For a conversation with Homo deracinatus

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 02, 2008, 09:42 PM | #

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 December 03, 2008, 02:21 AM | #

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 December 03, 2008, 03:24 AM | #

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 December 03, 2008, 05:37 AM | #

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 December 03, 2008, 09:11 AM | #

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 December 03, 2008, 06:21 PM | #

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 December 03, 2008, 07:36 PM | #

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 December 03, 2008, 10:05 PM | #

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 December 03, 2008, 10:51 PM | #

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.

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 December 03, 2008, 11:19 PM | #

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 destroy 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 December 04, 2008, 07:06 AM | #

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 December 04, 2008, 07:09 AM | #

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 December 04, 2008, 07:23 AM | #

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 December 04, 2008, 02:54 PM | #

“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 December 04, 2008, 07:22 PM | #

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 December 04, 2008, 07:27 PM | #

“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 December 05, 2008, 12:32 AM | #

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 December 05, 2008, 01:03 AM | #

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 December 05, 2008, 01:14 AM | #

testing

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 05, 2008, 02:05 PM | #

“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 December 05, 2008, 03:11 PM | #

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

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 05, 2008, 03:35 PM | #

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.