Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:31 | #

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 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:02 | #

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 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:46 | #

(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 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:52 | #

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 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:10 | #

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 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:34 | #

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 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:52 | #

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 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:51 | #

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 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:27 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:09 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:26 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:22 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:42 | #

“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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:55 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:03 | #

“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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:13 | #

“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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:14 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:24 | #

“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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:09 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:48 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:04 | #

“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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:33 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:45 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:46 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:58 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:01 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:24 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:26 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:26 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:23 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:26 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:52 | #

“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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:57 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:11 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:36 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:41 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:02 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:32 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:39 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:45 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:17 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:29 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:39 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:45 | #

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 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:18 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:26 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:50 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:56 | #

“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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:03 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:09 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 05:54 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:08 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:04 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:08 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:11 | #

I look forward to it, Finn.

Posted by mordred on Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:16 | #

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 Captainchaos on Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:49 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:49 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:04 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:10 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:21 | #

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 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:26 | #

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 Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:15 | #

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 Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:21 | #

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 Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:35 | #

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 Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:43 | #

”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 Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:03 | #

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 Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:05 | #

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 Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:43 | #

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 and urgent.”  Self-righteousness duly strides forth and declares, “Embrace other cultures.  Don’t be fearful but be confident that you will survive, adapt and prosper.  Racism is morally indefensible and you can and must choose to set it aside.”  Etc, etc. 

So, far from it being a case of “one bound and he was free”, the self-declared racist remains firmly chained in the mire.

The second path is the one I have written about.  Racism is racism - a real human behaviour with characteristics we can all recognise.  It is ethnocentrism, however, and not racism, which is universal.  And it is ethnocentrism to which we actually do lay glad claim.

Racism there is in the MultiCult.  But the charge of “Racist!” richly belongs, as I have said, to those who discriminate against the life interests of the European peoples.  What justification the (non-Jewish) enforcers of the Ukrainian famine needed, or those non-Jews who manned the Cheka and drove the slave-labourers to their graves along the Road of Bones I do not know.  But today’s soft totalitarians who are over-seeing our race-replacement need only the belief that we are uniquely racist and, therefore, beyond the human family until we recant our sins and accept the shining path of diversity.

You see ... the zeitgeist validates our genocide.  It is the zeitgeist which has us trapped, not the disembodied liberal-leftist with his special little word.  You must look at it all in the broader context.

The real product of reversing the charge of racism - of sticking it to the left - is not to win a debate, and certainly not to lend credence to that damned word.  It is to load the beast with contradiction and leave it with only one course, just as it seeks to leave us only one.  It must turn in the direction of a separate philosophical and ideological universe which simply does not validate its faith-objects.

I free you, and you free me, by changing everything all at once.  At least, in theory.

Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:45 | #

Here’s Ryszard Anderszewski dropping neutron bombs on the Takimaggots:

If you needed any further proof that most “degrees” are useless, consider this post by the esteemed Professor Gutzman:

“Later on in that section of _Notes on the State of Virginia_, Jefferson refers to “the conjecture, that nature has been less bountiful to
them [meaning blacks] in the endowments of the head.” He holds it out as a conjecture; as I said in the first place, however, he hoped the contrary.  This is proven by the quotation from the later to Banneker that I provided above.  That letter was written *after* _Notes on the State of Virginia_.

As to the idea that the use of the word “savages” indicates that Jefferson considered Indians to be congenitally (and thus ineradicably) distinct from whites, compare Caeser’s _Reconstructing America_, which demonstrates conclusively that Jefferson hoped and expected that American Indians would be assimilated into American society.”

There’s no such thing as a “conclusive demonstration” in academia.  The best you can do is make a “convincing case.” You’re too glib by half.  Jefferson was not a cultural materialist the way you seem to think.  The idea of race in the eighteenth century was tied inextricably to “nature.” “Nurture” had hardly been considered by that time.  At that time, the eugenical perspectives overwhelmed academia (including in Kant and Hume).

And yet here you are, saying that Jefferson didn’t see race.  Instead, you claim, he thought that “if only we deracinate them, they’ll become just like us.” No, sir.  That is a distinctly latter-20th-century perspective.  Cut the crap.

“Again, Derbyshire’s idea that the Founders all believed that there were “incorrigible” differences among men, and his implication that those differences followed racial lines, are simply mistaken.  And that leaves aside James Madison, who, as I noted above, speculated that slaves’ differences in behavior resulted from what we now call “nurture.” Of course, all of this is considered at length in the essay I cited above.”

Ha!  Freudian psychoanalysis applied to the Founding Fathers.  I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, coming from you and your ilk.  Even in the unlikely event that you’re right, so what?  If the Founding Fathers didn’t see race, that makes it illegitimate for us to?  Again: too glib by half.

As a Bush White House aide said: “we create our own reality.” With men like Gutzman, you can see clearly what that means.
Posted by Ryszard Anderszewski on Nov 30, 2008.

Ivan says:
“The fact that West Africans may not be able to comprehend higher level math does not, in any way, detract from their value in society.  There is much, much more to life than launching satellites and building nuclear bombs.  Fields need plowing, ditches need digging, and houses need building.”

Oh, please!  Whites were perfectly capable of taking care of all the necessary trades in the USA prior to mass immigration.  Now we get lectured about how we must appreciate the “interplay between races.” Utter hogwash.

If it weren’t for the perverse way the government works in this country, many whites would do trades and manual labor rather than pay a small fortune for a useless “degree.”

If it weren’t for the culture of globalism and monetarism in this country, more of our cognitive elites would be drawn away from careers in finance and law towards the sciences.

If it weren’t for the current policy of “invade the world, invite the world,” the USA would still be on a sustainable course.

Ivan: you, sir, are not a “racialist” at all.  That calls for a loyalty which you still do not understand.  Back to the playpen, jungen.
Posted by Ryszard Anderszewski on Nov 30, 2008.

“Hear that, “White Man”?  Mr Anderszewski doesn’t believe you’re any better than the n*gger across town or the wetback down the street.  You need to be put back to work, digging ditches and laying brick.  No more supervisory roles for you.  We need to force you poor, dumb crackers back to those back-breaking jobs.”

No.  It was once a mark of honor to be a tradesman.  And once upon a time, it paid the bills as well.  I’m not pleased that people are so ill-disposed toward honorable professions and honest work these days.

“You “White Nationalist” types cease to amaze me.”

Fair enough.  We hope that “shock and awe” works.

“Why are you even here, on a website that advertises itself as a forum for “independent conservatives”?  You aren’t conservatives.  You wish to conserve nothing; for you people it is all about “Progress”.  Why are you LIBERALS here?”

Conservatives who do not see conservation of race as a priority are not conservative.  Without the survival of our people, all of the other perks are lost.

For the record, I agree with you about preserving religion and tradition.  In a few generations, if nothing is done about the status quo vis-a-vis race, both will be gone.
Posted by Ryszard Anderszewski on Nov 30, 2008.

The faileo-cons cannot cope with simple, factual arguments.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 02:29 | #

Gudmund: “The faileo-cons cannot cope with simple, factual arguments.”

It’s hunting season.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:51 | #

“ [Steve Sailer] defines race as an extended family, and that is exactly what it is.
(...) 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. (—Englander)

It depends if you live in a small town or a big city, in England or in America. But a white person does not feel comfortable in a non-white part of town or in a bus full of non-whites. In those circumstances, a white person will start smiling to fellow white people (although you are not supposed to do that).

Maybe 200 years ago in Britain and Europe, relations between strangers used to be more familiar. I know that people in the recent past were not afraid to scold someone else’s children. Now, we are less natural and adults avoid saying anything to children they don’t know. That kind of behavior is not likely to change in a multiracial society! Today’s society feels less familiar and is less intimate.

Normal Europeans hate to see a fine-looking European woman walking hand in hand with an African (Do African couples usually walk hand in hand like that?). It is the same kind of aversion we would feel if that woman was a family member. We will feel protective of a white girl we see in the street as if we knew her, whereas a non-white girl will not stimulate our protection instincts. So, I think the extended family comparison works well.

Posted by silver on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:09 | #

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!

Eugenics is a beautiful thing.  But eugenicists have failed miserably to attempt to allay people’s fear about its implications regarding the already living.  Most people can recognise ways in which they’re inferior to other individuals, but that is far different from establishing a state policy which unambiguously disvalues the inferior.  Imagine a society in which converations casually (and, one can expect, gleefully) revolve around who is “fit” to have children.  Extremely disasteful, even for those of us who can understand what is at stake.  A way must be found to safeguard the dignity of those to be discouraged or prevented from breeding.  Happily, whatever way is settled on is almost certain to serve to ostracize the sort of extreme individualists who’ve led not only whites, but the entire world, down the path of destruction currently being travelled.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:25 | #

“Normal Europeans hate to see a fine-looking European woman walking hand in hand with an African”  (—Armor)

Only normal men hate it.  Normal women warmly approve of it, as Simon Sheppard has astutely observed.

Posted by silver on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:34 | #

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.

You can’t morally particularist claims in the language of universal morality (“human crisis”).  You’re such a particularist you’re no good for the side you defend.  I can’t wait until you’re sidelined by your moral betters, which will simply have to happen if results are to be achieved.  I hope that at such time you’ll have the good sense to step aside, although that would require a clarity of vision and level of flexibility you have nowhere demonstrated.  Still, one can hope.

Posted by silver on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:38 | #

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.

Only normal men hate it.  Normal women warmly approve of it, as Simon Sheppard has astutely observed.

You wail against defeatism while engaging in it yourself. 

You need your women more than anything.  One WN woman is as good as ten WN males. An appeal to them based on the observation that they’re idiots isn’t likely to garner much support.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:46 | #

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?

How are heterozygous recessive traits dealt with? Amniocentesis is a means currently available to eliminate dominant alleles however recessive traits will require cataloging all members of the gene pool, and still recessive traits may not be caught. In addition, what will be done with carriers, potentially high IQ, normally functioning contributors to the gene pool. The disabled offspring may be killed, however, both parents are carriers but not afflicted. No doubt they will be killed. Moreover, siblings may or may not be carriers, so to be safe, no doubt all otherwise healthy siblings must be killed as well.

If eugenics was of any value in maintaining/improving a society, Spartan genes would dominate.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:25 | #

Curry king Sir Gulam Noon calls for a ten-year ban on all migrants

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:35 | #

This comment is about a specific part of social construction theory, that which is most relevant to us. I develop the theme from part to part. The information refers to those leftist intellectuals, who understand their ideology, not to the useful idiots or emotional hang arounds.

¤ Social construction theory (Sc), although it is often dressed in universal altruism is in reality one of the most efficient method of acquiring selfish political power to those intellectuals who are skillful in it.

¤ In power games truth, scientific knowledge etc. are often unimportant. E.g. emotional scientifically false theory about political time might be more efficient in power game than scientific truth about time. In it’s starting point, Sc gives equal value (partly overlapping) to objective, subjective, natural, artificial, socially constructed (i.e formed in people’s interactions/thoughts), physical, real, unreal, imagined etc. information. Any of these could be in some situation useful in gaining power. In reality though Sc is heavily weighted away from natural, objective, common sense, scientific etc. knowledge. This is because they are generally fairly static and immutable, and they are the knowledge of normal, non-Sc people, thus the base of their power. Political power is obtained most efficiently, when there is great latitude in the used information, which gives larger possibilities in political game. It creates dialectical or multidimensional contradictions and distances between the existing information of rulers and it’s Sc opponents. These contradictions and distances can be utilized in countless of ways in obtaining power, whatever is propitious in a given situation. Sc chips away the rulers’ power constantly in small or bigger ways and channels that power to itself. If Sc would agree with the information of the rulers’, it’s political possibilities would be severely limited.

¤ Sc creates contradictions mainly in the following categories: space (free, limited, taxed, large, small, publicly produced, privately produced, coded entrance, constricted, wide, polluted, clean, living space [e.g. apartment houses], commercial space, crowded, empty, natural, artificial, etc.), language (words, sentences, texts, political, meaningless, scientific, subjective, objective, economy related, language upholding the power structures, powerless, desperate, poverty related, sexual, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, dialects, languages of different ethnicities, advertisement and marketing, cultural, movie language, language in everyday situations etc.) who is the actor (humans, machines, systems, natural laws, economic laws, market place, rulers, subjects, slave owners, slaves, scientists, lay people, producers, service producers, farmers, skilled workers, officials, man, woman, masculine, feminine, majority, minority, intelligent, wise, stupid, ignorant, progressive, reactionary, native, immigrant, virtuous, evil, moral, immoral, new, old, young, elderly, etc.), time; I give a list:

* measured vs experienced ~ objective vs subjective
* continuous vs fragmentary vs intervals
* past, present and future in different combinations or contradictions
* experience space vs expectations horizon (Koselleck)
* time in a straight line, cyclical time (repeating events), spiral time (Jean-Paul Sartre’s construct), multi dimensional time (e.g. person contemplating in present time with the help of historical information the future of many people and their time lines)
* continuing, open and ended time
* constant speed, accelerating (e.g. internet and new technology) and decelerating time
* reversible vs irreversible time
* normal vs exceptional time
* natural vs time produced by humans
* life cycles’ different parts
* collision of two different times (e.g memory of similar historical events influences the present situation considerably)
* simultaneous vs happens in or experiences different times
* different multibranching times

Etc.

All these and their constituent parts can be analyzed and combined in dialectical or multipart wholes (Parts can oppose, strenghten, harmonize, contradict, coordinate, synchronize, interrupt, prevent, accelerate etc. each other) in ways that produce the most efficient political results.

¤ Because according to Sc almost everything is socially constructed this gives it’s proponents power that they think gives them the power of “gods” and high priests. Two examples. The function of heart according to Sc is socially constructed no matter what medicine, evolutionary biology or other sciences say about it. This means that the function of heart in addition to pumping blood could be equally determined to be giving rhytm to drums or to die (John R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality). Sciences prove that there are differences between races and ethnicities, but socially constructed political correctness (in everyday language, science, media etc.), affirmative action, redistribution of wealth, socialism, soft totalitarianism, free speech monitoring and suppression etc., wins sciences and reality. It constructs the reality that Sc intellectuals want and thus in the process gives them large political power.

¤ Sc gives also other advantages /“advantages”. It is complex and counterintuitive. This serves to strengthen the Sc intellectuals’ ingroup definition, it’s boundaries and exclusivity, reduces the possibility of free riding and outside infiltration (E.g. because conservatives regard Sc to be non-scientific, not sensible and stupid, this reduces the possibility that they infiltrate it. On the other hand Sc intellectuals infiltrate eagerly conservative groups and institutions without compunctions).

When Sc compels it’s political subjects to say as “truth” and do things that they know are false, stupid and detrimental to them and their group, this emasculates them psychologically, strenghtens the smothering power of Sc intellectuals and makes their subjects psychological slaves.

Studying and applying Sc includes elements of simpler repeats, thus giving it rituals. This serves to inculcate it to more psychological permanence, exact costs and thus reduces free riding, helps to memorize essential “slogans”, thus gives practical psychological operating instructions, defines the ingroup-outgroup further, etc.

Sc gives license, moral or practical, to do anything, i.e. to construct almost any reality; lie, cheat, murder, infiltrate, extort, to be immoral, make revolutions, rob etc. And not only that, it gives the possibility to mass murder and genocide, and regard it as an act of loving kindness towards all humanity.

It gives licence to use any need, aspiration, stupidity, knowledge, emotion, group, system, dependence, etc. of the people as a vehicle to power.

In short, Sc is secular selfish power religion.

It is necessary to pro-Europeans to study and learn from it and use it, but not the anti-people elements of it.

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:15 | #

Addition: My intention is not to claim that all Social constructionists use their theory to it’s limits (although many have done so). My intention is to define Sc’s abilities and moral “boundaries.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:30 | #

Forgive me, that excellent comment by Finn should have been posted as its own log entry, where it might be carefully explored and generate its own comments thread.  It’s way too substantial for a comment (and way too valuable, in terms of being something people will want to look up easily later, and refer back to).  Some of its English may need polishing here and there, which is readily done — for example,

Sciences prove that there are differences between races and ethnicities, but socially constructed political correctness (in everyday language, science, media etc.), affirmative action, redistribution of wealth, socialism, soft totalitarianism, free speech monitoring and suppression etc., wins sciences and reality.

“wins” there should be “win out over science and reality,” or “beat science and reality,” or “overcome science and reality,” something like that.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:15 | #

Fred,

I will ask him if he would like to see that in main-log form.  I have some questions I would like to ask, as someone interested in the Social Construct and its abuses, but did not want to kick-off what would, in effect, be an new discussion on an already ageing thread.

Posted by Revolution Harry on Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:40 | #

This is only vaguely related to the article above but I’d be more than interested on any comments to the article linked to below.

I’ve mentioned before my frustration at the generalistions where ‘the Jews’ are concerned. To me that implies all Jews everywhere whereas my own thoughts and feelings were that it was a specific element of the Jewish population that were heavily (though not solely) involved in so much that concerns those at MR. It’s my opinion that a more specific description would be advantageous for a whole host of reasons. Anyway, here’s an American Jew telling you who he thinks is responsible. I have to agree with him.

In the past it’s only been Fred S that’s appeared to be willing to respond so I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on this too Fred.

http://www.henrymakow.com/jews_must_confront_dark_side_o.html

Posted by Dave Johns on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:48 | #

Revolution Harry,

If you want to know who is responsable for all the chaos and treachery within the human mind or condition, it’s all revealed to us in the Holy Bible ... not Darwin’s or Salters’s cockamamie theories.

Posted by Revolution Harry on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:45 | #

Did you read the article Dave?

I’m afraid I’m not a believer in the literal truth of the Bible so perhaps you could explain what was ‘revealed to us’?

Posted by Diamed on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:58 | #

I would say that jews by refusing to criticize jewish supremacist behavior consent and endorse it.  Unless all jews everywhere unite in condemnation and ostracism of jewish supremacists then we can assume they support it and are quite happy to gain the rewards from it.  You can’t claim innocence while defending the guilty.  80% of jews voted in the ultra-liberal Obama this last election, whose policies are all designed to further genocide the white founding race of America.  Now tell me only ‘certain’ jews are to blame, that most are genuinely nice people, etc.

How many jews are questioning the holocaust or saying it shouldn’t form a central part of history classes in gentile schools and shouldn’t give jews any special privileges?  How many are coming out against hate speech laws?  How many are supporting nationalist parties that want to stop immigration?  This isn’t a few isolated jewish extremists, a religion of peace, and a big misunderstanding.  This is an entire group zealously at work to enthrone itself at the expense of others in a moral bubble where anything they say goes and anyone who disagrees should be thrown in jail or executed as a ‘racist nazi bigot.’

Sorry, I just see no facts whatsoever that would show jews don’t silently bless and support the activities of jewish extremists, it is just like Islam.  Sure they say they oppose terrorism etc, but nothing is ever done to stop it, and somehow the terrorists still find plenty of safe havens and funding to continue their attacks.  No muslims blame Islam or muslims for any conflict in the present or past, it is always universally the infidels’ fault.  The jews play the exact same game, and from this you can discover whether they really are ‘moderate’ jews or just quiet supporters of extremists.  When have jews ever apologized for their butchery in the USSR?  They refuse to take blame for anything, even when it is so glaringly obvious no one can deny it.

This article dosn’t even criticize the right jews, it goes after religious jews when secular jews are the source of almost all harm jews have ever committed.  It’s just another evasive attempt to make sure the actual suspects aren’t implicated.  According to this bizarro world, the problem is religious jews who hold racist views and wish to support their race at the expense of others—-ie it simply repeats the secular jewish line that a one-world utopia free of racism is the ultimate good.  The problem is not racist jews, they are simply acting naturally and correctly like any healthy organism.  The problem is secular jews who deny us the right to also be racists.  No matter how racist these religious jews are, they would pose no problem in a racist white society which could give as hard as it received.  No, the problem is the poisonous secular anti-racist jews who declaim against all racism, leaving the field open for cunning, violence, and sheer weight of numbers to prevail—all statistics favoring non-whites at white expense.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:05 | #

“I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on this too Fred.”  (—Revolution Harry)

What I see as Hasid wrongdoing in Postville, Harry, is mainly their introduction of non-white workers into that white town so as not to have to pay the local townsfolk (who were all white) the going wage.  I condemn the deliberate race-replacement of whites that’s going on in this country as a crime against humanity.

Makow and the author of the book he references, Bloom, seem to find fault with a number of aspects of Hasid behavior which I for one see nothing wrong with.  These include always bargaining hard in order to get the best business deal, generally shunning gentiles and not wanting anything to do with them socially, the Hasids considering themselves to be “racists” (what’s wrong with considering themselves to be racists?  I think it’s admirable on their part, even if the ones they want to avoid are all non-Jews), etc.  I don’t see anything terribly wrong with any of that. 

If they did what was dishonest or dishonorable on its face, such as taking merchandise without paying, renegeing on business deals, or deliberately delaying payment and bragging about it, of course that’s reprehensible, as is outright law-breaking to the extent they engaged in it (they’re accused of breaking child labor laws for example, aiding in the forging of social security cards for illegals, or something, and a few other infractions).  (If the claim that they ran a methamphetamine lab for manufacture of street drugs is true, they’re out-and-out criminals and should be harshly punished of course.  But I’ve only seen that claim once; it may be fiction.) 

Certainly from the looks of it they weren’t placing “good public relations with the local goys” at the top of their list of important things to do, but that doesn’t bother me:  had they not broken the law, such as the child labor law, and had they hired the local whites at a decent wage, and most importantly, had they not tried to race-replace Postville with non-whites, I’d see nothing wrong with what they did there. 

As for where Makow mentions the Masons and the Illuminati toward the end of his piece, I don’t know enough about those groups to comment.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:14 | #

Diamed’s last paragraph is essentially right:  Makow’s article seems to say the problem is things like racism.  It’s not.  The problem is Jewish-invented and Jewish-pushed anti-racism.  Ultra-Orthodox Jews are not the problem.  The Jewish religion isn’t the problem.  The problem is Jews, whether religious or secular, who as Jewish tribalists want to race-replace Euros out of revenge, or hatred, or rivalry, or all of the above, or whatever.  Secular Jews are, exactly as Diamed says, a far bigger problem in this regard than Ultra-Orthodox Jews.  Ultra-Orthodox Jews generally are no more of a problem than the Amish are.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:33 | #

“The problem is Jews, whether religious or secular, who as Jewish tribalists want to race-replace Euros” ...  (—my comment)

... want to race-replace or in other ways destroy them, for example through demoralization by means of homosexualism, women’s lib, putting women in the army, maximizing abortion, pushing extreme separation of Church and state, waging the War against Christmas, and so on.  All of the above (and more) is ring-led by Jews.

Posted by silver on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:06 | #

I’ve mentioned before my frustration at the generalistions where ‘the Jews’ are concerned. To me that implies all Jews everywhere whereas my own thoughts and feelings were that it was a specific element of the Jewish population that were heavily (though not solely) involved in so much that concerns those at MR. It’s my opinion that a more specific description would be advantageous for a whole host of reasons.

It’s a dedicated portion of Jewry, not “every Jew.”  Jews are highly intelligent, but not all are intelligent or devoted enough to prosecute doctrinaire antiracism.  Yet most are so distinctly and reflexively uneasy about race that they enforce doctrinaire antiracism by default, no matter how hazy the issues are in their minds, or even no matter what reservations they have about clearly unassimilating groups like muslims and hispanics, or fears for physical safety they have of negroes.  I have no doubt whatsoever that there’s a looming sense among large numbers of them that mass immigration has been a terrible blunder, even among those who knew very well what its purpose was (Stephen Steinlight would be a good example, but also David Frum and other Johnny-come-lately immigration “reformers,” probably Dan Stein, too).

Posted by silver on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:20 | #

Ultra-Orthodox Jews are not the problem.  The Jewish religion isn’t the problem.

I’m not really sure that’s true.  Weren’t they a driving force behind the decline in American (and European) religiousity, which paved the way for so much of today’s degeneracy, and which still makes reversing or even combatting it awkward?  And wouldn’t they be delighted by the fact of declining Christian religiousity of itself?  Even today religious Jews consider Christianity a greater the threat than Islam.  I think you’re letting the religion off the hook much too easily.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:00 | #

“I have no doubt whatsoever that there’s a looming sense among large numbers of [Jews] that mass immigration has been a terrible blunder”  (—Silver)

Not for the ones running it — the Jews who run the ADL, SPLC, and ACLU for example, and the ones who keep those Jewish enforcer-organizations (Jewish organizations dedicated to enforcing Jewish-conceived-and-imposed societal decay) afloat with their contributions, or the Jews who run <strike>The New York Times</strike> The Jew York Times, or the ones running the new and improved Walt Disney Company, or the Jews who own and run the Democrat and Republican Parties in the States, the Tory and Labour Parties in Britain, and the main parties in France, or any of the rest of the Jews who are running race-replacement.  They all recognize race-replacement isn’t one-hundred percent smooth sailing but they look at it as “No Pain, No Gain.”  None of the drawbacks of race-replacment are going to make them deviate in the slightest from their goal of getting that ancient Jewish nemesis, Euro-race peoples, race-replaced once and for all so that never again will a Jew have to feel jealous of Euros’ better looks and personalities and inferior in that regard and socially self-conscious as a result, never again will Jews have to feel excluded, never again will they have to patiently and painfully explain to their children why Christmas isn’t their holiday but the holidays that are theirs are even better, never again will they have to live in fear of anti-Jewish behavior by the Euros which is provoked by Jewish depredations against the host society (such as forcing the borders open to unlimited volumes of non-white Third-World immigrants and keeping anyone from closing them again, and myriad others almost as intolerable).

No, the Jews pushing race-replacement and its associated strategies such as race-denial, are in this to the bitter end.  The way they see things, they’re going to succeed in getting every white person on the planet race-replaced with a Negro or other non-white, or provoke history’s biggest cataclysm trying, but they’re not going to change course.

Posted by silver on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:25 | #

No, the Jews pushing race-replacement and its associated strategies such as race-denial, are in this to the bitter end.  The way they see things, they’re going to succeed in getting every white person on the planet race-replaced with a Negro or other non-white, or provoke history’s biggest cataclysm trying, but they’re not going to change course.

I don’t think that can be stated with such certainty.  It’s really rather mindless mindreading (the rest of your post less so, but still too exaggerated).  I can’t see how it can possibly help to believe these things so fervently and unwaveringly.  But anyway, if it is all as thoroughly planned as you claim it is (with nothing but circumstantial evidence to back it up, I remind you), even one defector whose role was direct and indentifiable would be a boon.  So it surely can’t harm anything to highlight that—as mounting evidence ever more clearly illustrates—it won’t be as smooth sailing as “they” think, so much so that some might be convinced to jump ship.  Nothing to build a “strategy” around; just a rather obvious point, or so I would have thought.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:42 | #

Steinlight doesn’t want what I want, namely the 1965 demographics back which the Jews stole from us.  He merely wants to avoid large numbers of Moslems settling here.  In no other way is he concerned about race-replacement immigration.  You could race-replace every white man, woman, and child in North America with a Nigerian and he’d be delighted as long as it wasn’t a Moslem Nigerian.  I’m sorry, Professor Steinlight:  I want my nation’s demographics back which your race stole from me and my fellow Americans.  You can take your beloved multiracialism that the Jews adore so much and transport it lock, stock, and barrel to Israel.  Just get it the hell out of my country.

Posted by Dave Johns on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:21 | #

I’m afraid I’m not a believer in the literal truth of the Bible so perhaps you could explain what was ‘revealed to us’?—RH

You’re a NWO conspiracy aficionado, right? Have you ever read Pawns in the Game, first printed in 1954, by William Guy Carr? He certainly believes there are prophecies in the Bible - written almost 2000 years ago - that accurately predicted the events that are happening today. I tend to agree with what the late Mr. Carr had to tell us.

http://www.amazon.com/Pawns-Game-William-Guy-Carr/dp/0911038299

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:24 | #

silver: “Weren’t they a driving force behind the decline in American (and European) religiousity, which paved the way for so much of today’s degeneracy, and which still makes reversing or even combatting it awkward?”

You mean like the Rabbis at the Frankfurt School?

“Even today religious Jews consider Christianity a greater the threat than Islam.”

Evidence?

“I think you’re letting the religion off the hook much too easily.”

You want to shift the focus from evolved Jewish parasitism as a cause for subversion of host societies to a religiously, culturally conditioned cause for said subversion.  If it is largely cultural and religious, why are secular Jews the heavy-hitters presently?

Silver, silver, if you want throw a monkey wrench in the works here, you’re going to have to try harder than that.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:37 | #

Hello GW:

First of all, please accept my heartfelt congratulations on your sterling efforts against the Gorgons at CiF; such dogged persistence in the face of such mulish obduracy surely goes above and beyond.

But, that aside, I was very much taken with your thoughts on debating points with non-racialists, and before commenting further I wanted to make sure that I had properly grasped the kernel underlying your ideas. With that in mind, I have taken the liberty of distilling each theme into a simple ‘one-liner’, such as might even be displayed on a billboard or other mechanism so as to attract to attract the attention of the proverbial Man on the Clapham Omnibus.

Could you be so kind as to indicate how close I have managed to come to grasping the essence of your message?

The reversability of racism

‘Racism’ can be made worthless through the bold assertion that changing us into another people through mass immigration is racist to the very core.

Our genetic distinctiveness

We have the right to remain as we are, and not be changed into or replaced by other peoples.

The legitimation issue

Without the specific consent of the public the race-replacement process in its entirety (…) is illegitimate. 

The supremacy of indigenous rights and interests

The United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [declares that] “Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.”

Distinguishing the organic nation from “The MultiCult”

[T]he organic nation of the English … exists in waiting for the MultiCult to be lifted off its neck.

Man = kinship + individualism

Every organic people, like every person, […] has the incontestable right to be itself and to live according to its own nature, …

Reclamation

What was ours shall be ours again.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:11 | #

Dan,

Those short points or principles are fine and good.  But don’t forget that the wider points made in my article are very far from holy writ!  They are each in need of much further refinement.  It is an endless process.

The final purpose here is to put in position a set of overlapping counter-revolutionary truths that can contain public discourse, rather like the electro-magnets at Cern hold all those whizzing particles in their orbit.  What we have here so far is much too weak and mostly too negative in character to fulfill that function.  But I’m trying to shift the usual point by point, refutatory discourse into a more systematic whole.

It is, if you like, an attempt to grow from public discourse back towards philosophy - the central problem for us being that we have no clearly stated and generally accepted philosophy of European survival which would, in normal circumstances, shape discourse.

One can’t arrive at a philosophy by this means, btw.  But neither can we sit around waiting for the intellectual authorisation to despatch liberalism.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:21 | #

Thank you for that GW, most helpful.

I can certainly appreciate and understand the need for sound intellectual underpinnings for persuasive rhetoric, and believe that your ‘toolkit’ is a major advance in that respect, offering the prospect of a holistic approach.

I do feel, however, that given the multitude of potential audiences (even just in Britain), we must be able to flex our messaging style and tweak its content to suit the audience.

There is one potentially helpful strain of argument that I’m not seeing included thus far, and that is the ecological one. I have some thoughts in that area that I would like to share with you, is there somewhere I could drop them off for your personal review?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:36 | #

Dan,

You could contact me through the button under the header.  But it might be more interesting to make it public and throw the subject open to the floor.  I will put up a post later this evening, and we’ll take it from there.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:05 | #

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.
I disagree.  What about the father who discovers he has a long-lost son?  The kid who learns he was adopted?  The brother you never knew about?

He’s been taught to laugh at what’s good for him, yes, but that’s pretty central to our problems, no?

People tend to tacitly admit their inherent racial loyalty: “who should I feel more loyalty to, a white guy I never met or a black coworker who’s good to me?”  The obvious rejoinder is that the person needs a reason to favor the black guy over the white guy, hence no ceteris paribus.  Most WNs with two brain cells to rub together know that they’d side with a black over a white given the right conditions (I’d sell the honkey short in a New York minute if it meant protecting my racial kin; not necessarily as absurd an example as it might seem at first glance).

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:51 | #

Diamed:

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

1) Christianity is against racism.

Yes, the Amaleks (inter alia) were just “ungodly.”  But since g-d doesn’t give the Amaleks an out, the ungodliness is immutable and inherent and thus a racial trait.  Ergo, Judaism was and is blatantly racialist.

As far as I can tell, Judaism contains THE pioneering work in racial nationalism.  Nothing else even comes close, at least nothing I’ve seen that’s of any consequence.

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!

I’m at the point where I just insult and heap scorn upon such morons.  They’re a waste of time.  Let them educate themselves.  My only duty to these people is to tell them recess is out, and then move on to the grown-up conversation.

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.</i>

Cowardice.  The number of white race-realists and racialists with actual malicious intent toward non-whites is infinitesmal.  One has to be a moral coward, a misanthrope, or a fool to conflate divorce and violent crime.

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

The guy’s a piece of shit.  Beyond his (congenital?) lack of character and respect for the truth, he’s got more than just his reason or religion motivating him, I’d bet.  Don’t bother.

GW:

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.

No, I use both.  It depends on the audience.  And mostly I use it in two contexts: first, as a shock device; second, as shorthand.

In the first instance, it’s got to have an effect when one says unashamedly, “yes I’m a racist” (I always say it in a tone that suggests the person I’m speaking to (who has invariably just insinuated or stated I’m a racist) that everyone except him is racist too).  Can’t do that with other sins.  The effect is doubled when no one speaks up against you (which they generally don’t, in my experience, unless there’s an enemy in your midst); how often does that happen when dealing with actual, rather than fabricated, immorality?

In the second instance, I’m just not interested in the semantic bullshit and want to move on to something interesting.

The faileo-cons cannot cope with simple, factual arguments.

The funny part is when they start calling me a liberal.  Now that’s a laff.  First, I could give a damn.  Any similarities are purely coincidental, and even if they weren’t so what?  I regard conservatives and liberals as of a piece in aiding and abetting the destruction of my race.  Second, that’s a label that makes conservatives squirm (when it’s true), not WNs.  Third, the only real way to piss off a WN (or at least, this WN) is telling lies.  My skin’s way too thick by now to worry about a bit of name-calling.

Conservatives call one another liberals as an insult, so I guess they think it’ll make WNs squirm, too.  It doesn’t.  They could gather every thing and idea labelled “conservative” and shoot them into the sun and I wouldn’t lose a wink.

Scrooby:

Only normal men hate it.  Normal women warmly approve of it, as Simon Sheppard has astutely observed.

Perhaps, but normal Euro women avoid it like the plague for themselves, putting white men to shame in terms of mate selection.

Silver:

You need your women more than anything.  One WN woman is as good as ten WN males. An appeal to them based on the observation that they’re idiots isn’t likely to garner much support.

True in some contexts, but racialism is a man’s job.  Wishing for lots of women is about as productive as wishing in general.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:19 | #

Just thinking, since we’re throwing tactics around, that maybe we should pay more attention to achieving the ostensible goals of liberalism.

E.g., I’d be willing to settle for a long-term commitment to white-to-black wealth transfer IF it was a precondition to a white ethnostate. 

Liberals think their goal is justice, not destroying us.  So we can peel some off the hegemony train insofar as we can separate those distinct goals.  Eg, why must political diversity be destroyed to <s>destroy</s> preserve racial diversity?  If white racism is the cause of black and brown failure, and this white racism doesn’t seem to be abating, wouldn’t allowing for black and brown ethnostates protect blacks and browns from the major obstacle to equality?  Wouldn’t a white ethnostate protect non-whites by attracting all the haters into one place, far from history’s eternal victims?

Anything we can do to sharpen the thinking of the useful idiots should be done.  The useful idiots should at least be able to recognize that competing experiments could suss out the best designs.

Sometimes I think couching WNism in liberal terms would work best.

Posted by silver on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:06 | #

Chaos,

“Even today religious Jews consider Christianity a greater the threat than Islam.”

Evidence?

You need to get out more.

“I think you’re letting the religion off the hook much too easily.”

You want to shift the focus from evolved Jewish parasitism as a cause for subversion of host societies to a religiously, culturally conditioned cause for said subversion.  If it is largely cultural and religious, why are secular Jews the heavy-hitters presently?

Actually, that is what I was trying to do.  Now that you mention it, though, hell yes it would be a fine to thing to shift away from “evolved parasitism,” if for no other reason than to wrench that meme from your fumbling fingers.  This is an example of what I meant when I said hereditarian WNs think that accepting heredity being true entitles them to make all sorts of wild claims about what is.

Silver, silver, if you want throw a monkey wrench in the works here, you’re going to have to try harder than that.

The only thing I’d like to do with a monkey wrench is… oh, forget it.

Posted by silver on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:09 | #

Steinlight doesn’t want what I want, namely the 1965 demographics back which the Jews stole from us.

Ah, the I’ll-take-my-chances “solution” that is no solution.  It really is amazing that someone who can see so clearly (which you can, I don’t deny that), can still manage to propose a non-solution.  1965 doesn’t solve the problem.  Cut the emotional tie.  You have no right to hector anyone for emotional feebleness if you can’t do it yourself.

Posted by silver on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:23 | #

You need your women more than anything.  One WN woman is as good as ten WN males. An appeal to them based on the observation that they’re idiots isn’t likely to garner much support.

True in some contexts, but racialism is a man’s job.  Wishing for lots of women is about as productive as wishing in general.

Women are biologically essential, svigor.  One man can easily impregnate dozens of women.  Women can only bear a few children before they’re spent. 

Apart from that, women would probably have a much easier job of recruiting other women.  It’s insane, suicidal to ignore them, no matter how difficult the task of turning them. 

Just thinking, since we’re throwing tactics around, that maybe we should pay more attention to achieving the ostensible goals of liberalism.

Yes, you most certainly should.

Anything we can do to sharpen the thinking of the useful idiots should be done.  The useful idiots should at least be able to recognize that competing experiments could suss out the best designs.

Sometimes I think couching WNism in liberal terms would work best.

Now this is a heartening development. You’re actually begininng to think, rather than just repeating the same old mantras.  The issues involved are multifaceted and complex, and if you want to reach the promised land you’re going to have traverse them, not skirt around them to the good bits (race, whiteness), no matter how great the temptation to do so is.

A good start in your case might be admit that despite what an anti-white asshole I may have seemed with some of things I’ve said, other points I’ve made, while you may disagree with them, are not entirely without their merits.  Do that and you’ve left the cloistered world of easy online racialism and (re?)entered the realm of debating ideas with enemies, ie the real world, which is where change, even revolutionary change, is spawned.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:54 | #

“Ah, the I’ll-take-my-chances ‘solution’ that is no solution.”  (—Silver)

The Jews decided around 1880 they wanted every Euro-race man, woman, and child on the planet Earth turned into a Negro.  They wanted no Euros left, zero.  They wanted only Negroes left where Euros once stood. 

Then they set to work. 

Now, after 128 years, they’ve nearly pulled it off.  Just a little more time, and they’ll have gotten it. 

How did they succeed?  Well, for one thing by NOT, that’s NOT, as in N-O-T, listening when someone in the year 1880 came along and, like Silver, said to them, “Ah, the I’ll take my chances ‘solution’ that is no solution.” 

They didn’t listen to that, and now they’ve got us where they want us unless we break free:  almost irreversibly on the path to extinction.

Totally ignoring Silver, I repeat:  I want 1965 back, Professor Steinlight.  You and your tribe stole it from me.  I want it back and I will accept nothing less. 

I certainly sympathize with the Jews regarding the various difficulties they face in life, but NOT to the extent of endorsing the solution they want, namely the transformation of every white man, woman, and child on the planet into a Negro.  Sorry, Professor, that’s a non-starter.

Oh, but “you’ve got it already 90% pulled off?”  Well that may be, but that doesn’t keep me from stating my position:  winding the clock back to the year zero demographically:  1965.

Oh, and with a little change from the way it was back then:  I want Jews out of Euro countries.  Permanently.  Until they learn how to behave in a civlized manner and lose their inborn nation-destroying gene.  If they can breed that gene out of themselves maybe we’ll reconsider.  I said maybe:  “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.” 

“Never again!” is the motto the Jews live by?  Well, it applies to us as well:  Never again will Euro-race peoples permit the Jews to gain power over them, then set about systematically, methodically harming them, destroying them, genociding them.  NEVER AGAIN!

So, my position is:  I want the U.S.‘s 1965 demographics back and Jews out of the United States and out of every Euro-race country.

Put that in your “solution that is no solution” pipe and smoke it, Silver.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:22 | #

Women are biologically essential, svigor.  One man can easily impregnate dozens of women.  Women can only bear a few children before they’re spent.

What does this have to do with WNism, per se?  Women don’t need to be WNs to get pregnant.

Apart from that, women would probably have a much easier job of recruiting other women.  It’s insane, suicidal to ignore them, no matter how difficult the task of turning them.

Don’t think it should be ignored, just think it’s mostly a waste of time because women aren’t wired this way.  If WNism gets enough men, the women will show up, never fear.  But at this early stage, worrying about a sex that is about as politically pioneering as Bantus isn’t a top priority imo.  Ok, bit harsh, but you get my point; look at the frontier of…well, pretty much everything and its a sausage-fest.

Now this is a heartening development. You’re actually begininng to think, rather than just repeating the same old mantras.

Y’know, maybe your insufferable attitude is why you don’t get on with MRniks?  Just a wild guess, no offense taken on my part but others might respond differently.  Btw, I’ve mentioned this a few times over the years I’ve been into this (better part of a decade now), so I am repeating the same old mantras.  Oh, and doing my own thinking is how I and probably most WNs got where they are today; never wondered why we’re such a cantankerous, disagreeable, stubborn lot?

A good start in your case might be admit that despite what an anti-white asshole I may have seemed with some of things I’ve said, other points I’ve made, while you may disagree with them, are not entirely without their merits.

Well I confess I tend to skip over your posts a lot, but yes you often have points of merit.  It’s just, you’re always hip-deep in something with someone here so I tend to skip over the arguments involving yourself (I don’t come here for day teevee).

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:27 | #

“Never again!” is the motto the Jews live by?  Well, it applies to us as well:  Never again will Euro-race peoples permit the Jews to gain power over them, then set about systematically, methodically harming them, destroying them, genociding them.  NEVER AGAIN!

That’s a complementary tactic, co-opting the left’s language.  Nothing new here, many of us have mentioned this kind of thing (was it Bo Sears with the Uncle Tom thing?  Pretty sure it was a Resisting Defamation guy).  “Never Again” is a particularly good one.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:32 | #

The following observation by Steve Sailer explains, when transplanted to the Eurosphere context, 75% of Eurosphere history since 1860 and 95% since 1933:

“There has been a Tall vs. Not-Tall struggle going on in Central East Africa for a long time, dating back well before the arrival of Europeans.  It manifests itself under different tribal names, such Tutsi vs. Hutu in Rwanda, Burundi, and Congo, or Luo vs. Kikuyu in Kenya.”

( http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/12/04/tall-black-people-continue-to-push-not-tall-black-people-around-in-africa/ )

The Eurosphere’s Not Talls, the Jews, have, since the 1860s in the Russian Empire, centered nearly their whole existence around attacking and bringing down the Eurosphere’s Talls, the Euros themselves:  for a hundred-and-fifty years Euros have been under non-stop ethnic attack in a tribal war no different from those of Eastern Africa and everything else — deconstructionism, the Frankfurt School, Straussianism, Jewish socialism (i.e., Marxism), XXth-Century leftism, women’s lib, po-mo liberalism, race-denial, homosexualism, queer theory, and so on, and so forth, is just blah-blah-blah spouted because people don’t want to admit a Not Tall vs. Tall tribal war is what’s really going on, just like in Africa.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:03 | #

Very disappointing log entry on race, by Prof. John Hawks, very inferior work:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/race/hooton-plain-statements-1936.html

It remains to be seen what sort of entry he posts next on this subject — but I fear the worst.

Posted by danielj on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:14 | #

testing

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:05 | #

“Jewish socialism (i.e., Marxism),”  (—my comment earlier)

Change that to “diaspora-Jewish socialism (i.e.. Marxism).”  Jewish socialism in Israel is Jewish National Socialism, not Marxism.  Marxism is the form of socialism the Jews insist on when they live among the goys.  When they live among themselves in an entirely Jewish country they want Jewish National Socialism, not Marxism.  And they’re right to want that, just as the Germans were to want their version of it in 1933.

Posted by Statement of the Obvious on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:11 | #

It’s a statistical near-tautology that two ethnic groups differ in mean height.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:35 | #

European types include more southerly varieties who are less different from Jews in height, lightness, and a few other characteristics, whose nations the Jews don’t try so hard to topple and destroy, and more northerly varieties who are more different from Jews in height, lightness, and a few other characteristics, whose nations the Jews try hard to topple and destroy in a Not Tall vs Tall tribal war having, in part, the exact same psychological motivations of jealousy over physical and personality differences and so on as the tribal war between Hutus and Watusis in Rwanda-Burundi.  In Rwanda the cognitive dominance lies with the Talls (the Watusis) while in Europe it lies, in an important sense though obviously not entirely, with the Not Talls (the Jews).  So, that element is reversed.  But there are other factors involved in Europe that sort of undo that reversal, such as traditional concepts of nobility, the Christian Gentleman, “fitting in white society,” and so on.  The seemingly senseless and unprovoked historical Jewish antagonism toward the Euro inhabitants of Europe, especially the more northerly ones and their more northerly blood descendants elsewhere in the Eurosphere such as Australia and most pre-1965 North America, is a Not Tall vs Tall clash like between Hutus and Watusis.

Posted by oligolatry, minorities as exemplars on Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:57 | #

Bend It Like Bennett: Genuflecting to Jewish Power
February 17, 2015 — Tobias Langdon

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/02/bend-it-like-bennett-genuflecting-to-jewish-power/#more-26752

The gang of four are down to two. I want to look at one of the two survivors: the playwright Alan Bennett (born 1934). In the 1960s, with Peter Cook, Dudley Moore and Jonathan Miller, he enjoyed enormous success with the satirical show Beyond the Fringe on both sides of the Atlantic. One of their targets was the stale pale male Britain of their childhoods. Here’s an entry from Bennett’s diary in 1982:

  7 September. Douglas Bader dies. I used to imitate him in Beyond the Fringe as part of the Aftermyth of War sketch, coming downstairs with a pipe and exaggeratedly straight legs (though I never quite dared make them as stiff as they should have been). One night I was hissed and was very pleased with myself. (Writing Home, Faber & Faber, 1994)

Douglas Bader was a fighter-pilot who lost both legs in a flying accident before World War II. Wearing artificial legs, he became a hero during the war and then a fixture of the British establishment. He was a symbol of courage, perseverance against the odds and bluff, stoical manhood. But it did Bennett no harm to mock him. Quite the reverse. The success of Beyond the Fringe was a sure sign of shifting power: a new liberal establishment was taking over. It now rules cultural life in Britain, and Bennett is one of its fixtures.

This is an irony that he has never explored in his writing. Probably he doesn’t even recognize it. Like Woody Allen in America, Bennett carefully cultivates an image of himself as a gauche, neurotic outsider. In both cases, the image is highly misleading. The enormous success of Bennett and Allen demonstrates this paradox: in the modern West, outsiders are insiders. The key to the paradox is Jewish power and its hostility to the majority. By identifying himself as an outsider, Bennett signals to powerful Jews in the media that he will not defend the majority. He practises oligolatry, or the worship of minorities I discussed in “Power and Perversion.”

But piety about minorities is useless to an ambitious playwright if it is not well-publicized. Every year, Bennett publishes extracts from his diaries in the highly liberal London Review of Books (LRB), which is the British equivalent of the New York Review of Books. Bennett’s direct and uncomplicated prose is refreshing amid the usual posturing gasbags who write for the LRB, but that’s part of his shtick: he’s playing the down-to-earth Yorkshireman. He’s also playing the decent and caring liberal. Here’s an entry from his diary in 1980:

  6 March, London. I come through Heathrow [airport] and in the queue parallel to mine an Indian family is held up at Immigration, the father thin, dark, with burning eyes, being questioned by a woman so stone-faced she could be at the East German border rather than at Heathrow. There are several sons, looking languid and beautiful, and the mother with a small child in her arms. (Writing Home, 1994)

You see? Bennett is on the side of oppressed minorities. He thinks that immigration control has a nasty whiff of totalitarianism. And his comments on the languid beauty of the sons are another signal to his liberal readership. Bennett is homosexual, but not in the mould of a conservative writer like H.H. Munro (1870–1916), who wrote under the pen-name of Saki. Munro identified with the White British majority, not with the Jewish minority here. He criticized Jewish power in stories like “The Unrest Cure” and “A Touch of Realism,” which joke about antisemitism rather than deplore it. He even described the British Empire as a “suburb of Jerusalem”...

We are all familiar with the idea that many Whites suffer from pathological altruism, but there are other pathologies as well. A great many of our politicians are quite the opposite of pathological altruists. They are sociopaths who care for nothing but their own career — Bill Clinton and Tony Blair come to mind. And closely related, if not identical, is the pathology of narcissistic self-absorption exemplified by Alan Bennett.

Full article at TOO http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/02/bend-it-like-bennett-genuflecting-to-jewish-power/#more-26752