love for the race from the heart as well.

Second, simply speaking to a liberal audience makes us compromise our own core beliefs and values just to get a hearing.  To me, it’s monstrous to grant equality between unequal groups of people.  Thus a universal moral standard that asserts all we wish is to be treated equally, to be given the same rights as some other group, is itself immoral.  Superior people should be treated better than inferior people.  If you do grant the liberal position that everyone should be treated equally, then you allow them a wedge they will leverage in the discussion from then on which can be used against you in myriad ways.  For instance if displacing native people is wrong, then all whites must be driven out of America.  If people should be treated equally, then white territory and wealth should be equal to white worldwide population and we must therefore give up 90% of our territory and wealth to non-whites.  This just from wishing equal treatment!  After all, we currently benefit from the unequal treatment of our ancestors which must be therefore righted, and we still have an unequal amount of land and money which must be redistributed.  Only an assertion that white people are superior and therefore deserve everything they’ve ever gotten and more, can properly shut up the avenues of attack liberals so constantly harp on.

Not sure if this helps but you asked for criticism so there’s my two cents!

Posted by Armor on November 28, 2008, 11:26 PM | #

Spacist not racist!  Does anybody really believe that? (—Guessedworker)

The BBC race-replacists are the ones who usually claim to be spacist. Their official position is that an Englishman must have more sympathy for the Blacks living in England, than for Rhodesian white farmers.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2008, 12:22 AM | #

Thanks, Diamed.  Of course, you are right that liberals cannot be persuaded of our thinking, and I am not trying to persuade them.  I am not trying to change their political principles, such as they are, for ours.  Actually, I’m not interested in liberals at all.  I’m just using their most challenging and accessible on-line commenting medium as a crucible.

Look more closely at the structure of these ideas I am trying to develop.  They are not simply debating points.  They are not reasoned arguments.  They are designed to be applied to any point of the liberal worldview - which everyone has internalised - and completely change the terms of debate.  They herald an intellectually coherent, moral universe in which the presumptions of advanced liberalism are simply illegitimate.  The idea is not to persuade people of anything, but to force them to think in a healthy, life-giving way.

As for religious epiphany, you’ve got me there.  I, for one, have been innoculated against the liberal virus for as long as I can remember, certainly back to my late school years when it became clear that, as a seventeen year-old in 1968, I was supposed to think and say certain things.  I was so bloody rebellious, I even rebelled against the de rigeur rebellion of youth.

Oh well, look where that got me!  A renegade blog!

if displacing native people is wrong, then all whites must be driven out of America.

Displacing (actually genociding) native people is wrong for the native people.  The point is that in 19th century America the genociders didn’t know that in the moral terms we “know” it today.  But since we know it we are able to apply it to the living.  Which is us - and black Americans, I hasten to add.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 12:42 AM | #

“To me, it’s monstrous to grant equality between unequal groups of people.  Thus a universal moral standard that asserts all we wish is to be treated equally, to be given the same rights as some other group, is itself immoral.  Superior people should be treated better than inferior people.” (—Diamed)

I don’t follow:  first, it’s not true that we wish to be treated better than others.  I’ve never in my life thought in those terms.  That would be completely immoral and we don’t want it at all.  To even advocate that contradicts everything we stand for. 

We wish to be treated the same as others, and part of being treated the same is an acknowledgement by others of our right to our lands, as their right to theirs is acknowledged (diaspora Jewry, please take note:  we have our right to our lands as others, Jews included, have their right to theirs, so please stop allying yourselves with those who want to take ours away!).  Second, whatever we are, be it superior, equal, or inferior, we’ve done nothing wrong in having and keeping the fruits of our abilities, whatever those abilities may be; nor must we be treated “better than others” for that to apply, quite the contrary:  it applies when we’re treated the same, which is all we ask and all we’ve a right to ask.

As for what the Europeans did to the North American Red Man, a subject Diamed touches on:  I am in favor of Russell Means’ movement for the establishment of an Indian country, carved out of the immense (bigger than whites need) U.S. and Canadian west, an Indian country to be the size of a few Rocky Mountain states put together (whites would scarcely notice the loss, there’s so much sparsely-populated land out there), where the North American Red Man can recover his existence as a (noble and unique) race and forge, at long last, a Red nation by means of which to survive intact into the future, racially intact especially.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 12:55 AM | #

I’m on record, incidentally, as advocating a Red Indian nation in the U.S./Canadian west for the past six or seven years:  this is not a new position for me.  Something has to be done, or the North American Indian of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains will go extinct.  He’s not extinct yet but is teetering on the brink.  Someone has to help him.  I believe the only way to fend off his extinction is to give him enough land for his own country.  (What to do about the Eastern Woodland branch of the North American race is a whole other subject one could talk about.) The current reservation system won’t keep these Indian tribes/races alive.  It’ll almost guarantee their disappearance.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 01:03 AM | #

“What to do about the Eastern Woodland branch of the North American race is a whole other subject one could talk about.”

There I was talking, of course, about the Eastern Woodland branch of the North American Indian race.  (Their situation may already be close to unsalvageable from the point of view of staving off permanent racial extinction — but perhaps not if it’s closely looked at.  It’s a subject that ought to be openly discussed along with the prospects for a Plains Indian nation as mentioned.)

Posted by Diamed on November 29, 2008, 01:13 AM | #

“having and keeping the fruits of our abilities.” But what exactly does that mean?  We didn’t create the earth.  Therefore we didn’t create the land we currently hold sovereignty over.  It isn’t the fruit of our ability, but only the threat of our weaponry, that holds the vast stretches of territory whites currently control on earth.  We aren’t asking for our fair share of land, which by ‘equal’ terms would be exactly 10% of the earth’s landmass, we’re asking for a vastly larger share than equal.  Only the fact that we deserve it because we’re better than anyone else and thus deserve more morally legitimizes even our current holdings.  Our wealth also is largely based on the natural resources within our vast territories and thus is equally illegitimate.  We didn’t make those natural resources, our force of arms gives us exclusive access to them that doesn’t match our small numbers on earth.  Anyone could get rich from there, that’s hardly the fruit of our abilities, no, it’s the fruit of our wars of conquest and genocides in the past.  It’s not fair, and thus, in the interest of fairness, we’d have to share and share alike.

If it is right for Indians to get their land back, there is no reason to stop at a few states, why not give them the whole continent back if that is the morally correct view?  In a few generations their small numbers could fill it all up, it doesn’t matter that they are currently few, they hold the genes of the original native inhabitants of the land and giving the entire continent back to them is the only way to reach ‘status quo ante,’ after all no referendum was given to Indians on whether they wanted whites to take all their land.  Red men reclaiming their entire continent would be the only just outcome, anything else is a compromise with admittedly evil actions.  The right of conquest has been practiced all across time and to me is still just as legitimate and moral as before, to suddenly label it immoral would require we undo everything our ancestors have done as the only way to properly make amends for it.  This might be good for Europeans but not me!  I’m an American and I’d prefer a morality that justifies my existence not one that declares it some sort of mistake or necessary evil.

Furthermore, if everyone deserves their own special land, this says nothing about what a just apportionment of the land would be.  I have to assume it would reflect population levels, but given the declining white birth rates and out of control birth rates of Africa, ‘everyone deserving their own land’ would only mean continuously shrinking white territory and growing black territory.  This gives us no moral defense of sparsely populated territory and you can be sure those overcrowded starving africans will be demanding a more ‘just, fair, and equal’ apportionment.  Under the universal morality standard we would have to give them anything they asked.  Under a particularist morality, instead we could just say “tough, we want the land so we’re keeping it, because the superior should not be supplanted by the inferior.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 01:14 AM | #

Notice that the North American Red Man should by rights get “first dibbs” on the U.S. and Canadian land mass in the event mentally sick whites decide they no longer want it.  Whites have no right to give it to Third Worlders:  if whites are relinquishing their claim to it, motivated by whatever sort of insanity or brain-leprosy that is turning their brains into piles of quivering gelatinous gunk, the Indians should get it back, not the Somali Negroes just arrived on the last plane, or the Nigerians ditto, or the Subcons, or the Orientals, or the Mexicans (who belong to a different race of Red Men than those of the U.S. land mass), or whoever.  The U.S. Indians, therefore ought to be outraged at what’s going on in terms of giving this country to everyone in the world but they who have the most right to it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 01:24 AM | #

“Under a particularist morality, instead we could just say ‘tough, we want the land so we’re keeping it, because the superior should not be supplanted by the inferior.’ ” (—Diamed)

Almost but not quite — no, we say,”

“Tough, we have the land our fathers took and we’re keeping it, and we aim to maintain our strength relative to everyone else’s, forever, precisely in order to keep it, forever.  We don’t covet yours, whoever your are, and we don’t plan on letting you take ours.”

No mention of “inferior” or “superior” whatsoever, or “whites deserve better treatement than others.” No need, as those notions are irrelevant to what we’re talking about.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 02:09 AM | #

I didn’t say our taking the land was evil.  I didn’t get into that question at all.  I said the Red Man is in danger of going extinct and needs help.  He’s already lost his land.  That’s done:  he fought bravely three hundred years and lost all, everything he had.  Now he has to go extinct into the bargain?  No.  That shouldn’t be allowed to happen if it can be avoided.  The North American Red Man is a race.  That race should survive, not die out forever.  That’s all I said.  I never got into the question of whether or not the Pilgrim Fathers, or the Manhattan and Hudson River Dutchmen, or the French Quebeckers, or the Jamestown Englishmen should have taken and defended the land they took and defended.

Posted by James Bowery on November 29, 2008, 02:48 AM | #

The desire to play the “indigenous people” card has two facets, one more legitimate than the other:

1) As nature preserve.

2) War by other means.

Obviously nature preserves are legitimate—the only question being how to go about allocating resources that may displace humans—humans using technologies incompatible with the nature preserves.

War by other means is of questionable legitimacy when playing by the enemy’s rules—in this case the “rules” implying that carrying capacity creation counts for nothing even though it is what creates additional people.

Posted by Armor on November 29, 2008, 04:04 AM | #

“I would be very interested in your critique” (—Guessedworker)

The denunciation of genocidal policies is essential. Exposing double standards is useful too. I think you should also use Jared Taylor’s arguments: IQ and crime stats, the violence of multiracial societies, the comical contrast between the government’s theory that Africans can be just like us, and their actual appalling behavior in every white society. The use of demographic projections would be useful too, since everyone underestimates the pace of race-replacement. Also, people do not realize that immigration amounts to replacement and mechanically results in fewer babies for young white people.

It can also be shown that the leftists in government and the media are lying and posturing, and do not care about the well-being of anyone.

Since the use of double standards is pushed to the point of absurdity by the crazy left, I think its denunciation can be pushed further too. In a sense, double standards are all right: we should have a preference for our own race and we should oppose the replacement of blue-eyed people by Africans. At the same time, we recognize the right of Africans to live in Africa without European interference. But the genocidal left makes use of double standards so as to do away with the white race. Examples:

- They tell us that expelling immigrants is inhumane, whereas, strangely, it is never a problem for millions of immigrants to leave their homelands to settle in the West where they do not fit at all. There is no logic here. In fact, there is nothing inhumane at all in sending Africans back to Africa, it is at worst an inconvenience. On the other hand, the destruction of the European world by immigration is a tragedy.

- The media say immigrants are here to stay and only a nazi would think of shipping them back to their homelands. But it doesn’t bother the media that white people are made to flee their own hometowns due to immigration. If anything, the whites are BLAMED for fleeing immigration! White people, even schoolchildren and young women, are seen by the media as a mere commodity for immigrant consumers. Their lack of morals is abject.

--
I resent race-replacement, but I also resent everything that precedes it: the lies of government and the media, the loss of freedom, the destruction of intellectual and spiritual life by the media, the destruction of all western ideals, the cult of dishonesty that trickles down from the top institutions and ends up contaminating normal people, the destruction of the schools, and so on.

Posted by silver on November 29, 2008, 05:33 AM | #

As for what the Europeans did to the North American Red Man

There never was any North American Red Man nation.  There were disparate, warring tribes.  You can’t transgress against the rights of a nation if that nation doesn’t exist.  They might see themselves as a nation today (and should certainly be encouraged to) because any separation process would have to group them together in order to create an economically viable state.  Of course, they themselves should be given some say in the matter.  So should everyone.  You seem to struggle with that last concept though.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 12:45 PM | #

Excellent summary by Armor.  Outstanding.  Armor reveals himself to be a clear thinker on the issue of the government-enforced race-replacement of Euro peoples currently underway, the gravest human crisis of the last ten thousand years, possibly of the last one million years.

Posted by the Narrator.. on November 29, 2008, 12:46 PM | #

It’s a good article Guessedworker and all of your talking points are right on.

One thing I’m fairly sure of is that the White-Liberal has no non-White counterpart.
No one but the White ‘Holy Elite’ actually embraces the notion that race is a social construct and that it’s culture not race that matters. 
So if part of your audience or part of the panel with whom you are discussing these issues is non-White, then you have (potentially) someone who is (or can be revealed to be) on your side of the issue.

Something that might be an effective tactic in discussing these issues with the ‘Holy Elite’, is to use those points you illustrated above to attack and take apart every point they make (rather than simply make a counter point). Your bringing up the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a good example.

Their (the White Holy Elite’s) entire “religion” is based on hypocrisy, so any topic they bring up is going to reflect that and can be used against them.
In other words take apart every sentence they utter and find its inherent contradictions (to their avowed belief structure).

For example, (using your example of the Indigenous Rights declaration) even if you set aside the science and facts and play by their rules that race (or “Whiteness") is a social construct, just point out to them what else is actually, beyond the shadow of a doubt, a social construct.....Catholic, Baptist, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Socialist, Vegan, Wiccan, The Dallas Cowboys, Physicist, Astronaut, Prime Minister, Ambassador, Fry Cook, and of course Journalist, just to name a few.
And right now, in this regards, Islam is the liberals main Achilles Hill as they acknowledge both its social construction as well as its distinct culture and never question its right to continue existing.

Yes, all of the above have group-set standards and requirements for admission, yet they are all socially constructed and socially recognized as distinct institutions, titles and groups. And they all have the recognized right to exclude those who do not meet those group-set standards and/or requirements.

And all of the above social constructs were created from, led to or caused (sometimes incredible amounts of) violence over the decades and centuries (yes even Fry Cooks) so why should race be an exception.

The reason I would advocate this approach is that there is just no end to the contradictory BS of the other side.
Better to grab hold of the first hypocritical statement they make (which will be the very first statement out of their mouths) and not let go till they either capitulate or recant. Then repeat the process.

Another claim of the advocates of race-replacement is that it’s too late practically and politically to change our fate now.  The egg-yoke and the white have been whisked, and cannot be separated again.

Something that could be said to that, is that it wasn’t overly late, practically or politically, for the creation of Israel out of the ethnic/cultural/religious hodgepodge that was Palestine in the 1940’s.
Nor was it too difficult for NATO to carve up Yugoslavia into distinct ethnic nations today…

Posted by the Narrator.. on November 29, 2008, 12:58 PM | #

As for what the Europeans did to the North American Red Man

There never was any North American Red Man nation.  There were disparate, warring tribes.  You can’t transgress against the rights of a nation if that nation doesn’t exist.
Posted by silver on Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 05:33 AM

Even if you let them have their historic “nation” it only creates another problem for them in regards to early White/Indian relations.
Namely, that for about the first hundred years that Whites were in what is now the United States, Whites were the minority group, not the Indians…

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 01:01 PM | #

If the other side have any intellectual defense of what it’s doing, that defense can only entail Jewish race-denial — something the Jews cooked up for precisely this purpose, to serve as part of an intellectual defense of the genocide of the race Jews hate most, Euros, through various government-enforced demographic methods.  If a European race exists the other side’s behavior (the behavior of the Jews and their allies and bought men) can’t be justified.  (Of course, not “one” Euro race exists but several distinct European races exist, all of them currently subjected to methodical genocide via the demographic weapon and draconian policies associated therewith.)

This genocide is methodical, planned explicitly in the minds of a certain layer of men behind the scenes pushing it, men evil almost beyond imagining.  These are the germs, the disease, the little wiggling worm all the way inside the innermost core of the festering purulent abscess that will not heal.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 02:24 PM | #

It has to be understood that when the Jews like Ignatief, Wise, Diamond, and the rest claim whiteness is socially constructed what they mean is whites have the chance to change themselves into mulattoes or mestizos or Eurasians, etc., but the numbers of them refusing, because of their racism, to go that route are sufficient to keep the white race in existence:  they could race-mix themselves out of existence but prefer not to, prefer marrying and living amongst their own kind.  Once the chance to race-mix themselves out of existence has been made available to them and been passed up by them for reasons of race-preference (preferring to remain themselves, marrying and living among their own kind) any white race that continues in existence thenceforth is something that’s been socially constructed, since it exists by personal preference, not by nature:  they had their chance to race-mix and didn’t take it, therefore as of that point in time any white race that continues to exist has been artificially maintained in existence.  That’s what the Jews mean by “the white race is socially constructed.”

Jews have to be told in plain language to stop trying to genocide Euro-race peoples.  If you’re a Euro participant in a panel discussion on TV or radio, or a college debate, or you are writing an op-ed for a newspaper, or contributing to a blog, or what-have-you, you need to start telling Jews in calm, polite, very plain, stark, unmistakable language that Euros are sick and tired of the myriad ways in which Jews are trying to genocide them, and they’d like it stopped please.

Posted by pryderi on November 29, 2008, 04:26 PM | #

GW et al
Have any of you contacted the BNP with any of the thoughts expressed on this thread?
Is there a legal reason why the BNP website is not more explicit on the subject of race (and the subject of who in fact the real racism in Britain is directed against), or is it just tactical?
The old BNP site contained at least one decent article on the realities of race. I’m still not sure about the new site. It looks far more professional, but it takes an age to load.

Posted by James Bowery on November 29, 2008, 04:26 PM | #

Diamed writes: Only the fact that we deserve it because we’re better than anyone else and thus deserve more morally legitimizes even our current holdings.

And where exactly do we have exclusive control of our own territory when the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (generalized to all of the Eurosphere by US hegemony) breaks down national boundaries and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (likewise generalized) breaks down private boundaries?

No, by your definition of “superior” we have already been conquered.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2008, 05:23 PM | #

Well, there are two references here to social construction which need to be slightly challenged.

The social construct is the totality of impressions, reactions, opinions, likes and dislikes, and every other kind of informative process which participates in our view of the world outside one’s own head and, specifically, all the allegedly phenomenological “facts” which that world comprises.  So, for example, each of us is possessed of an extraordinarily complex amalgam of psychological data that refers to the phenomenon of “Woman”, or “Negro”, and which formulates our perceptions of same.  This data can never be, however, “Woman” or “Negro” in a direct and true sense.  All phenomenological categories are unknown and unknowable, and may not exist at all in any sense that can really be apprehended in the mind.  We are left with nothing but interpretation.  The world we know, social constructionists say, is just interpretation.

The social constructionist typically includes within the gamut of information feeding the interpretative process feelings, sensations and autonomic functions.  These are claimed on the basis that they are processed in parallel by thought.  That should tell you how confused the whole idea is.  If it was restricted to the thinking faculty only, which must construct because it functions by association, there would be some utility in it.  But the social constructionist must be able to relativise the white man’s perception, or he cannot then make his case for racism, anti-semitism, sexism, homophobia, etc, and so he over-reaches himself.

This fatal ambition leaves social constructionists open to all manner of lines of attack.  Never be intimidated by the obvious academic ability of a lot of these people.  They are simply neo-Marxists, no different to any other of the breed.

pryderi,

No, I’m sure that the BNP is not interested in us.  I’ve been critical of the leadership, the anti-intellectualism in the party and the focus on Islam.  Party supporters have taken umbrage here.  They will not hear any criticism of Nick the Great.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2008, 05:26 PM | #

I think Finn, if he drops by, will be able to add more to my thumbnail sketch of Social Construction.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 05:52 PM | #

“No, I’m sure that the BNP is not interested in us.  I’ve been critical of the leadership, the anti-intellectualism in the party and the focus on Islam.  Party supporters have taken umbrage here.  They will not hear any criticism of Nick the Great.” (—GW)

Do you think?  I dunno, I’d bet they’ve got someone reading this site.  I’ll say this, if they don’t they’re missing out on a ton of excellent suggestions from all manner of people here who’ve thought lots of this stuff through and wish them only well.  Reading this site could only be of assistance to them.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2008, 05:57 PM | #

Snax,

The only non-English population in England prior to 1948 were Jews.  They present a different problem to the general one of the MultiCult and race-replacement immigration, which is a political problem of liberalism.  Serious nationalist politics is presently unwilling to grasp the nettle.  It simply has not found a way to circumvent the Jewish self-enthronement since 1945 as a sanctified people beyond all censure.

The best shot we have of untipping the kosher market stall is probably Holocaust Revisionism.  If it just forced its way to the edges of public consciousness, gravity would do the rest.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 29, 2008, 06:11 PM | #

Speaking of which (in a round-about way):  in regard to what this site has to offer that is of unique value, if FJ can publish a book, so can GW and a sight better than FJ, I expect.  Have you thought about it, GW? 

FJ’s new book, here,

http://www.lulu.com/content/4730263 ,

is according to the publisher’s blurb a re-working of his pieces that have been published separately at various web-sites including Gates of Vienna and BrusselsJournal.com.  GW’s entries at MR.com by themselves could fill a book.  A selection of those entries, fleshed out where necessary to make them more comprehensible for the novice reader approaching such ideas for the first time (notions like EGI for example), might change lots of minds out among the public that’s not online.  Might even be a best seller, who knows?  As good as FJ is, it would be better.

Posted by snax on November 29, 2008, 06:36 PM | #

That isn’t correct, GW, as every reader of “nation of immigrants” propaganda surely knows. Quite apart from the Jews who were living in England in 1947, there was the Scots, Welsh, and Irish, hundreds of thousands of continental euros, thousands of asians of diverse origin, and more thousands of black of diverse origin.

1948 is immaterial, Englishness is all.

Posted by snax on November 29, 2008, 06:41 PM | #

I agree, however, that we should set a different standard for Jews. Small numbers of other peoples could live among the English (though without full rights) without posing an existential threat to us, not so with Jews. Eliot was wrong, it’s not the size of the independent Jewish colony, it’s its Jewishness that’s dangerous.

Posted by Englander on November 29, 2008, 07:02 PM | #

Guessedworker:

The best shot we have of untipping the kosher market stall is probably Holocaust Revisionism.  If it just forced its way to the edges of public consciousness, gravity would do the rest.

I don’t see Holocaust Revisionism gaining any kind of acceptance (if it is even deserving of it) until after a Nationalist awakening, and I don’t think it matters. I am happy for Nationalist parties to avoid the JQ because I don’t see how anybody will be able to keep a cap on it after Whites have accepted that they have their own ethnic interests and Political Correctness has ceased to carry any power. I’m sure Jews know this which is why they are unwilling to support Nationalism even in the face of increasing Islamification.

Posted by the Narrator.. on November 29, 2008, 07:32 PM | #

But the social constructionist must be able to relativise the white man’s perception, or he cannot then make his case for racism, anti-semitism, sexism, homophobia, etc, and so he over-reaches himself.
Posted by Guessedworker

Exactly. They expose themselves by attacking fist and coming up with multiple overlapping justifications later.
When one doesn’t work they simply jump to another one which almost always contradicts their prior one.

They will on the one hand deny that “Whites” and our culture exist “because peoples having been moving back and forth since time began, and everybody is mixed and the earth belongs to all people....”, yet on the other hand they haven no trouble at all in defining “native peoples”, “their lands” and culture.

I guess the thing to keep in mind is that some Whites will never be persuaded to our side as they are “true believers” in the multicult. (Kevin MacDonald went into the beginning of the belief in Egalitarianism in the U.S. in his review of Transcendentalism in America and its genesis amongst the Puritan New Englanders and how it was later exploited by Jewish group strategy).

But there are many, MANY Whites who are the silent majority who need to hear and read well articulated articles, comments and speeches with which to embolden their resolve to become more public in their views and actions.

This is why I would advocate the development of a ‘Western Apologetic’.
We have to stop letting our adversaries get away with trashing Western history and construct defenses for each and every accusation that is leveled at our people and their past actions. From the Crusades to Colonization.

A kind of Mere Christianity for the White Race.

I use that example because it is often said that Lewis’s work never convinced a true atheist to convert, but sent great numbers of agnostics into the Christian Camp.

Likewise, I believe, we need to concentrate our efforts less on “Western Civilizatinal Atheists” and more on “Western Civilizational Agnostics”. The later category representing the majority of Whites....

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2008, 07:39 PM | #

Snax,

You have two choices here: an avowedly racial state DNA-testing its own people for strict conformity to a set genetic standard - literally policing the genotype - or a political state which eschews such absolutism and determines on the looser basis of sufficiency in that respect, but that makes life more tolerable for the people.

The evidence that Jews can live among Europeans without exhibiting aggressive group strategies is lacking, as we know.  But there is evidence for Jewish goodwill towards is host in Iran, strangely enough.  The Iranian Jewish community is contented and recently refused a firm request - and not the first - from some (I think) religious body in Israel to make aliyah.

However, the European experience of the 20th century should be enough for us to reach our own conclusions.

Posted by Lurker on November 29, 2008, 07:45 PM | #

Narrator, just to agree with you - from time to time I try on other sites to do battle with various lefties/liberals. Its not them Im trying to win over its the silent majority of non-participants. Thats the way it seems anyway. If it looks like Im winning the arguments, somebody might notice. Heres hoping.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2008, 08:17 PM | #

They notice, Lurker.  Several months ago some guy in a postroom somewhere in England even put a comment on a CiF thread to let me know he was reading off the screen to the other guys in the room, and they were all having a damned good laugh at the bloodbath.  Only last week I had two people thank me on the same thread for saying what millions think but do not themselves say.

The support is there.  The opposition is child’s play to beat.  You have to know what you can get away with saying and where, that’s all.  Of the English quality dailies the Independent is the most broadminded, then the Telegraph.  It is possible to mention Jews in both.  Then comes the Guardian, which won’t tolerate any comment critical of Jews, then the Times (which is useless and hardly worth bothering with in its main section anyway because of its pathetic character limit).  Of the redtops I only know the Mail, which is not less censorious than the Times.

Posted by the Narrator.. on November 29, 2008, 08:29 PM | #

from time to time I try on other sites to do battle with various lefties/liberals. Its not them Im trying to win over its the silent majority of non-participants. Thats the way it seems anyway. If it looks like Im winning the arguments, somebody might notice. Heres hoping.
Posted by Lurker on Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 07:45 PM

It takes a lot of time, patience and restraint to go back and forth with some of them, I know. So my hat’s off to you and anyone else who does it.
I used to do it more but have slacked off of late.

You’re right to have hope though as sometimes you come across people who seem to have shrugged off everything you’ve said only to see them repeat your arguments to someone else later in another place.

Besides that, even if you loose an argument (and we all do) you still can win in the long run as you learn how the other side argues and what their rebuttals are likely to be, giving you the time to refine your argument for the next fight with the next opponent…

Posted by snax on November 29, 2008, 08:39 PM | #

You have two choices here: an avowedly racial state DNA-testing its own people for strict conformity to a set genetic standard - literally policing the genotype - or a political state which eschews such absolutism and determines on the looser basis of sufficiency in that respect, but that makes life more tolerable for the people.

GW, your own basis for discrimination is, quote: “Our genetic distinctiveness”. The “our” precedes the “genetic”, and that “genetic distinctiveness” defines what is English. Isn’t that so? Or is English-ness a cultural, territorial, and democratic notion, as Gordon Brown would argue?

I know my nation is more than 60 years old, if yours began in 1948 I pity you. The UN is older than you.

Posted by Dante on November 29, 2008, 08:45 PM | #

Though I’m far from your most knowledgable reader, your argument seems less a work in progress than a fait accompli to me, Guessedworker. With the addition of some of Jared Taylor’s finer points as Armor suggests, (I believe JT’s “what if whites were to flock to Mexico en masse?” reversal plays very well) and perhaps some sort of grand future prospect to hold up, I believe your ideas are ripe for wider dissemination. A book would indeed be most welcome.

As to that grand future prospect, beyond our guaranteed survival and prosperity, perhaps the conquest of space? Or the eradication of infertility, disease and even death through medical advancement? While such notions may seem grandiose, I believe there’s value in painting a bright future in contrast to the grim bogeyman of environmental catastrophe. The opposition seems to offer little else in terms of a future vision, beyond the glorious race-replacement of the majority of its voters.

Posted by joe on November 29, 2008, 09:18 PM | #

Guessedworker

Well Done with your comments on CI(not)F. Although, I didn’t catch which ones they were, I know you are the master at winding lefties up. Did you know unions have their call bank workers posting pro lefty comments on newspaper/blog websites??

However, I think we can match them, and it is a very important part of the battle ahead.

IMHO Lee Barnes got his message across, but he would not have converted many people. Few people who count listen to moral maze or read CI(not)F and it they do they already have preconceptions. I prefer to go for people who have never voted, which is nearly half.

My leafleting team is usually 5 strong but we have been getting 10-12 and just today I have recruited someone who is really keen. My concern is that the leaflets we put out are not up to it. I always question the point of putting inappropriate leaflets out to the areas we are doing, and we should be recruiting more than we are for the effort we are putting in.

In my opinion the BNP are on the brink of making an impact, but the people in charge are are not up to the job. The ones who could are waiting on the sidelines and it is their time to come forward.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 30, 2008, 01:26 AM | #

Joe: In my opinion the BNP are on the brink of making an impact, but the people in charge are are not up to the job. The ones who could are waiting on the sidelines and it is their time to come forward.

They may wait.  But will they be called?

snax,

You are misreading me somewhat.  I wrote first that 1948 marks the starting date of the English legitimation crisis, and second that the MultiCult dates from there.  I do not, however, believe that we can or should return to the methods of Nazi racial science in determining who is and who is not entitled to stay.  One of the prime considerations is where to send those whom one would exclude.  There has to be a sufficiency in that direction too.  This is a negotiable issue for reasons other than genes, and one is at risk of over-simplifying its difficulties if one takes too absolutist a stand.

Dante,

I respect our Breton friend’s opinion, which I think he knows because I invited him here from Paul Belien’s threads.

What I am trying to do is to develop more than mere anti-liberal arguments.  I would like to come up first with terminology that could gain commonality in our usage.  Then comes not argumentation as such but an easily communicable and self-referential, global Weltenschaung that literally replaces the neo-Marxist analysis.

That is certainly not yet contained within the ideas of my post.  There’s a long way to go, and many a Ci (but not) F ban yet before the whole scheme emerges.  If it ever does.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 30, 2008, 01:50 AM | #

If we’re clever and can get clever legal talent on our side, we may be able to use the following, once it’s implemented, to our advantage in ways that should be obvious at a glance.

It was announced [yesterday, Friday] by the European Commission that racism, incitement of hate, and excusing, denying, or making light of crimes of genocide will soon be punishable throughout the European Union by one to three years in jail.

European Justice Ministers agreed [yesterday, Friday] to introduce these criminal penalties into their legislation.  At the conclusion of the meeting the European Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot, in making his announcement to the press, emphasized that it has taken seven years of negotiations to arrive at this result.

“Racism and xenophobia have no place in Europe and mustn’t have a place anywhere else in the world,” he stressed.  “I salute the introduction of harsh, effective punishments for these violations of the human rights and the basic freedoms which are principles held in common by the countries of Europe,” he added.

The agreement punishes “public incitement to violence or hate that targets a group or member of a group defined on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, or national or ethnic origin.” It also punishes incitement “through public dissemination or distribution of written material, pictures, or other means,” referring to the internet.

The Europeans also intend to criminalize “excusing, denying, or crudely and publicly making light of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes as defined by the International Criminal Court” [or the World Court? — uncertain of the translation there].

It may take from several months to a few years for these punishments to become law, as the countries of the E.U. will need time to translate the agreed-upon guidelines into legislation.

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/11/29/ue-racisme-et-xenophobie-des-delits-passibles-de-un-a-trois-ans-de-prison/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 30, 2008, 01:56 AM | #

“To our advantage” if, for one thing, we can succeed in procuring an admission by the courts that the immigration crisis together with the accompanying wide-ranging and oppressive social legislation intended as a way of “smoothening the path” for the newcomers at our expense (reverse discrimination) amounts in reality to slow genocide of Euros according to definitions already set out in international legal documents.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 30, 2008, 02:03 AM | #

If we can gain that admission, we might, for example, threaten our opponents with prosecution for “making light of genocide — ours,” and so on (or threaten Jews who call whites the cancer of history with prosecution for spreading hate against white people as a group, and so forth — you get the idea:  there’s stuff in there our side could potentially work with to our advantage, assuming we could procure some clever legal talent).

Posted by snax on November 30, 2008, 02:09 AM | #

GW, Britain and its empire, and questions about “English-ness” predate 1948. The greatest risk is the ethnic/nationalism/sliding rule, and you introduced it by choice. Defoe’s “mongrel race” is legitimised by your equivocation. Stick with it and you lose everything, cos there’s nowt you defend.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 30, 2008, 04:54 AM | #

The other method is to appeal to the individualism and freedom these individuals hold dear. A society of property, consent, and voluntary interaction, wherein people may associate with or exclude whomever they like is a peaceful society. It is the seizure of the coercive apparatus of the state by competing interest groups which sows social discord.

Gays go from victim to victimizer by demanding the eHarmony dating service accommodate their demand for pairing. Ditto, the BNP. In a free society, a society that supports voluntary interaction, then the BNP should be fre to include or exclude whoever they wish for whatever reason they wish.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 30, 2008, 09:08 AM | #

Snax,

I had a 1950s childhood in London.  I know those English people of whom I speak, and who constitute a nation, certainly, in my mind.  Do you?

And you must also answer what grounds are sufficienct for the expelled to adhere to their future surroundings.  You cannot treat human beings like refuse, for whom all consideration ceases when you toss it is the bin.  This is an extremely vexed area with much negative history to inform us, and it won’t pay to try to ignore it.

The English are especially poor at absolutism.  Our last historical brush with it was Sir Arthur Harris’s prosection of the Area Offensive.  As soon as the war ended and journalists were flown over Germany’s cities to observe what had been achieved, the process of self-recrimination began.  That, too, has to be guarded against.

I am not in favour of operating purely on a date basis.  There must be a genetic foundation to nationhood.  But the fact of family circumstances for non-English residency cannot be entirely discounted, and inevitably the non-English Question will become one of quantity as well as quality.

In conclusion, much more thought must be given to this than we can possibly give here - unless, of course, one really is intent on policing the genotype.  Personally, I want to get away from Puritanism of all kinds.  We have enough of the heirs of Matthew Hopkins in the modern liberal dispensation without setting them over us again in a new form.

Let politics rule.

Posted by a Finn on November 30, 2008, 10:04 AM | #

GW: “I think Finn, if he drops by, will be able to add more to my thumbnail sketch of Social Construction.”

I say something tomorrow. I have a lot to read and do, so the text’s breadth will be limited, but I will make it important.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 30, 2008, 10:08 AM | #

Desmond: The other method is to appeal to the individualism and freedom these individuals hold dear.

Tactically, that is good.

Beyond tactics, individualism has to be defined in a different way, I think: as an evolutionary complement to ethnocentrism and not in opposition to it.  The negative liberties of freedom of expression and association would become very important and rather broader.  There is a good deal of reclamation of the European spirit to be done in this regard.  In evolutionary terms, negative liberty has something to do with the size and self-reliance of community.  Perhaps the last time a truly free character attached to European Man was in the great movement west in America and Canada in the 18th and 19th centuries.  We would need to find that character and give it voice.

The positive liberty of participation in democratic government and, through democracy, membership of a free society would possibly become reciprocally altruistic: the participation in freeing the people, and keeping them free.

Not entirely sure about that, but it is an interesting area of thought.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 30, 2008, 10:11 AM | #

I look forward to it, Finn.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 30, 2008, 03:10 PM | #

Distinguishing the organic nation from “The MultiCult”

Another claim of the advocates of race-replacement is that it’s too late practically and politically to change our fate now.  The egg-yoke and the white have been whisked, and cannot be separated again.

But the analogy is false.  Difficulty is not the same thing as impossibility, and separating this particular egg and yolk is merely growing more difficult.  It will never be impossible.

It’s not only false, it’s morally repugnant.  It’s the sort of thing the slaveholder tells the uppity slave, or if you prefer dramatization, that Megele tells the living skeletons when they object on their way to the ovens.

“Now listen, boy, this here egg is too far scrambled.”

Sorry asshole, you were the one who scrambled it and I can’t take your word for it.  I’ve got to save what I can.

Then the whole issue of just how scrambled the egg is becomes open to debate, and it’s fun to get into it and watch the multicultis squirm.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 30, 2008, 03:21 PM | #

A great read btw, GW.

However, to the point about moral integrity I would argue that once having injected the opiate of personal social status, even the sub-humans among Euromen are more likely to follow their moral vainty to the actual harm of themselves, their families and their ethny—indeed life itself—than are most if not all other peoples.

Posted by James Bowery on Friday, November 28, 2008 at 06:52 PM | #

A striking point; we have to attack this faux morality viciously and at every turn.  Pillory these Uncle Toms; turn over their rocks and expose their entomology.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 30, 2008, 03:42 PM | #

No one but the White ‘Holy Elite’ actually embraces the notion that race is a social construct and that it’s culture not race that matters.

No one who isn’t a frothing at the mouth psycho liberal activist actually believes either lie.

These are platitudes, a mile wide and an inch deep.  No one who isn’t a full-time mouth-frother really cares.

What these platitudes actually DO is keep people from speaking up.  This creates the perfect environment for pathogens.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 30, 2008, 03:54 PM | #

You’re right to have hope though as sometimes you come across people who seem to have shrugged off everything you’ve said only to see them repeat your arguments to someone else later in another place.

It’s a good idea to assume that your sparring partner in any given melee identifies his own self worth with his progress in an argument to the same degree as any given member of the public (don’t have a number, think “lots").  Everyone does this to an extent, but in my experience people who have a “lawyerly” quality to them (myself very much included) have it in much lower quantities than is normal.

So don’t be surprised when someone swaggers away as if triumphant, even after you’ve just handed him the infinitesmal remains of his posterior.  This is especially true of negros.

When someone just slinks away and stops arguing (after you’ve been thrashing him), that’s about as close to a gentlemanly surrender you’re likely to get.

It has an effect, you’d better believe it.  If it didn’t, something tells me the leftist (mainstream) structure (from the major television networks, right on down to your local apolitical discussion forum) wouldn’t be so dependent on silencing opposition.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 30, 2008, 03:56 PM | #

Oh, and it’s CONSERVATIVES you should be worried about getting through to.

They’re the ones least penetrable to persuasion.

Posted by mordred on November 30, 2008, 04:16 PM | #

i believe Mr. Worker is taking the wrong approach above with respect to the use of the word “racism”.

the word as currently used is mostly a smear word: “you are a nasty person, and good people (like me) should have nothing to do with you.”
the word has mostly emotional content, but little intellectual content.

if you ask someone using it what he means you will likely not get from him a coherent definition.

unfortunately, Mr. Worker’s approach is to continue using the word for revilement rather than for enlightenment: “i’m not the racist, you are ...”
the reasons he gives above as to why the anti-racists are themselves racist are good but they leave intact the idea that being a “racist” is bad.

even poor buffoon Mr. Lee Barnes - and with him, apparently, all the BNP - is afraid of being called “racist!”

i say no: we who stand for our identity and our people should take the word and fling it back in their faces:
there is nothing wrong with being racist, we should be proud of it and say so.

i recommend the definition of race, and, implicitly, of “racism”, by Steve Sailer, at http://www.vdare.com/sailer/presentation.htm.

he defines race as an extended family, and that is exactly what it is.

a “racist” is a “familist”.

we should not want to defend our family, our own kind?

not to do so is wrong!
not to want to do so is wrong!

giving a substantive and intelligent meaning to “race” and “racism” will put out the fire of these anti-racist dragons real quick.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 30, 2008, 04:20 PM | #

i say no: we who stand for our identity and our people should take the word and fling it back in their faces:
there is nothing wrong with being racist, we should be proud of it and say so.

But as you say, the word is now almost devoid of meaning (means “Kulak” as far as I can tell).  So why dodge a meaningless word?

Now, I’m the guy who actually calls himself a racist in “polite” company.  So don’t think it’s a matter of balls; why let your enemy keep all the weapons he has forged for himself, at a cost of billions of dollars?  I say take his weapon and use it against him whenever possible.  They’ve done us a favor by delegitimizing most of their own behavior.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 30, 2008, 04:27 PM | #

So why dodge a meaningless word?

Meant to say why bother dodging or accepting (especially proudly) a meaningless word?

It’s a tactical issue, not so much an ideological one.

Posted by Captainchaos on November 30, 2008, 04:49 PM | #

GW: “There must be a genetic foundation to nationhood.  But the fact of family circumstances for non-English residency cannot be entirely discounted, and inevitably the non-English Question will become one of quantity as well as quality.”

Then I suspect you would not object to striving to achieve an ‘as good as possible’ genetic articulation of what “English” actually is.  It would certainly be a useful tool to have.  How it is utilized is another matter.  As you have said, any Negro admixture is the end of northern Europeanness - in that case at least, zero tolerance, yes, absolutism, is required.  The tack I would take is that any recent admixture of non-Negro, non-European blood is also not to be tolerated.  The trick is to slowly close the gates to ‘Englishness’, but close them you must, if you are serious about preserving the genotype - if you want the English to remain a northern European people.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 30, 2008, 05:49 PM | #

The reason we’re not racists is the word “racist” was originally sold to the public as “a person who is mean or unjust toward another on account of race,” like the fictional Simon Legree in the novel, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” None of us here is mean or unjust toward anyone on account of race, nor do we approve of such behavior. 

The setting of rational immigration policy for your country, specifically in regard to entry of racially/ethnoculturally unlike peoples, isn’t “mean or unjust toward anyone on account of race.” It’s humane and normal, not “racist,” and those calling for it certainly can’t be called “racist” on that account.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 30, 2008, 06:04 PM | #

The Derb,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Derbyshire ,

has a good piece up over at Taki’s discussing the difference between people like us and what he calls culturalists (as GW has pointed out, Fjordman is a culturalist:  he believes race counts for little or nothing, and culture for just about everything, so exchanging all Norwegians in Norway for imported Nigerians would change little or nothing about Norway once the Nigerians got acclimated, learned the language, and so on):

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hear_no_genes_see_no_genes_speak_no_genes_the_jargon_of_culturalism/

( Hat tip:  http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/11/30/derbyshire-on-culturalism-at-mencken-club-not-nro/ )

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 30, 2008, 06:10 PM | #

The Derb can’t or won’t see the Jews are the main reason for culturalism’s dominance in the West, as they were the main reason for its dominance under the U.S.S.R.  They have lots of help from the advent of women’s suffrage.  Women don’t see race or nation.  You want to give women the vote?  Fine, just be ready to kiss your race and nation good-bye because in no time they’ll both be reduced to dust.

Posted by Bill on November 30, 2008, 06:21 PM | #

Here from the BBC’s latest Moral Maze message board post mortem - with postings by Lee Barnes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213240?thread=6100336&skip=20&show=20

Posted by Gudmund on November 30, 2008, 06:26 PM | #

Women don’t see race or nation.  You want to give women the vote?  Fine, just be ready to kiss your race and nation good-bye because in no time they’ll both be reduced to dust.

Very well said.  It is an unfortunate truth that all WNs must be made aware of.

Posted by John on November 30, 2008, 11:15 PM | #

i believe Mr. Worker is taking the wrong approach above with respect to the use of the word “racism”.

the word as currently used is mostly a smear word: “you are a nasty person, and good people (like me) should have nothing to do with you.”
the word has mostly emotional content, but little intellectual content.

The word also has a (ersatz) religious quality to it. It’s akin to “sinner” or “evil”. An “atheist” should if anything point out the hypocrisy and double standards of believers. Using their religious terms against them legitimizes such and we should want to do the opposite, I think.

...exchanging all Norwegians in Norway for imported Nigerians would change little or nothing about Norway once the Nigerians got acclimated…

A one-for-one exchange wouldn’t anywhere near so bad as what we have now. No more than a handful of Norwegians want to live in black Africa.

They have lots of help from the advent of women’s suffrage.  Women don’t see race or nation.  You want to give women the vote?  Fine, just be ready to kiss your race and nation good-bye because in no time they’ll both be reduced to dust.

Don’t Japanese women vote? The last time I was there, I didn’t see many Zulus, except a tourist here and there (no gang graffiti, either). Women voting certainly facilitates nation-busting but it takes more than just that, imo. The porous US-Mexico border is the result of far more than merely women having the vote. Without the agenda item of the elite agenda-setters it’s perfectly possible to have women suffrage in a race-based nation.

Posted by Diamed on November 30, 2008, 11:21 PM | #

I read the comments on that takimag thread and it was the same tired old arguments trotted out again:

1) Christianity is against racism.

Reply:  Who says?  Christianity was for racism for 1800 years or so.  It only suddenly became against racism when those in charge decided it would be interpreted that way.  Utter baloney.  The old testament is one of the most racist books on earth, including requirements to not interbreed and to genocide other races and take their land.  The old testament is part of the Bible of Christianity and nothing in the New Testament contradicts the racism of the Old Testament, so there is no scriptural basis for this belief.  Not that Any of this matters because Christianity is a load of baloney and thus who cares what it thinks.

2) There’s no proof IQ varies between the races due to genetic endowments!  Two chinese people are less genetically similar to each other than a Chinese person and a Brit!

Reply:  There are endless reams of proof.  The proof is so well established that even respectable agencies like Scientific American have admitted the genetic hereditary nature of IQ.  Twin studies compare identical twins raised apart to fraternal twins raised together, if IQ was based on environment then the fraternal twins raised together should have closer IQ scores, however it’s in fact the identical twins raised apart who have nearly identical scores.  The Lewontin fallacy has already been debunked and it flies in the face of common sense.  We can all clearly see that Chinese are more like each other than they are similar to a Brit, end of story.

3) There’s no proof personalities vary between the races due to genetics!

Reply:  Read Race, Evolution, and Behavior by Rushton.  Reams of proof that the different races have very different personalities and behavior based on race.  Blacks are the highest testosterone, have lots of kids, don’t worry about tomorrow type, whites are in the middle, and Asians the most low testosterone prudent and slow to have children.  When we look at social reality we see the exact same proportions in crime--blacks the highest, whites in the middle, asians the least.  The multiphase minnesota personality test is a well established and well proven good test of personality and behavior.  When given to members of the different races, it becomes quite clear that blacks are more psychopathic/sociopathic than the other races.  Blacks adopted into white families still have as low IQ as their biological parents, and blacks raised in any place on earth still always have the same horrendous results: haiti, Detroit, London, Paris, or Somalia it makes no difference.

4) Even if it’s all true, we can’t possibly admit it, because this would lead to eugenics.

Reply:  So what?  What is wrong with aborting babies with known disabilities and low IQ before they become a menace to the world later in life?  What is wrong with aborting babies who are sure to have the least happy life and most damaging presence on earth?  There isn’t enough room in the world for every egg of every woman to be fertilized and born.  We must choose who to give our limited resources, and thus discriminating on who will be born is common sense.  Similarly, we must encourage those with high IQ to have many children, not one or none like they are currently doing, because they are our greatest treasure and their genetic lines MUST continue if we are to have any science, art, leadership, business CEO’s, military commanders, or anything that works!  What an insane policy to not nurture our most important natural resource, the quality of our people!

5) Not only eugenics, everyone here is secretly a nazi with dark plans to genocide all non-whites the moment we admit the truth science says about hereditary differences.

Reply:  So what?  The non-whites have an out in the open plan to genocide all whites, and they haven’t needed the truth science says to engage in their plan.  Whites are ‘the cancer of human history’ and the ‘white race must be abolished’ according to our jewish overlords.  In South Africa they are merrily going about the genocide of whites while chanting quite clear, open slogans: “Kill the boer, kill the farmer.” and “One Settler, One bullet.” These songs are being sung by Mandela and Zuma, the leaders of the country, and his personal favorite is “bring me my machine gun.” Rap songs continuously talk about kill whitey and “revolution in the streets” and La Raza says they will conquer Atzlan and drive every last gringo out of their nation.  The muslim jihadis say they will not stop until all the world belongs to Islam and Allah and have been genociding all those who refuse for 1400 years now.  Every single one of our enemies is genocidal in word AND deed.  Their mass immigration into our territory, their mass stealing of our resources through voting for welfare aid, and their massive crime rates and direct RAPING OF OUR WOMEN have made their stance perfectly clear.  My answer to them is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, genocide for genocide.  We didn’t start this war but we should damn well finish it.  Let them all rot in hell repining the horrendous sins they did against us for centuries before they finally provoked our incredibly tolerant and forgiving anger.  No one could ask for a more lenient treatment of non-whites then we’ve already given them, and what has it gained us?  What?

Even supposing genocide were wrong, there is no intrinsic need to genocide anyone just from realizing the truth.  We do not genocide monkeys or any animals just because we know we are smarter than them.  We give a good deal of consideration towards them, care about their feelings and try to preserve their environments, all out of fellow-feeling and generosity.  We could just as easily live in peace and amity with all our little black and brown brothers from a position of unchallengeable strength that is enough to deter all war on earth.  We could just leave the earth to non-whites and find our destiny in the stars.  But ONLY if we stop the genocide that is currently ongoing.  For those so opposed to genocide, why the double standards?  Why so worried about white on non-white genocides that might theoretically occur, as opposed to the real live genocide that is occurring right before your eyes?  Why spend ZERO time condemning their genocide of us?  What’s your angle?  Why not take some time off from condemning hypothetical nazi planners of genocide and condemn the real genocide of tibetans by Chinese, of kosovar serbs by kosovar muslims, of Darfur blacks by Sudanese arabs, etc?  There’s real actual genocides practiced by non-whites everywhere, but the bleeding hearts just seem to lose all interest in preventing genocide when it isn’t related to the self-defense of our white people.

6) The differences are minor and unimportant anyway.  We’re so closely related it’s trivial, the races overlap and statistics and averages don’t matter, only individuals matter, as individuals we can all get along.

Reply:  Haiti and Sweden are different.  Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray has 0 African entries, while giving 90% of the credit to white males.  Detroit and Pleasantville Iowa are different.  Mexico and Canada are different.  Saudi Arabia and Germany are different.  Whatever ‘minor’ differences there are, their effect when magnified and multiplied by hundreds of millions of people all playing out this difference together is ENORMOUS.  There can hardly be two greater polar opposites than Africa and Europe, both now and historically at all periods in time.  It is insane to not care about the difference between decency and depravity, glory and savagery, beauty and filth.  There could not be a starker difference, so whatever the minor genetic changes, race matters.  Only one chromosome separates men and women, but everyone realizes how genetically, unalterably different they are by their very nature.  What then of the varying races??

People don’t come as individuals.  That’s not how we are packaged.  People are born into this earth as members of a tribe, a racial group, a family, a language, a religion, and a culture.  They will belong to this group, more or less, from birth to death, and their loyalty will be to this group, like it or not.  An individual black of high achievement, say barack Obama or WEB du bois, will spend all his efforts to help his black tribe and hate the white race he so jealously perceives as above him.  They will not suddenly switch sides and join whites to sing kumbaya, they will join hands with their black brothers and sing “bring me my machine gun.” It doesn’t matter how many degrees they have, Mugabe went to Harvard and wore business suits, he still genocided the white race out of his country, he still hated us with all his heart.  Race is our eternal uniform on this battlefield earth.  There can be no peace with the shadow.  This isn’t our choosing, it is theirs.  It is Nature and Fate’s.  So don’t whine to us about it, and stop proposing some alternate reality utopia that has never and will never happen.

(sorry for the length that meldalla guy just steams me up)

Posted by Englander on November 30, 2008, 11:35 PM | #

i recommend the definition of race, and, implicitly, of “racism”, by Steve Sailer, at http://www.vdare.com/sailer/presentation.htm.

he defines race as an extended family, and that is exactly what it is.

a “racist” is a “familist”.

we should not want to defend our family, our own kind?

The trouble with this sort of thing is that the average descendent of European Christiandom will likely laugh at the idea that his co-ethny are his family. He feels nothing for those around him who aren’t actual family and friends.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 30, 2008, 11:43 PM | #

”Another claim of the advocates of race-replacement is that it’s too late practically and politically to change our fate now.  The egg-yoke and the white have been whisked, and cannot be separated again.  But the analogy is false.  Difficulty is not the same thing as impossibility, and separating this particular egg and yolk is merely growing more difficult.  It will never be impossible.” (—from the log entry)

If only we had started dismantling the race-replacement process ten years ago, it would have been a lot simpler and more feasible, and the naysayers back then wouldn’t have been so cock-sure of themselves as they are now, telling us our only choice is to learn to like it. 

Or imagine we’d gotten a start on it twenty years ago — around 1988.  It had only begun really mushrooming in the early-to-mid ‘80s, so in 1988 was still at a far more tractable stage, a stage at which certainly there were way fewer cocksure naysayers and defeatists saying we had better like it because a multi-racial society was here to stay.

How about thirty years ago!  Think of the ease with which it could’ve been dealt with in 1978!  It was at a nascent stage then, not yet catastrophic, not yet a veritable flood, far from it, and could’ve been sorted out to everyone’s satisfaction so much more easily, provided only there was a bit of will!  Surely not one naysayer or defeatist existed thirty years ago to warn us off the matter, saying a multi-racial society was a fact and we’d better like it.

Now, if we really want to go back in time to where this problem could’ve been rectified both humanely and completely in something like five minutes, let’s go back to forty years ago, back to the year 1968, when there simply CANNOT have been defeatists telling us we’d got a multi-racial society and had better like it, because the problem forty years ago was still microscopic and so easily undoable! 

In fact, let’s travel back in time and see what we were being told, as reported in a quote from forty years ago, the year 1968, by Enoch Powell (I can’t wait to see this quote, because it’ll prove how there were zero defeatists back then telling us we’d got a multi-racial society and had better like it):

Powell said, in 1968,

“...We are told in terms of arrogant moral superiority that we have got a ‘multi-racial society’ and had better like it.” (—Enoch Powell, 1968)

(quoted in:  “Like the Roman:  The Life of Enoch Powell”. a Powell biography by Simon Heffer, p. 492 (Weidenfeld & Nicholson:  hardback 1998; paperback 2000) ( http://www.geocities.com/williamarthurs/likether.htm )

Oh ….. so ….. I guess I was wrong — there were naysayers and defeatists back then, forty years ago, a time when solving the problem would have been child’s play compared to now; could’ve been done blindfolded and hands tied behind one’s back, it was so easy to solve back then.

But … so, why were the naysayers so cocksure of themselves back then, when there was no justification? 

Answer:  they weren’t for the most part honest, sincere naysayers, so much as partisans of the other side who were doing their best to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It’s known as demoralizing the enemy, one of the oldest tactics in the book:  tell him resistance is futile when it’s not; sap his will to resist; nip all resistance in the bud; pretty soon you’ll walk right in and take the place over without a shot being fired.

OK, got it now.  So, in other words, it’s NOT impossible to solve, and if we put it off another forty years we’ll only end up, in the year 2048, thinking wistfully back to the year 2008 when it could’ve been solved so much more easily if only there’d been a bit of political will.  Right?

Right, you’re catching on.  It’s CERTAINLY NOT impossible to solve.  It can be solved right now, if only there’s a bit of will, and if we put if off another forty years we’ll only be passing the problem on to our descendants who shall truly suffer greater hardship because of our having cravenly shirked our solemn responsibility to get this problem solved today and not keep putting it off.

Here’s more Powell, a quote used by The Ambler blog last month as its “Thought for the Day” feature:

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

“Too often today people are ready to tell us:  ‘This is not possible; that is not possible.’ I say:  whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible.  We have nothing to fear but our own doubts.”

—Enoch Powell

( http://theambler.com/Oct1-15_08.htm#thought1oc08 )

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 01, 2008, 12:03 AM | #

You’re a good thinker, Diamed.  (I agree with everything you wrote except the eugenics part.) Good, well-written comment!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 01, 2008, 12:05 AM | #

Oh, and the part about “an eye for an eye, a genocide for a genocide” — not that stuff either, I’m against anyone’s genocide, but still a very good comment overall.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 01, 2008, 12:43 AM | #

I will respond on the question of the tactics for fighting the charge of racism.

There are two paths open to us.  One is to grasp racism with both hands and gladly proclaim its universality.  This is Svi’s approach.  The reason it isn’t mine is because the liberal-left believes (yes, religiously) and de rigeur in choice and in the supremacy of its own moral dicta.

In other words, the liberal-leftist will simply reply that, “Racism might be very common, and even natural, but that only makes opposition to it the more necessary an