If at first you don’t succeed This gentleman is Yevhen Alfredovych Chervonenko. He is a minister in the Ukrainian government and a former mayor of Kiev. He is, it appears, also a Jew. In the video below, he is haranguing patriotic Ukrainians, large numbers of whom, it turns out, do not want to be immigrated to hell, and even fail to label a Ukrainian Ukraine as “Nazi”. He does, of course. The Nazism issue arose because a poll for a live TV debate addressing immigration asked respondees to choose from three labels to describe the desire to keep Ukraine for Ukrainians: “nationalism”, “patriotism” or “Nazism”. The vast majority in both the east and west of the country chose “patriotism”, much to Chervonenko’s displeasure. No one in the audience made the obvious historical connection. Canadian readers might suck their teeth a little at the sight of native Ukrainians rejecting immigration. But that’s only one more argument for the nationalist state. I should just add that in his bio Chervonenko is described as a former racing driver. But he seems only to have been a navigator in “international rallying” during the 80s (meaning buzzing about behind the Iron Curtain in Moskvitches and Ladas that must have been as chuckable as a blind stoat in a thunder storm). Now, I have nothing against stoats, and nothing but admiration for navigators. But I’m not sure that the boundless steppe requires quite the navigational sang froid as, say, the Ouninpohja. Still, the man has chutspah. There’s no denying that. Hat tip to Green Arrow for airing the video. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:21 | #
You could look at this two different ways: 1) wanting a Ukrainian Ukraine instead of, say, a Cameroonian one, isn’t Nazi because there’s nothing wrong it, I spent years denying I was a “fascist” every time the other side leveled the charge, which was every other word out of their mouth, until I said “all right, I have to find out exactly why it’s not true that I’m a ‘fascist’ or exactly why I am a ‘fascist’ and the ‘fascists’ are right.” Several months’ reading at a Nazi forum in 2005 cured me of the mistake I was making (see #2 above: it was analagous to that). 3
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:27 | # Their huge advantage, “chutzpah”, comes i think from them having no shame at all when it is related to non-jews and i think that is because they don’t see non-jews as fully human. It would be like asking a white person to feel guilty for lying to their cat. (Although now i think of it quite a few probably would.) 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:30 | #
Correct, and very perceptive of Wandrin: that is definitely part of it. 5
Posted by LEW on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:55 | # Even after years of studying these issues I’m still astounded at their consistency, discipline and shamelessness. Whether in the US, Ukraine, Britain, or anywhere else on the globe, they never deviate from their objectives, not now, and as far as I can tell not ever, going all the way back to the pharaohs. Wandrin: I agree with Fred. Very astute observation. 6
Posted by FB on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:11 | # http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=183658 Wanting Israel to be a Jewish state: 1) patriotic 2) nationalistic 3) Nazi Well, what is it Mr. Chervonenko? 7
Posted by Netanyahu on immigration on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:57 | # http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Cabinet_communique_1-Aug-2010 5. In the framework of the Cabinet discussion on the status of the children of people in Israel illegally, Prime Minister Netanyahu made the following remarks: “While we have been discussing this issue for almost a year, the debate has been going on for many long years. On the one hand, this problem is a humanitarian problem. We all feel and understand the hearts of children. But on the other hand, there are Zionist considerations and ensuring the Jewish character of the State of Israel. The problem is that these two components clash. We are witnessing a great and increasing illegal migration from Africa, mainly via the open southern border, of tens of thousands of illegal labor migrants. There are those who say that there have been close to 500,000 migrants, and perhaps close to 1,000,000, in the past decade. This is a tangible threat to the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel; therefore, we will make a decision that is balanced between the desire to take these children into our hearts and the desire not to create an incentive for continued illegal migration that could flood the foundation of the Zionist state. 8
Posted by Bill on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:08 | # Wandrin wrote: 08/17/10, 01:27 AM.
Quick search. Chutzpah - 1890–95; < Yiddish khutspa < Aram ???p? Unmitigated effrontery or “has the chutzpah to claim a lock on God and morality” (New York Times) Utter nerve - effrontery - impudence - gall - insolence - audacity - impertinence. I didn’t see Hubris anywhere. This is something that has got me from start, such arrogance. They actually do regard us as base animals. It’s a wonder we’re not ear tagged with those yellow plastic lables you see on cattle. Just look how the MSM treat their audiences. Can you blame them? It’s coming.
9
Posted by pollution on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:34 | # Why the fuck is Alex Jones-type retard Bill polluting Majority Rights? Take the idiotic conspiracies and microchips back to prisonplanet.com 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:57 | # No, Bill is an Englishman some years older than I am who has only come to understand the world as it really is over the last two or three years. He is on the same journey we have all been on - and remain on, if we are honest with ourselves. Processing all the information coursing across the internet is a huge task, and it takes time to assay each subject and assign it to its place. We can allow him that. 11
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:46 | #
Even here in Ireland with its tiny Jewish population, they’re at it. 12
Posted by Big Chief Bear on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:41 | # “Canadian readers might suck their teeth a little at the sight of native Ukrainians rejecting immigration.” Yes, we Algonquins and Blackfeet and others are “sucking our teeth” at this clip. We always love statements like this from GW. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:55 | # “Even here in Ireland with its tiny Jewish population, they’re at it.” (—Irish Anti-Commie) Of course they are. Wherever Jews are in the Eurosphere they push race-mixing of Euros, government-coerced if need be, either in front of your face (the two cited in Irish Anti-Commie’s post) or behind the scenes (the ethnic Jewish political fund-raising networks, linked to the ethnic-Jewish MSM networks, ethnic-Jewish founded, funded, and run think tanks, ethnic Jewish political campaign networks, etc., that massively support candidate X over candidate Y after determining through years of private, in-person vetting that X will support open borders and race-replacement: that’s how we got candidates Bush, McCain, Obama, Blair, Clinton, Brown, Cameron, Sarkozy — Jewish money and talent behind the scenes and in lock-down control of the MSM corrupt the whole political process in the direction of race-replacement before the candidates are even selected, so that by election time every candidate without exception, no matter what his other views are, is a race-replacement advocate). In my view the Jewish love of communism — and we all know how much Jews loved communism, in the 1910s, ‘20s, and ‘30s they were practically the movement, end of story — is secondary to their desire to get Euros race-replaced. Jewish love of communism stemmed in part from their perception that under communism it would be easy to get the Eurogoys race-mixed: that was part of communism’s big attraction for the Jews and part of why communism was set up by the Jews the way it was set up, why it had the some of the characteristics it did. Jewish love of getting the Eurogoys race-mixed was prior to and greater than their love of communism and part of what drove that love: the latter was secondary to the former; the former was primordial in the Jewish psyche. It still is primordial. Now that communism has fallen through the Jews have realized they could get to their cherished goal, namely the Eurogoys thoroughly race-mixed out of existence, without communism, and have been going at it hammer and tongs in naked undisguised fashion ever since: “Hey we can get this thing done without having to go through the intermediate step of communism!”: Alon Ziv’s book, Clinton at that carefully orchestrated event forecasting the minorityhood of whites at which the carefully selected audience cheered wildly and the carefully selected press attendees reported the next day as if it were a spontaneous reaction of a normal random sample of white Americans, Sarkozy outright telling Frenchmen in that speech they had to race-mix or the government would force it on them, Blair’s goverment introducing the expression “hideously white” to describe Newcastle, saying they had to get more blacks in there to change its race from white to God-knows-what, Blunkett defiantly snarling there was to be “no upper limit” on non-white immigration pouring into Britain, the Central Council of Jews in Jewrmany viciously attacking Sarazin for those benign, even timid comments he made, the Jews loudly denouncing the timid Swiss referendum result against construction of more mosques, and so on, and so forth. Moral of the story: Let Jews into your country and kiss your race good-bye. You will face a disaster worse than you could have imagined. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:02 | #
But we “cattle” are the same everywhere and at all times. We are “racists” because we possess ethnicity, and “anti-semites” because we resist the Jewish project of our ethnic dissolution. The project is entirely materialist - Jews have “perfect souls”, and there is no concept of sin, salvation or self-improvement in Judaism. Therefore, the distinction between a materialist secular and spiritual religious life which we cattle insist upon does not apply. The religious formulation of a relentless drive to “heal the world” of non-Jewish ethnicity, that being proclaimed the source of all conflict and suffering, holds true for secular Jewry also. I have proposed that faith systems are evolutionary survival strategies. Never was that more evident than with Judaism, which has no concept of spiritual striving and whose messiah is a political not spiritual leader. When he appears (that is, when the project of gentile ethnic dissolution is complete), the messiah will grant Jews - the sole surviving differentiated population - universal reverence as the “perfect” people and as G_d’s Chosen People, and will award them all the goyim’s worldly wealth and property, and suzereignty over the goyim in perpetuity. There could be no more naked example of (middle-eastern tribal) genetic interests infusing and determining cultural forms (conversely, I would argue, the adoption of Christianity by Europeans is a reverse process by which genetic interests are, however inexactly, applied to an extant alien doctrine). 15
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:36 | # The idea of us being micro-chipped has been discussed for at least 30 years now. The technology is here. More interesting: the prediction of such a system was made approximately 2000 years ago. 16
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:00 | # Read more about it at: http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator:(higger) Downloadable pdf here. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:41 | #
Precisely. Well said. 18
Posted by torgrim on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:49 | # Excellent comment by Bill 8:08 am, Fred… I concur as well. The only reason we in the US are not as far along toward the “big yellow ear tab”, is because the individual States have said no to the Real ID Act. In effect the States have said NO to the Feds. 19
Posted by torgrim on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:32 | # Guessedworker said, “I have proposed that faith systems are evolutionary strategies ...,snip, I would argue, the adoption of Christianity by Europeans is a reverse process by which genetic interests are, however inexactly, applied to an alien doctrine.)” I liked your whole post and this comment exactly. As I have posted previously, from a pagan point of view, in regards to just how much Europeans influenced Christianity, to the point, that without Europe, there would not be Christianity. This is the reason as you have made clear in your above points, that I do not bash Christanity, it is, “a reverse by which genetic interests are, *however inexactly* applied to an alien doctrine.” Europe, meaning ethnically Europeans! 20
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:18 | # Netanyahu’s last sentence is a Kosher version of the 14 words. Sauce for goose, sauce for gander. Why aren’t we all spraying, stickering and graffiti-ing the 14 words on all available surfaces? Take an example from this tough old gentleman: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article714088.ece He believes in his cause, and sticks to it: he’s still got a current ASBO. 21
Posted by pollution on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:47 | #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#Data_requirements
Oh no, the end is near!!!!!!! Why are there so many Alex Jones conspiracy freaks here at MR? 22
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 02:47 | #
What makes you think anyone here gives a flying fig about what you think? If you have credentials that prove you have the qualifications to disqualify any commentators here, please provide them. 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:31 | # “that’s how we got candidates Bush, McCain, Obama, Blair, Clinton, Brown, Cameron, Sarkozy” (—my comment) Dégueulène Royal too. 24
Posted by pollution on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:36 | # What does feverish hallucination about conspiracy theories have to do with “the preservation of Western culture and the ethnic genetic interests (EGI) of people of European ancestry”?
25
Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:44 | #
Excuse me, who the hell are you? I’ve been posting on and off here for two years and certainly haven’t seen you around. As for what Bill said, perhaps it sounds paranoid but we happen to live under one of the most sadistic and dystopian regimes ever constructed ... it is not at all unreasonable given their actions to assume the worst in all cases. These are the people responsible for Communism; you remember: forced labor, mass murders, indefinite incarcerations, show trials, surveillance state, confiscation of personal property, inquisition, etc. And they are moving us inexorably toward the panopticon society, each year passing a more draconian piece of legislation toward that end. Yeah, let’s just pretend these aren’t a sick and twisted lot hell bent on our destruction, that makes a lot of sense to me.[/sarcasm] 26
Posted by pollution on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:57 | # The conspiracy nutjob ignores what is happening under his very nose and instead rants about microchips, 9/11, cancer viruses in vaccines, and chemtrails. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:22 | # “ignores what is happening under his very nose and instead rants about microchips, 9/11, cancer viruses in vaccines, and chemtrails.” (—pollution) I haven’t seen anyone here do that. You come across as a spirited guy, which is fine (assuming you’re sincere), but before you keep yapping about that notion of yours make sure you read your surroundings right. You’re reading them wrong. 28
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:45 | # pollution asks:
Is he not aware that there is a significant constituency hereabouts that maintains that the mother of all conspiracy theories concerns itself with exactly those two themes? And that the
are proof positive of the existence of such a conspiracy? 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:05 | # Dan thinks we’re “doing it to ourselves.” I repeat Bill’s question of the other day: What is Dan Dare doing here? Dan answered, “Trying to find out the truth” but doesn’t one need a pair of eyes for that? Can’t you find a site where the blind are trying to find out the truth, Dan? Preferably lefty-type blind, you’d fit right in. 30
Posted by John on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:21 | # Race replacement/panmixia are merely means to an end: complete control of every aspect of everyone’s lives right down to their souls. The most worrisome thing about the microchip is not the things relating to chip-to-central computer communication (tracking) but rather in the opposite direction. They are acclimating us to the latter in popular culture (Lady Gaga video where she answers a phone that is made of her hair—i. e, attached to her head). I have identified the progression of media portrayal of NWO opponents—to microchipping, North American Union, one world currency, government, etc. 1. anyone who mentions it is a “conspiracy nut” 32
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:35 | #
Indeed Fred, but a brain is also required to sift through the incoming data and to arrive at reasoned conclusions as opposed to simple bromides that confirm what one has already decided must be the case.
If I didn’t know you better I’d be concerned you were trying to get rid of me. Now, why should you want to do that Fred? Not that it means that much anyway, I shall be staying around until our esteemed host rescinds his invitation and until that occurs I’m afraid you’ll just have to put up with it. 33
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:49 | # Dan,
You might be interested to know that Scrooby swore off responding to me at least once before over precisely the same kind of argument. Even so I can’t help but like him. 34
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:53 | # John, you mean alternating between 1 and 3, right? (Dan’s at stage 1.) 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:58 | # “Scrooby swore off responding to me at least once before over precisely the same kind of argument.” (—Notus Wind) You’re convinced we’re “doing it to ourselves,” Notus? 36
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:11 | # Scrooby,
Partially. More to the point I believe that there are many reasons for our decline, as Western people we are responsible for some of those reasons but not all of them. It’s complicated. For example, I do know that White American’s aren’t responsible for brainwashing themselves through television and movies. But I would say that we must have screwed up somewhere in order for this state of affairs to happen. Does that make sense? 37
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:32 | # Here’s the symmetry of my reasoning. To the extent that we’re victims of a conspiracy is also to the extent that our natural leaders are responsible for letting us fall victim to a conspiracy. To wit, what excuse do the likes of Owens and Engels have for their treachery? Men like these were drawn from the natural elite of our population and played critical roles in the forming of our ongoing dispossession. I hold them in just as much contempt as I do anyone else. 38
Posted by torgrim on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:33 | # “Why are there so many Alex Jones conspiracy freaks here at MR? Pollution… If you are old enough to remember the 60’s, then you don’t need Alex Jones to tell you that we have an over reaching power structure that is wearing away our liberty and with that, our ability to defend our inheritance from the Founders of this Land. My question is, why are there so many control freaks in this Land? 39
Posted by John on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:37 | # Coincidence theorists suffer from a condition whose name I coined, “entonoia”. (the pathological opposite of paranoia), directed at a certain class of people who are almost to a man psychopathic. The disorder is called, Pathological Government Official Trust Disorder, a subset of the broader Pathological Authority Trust Disorder. The particular entonoia I’m talking about differs from the Williams syndrome “be open with and trust anyone and everyone” type. People with the personality disorders I refer to very often have no problems identifying people in the personal relationships and circles of friends who are untrustworthy and even which domains to trust them (for example, to trust someone never to betray a confidence whom one would never give the keys to one’s car and vice versa). But for some reason, when it comes to certain classes of people, context-dependent entonoids are unable to use such discernment. There is a theory that government and quasi-government schooling, as well as ersatz culture proulgated through traditional media which supports such programming might be a type of cult-like brainwashing that inculcates in people a “trust blind spot”. People above a certain intelligence level, as James Bowery notes, seem to be immune to such brainwashing. Bowery further noted that the intelligence level sufficient to “see through” such programming has gotten lower. In the 1970s, it took a near genius. It’s now somewhere around a sigma and a half above the median. 40
Posted by John on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:58 | # Entonoia: a state where a person trusts someone automatically to have one’s best interest at heart and/or not to take advantage of or manipulate them. Entonoids automatically trust people with no evidence or cues that they are trustworthy and often after being repeatedly betrayed (voting for the same venal politicians over and over, for example) and with obvious evidence of such betrayal right before them. 41
Posted by John on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:13 | # Psychopathologists, for reasons that should be obvious, avoid pathologising the trust end of the trust-suspicion axis. It is in their interest, by and large, that such obsessive disorder as Wealth Acquisition Disorder and Power Acquisition Disorder and the personality disorder, Pathological Authority Trust Disorder remain unrecognised and untreated. 42
Posted by John on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:22 | # Just to be clear, entonoia is not a symptom of wealth acquisition disorder and power acquisition disorder I refer to them in that people with pathological authority trust disorder are often victimised by people suffering from such obsessions 43
Posted by Sam Davidson on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:24 | #
I don’t think that anyone could have foreseen that the Jews, only a few years after their arrival in America, would immediately begin taking over our elite universities and other power structures. (Read: The Chosen by Jerome Karabel) 44
Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:49 | # Sam,
They didn’t need to foresee it in order to prevent it from happening, once it became clear what was going on they should have acted. Instead they seem to have decided either to foment, ignore, or resign themselves to the situation. 45
Posted by Hasbara Pollution on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:02 | # One can assume that “pollution” is the same troll that goes to all WN websites and poisons any discussion of espionage, technology, and intelligence agencies with the same handful of keywords: “retard” “Alex Jones” “conspiracy” “freak” etc. For non-WN websites, the same troll attempts to discourage any conversation about organized Jewish activity at all. “Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory” is the usual term used by ADL and similar groups. The tactic is effective in its simplicity; hurling school-yard taunts like “retard” focuses the conversation on the person, not the issue. If “Bill” above were to take the bait and discuss the commonly used technology he mentions (currently in use by Mexico’s police forces) “pollution” will simply repeat his name-calling. A simple google search of WN websites and the keywords used by “pollution” reveals his identity. 46
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:03 | #
Perhaps they saw little children getting their hands ripped off under cotton machines? jews don’t invent the natural divisions in society. They just magnify and exploit them for their own interests. You are right we wouldn’t be facing an extinction event if there hadn’t been a major weakness in the traditional dominant culture. Personally i’d say the clue to what that weakness was would be in the things jews most try and suppress. The two that first come to mind are: religion that specifically excludes jews on religious grounds and rational scientific racialism as that would inevitably eventually include the simple truth that two tribes on the same piece of ground will always fight and that if you want the best for your people in terms of any measurable outcome then homogenous is best in almost every way. I prefer the second because it is the more general case and doesn’t just exclude jews. It also allows other tribes their space to be themselves. (Plus Christianity that includes the Old Testament is double-edged because it both provides a defense and an avenue of attack.) I don’t think there was anything wrong with the previous culture in this regard. There may have been hundreds of things wrong with it for other reasons but the only way for a nation to be able to compete directly with jews is to be as ethno-centric as the jews. The only way to be as ethnoc-centric as the jews is to be believe you’re the master race the way they do. I don’t think every nation believing they’re the master race will end too well so i don’t believe there is any viable defense against them except exclusion. We need an unshakeable belief system that leads to their permanent exclusion and the simplest one would be the simple truth that tribes fight, diversity kills and tribes who think they’re the master race are a menace. @Hasbara
Yes, if you study jewish commentators both in print and on TV it’s one of the tell-tale signs. They put up a “wall of attack” full of ad hominems and straw men and all the rest of it ,and not just one, there’s a whole host of them all jumbled together in one big overpowering wall. The victim then either gets hung up on trying to defend themselves or gets hung up arguing against one insignificant piece of the wall of attack and forgeting to make their own point. I’d say it’s a learned tactic based on centuries of practise bullying and manipulating people who are prone to guilt conditioning. The answer imo is to always attack. For example any mention of the holocaust and i immediately go into “why are there no memorials for the Ukraine?” and accuse them of Bolshevik holocaust denial. One aspect of this i was thinking of the other day is that whenever a person sets themselves up that way and attacks you from a seemingly moral basis then as soon as you start to defend then what you are unconsciously doing is accepting their right to judge, at which point you’ve already lost. What i thought i was doing in my “always attack” mode was just neutralizing the noise - effectively shouting down their attempt to shut me down with guilt attacks - but what i was unconsciously doing was challenging their right to judge through pointing out the simple fact of them being hypocritical genocidal desert-nazis. 47
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:27 | # Thanks for that, Hasbara. I suspected “pollution” was a troll but couldn’t prove it. Dan “We’re Doing it to Ourselves” Dare of course was very receptive to the guy. 48
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:40 | #
It was no different for Ukrainians.
http://www.yuzyk.com/yuz-tribute1.shtml The point’s been made before, however, it’s probably worth repeating, that Jews, at least in Canada, never were solely responsible. Ethno-patriotism for me but not for thee. 49
Posted by Armor on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:34 | # Wandrin: “jews don’t invent the natural divisions in society. They just magnify and exploit them for their own interests.” They tend to transform every European ideology, cultural or political movement, into something else. But the race-replacement craziness looks like a Jewish creation. I know Europeans sent Black slaves to the Americas, but not for the sake of race-replacement. White people who support race-replacement are copycats, and they are only a small minority of the population. Sen. Yuzyk: “I said to myself that if they called me a foreigner when I had been born in Canada, it meant Canada needed some changing.” Yuzyk certainly had some contact with the Jewish pro-immigration ideology. Anyway, with people like him, but without the Jews, it is unlikely we would have this culture of destruction, this doomsday ideology, where every pro-immigration leftist has to show that he is crazier than his comrades. 50
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:55 | #
Not sure, really.
A STUDY OF OUR BY EDWARD R. LEWIS PUBLISHERS HARPER & BROTHERS NEW YORK AND LONDON MCMXXVIII p. 209-210 51
Posted by Armor on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:20 | # “General Scott was attacked as early as 1852 for his views on immigration” At the time, there wasn’t any desire to destroy the country through immigration. There was little risk of being killed or mugged by immigrants. Americans didn’t have to live in far-away suburbs to avoid diversity. The birth rate of American natives was not going down as a result of immigration. The country was less densely populated, and German immigrants were not complete genetic aliens. In short, it wasn’t the same! 52
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:43 | #
Two tribes on the same piece of ground will conflict no matter what but… - were ukrainians massively over-represented in gay rights? jews are different in that they are an extreme example of a general rule. also i think if you look at the funding of people like that Yuzyk guy you’ll find the same pattern you see everywhere if you look under the rocks. there will have been jewish money behind him.
i don’t think they’re solely responsible anywhere however i do think they were and are critical in disarming ethnic defense through the media. firstly their suppression of the truth about the negative consequences of immigration has always been crucial in preventing people waking up. secondly i spent a lot of time trying to think back to when i was a kid and the sort of things my parents and their friends said and i’m pretty convinced now that the civil rights movement in the states and how that was reported in the media and hollywood was the critical factor in creating the initial white converts to the multicult. they all wanted to be Gregory Peck in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
And a post-war one at that. When you think about it the imperial powers like France, Britain and Spain they had 200 years when they could have imported large numbers of non-whites into their home countries. They did it elsewhere like moving Indians to Fiji but not to their home. 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:55 | # Fine comments above, as usual, by Armor (both of Armor’s) and Wandrin. Outstanding work by both men. 54
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:00 | #
There never was a desire to destroy the ‘country’ but clearly ethnic interests of the immigrant group have always been first and foremost. Irish criminality was a huge problem not only in the US but in Montreal and Liverpool. Griffintown, a Montreal neighborhood, was so bad that the French-Canadians felt the Irish migration was a conspiracy fomented by the British to destroy them. Birth rates of Americans declined. Sanger laments the falling birth rates of the Americans. The founding American was driven out of Boston and New York by the mass migration. The migrants, in particular the Irish, landed and stayed in the cities. The conditions in which they lived were horrible. In short, it wasn’t the same, it was much, much worse. 55
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:03 | # ty Fred
Various white immigrant groups come into conflict with the originals. There’s some sharp elbows carving out a niche for themselves like say the Irish and the New York police force. This always happens and the originals are entitled to resent it however what you don’t see or at least i’ve never seen is those immigrant groups doing more than that. It’s only jews who slip into every crack going and try and widen it regardless of whether it has anything to do with jews and only jews who then try to mould a political alliance out of all those disaffected groups and aim it against the dominant majority group. Basically because jews want to be top dog whereas other immigrant groups generally just want a niche. If you have lots of immigration from lots of places without any real thought or control then you will automatically get balkanization, and again, the original population are entitled to resent it, but the active conscious balkanization of the west came from cultural marxists and they were nearly all jews. i don’t see how there can be any doubt of that overall - although in towns where the original people have been turned into a minority by white immigration it may not seem like it makes much difference. 56
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:11 | #
Yes. All these issues grew from multi-culturalism/identity politics. Why? It’s because the fundamental right of freedom of association, the right to discriminate, was perverted. Official Ukrainians were as much a part of that transformation as official Jews. They still are. Otherwise why don’t they support a racial identity, except there own, in Canada? Their hypocrites in the extreme. Supporting the multi-cult in Canada furthers their ethnic interest. Support gay rights, Ukrainians are rewarded with schools in their own language etc. etc. 57
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:15 | #
same source p. 64-65 58
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:19 | #
same source p. 301 59
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:36 | # And what is the political action and program that stems from this? What purpose does it serve? 60
Posted by Joe of the Mountain on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:48 | # Posted by Wandrin on August 18, 2010, 05:03 PM | #
It’s my general reply and it still works well. Note to everyone - I love your site but you’re all much smarter than I so I mainly just read and enjoy. Joe of the Mountain 61
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:55 | #
It serves self-interest. Yuzyk served his self-interest by furthering the ethnic interest of Ukrainians in Canada through an alliance with broadly based self-interested groups. Now when the same program is mounting an attack against the ethno-patriots in the Ukraine, it’s suddenly abhorrent. Considering how the leaders of this ethnic group acted in another ethny’s homeland, where they largely found salvation from the rampages of Bolshevism, and in return someone called him a bad name, somehow finding equivalency in that notion is a joke really. 62
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:14 | # I meant the ukrainian holocaust can be be used politically to neutralize the holocult. i don’t see how the stuff you’re talking about leads anywhere. 63
Posted by Ukraine: Murdered by Organized Jewry on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:50 | # The Jewish historical pattern of dominating a nation and then, ‘for some reason,’ that same Jewish dominated nation eventually being flooded by non-White/non-European immigrants at the behest of Jewish elites holds true in Ukraine; Ukraine has one of the highest immigrant populations in Europe:
Also, we think the USA, UK, and other White nations have it bad under Jewish hegemon(e)y, but Jewish communism and the Judeo-plutocracy has really done a number on the Ukrainians:
To be frank, 20th Century Jewry completely obliterated the Ukrainian people. Under Jewish-led communism they murdered all Ukrainian elites, or else absorbed them in to the Jewish gene pool via Jewish gene theft. Then when communism collapsed they became hypercapitalists and economically raped the nation, leaving it a hollow shell if its former self. Ukraine should’ve remained primarily rural, agricultural, and pastoral in character - instead, under Jewish-led communism, it was forcibly industrialized and urbanized against the will of the Ukrainian people. Those Ukrainians who opposed were murdered, sent to the gulags, starved to death, etc. 64
Posted by Robert Reis on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:45 | # http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6o7vmHzD4I&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2WBhpqHukY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG9TzyO4CWw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKDe-09EpNM&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtHwKz5XuTw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfbRGZlj6eg&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wx8m4Xmu-k&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXeG4pLX_98&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox7crnTgC_c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCL7HTAxQ-4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNORzM8yl14&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNORzM8yl14&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbbvtpOLSyw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YZjzJZOoJI&feature=related 65
Posted by pollution on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:02 | #
Typical conspiracy cultist rhetoric. Call anyone who does not uncritically accept your conspiracy theories a government dupe.
Typical conspiracy cultist paranoia. As if nobody except a single “troll” opposes conspiracy cultism. Go back to your prisonplanet.com forum sandbox. Why am I so derisive toward conspiracy cultists? They are impervious to reason and they take people’s attention away from race, the issue that really matters. Demographic displacement and the decline of our race are transpiring before your very eyes, and what do conspiracy cultists do? You waste your time obsessing over irrelevant and ridiculous conspiracy theories about microchips, ID cards, 9/11, chemtrails, FEMA camps, the moon landing, vaccines, etc. Fifty years from now, whites will have declined to 30% of the US population, and you’ll be chanting “9/11 was an inside job” and freaked out that “gubmint’s gunna put a microchip in me and put drugs in the water supply”. It’d be funny it it weren’t so pathetic. 66
Posted by John on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:33 | # “Typical conspiracy cultist rhetoric. Call anyone who does not uncritically accept your conspiracy theories a government dupe.” In addition to a full-blown case of entonoia, you seem to be suffering from obsession with conspiracy threorists. “Fifty years from now, whites will have declined to 30% of the US population, and you’ll be chanting “9/11 was an inside job” and freaked out that “gubmint’s gunna put a microchip in me and put drugs in the water supply”. It’d be funny it it weren’t so pathetic. “ The subject wouldn’t have been discussed further without your trollery. Other than you and those responding to you the only one on this thread who mentioned the tangentially off topic microchips was Bill. See comment above. 67
Posted by Bill on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:32 | # Posted by pollution on August 18, 2010, 02:57 AM | #
Hi Pollution. What is it I cannot see happening under my nose? What is it I’m I missing that MR is telling me here? Sorry GW for the diversion, I thought it was an innocuous comment myself. 68
Posted by one on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:27 | # More in support of Desmond Vito Marcantonio, Radical Congressman from New York
69
Posted by one on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:29 | # Vito Marcantonio: radical politician, 1902-1954
70
Posted by one on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:34 | # Leonard Covello and Vito Marcantonio: A Lifelong Collaboration for Progress
71
Posted by one on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:52 | # Excerpts from a few letters written by Senator Theodore Bilbo, who was mentioned in the comment above
72
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:04 | # Replying to “pollution’s” post of 5:02 AM: no one here fits his description of what he terms a “conspiracy cultist”:
“Pollution” is either a troll of some sort attempting to derail useful discussion or someone like Dan Dare who, because he can’t or won’t see obvious connections between things, angrily and indignantly labels anyone seeing them and trying to explain history “a conspiracy nut.” I vote for him being sent packing. 73
Posted by Bill on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:29 | # GW. Wondered if you’d seen this. It seems one of your duellists over at BDF recently was a BNP big cheese organiser of West Herts. GriffinWatch said… http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.com/
I wondered where she’d got to? 74
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:46 | # Good pick-up, Bill! That “sara sara” certainly was annoying wasn’t she, in a couple of those exchanges GW got caught up in over there and linked back here. Gal was insufferable. 75
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:49 | # I thought sarasara sounded like hasbara, thats what I said to her. She didnt respond. 76
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:02 | # Sarasara did not like her tribe being named and shamed, though she offered no rational refutations of same. It was “anti-Semitic”, “Jew-hatred”, “Nazi” ... and that’s all there was to it. So she felt fully licenced to strike out in the most aggressive and hypocritical manner. Who could possibly complain that she complained to the site owner, a not very bright UKIP libertarian conformist with a less than dazzling command of reality? Mind you, Henry Palfrey was an aggressive piece of work. I certainly wouldn’t want anybody like that posting round here. 77
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:51 | # n/a recently put up an entry that highlights Pound’s frustration with the inability of old stock Americans to even think in terms of race and racial preservation. Here are a few excerpts:
Go to the entry at n/a’s site and read the whole thing. Anyway, as I was telling Sam earlier in this thread, we shouldn’t make excuses for the fecklessness (and/or cowardice) of our own elites. 78
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:18 | # Dasein,
Lol, that’s amazing - nothing new under the sun. Ever since i started thinking about the “moral ideal” aspect of things i starting thinking to myself that if it was right then the NSDAP would probably have come to the same conclusion somehow - especially Goebbels. I’ve been meaning to read up on the language AH and Goebbels used and see how they couched their message - to see if they always put a moral-sounding frame around it and if they did the “always attack” thing. Mr G is quite right methinks and puts it better than me. They don’t think the same way. Assuming they do is a big disadvantage to our side. 79
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:02 | # ”as Charles Bronson said in that spaghetti western, they can count — all the way to three.” (—my comment, 8-19, 3:40 AM) Sorry, I was quoting from years-old memory. What he said was “you can count. All the way up to two”: Harmonica: I saw three of these dusters a short time ago. They were waiting for a train. Inside the dusters there were three men. ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_the_West ) It’s a good quote. And it’s why we know they’re doing it on pupose: they can count — all the way up to two. That’s the only skill you need in order to know exactly what’s going on with immigration. We don’t need a paper trail. And we don’t need Andrew Neather. There’s nobody, in or out of government, who can’t count up to two. 80
Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:45 | #
It’s not an excuse, but I’d say that past generations were more ignorant than anything. Princeton responded to the Jewish influx by instituting a 10% quota for Jews. Likewise, the government created the Immigration Act of 1924 to stop unchecked immigration. Their reasoning was flawless - Americans have a right to preserve themselves like any other people. It was an old-stock American version of the 14 Words. These poor people could not have imagined that this small group of wandering Jews would destroy the very fabric of society within mere decades. Who could have predicted the onslaught of feminism, racial integration, campus radicalism, homosexualism, open borders, etc.? In 1940 our illegitimacy rate was 5%. Today it’s 40%. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Society has been turned upsidedown. Could we have improved the political/social system of the ‘Old Republic’? Definitely. If we ever get our own ethnostate there will be a switch towards a more collectivist system. This change will become inevitable when we find ourselves under siege by the rest of the world. (Think about Germany, South Africa, and Rhodesia.) 81
Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:16 | # Sam,
The examples of Ford and Edison suggest that their era wasn’t quite as ignorant as you’re implying. In fact, in my own family tree there are stories people from the same era who were very suspicious of Jewish dealings whenever they encountered them, which wasn’t very frequent.
On my reading, the Old Republic in the 19th century was home to radical abolitionists who were willing to kill their fellow White countrymen in the name of freeing African slaves. Radical egalitarian abstractions loomed larger in their mind than patriotism and although they were very much a minority they still managed to bend the ears of power and become effective. All of this took place before the arrival of European Jewry to Ellis Island. In fact, you can even go back to the pre-revolutionary colonial era and find people arguing for the mass miscegenation of the newly arrived English with the Indian tribes on the basis of love, peace, and equality. These types only temporarily leave the scene in the early 19th century, which saw the beginnings of modern anthropology, but by the middle of the 19th century they’re tradition was back in full force and hasn’t left since. The problem goes much much deeper than most racialists realize. 82
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:31 | #
It’s not excusing. Understanding the mechanisms involved potentially throws up avenues of attack. Examples: One strand of white multicultist are people who like to feel morally superior. They take whatever the average person in their group thinks and they pick the contrary view to be different. Hammering away at them on the *moral* consequences of their actions works - a bit. They’ll never change their nature but their level of certainty can be reduced. A second strand are genuine idealists who believe the multicult is doing good. Hammering away at them on the *moral* consequences of their actions will eventually turn them or at least make them neutral. It might take a while because they blind themselves but in the mean time gradually reducing their certainty gradually reduces their enthusiam for sheep-dogging for the multicult. A third strand is white politicians being bought by hostile forces. If you look at funding then you see quite plainly the activity of alien ethnic groups buying influence. Pointing out that mainstream parties are getting most of their funding from globalist billionaires who are pro-immigration and pro-neocon is a good line to take.
I think at heart all this boils down to a battle between which of two ethnic groups is the most cohesive and the least cohesive loses. jews have been winning these battles for centuries. Aspects of western civilization may have made it easier for them but whatever aspect was changed the only thing it would effect was how long it took for them to win because jews are so cohesive that if any white nation became as or more cohesive as the jews then they’d expel them in the same way jews will automatically expel all the Arabs (Christian or muslim) from Israel within about three seconds of ever having the opportunity to do so. It’s as simple as that in my view. The only defence is exclusion - so long, thanks for all the bagels. And the simplest grounds for that (in my view) are the scientific racial grounds that are being suppressed - diversity kills. Two tribes on the same ground will conflict and if you don’t want your people to suffer from that conflict then the only answer is separation.
They were individuals like us trying to persuade the majority of their group that if they weren’t as cohesive as the jews then they’d lose everything. Unfortunately they failed. They failed because jews always act as a group more than white people do. Why are jews so ultra-cohesive? Partly it’s the master race stuff makes them see themselves as a race apart, special (and subject to different moral rules). Partly it’s because they bring their children up to be paranoid. The lachrymose version of jewish history trains them to view all non-jews as potential enemies that could turn on them at any moment and that the only protection is ethnic cohesion and nepotism. (Actually all national histories do this however with most nations their history is designed to make the young view external nations as potential threats whereas the jewish version makes their young view all non-jews as potential threats.) It is perfectly possible to make white nations as cohesive as jews e.g NSDAP or medieval Catholicism, but personally i don’t want western civilization to define itself solely on the basis of self-defense against a pack of crazy, paranoid desert-nazis and more fundamentally, any white nation that made itself that cohesive would automatically expel them anyway so you might as well just cut to the chase.
I think you’re right that white people, especially the most inventive ones, will also throw up lots of crazy idealists and heretics who can do a lot of harm. Personally i think thats a price worth paying as long as the feedback loop of empirical data is in place because occasionally one of them will be right about something and that will benefit everyone. That’s just my opinion however. But regardless of that i think it’s plain that the problem with multicult ideas is not primarily the ideas themselves. The ideas are demonstrably wrong and would have been proved wrong decades ago by the empiricial data before they did so much damage - if the empirical data hadn’t been deliberately suppressed. The critical factor in my view, not the only factor but the critical one, always comes back to having an alien ethnic group controlling both the flow of information and the means of production of culture (where culture is defined as the power to define right and wrong). The proof of that, if true, would be if the MSM suddenly started telling the truth about the negative consequences of diversity thereby providing the empirical data. Would the multicult survive? I think it would start to crumble within weeks. The multicultists would still be there, everything else would still be in place, but the majority would no longer listen to them. They’d be listening to us. 83
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 03:41 | #
As opposed to what, radical institutionalism, driven by a minority group of slave owners who were willing to kill their fellow White countrymen men (the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter…no?) to advance African slavery across the country? Self-interest trumped racial cohesion and though a minority, this group was still very much able to leverage power. Sephardi Jews were also their allies. Despite the fact they were fully cognisant of the horrors cast upon Europeans in Haiti they still promoted the radical institutionalism as a ‘manifest destiny’ in an unyielding pursuit of profit and self-interest. The smearing of the New England Yankee is of course MacDonald’s (and his academic buddy, Phil Gura [both Catholics?]) recent hobby horse.
John Rolfe showed great consternation over his forthcoming marriage to the savage Pocahontas.
84
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:00 | # I just now watched the video linked in the log entry for the first time. I highly recommend it. That was a riveting video, and that younger man in the video is 100% correct: he’s not the Jew’s psychiatrist. The Jew has to resolve his own identity problems, not insist the whole nation of the Ukraine and the Ukrainian race go out of existence in order to assuage Jewish personal identity problems. Excellent answer. In the video a panelist called for a vote on the question that had been put in the public opinion poll. There should be a vote, yes. And on the ballot should be this question: “Do you as a Ukrainian think all brazen Jews who openly wish the demographic annihilation of the Ukrainian people via race-replacement immigration should be asked to depart permanently for Israel? ____ Yes. ____ No.” I’m so mad I’d apply for Ukrainian citizenship just to be able to vote Yes on that. These Jews are unfricking believable: brazen in-your-face natiocides and genocides. They really and truly have to be stopped: someone has to start standing up to these Jews and say, “No further! You’ve genocided your last European race, jealousy-consumed Jew. You don’t like living among Ukrainians in a Ukrainian country? There’s a simple solution: get the fuck out. And stay out. You have a country now. Go to it. Are we coming into your Jewish country and telling it it has to go out of existence as a Jewish country? No. Don’t you dare ever tell us that again, piece of filth! Our land, our race, and our nation are sacred! Don’t ever again touch them!” That’s how Jews like this specimen need to be addressed, because they simply do not understand anything less direct no matter how many times you say it. Tell them politely you don’t want to be natiocided and genocided till you’re blue in the face, they’ll still try to natiocide you and genocide you. It’s time to take the verbal gloves off with these Jews. 85
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:26 | # In the video, look at that pure Slavic face on the woman behind the moderator’s left shoulder at the 1:42 mark. That’s what I expect to see when I look at Ukrainians: Ukrainians. No, Mr. Chervonenko, when I look at a Ukrainian crowd that’s the kind of face I expect to see, not a bunch of faces that look like they’re from the Maghreb, or Cameroon, or Uzbekistan. Not mulattoes, gypsies, Orientals, or whatever else constitutes this Jew’s wet dream for Ukrainian race-replacement. My advice to this Jew: have a cup of STFU and sit down. If he wants to race-replace someone so bad, let him race-replace his race, the Jews — there’d be a lot less genocide in the world, that’s for damn sure. 86
Posted by Pow Wow on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:47 | # “Considering how the leaders of this ethnic group acted in another ethny’s homeland…” Wait, I thought they were doing this in Canada, the homeland of the Indians, not England. How’d the Anglos act when they got to the New World? Please, Desmond, don’t go down the GW hypocrisy route. An ethny is an ethny is an ethny. 87
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 06:44 | #
Of course that’s not what was said. It’s other Europeans. LOL. Are other Europeans to be deported from the Ukraine to keep the Ukraine for Ukrainians. LOL. Save the indigenous Ukrainians. Deport their fellow whites. LOL. Especially those fucking Gotlander Swedes. LOL.
88
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 06:53 | # Chief, It’s called right of conquest, legitimized by UN resolution. Canada was formed as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. It is Anglo-Saxon institutions, Anglo-Saxon laws and Anglo-Saxon traditions that make Canada.
Civilized. They did not practice human sacrifice nor did they have a taste for human flesh. 89
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 06:56 | # Desmond, the argument Chervonenko and the other creep who was on his side (the guy who looked like a deer in the headlights as the moderator was interviewing him — so he couldn’t have been Jewish, didn’t look brazen enough, must have been a Uke fellow traveler/useful idiot) the argument Chervonenko and the Uke useful idiot were making was, please correct me, fundamentally for open borders David-Blunkett-style meaning no upper limits on mystery meat or on non-Uke whites too many of whom, including Swedes, would also change the Uke race the way too many Poles will change the Brit collection of races. 90
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:09 | # By the way Desmond, I don’t want to genocide the Ukraine as revenge for the Ukes in Canada’s support for A-S genocide. What the Canadian Ukes did (and continue to do) was plenty bad but not so bad it warrants genociding the Ukraine. Besides, the Jews already genocided the Ukraine; it’s time to ease up on that nation but if they keep it up in Canada I might change my mind. 91
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:26 | # You see that woman’s remarkable face again at the 2:42 mark: that’s the face of a race. If Chervonenko and his useful idiot get their way that race will vanish from history and when people of the future see those faces in photos they’ll look at each other and ask, as we do when we see the ancient Greek statues, “Was there really ever a race that looked like that? It certainly doesn’t exist today. Today in the Ukraine everybody looks like a Brazilian, a Maghrebian, a mulatto, or a gypsy. Come to think of it, that’s the way everyone has looked ever since Chervonenko and his useful idiot took over.” 92
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:46 | # Ok Fred full disclosure, I admit to Ukrainian hero worship, here, here, here,and here. 93
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:16 | # Wikipedia:
95
Posted by Pow Wow on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:20 | # “It’s called right of conquest, legitimized by UN resolution.” It’s disappointing when you, who I always consider to be a clear-seeing evolutionist, write things like this. Any conquest is “right of conquest”, be it among homo sapiens, foxes, or bird species. And it’s also a bit weird to see you using the concept of a UN resolution as somehow legitimating things. Really? The UN? That’s the organization you look to as giving some universal imprimatur to acts of ethnic displacement and resource diminishment? “Canada was formed as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. It is Anglo-Saxon institutions, Anglo-Saxon laws and Anglo-Saxon traditions that make Canada.” I agree. It is these institutions and laws, easily exploited, therefore not particularly effective, that have allowed Canada to be what it is. “[The Anglos acted c]ivilized. They did not practice human sacrifice nor did they have a taste for human flesh.” I guess if those are your criteria for civilization, then they did act civilized. If supplying various colonized peoples around the world with substances that help ruin their national communities, if putting more and more destructive weapons into their hands, and if shunting whatever’s left of this bunch onto the less productive land of their forefathers is civilized, than the Anglo-Saxon, like the Israeli, is civilized. I don’t think it makes a difference to particular First Nations tribes that the people who conquered the land that was once theirs didn’t eat one or two of their ancestors. I doubt if the Ukrainians care that the NKVD Jews putting bullets at the base of their great grandparents’ skulls did so without a primitive ceremony - thus acting in civilized, modern fashion. To kill and displace in what you consider a “civilized” way is as effective as killing and displacing in what you consider an “uncivilized” way. This isn’t meant to be hostile, Desmond. I just don’t see how Aryans, Caucasians, Europeans - whatever we want to call them - in the New World can somehow seek GW’s vaunted “moral” justification for removing other races currently pouring into these lands without coming across as hypocrites. If it were approached along the lines of, “We need this land to survive, and we’ll do whatever we can to keep it, we don’t care about them, we don’t care about anyone except ourselves,” that’s different - it’s healthy and normal. But pointing to UN resolutions as something that should legitimize our survival shows that “we” simply haven’t the power any longer to act this way, either explicitly or implicitly. 96
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:03 | #
Agree. The indigenous argument works plain in Europe as a solid moral foundation and widening it out a bit to: Each nation has a right to preserve its own unique way of being, and stating that as a principle in a “We hold this to be true” type of way, can be extended a bit to cover this. If that principle is held to be true, and it is accepted by the first set of invaders that they broke that principle in the original conquest, then they have an obligation now to protect the rights of the original natives. New invaders have no obligation to the first natives. Arabs didn’t sign the peace treaties. Somalis aren’t going to care about reserved land. It is beholden on those who took the land and signed the treaties not only to defend their right to their land but the rights of the original natives to theirs as agreed by treaty. So white americans have an ongoing obligation to defend indian land. With a bit of polish that argument might put a pebble in the shoe of white people at the idealist end of the ethnocentric->idealist spectrum. @Desmond Founding stock vs later white arrivals. There is no point just mourning the founding white elites not being ethnocentric enough to maintain the founding stock as the overwhelming majority. They didn’t. It happened already. If you want an anglo-only, or nord-only, or protestant-only, or catholic-only, or everyone-except-anglo or left handed Irish only type organisation with some kind of plan for getting what you want then fine - but simply mourning the loss of something gets nobody anywhere. The western world is sailing head-on into a god-awful, semi-global ethno-sectarian civil war courtesy of the jews in which i’d guess more people are going to be violently killed than in both world wars put together. In short it’s going to be another jewish century. It could well work out that North America breaks up into dozens of mini-nations. Given that you’d be better off having a Covington type plan that is anglo-only or nord-only or whatever the criterion would be. At least then you’ll be working toward something. 97
Posted by You know who on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:18 | # Scrooby, nobody cares what you “expect to see.” It’s not about what you “expect to see.” In fact, it’s not about that even for you: why don’t you fess up and admit it’s all about what you want to see, in the Ukraine and anywhere. (Of course, nobody cares about that, either. But someone had to tell you.) Nope. It’s about what’s morally plausible, socially sensible and politically actionable. No more, no less. So close to three quarters of Ukraine’s already non-Ukrainian. Well, there’s not going to be any getting rid of them, I’m afraid. The only thing that solemn little declaration by the nationalist that he’s a Ukrainian in his native land towards the end of that vid will do is prompt Ukrainians who had never really thought about the question to consider whether there really is anything all that special about Ukraine belong exclusively to Ukrainians. Many of them are going to conclude, as masses of Americans, Canadians, Australians and others did before them, that you know, it’s really not all that important that Ukraine belong solely to us; what’s wrong with a few foreigners? They add a nice spot of variety etc. That’s not me talking. That’s what they’re going to conclude, particularly once they start thinking about what would actually have to be done to have an exclusively Ukrainian Ukraine. Particularly those in power. You can count on it. Blah blah nationalism this, and blah blah blah nationalism that, and blah blah blah foreigners suck this much, and blah blah blah foreigners suck that much, does it every time. The sullenness of the nationalist is his own private agony. No one else gives a fuck. 98
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:41 | #
White flight proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they do give a fuck, silver. Immigrant groups always choosing to live in ethnic enclaves proves it, silver. jews especially always live in ethnic enclaves, both proving it and proving what hypocrites they are. What sort of people could think they have the right to a unique identity but no one else does? Sociopaths. Or people who become effectively sociopathic to outsiders through believing they’re a chosen master race. 99
Posted by LEW on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:55 | # That is very sad information about the situation in Ukraine
The slow race replacement via migration method currently underway in the West is the Jews’ plan B. Plan A is murders, executions, gulags, box cars, and mass starvation. They would be using Plan A right now if they had the power to do so as the Ukrainian experience shows. 100
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:48 | # Silver I thought you had sworn off reading my commentary. Why torture yourself? My stuff isn’t meant for people with your kind of brain circuits anyway, it’s meant for people with the other kind — you know, the normal kind.
Is that a new definition of “a few”? Getting back to the standard definition, nothing’s wrong with “a few” but I’ve been reading this site since October 2004 and have never seen anyone here, blogger or regular commenter, object to “a few,” only to “a lot” but there were a few days I was out sick so you could have a point.
Right I know, especially the non-white ones, they’re so vibrant, they’ve got the smaller braincase, the r-selected reproductive strategy and everything, they knock up all the white girls and give them AIDS then don’t marry them, the whole nine yards, which is why we’re so glad to visit their countries as tourists when we feel like a change — it’s called foreign travel, seeing the world, it’s great — but as for your idea that we import enough of them to change our country into Guinea-Bissau thanks anyway, I know it’s the thought that counts, you’re always thinking of the other guy first Silver, that’s what I admire in you but .... uhhhhhhhh ..... no thanks.
“Exclusively”? No, they don’t have to cleanse the place of small numbers of non-Ukes (assuming these are behaving themselves, not drug trafficking, running white slavery rings in collusion with Israel, etc.), just establish a social set-up that lets all these whatever — Ruthenians, Szeklers, Shiptars, guys who are half-Serb-half-Greek, whatever else they’ve got — lets them understand they’re in the Ukes’ country now, like it or leave it. Lots will leave of their own accord if they can’t do their drug running or white slavery, shipping Slavic girls to Israeli brothels. Great, that’s more room for the Ukes. If Jews like this Chervonenko piece of work help any of these others try to establish hegemony over the Ukes in the Ukes’ own land, the way the Jews here are helping the Mexes try to establish hegemony over Euros, then those Jews and the mystery meat they’re stirring up, both, need to be sent packing, yes that’s right, get the vermin, the termites, out. Leave only the ones who know how to behave in someone else’s country (provided they’re of general Euro race and not present in large volumes).
No, that’s not right, Silver: you give a fuck, very much so. You’re a race-replacement advocate. You’re on the other side and an ardent advocate for it. Someone who didn’t “give a fuck” wouldn’t get the fantods from reading my commentary: he wouldn’t “give a fuck” about me, about the race-replacement advocates, about the Jews, or about the whole shooting match. 101
Posted by Armor on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 21:21 | #
What has to be done is to deport foreigners back to their country of origin. What is wrong with that? Are you afraid it will break their hearts if they have to leave us? Are you afraid that the extra population will be too much their country of origin? 102
Posted by Silv on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:01 | # My stuff isn’t meant for people with your kind of brain circuits anyway, it’s meant for people with the other kind — you know, the normal kind. Look, I agree it’s normal to want what you want. Plenty of people want it. It’s somewhat out of favor at the moment, for reasons we’re all well aware of, but it’s quite normal. But man you must be blind, deaf and/or stupid not to have realized by now that people find the other thing ‘normal’ too. They just do. Frustrating, but there it is. People just plain like other people, Scroob, or at least they come to, in the normal course of things. That’s one hell of a mountain you’re trying to climb there pal, telling them, in effect, that ‘love is wrong.’ The real problem with it is that what gets ignored is the end game of all that lovin’. That’s the one thing that gets me about all this. That’s one thing. The other thing is your racial revulsion level. That’s not even close to normal. That’s so far off normal words can’t really express it. If that were normal things would never ever have even approached the point they’re now at. Not a chance. You can keep telling yourself otherwise, that people see it and feel it but suppress it, or drive yourself batty by wondering how it can be that they don’t see it, insisting that it can only possibly be the result of the greatest deception in history, but it’s not going to help you any. What would help is if you just accepted that the great majority don’t feel anything like the revulsion you do—in other words, to accept reality as it is and build form there. People might actually start paying some attention to you then. Is that a new definition of “a few”? Getting back to the standard definition, nothing’s wrong with “a few” but I’ve been reading this site since October 2004 and have never seen anyone here, blogger or regular commenter, object to “a few,” only to “a lot” but there were a few days I was out sick so you could have a point. But that’s how it starts. With a few. Then the few become a few more, then they become many—like the blackbirds in The Birds—and then you’re fighting for your life. This is just what tends to happen. And you don’t even have to think about it in terms of national immigration policy. You can see the same thing happen in individual cities or parts of cities. Everyone in America is aware that the country contains a shitload of different races. But for most people it’s only when enough of them move somewhere close by that they start to dwell on race-related issues. I wasn’t even arguing that Ukraine (or any place) should accept “a few.” I was highlighting the typical sort of thought process that takes place when those who want to bring “a few” suggesting bringing a “a few” in. Few people really care. And then you get some nationalist type beat his chest and say no, we’re thises and we’re not going to put up with any goddammed thats coming to our sacred homeland and he just sounds like an idiot. What a wasted opportunity for that nationalist in that video. There he is he gets a stop on national TV (I presume) and what does he do? He beats his chest. Well, I dare say there are quite a few more Ukes who that resonates with than there are, say, Canadians, but those people who already feel that way we’re already going to say no. Plenty of the rest who don’t so much care are very likely to be put off and decided that, bah, this fool doesn’t speak for me. Let’s open up the country a bit. And you know how that goes, at least today, times being what they are etc. Now, if the fellow had a more sophisticated message—one that I know, I know, shouldn’t be necessary, because everything he’s talking is oh so bloody normal—he might have succeed in impressing upon the suggestibles that it’s about a lot more than merely taking in a few Nigerians or whatever. I mean, Fred, come on, you saw the reaction of that Jew. He may as well have been Russian, or Bulgarian or Tatar or whatever else they have there. They didn’t come yesterday, you know. So automatically, that’s some 25% on the let a few in side if you’re going to take that hardline approach. Then everyone that those 25% are friends or relatives with. Then all the people that know them or associate with them and “I don’t see what the problem is”—to which the nationalist reply is the standard outraged what-do-you-mean-you-don’t-see-what-the-problem-is-this-is-OUR-LAND, oblivious to the fact that “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” So there’s a few more losses. All of a sudden what shouldn’t have been a problem becomes one. What has to be done is to deport foreigners back to their country of origin. What is wrong with that? It’s seen as unfair. It’s unfair to just get rid of someone who’s done you no obvious harm, who to all appearances is an upstanding citizen, who might look a little different but that’s a difference to be appreciated, not reviled etc etc. It’s not me you’re arguing with, Armor; this is just what most people, at least for the time being, tend to think. Are you afraid it will break their hearts if they have to leave us? Well, yes, I am, as a matter of fact. Frankly, to take someone who’s well adapted and well liked etc and tell him he has to be gotten ridden of because, well, he just doesn’t match your standards of what a human should look like, well… Don’t take my word for it, Armor, go and try that argument out on your fellow Frenchmen and see how well it goes down. (And I’m not even talking about myself here. If my own plans were ever put into action they’d require me to separate, which isn’t something I’d happily on an individual basis, of course not, but as part of a plan designed to achieve a certain end, yes certainly.) Look, the whole thing gets to the heart of identity and compatibility: Who is who and who should live with whom and why? Traditional notions of ethnicity allow you take some shortcuts, but demographic change is proceeding at fast enough pace that if you want to sound convincing you’re going to have to provide a more thorough account.
Right, you think that. But why should anyone else (who doesn’t already)? You know, the sad thing is I actually agree with you. I really do think we’d all be better off around people more like ourselves rather than less like ourselves, and I, personally, am not too fussed about just which divisions are created, or that they might be subject to change. Fine, I say. Let’s go through with all that. It’ll be a bit messy, but it’ll be worth it, especially for future generations. I just don’t think your approach—far too akin to a simple a race hate movement (see Chechar for a sterling example of this sort of lunacy)— does very much to move things in that direction. 103
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:37 | # Chief, I take it you dismiss the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It ain’t gonna fly Chief. There is no moral relevance. The Spanish were right. Thank goodness for that Christian meme. Thank goodness for the civilized European. It’s all that saved your red ass. And that’s an evolutionary fact. Sympathy for the devil. Foxes do conquest, I didn’t know. Gretzky’s overrated Fred. Wandrin, Chill out bro. There ain’t gonna be no mass conflagration courtesy of the Jews. 104
Posted by Pow Wow on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:13 | # “I take it you dismiss the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” Why should I care about some words scribbled by the victors of WWII from an organization set up to keep an economic system entrenched? Yes, I dismiss them. “There is no moral relevance.” God, I can’t believe that, at heart, you, whom I’ve always admired for his cold and realistic evolutionary vision, are a guy who believes in something called morals. From Darwin to John Brown in a snap. “The Spanish were right.” Agreed. No argument. They spread, they took what they could, killed when they had to, enslaved when they had to, all for gain. It’s understandable. It’s always been the way. Now it’s happening to them, and to you. You might not like it, but neither did we. “Thank goodness for that Christian meme. Thank goodness for the civilized European. It’s all that saved your red ass.” But it didn’t save yours. “Foxes do conquest, I didn’t know.” When a fox like the red slowly drives out a fox like the Arctic from the Arctic fox’s traditional homeland (i.e. a breeding ground and source of resource acquistion) through aggression (including eating the Arctic fox in an uncivilized manner) and greater control of resources, it’s the same thing a human calls conquest. 105
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:59 | # Pow Wow, It is not human conquest because our normal defence mechanism has been disabled by our own elites. And they are doing it for the ultimate conquest not of some or other race but of a deracinated, de-nationated, de-natured, compliant consumer. If you do not feel threatened by that it is only because you are irrelevant, and know yourself to be so. I wouldn’t crow too much if heuron apatch on your forefathers. I would fight. 106
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:24 | # Desmond,
Yes there is. A suppressed foretaste has been silently occuring in all the inner city areas of the western world for the last 60 years. I see the bleeding wreckage caused by it on a regular basis. When white people become a minority everywhere so there’s no chance of intervention they’ll use their media control to engineer a general massacre. You of all people should be able to understand their mentality - what would you do to all the non founding stock in America / Canada if you had the power? jews hate white people that much. You don’t want white survival because the part that you’d want to survive, Anglo-Canada, has already been destroyed beyond repair in your eyes. You’d prefer the new Canada / America to go down in flames taking all the non founders down with it. The simple fact is the Ukrainian genocide can be used to counter the multicult argument. It’s not earth shattering but it’s a useful tool. However you feel an uncontrollable urge to muddy that simple point because your personal hatred of Ukrainians is more important to you than a useful tool of white survivalism . In short you care more about your personal hatreds than about white survival. You’re just another version of Epaminondas. 107
Posted by Pow Wow on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:31 | # “It is not human conquest because our normal defence mechanism has been disabled by our own elites.” So what? Identical end results. You’re still conquered. “And they are doing it for the ultimate conquest not of some or other race but of a deracinated, de-nationated, de-natured, compliant consumer.” Again, who cares why “they” are doing “it”? Doesn’t matter to me if the guy killing my family says he does it out of love, hate, thrills, etc…my family’s still being killed and going extinct. It sucks, but it’s the way of the world. “If you do not feel threatened by that it is only because you are irrelevant, and know yourself to be so.” Don’t know where you got the “not feel[ing] threatened” bit by it, but whatever… “I wouldn’t crow too much if heuron apatch on your forefathers.” No one’s crowing, old man, just ‘splaining. Everything is evolution. Every single thing. “I would fight.” LOL. No. That’s you in love with your bluster and some brave sounding words. What you would do is type on a keyboard, waiting for some mythical someone else in the future to actually fight. Oh well, when the guy who claims that Social Darwinism is dead chimes in, I know it’s time for me to chime out. Adios. 108
Posted by Armor on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:50 | #
What I would tell him is that he must go back to his own non-white roots. If the main objective is to avoid any unhappiness, any hurt feelings and any inconvenience to individuals, the best solution is to stop having children. In order to minimize misery on the earth, an effective solution would be to get rid of the African race. But normal people usually take the view that their nation must go on existing, in spite of all the suffering. I think white nations should be saved too. Going back home isn’t the end of the world for immigrants. We mustn’t overvalue individual happiness and individual comfort to the detriment of our collective interests. Happiness depends on having a meaningful life, which implies being part of something greater than ourselves. The nation plays that role. Another argument is that humanity should always strive upwards. Personally, I wish we could live in a cyclical, never ending traditional society. I don’t really believe in progress. But at least, if life has any meaning at all, we should try to avoid the huge regression caused by our racial replacement.
As I said above: third-worlders have no problem leaving their families and friends to come here, just to improve their material comfort. How can it be more cruel to go back home than to leave home? It only hurts their wallets. White people should try to save their collective existence no matter what. But if you don’t accept that, please try to calculate the human suffering : A. Minus side - Less Happiness - More suffering B. Plus side - More Happiness - Less suffering If you do the addition, it becomes clear that the moral thing to do is to kick the darkies out of the West. But you have a tendency to forget number 2. Why should white people tolerate the murders, the rapes, the crummy lives? Why is it worse for an African to have to live among other Africans, than for a white couple to renounce having children because life has become too depressing? — 109
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:07 | # Pow-wow, You don’t seem to grasp that the problem we face is not low-IQ Third World peoples, whom we could swat off with one hand were we not bound and gagged by these people: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_problem_of_the_power_elite/ It is the same problem everybody else faces. The power elites don’t seek “conquest” for the negro or Moslems. They don’t give a damn about the negro or Moslems. They seek to permanently govern the globe in their own interests. Our fight for life is everybody’s fight for life, even yours - in fact, especially yours, because if you think a much larger Mestizo or African population will be better for you than a white American majority, you’re nuts. 110
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:17 | # Wandrin, 1.There is no such thing as white survivalism. This video makes that blindingly obvious. The Ukrainians don’t care about ‘whites’. 2. Hatred is virtuous because it aids survival. Jews hate. Ukrainians hate, even the Chief’s people hate. 3.Why engage in the mess of a mass conflagration when exogamy and mass migration will effect the same outcome? Less fuss and muss. However, that said, how do we really know how it will turn out? Evolution has a way of mitigating apparently consummate endings. You flatter me sir. The impact this writer has on the new order is nominal at best. I’m here to test the theory. And if it doesn’t stand here how do you expect it to stand outside of this cocooned environment? 111
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:46 | #
Ok fair enough Chief. 1. Any realistic evolutionary vision embraces the evolution of morality. 2. It’s not about liking it, Chief. Darwin wrote that “Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe…” The Neutrals were exterminated by the Iroqouis in the Beaver Wars. Their Chief did not aid and abet that extinction by encouraging mass migration of neighboring tribes to provide cheap labour for harvesting corn. His sympathy did not extend beyond his own tribe, at best.
It’s not done yet, but, yeah, that is the conundrum from an evolutionary perspective. This is were Dawkins steps in and pronounces one of the manifestations of sympathy in civilized man, Christianity, as a meme, which may seek to survive regardless of how the well-being of the host is affected. Demise is not a given. To paraphrase el Awrence, evolution has not been written. 3. Let’s agree to drop the fox analogy. Foxes do not maintain a civilization. 112
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:50 | #
White people don’t have to believe in white survivalism for it to exist. It is defined by the common threat to white survival. Even in its simplest and least consciously malign form there are endless billions who want to live in white countries. Their presence in excessive numbers destroys white countries. Only America and maybe Russia are big enough on their own to find a potential solution to that. In the end none of the white countries will survive unless they realise all white countries face the same threats. It doesn’t matter if Ukrainians or whoever else care about whites. If they care about *their own* people then eventually they’ll need to make common cause with other white nations if they want to defeat those common threats. 113
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:47 | # Wandrin, There is no common threat to ‘white’ survival, unless you believe that mass white migration is a threat to white survival. American ‘white’ nationalists will condemn the Ukrainian position just as they condemned the British lad who told the Slovak to go home. The position then is the presence of other Europeans in European countries destroys white countries. It makes no sense when the object is white survival. However, it makes total sense when 80 odd percent of Ukrainians believes that the Ukraine is for Ukrainians.
114
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:08 | # Silver you’ll forgive me for not replying point-by-point to your screed (mawkish and barely intelligible in parts) of Aug. 23, 3:01 AM? I was tempted to have one more go, to always keep the side of the angels represented, but 1) it would have made the trillionth time for most of it, and 2) that long ramble you posted wasn’t up to your usual standard — you’re turning into a crashing bore, Silver. The thing was almost unreadable. Though pressed for time myself, I would have had to respond to stuff like this for example:
(Have you thought about joining Jeffry Imm’s outfit? You know, “Choose love not hate, love wins,” that guy? Why not give him a ring?) (Besides, I like Chechar.) 115
Posted by James Caan on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:27 | # Wow. It gets much, much worse, folks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l—_fyqgjo Same jew, same show. Dumbfounding. 116
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:51 | # I’m sorry to be contributing so late to this impassioned thread, but something I posted for Notus over at his Chinese economy discussion may have some relevance here. Christianity is a “totalist” thought system. I don’t believe that Christianity literally need permeate every aspect of life, but one’s political commitments absolutely, if one is a serious Christian, must be conformable to the Faith. I keep stressing that the core issue of WN is the moral legitimacy of inter-group violence (and to a lesser extent, of coercion to enforce racial purity and cohesion). Examples? 1. A Christian white woman wants to marry a Christian black man. May we use the state to illegalize such a union? You think this is an ‘orthogonal’ issue? A simple one? Hardly. Christians thinkers today (who are very likely closer to the spirit of the early Church than those of early modern European times) generally believe in “free marriage”, provided both parties are of age, opposite sexes, and Christian. Advocating de-legalizing interracial marriage would strike vast numbers of Christians of all sects as morally wrong. Yet that is precisely what we must advocate, if we wish our people to survive over the long run. 2. The issue of immigration is fairly simple on the surface. It seems obvious that whites have the moral right (and even duty) to keep out non-whites. Unfortunately, the weight of modern theology (I mean serious, non-leftist-masquerading-as-Christian, theology; the silly leftists object to immigration restrictions even on Muslims, one ass arguing that their physical presence among us would make it easier for us to “bring them to Christ” than if they were to remain in Islamic societies where preaching the Good News is forbidden and punished) goes against our view (except wrt Muslim immigrants). Establishing a Christian case against immigration is eminently possible, but it requires upending the bulk of current writing on the subject, which resolutely fails to incorporate the anti-diversitarian findings of modern biology into its racial theology. Of course, integrating biology into theology is itself an enormous task ... 3. 1 and 2 are the easy cases. The real issue is this: we in the West must reacquire exclusive racial territory if we are to have good survival prospects (I would argue, if we are to survive over the long haul at all - but I recognize some would argue otherwise from the Jewish model of ethnosurvival; I am unpersuaded - look what almost happened to them, for Pete’s sake!). WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, Notus, GW, PF, Dasein, Grimoire, Scroob, Wandrin, etc etc? It means racial repatriation, at least out of Europe (America, and the other non-Euro-indigenous countries, are much more ethically fraught). And what does that mean? It means that not only legal immigrants, but those non-Europoids born on European soil, many of whom only speak a European language, must be forcibly uprooted, handcuffed onto ocean liners, like the African slaves of old, and expelled to elsewhere. And when some resist their deportation? It means some of them WILL BE SHOT. You dig, homey? Now it’s all well and good to talk about ‘ontology’, and ‘endogamy’, and the shit GOP or Tories, and the great Enoch Powell (who foresaw and sought to prevent this), and the BNP, and the Call of Blood, and the blood-Jew, and orthogonality, and homogeniety amongst bacteria, or whatever else catches our fancy ... but I’m a bottom line guy. And the bottom line is that coercive violence will be necessary to achieve our ultimate preservationist aim of restoring the racial apartheid status quo ex ante. You think this is a matter of Christian unconcern??!! I suggest your understanding of the Faith is less than optimum. You show me the Christian authority whose moral theology, as presently interpreted, allows for racial expulsions. Yes, you are correct that the biology of race differences is largely orthogonal to theology. But the legal and political uses to which we will put that knowledge is not in the least outside the realm of Christian notice - and criticism (and again I am referring to the better, more conservative or traditionalist authorities like the current Pontiff). I don’t wish to patronize someone as affable and polite as yourself, but I think you don’t understand either the state of Christian theology, or, perhaps, the implications of a serious nationalism. Respecting the latter, this is not about merely stopping affirmative action and immigration, or even the ethical allowability of an ethnostate, considered abstractly. This is about some whites somewhere precipitating a war for racial survival. I’m too old, and have worked too hard, to risk what I have by being one of those revolutionaries. But at least philosophically, that is the endpoint (or the first foreseeable of a series of endpoints) of what we are theorizing. 117
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:21 | # BTW, excellent discussion, People. I actually read the whole of it, which I rarely do. Great passion and material from Fred, Wandrin, GW, Desmond Jones, and others. Many interesting perspectives. I still think we need to develop that “nationalist minimum”, and then start practical, tactical discussions. I don’t think we need to theorize everything at the outset. We know what we want: White preservation! Non-white foreigners OUT!! No excuses or exceptions. We don’t need to resolve the strategic mistakes or ethicality of all the wrong turns our race has followed. We don’t need extended intra-racial bickering. We don’t need to establish the exact ontological status of Jewry. We don’t even exactly need to determine who is white. We simply must stop the alien invasion. Without that, all other issues become (near-) mute (well, for now; once we have lost of demographic majorities, we then need to think about how to protect ourselves as minorities). One idea/question: how best can we further the development of a Pan-European genetic nationalist movement? What we need is pro-white internationalism. This is obviously not a new idea, but does there exist any international pro-white organization? Could one be created? I’m thinking of something that transcends borders, and specific nationalisms. An international white brotherhood, not simply an alliance of nationalist parties. Say, The Leonidas Legion. The Indo-European League. Or just the Aryan Legion, the Occidental League/brotherhood/whatever. Note how the Jews jealously protect the interests of their own everywhere, not just in their own countries and Israel. We need some international organization which can be similarly internationally active, but which would also serve as an international social club of sorts. A place of refuge in major cities around the world, with the ability to recommend amenities, provide emergency legal or banking referrals, etc. If we aren’t just blowing endless hot air, we all have to get out of cyberspace and into things in the actual world. Just some thoughts from someone who’s been thinking for decades, but wants to start doing. 118
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:42 | # WOW is right! Thanks for posting that, James Caan. To repeat the subtitle in that video: What exactly did that young guy say that was “anti-Semitic”? He said nothing “anti-Semitic,” not one word. According to the Jews, they can genocide all the people they want — but dare so much as to question any of it, you’re “anti-Semitic.” The Jew in that video wants every Negro on the planet to come flooding into the Ukraine, changing it into Cameroon North, and if any Uke dares to so much as pose a question about it he’s “anti-Semitic.” See how the game is played? Well the Jews aren’t the only ones who can play that game. Two can play. And it’s about time we started playing. By the Jews’ rules. 119
Posted by Joshua on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:58 | # Why was the short (59sec) clip stopped at the end of the excellent question about the Holodomor? I wanted to see that genocidal Jew squirm! Please tell that there are or will be more related clips on YT of this particular incident… 120
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:30 | # Had I been in that audience I would have said to that Jew that the Jews committed the first Holodomor and were now trying to commit a second. As the log entry’s title says, “If at first you don’t succeed ...... .” That’s exactly what’s going on: what the entry’s title says. I would’ve shut that guy up “in good shape” as they say in this part of New England. Jews trying to natiocide ancient Euro nations and genocide ancient Euro peoples and races may fool clueless women voters, they don’t fool me. 121
Posted by Socrates on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:33 | # Moved by moderator from from the thread to None dare call it White genocide JEWISH THIRD WORLD WAR ON AMERICA—IMMIGRATION The Judaists (commonly referred to as “Jews”) number one plan to destroy America has been to unleash the 3rd world invasion through immigration to destroy the white majority and turn America into a 3rd world country they can totally control. It is indisputable that Judaists promote 3rd world immigration heavily into White nations. They lie that immigration is good for America, oppose borders, call patriots “racists” while fiercely promoting the exact opposite for Israel, thus proving that their alienism is a malicious swindle. See Culture of Critique, by Kevin McDonald, reviewed on: http://www.savethemales.ca/000164.html See how they pushed through legislation to open the flood-gates to massive immigration: http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=50 It is obvious that immigration destroys a nation by imposing more demands on limited resources, such as jobs, land, water, education and health-care. This is the reason for our falling employment and wages and rising prices and the shrinking middle class. Aliens are bankrupting Medicare, Medicaid, states and the federal govt. Crime and corruption are spreading like wildfire. America is already the 3rd most populous nation on earth. For costs of just illegal immigration, see: http://immigrationcounters.com And if immigration were really so good, these 3rd countries would never let anybody escape, instead of lobbying our politicians to give more visas and not build the fence. If the Judaists really thought the alien invasion was good, why don’t they take all the aliens and the Mexicans to Israel? There, they build fences, but oppose the border fence here. So why are Judaists alienists and destructionists? Judaists believe they are a special race called “Jews”, descended from Middle Eastern/African Torah patriarchs like Abraham (who was a pimp and sold his own wife Sarai as a prostitute to an African pharaoh), and were persecuted often, so they believe they must destroy society’s cohesiveness and culture to maintain control by using the divide and conquer strategy, such as by promoting the alien invasion, multiculturalism, diversity (so their own barbarianism becomes acceptable in a depraved society) and race baiting. Judaists also want to destroy White Christian nations because they hate Whites and Christians the most and wish to exterminate them both. Unable to do that militarily, they instead resort to their third world war of bribing politicians and propaganda to promote massive immigration from all over the 3rd world into White nations. They know that once the colored aliens are over 50% , they will rob, loot, steal, kill, plunder and exterminate Whites (like in South Africa), thus effectuating their exact plan. The Judaists spit on Christians in Israel, call Mother Mary a whore and say Jesus is boiling in excrement in hell in their Talmud (“Talmud Unmasked” by Rev. Pranthis, “Jewish history, Jewish religion” by Israel Shahak.) See: Also see “Judaism’s Strange Gods”, by Michael Hoffman “Jews…..exterminate Christians” , see: http://www.jewishracism.com/Christian_Zionism.htm Unfortunately, they are able to do that because most Christians are simple gullible people and do not realize that their biggest enemy are the Judaists. The Christians worship Jesus and assume that since Jesus was a “Jew”, the modern Jews are related to him and so worthy of worship. They also take the Old Testament literally and since it says that Jews are God’s Chosen People, they assume that these modern Jews, (the mentally deranged criminals who are engaged in a genocidal war on our nations) were Chosen by God and must be loved and respect, not realizing that the Old Testament is an obvious forgery, as shown below. The Judaists basic beliefs about their identity, history and persecution are derived from the Torah and Talmud. Most of their beliefs are delusions because the Torah (Old Testament) is fiction, a pure myth. In fact, most Judaists are European Whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism in the middle ages. See Arthur Koestler, 13th tribe; also Dr. Schlomo Sand’s award-winning book reviewed on: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959229.html The Torah is a “forgery” (See: McCabe). That is obvious from book 1, page 1. The Earth is not 4000 years old. Cultures (unknown to the scribes) flourished much before. Written records and archeological evidence using carbon dating show man’s presence tens of thousands of years ago, probably over a 100,000 years ago. A million people cannot live in a vast desert (without water or food) in a hostile nation for 40 years—-and leave no trace. Moshe (an Egyptian, therefore African and Negro) never existed. His story is copied from the older myths of Mises or Sargon. Exodus never happened. For see “Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho” (by Prof. Ze’ev Herzog of the Dept. of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University). See: http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm The Negro Moshe could not have parted the Red Sea, not only because it violates the laws of physics, and there was no Moses, but because there was no Red Sea to cross, since Egypt and Israel have a common land border! The scribes who fabricated the Torah (OT) were negro barbarian criminals or “human animals” (—Hutchins) who lied about God and then made up self-serving lies that they are “God’s Chosen.” In summary, by relying on the insane rantings (Torah) of a gang of mentally deranged black criminals, Judaists themselves become mentally deranged as evinced by their hatred of mankind, low morals, rampant criminality, narcissistic delusions, negrophilia, alienism and hatred of whites, (i.e. their own race). Light skinned people who believe they are “Jews” and worship these negro criminals and believe they are their descendants and destroy their own nation and race through immigration are obviously mentally deranged self-hating Whites. We must wake up and stand up against the 3rd world war by the Judaists against US and the EU: immigration. We must only vote for politicians who promise to ban all immigration and support national referenda. 122
Posted by Silver on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:36 | # Armor, When arguing against deportation, the media will appeal to our pity and call us Nazis, a little like Silver. But many immigrants prefer another tactic: they like to invoke their rights, as if non-whites had a natural right to live among whites. I totally disagree with them. I’m a pragmatist. I’m more concerned with what’s plausible and possible. People have a natural tendency to believe they have a right to live where they were born. No one grows up fundamentally questioning the propriety of his existence on a certain territory—it’s always those who question it that are wrong. History makes it clear that “native” stock finds it easier to acquiesce than to resist, thus race-replacement. The task is to make the “case for race” despite these obstacles. Doing so may include attacking and weakening their assumptions but that alone won’t be enough, at least not initially. Look, Armor, you can’t ignore the rest of the world (again, at least not initially) and simply go about making what amount to universal racialist claims. Who should have the right to live in, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia? There’s no racial uniformity there; hasn’t been for centuries. So who should be permitted to live there? In Iran? In India? In Venezuela? WNs don’t care to think about such questions because they consider the stock that inhabits those territories so far beneath them that it simply doesn’t cross their minds to grant their circumstances any consideration. Well, Hello, Earth to Armor: that’s clearly not what the rest of your people think, so your obstinacy on this point only creates yet another enormous stumbling block. But I’m not surprised. That’s so typical of the revulsion-ridden racialist; he’s so overwhelmed with racial disgust and an accompanying desire to show incompatibles the door, so gripped with anxiety that such may not occur, that he can’t begin to make sense to anyone not similarly gripped. (Look at Leon Haller. By his own account he’s had decades to think about it. And yet his rambling diatribes are all he has to show for it. Pretty sad.) Happiness depends on having a meaningful life, which implies being part of something greater than ourselves. The nation plays that role. The nation can play that role. But so can many, many other things. It does you no good to deny that. The trick is to present the ‘nation’ (or something like it) as the most appealing option for satisfying that yearning, or at least to make it compatible with other alternatives. Eg “You love your Buddhism? That’s great. No reason it should require our extinction, though. So join us.” That sort of thing. As opposed to the typical nationalist stance of claiming to be in possession of the knowledge of the one right way to live. Scrooby, One day it might occur to you that I’m not your enemy, you pig-headed, revulsion-ridden, worm of a man. You’re most certainly mine, I have no doubt of that. But I’m not yours. You promise me the rope, while I’d only treat you to few months in reeducation camp (well, maybe a few years for an obstinate prick like you, but I’d break you, I’m certain). Now, you’re right, I am a “race-replacement advocate”—if by “replacement” we mean “restitution.” Why not? Where there’s a will there’s a way. But it won’t be your way. Not if I have anything to do with it. Of course, I—me, Silver— am completely inconsequential. What it seems you fail to appreciate, however, is that psychological reserves my position taps into are very real, so whether it’s me saying it or someone else is beside the point; the point being the position itself is able to generate a whole lot of someone elses clamoring for it—it’s possible I’ll live to regret ever having said anything about race, but I’m obviously betting that that number will be much greater than what your side can generate. 123
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:32 | # (Look at Leon Haller. By his own account he’s had decades to think about it. And yet his rambling diatribes are all he has to show for it. Pretty sad.) (Silver) Silver, You could not hold a candle to my intellect, erudition, or educational background. Have you no sense of reality? Compare my posts to yours. If you cannot recognize that yours are what should be described as “rambling”, then you are simply dumb, which I believe you are. Our position is crystal clear: we don’t want biologically incompatible aliens being forcibly imposed upon us. We don’t want to live in the same polities with non-whites. We don’t want them ruling us (as now with Obama, elected with a mere 43% of the white vote; or much lower, if one extracts all the non-white ‘whites’ - Jews, Arabs, quarter-mixed, Gypsies, etc, whom our methodologically flawed Census classifies as “white”). If your diatribes were leavened with any historical knowledge, you might recognize that the views expressed by most of us here were the majority views across the Western world for centuries, until really the 1980s, when the combination of the Negro civil rights movement (a series of lies told to secure a bare majority of white popular support), unrecognized 1960s immigration changes, plus post-60s diversitarian propaganda inflicted in schools and the Jewish mass media, suddenly began to transform the traditional thinking about race among a substantial segment of the (like you, easily brainwashed) population. Still, I wonder ... if (legal) immigration (people are goddam sick of illegals) were put to a plebiscitary vote in the US (or Britain, France, etc) today, what percentage of (real, that is, racially pure) whites would support it’s continuation? I suspect it would be less than a third. You think that race-mixers like yourself will win the war to destroy the white race. That brownnosers like yourself will come out on top. Persons like you won’t. The alien races you so cherish don’t give a fuck about little nobody appeasers like you. They will use your gullibility to steal our lands, but once they have them, they will tax, then enslave, and finally butcher you and your kind as much as any more manly whites. If, that is, life-affirming race-patriots don’t succeed in culling the traitors from our midst first ... 124
Posted by Randy Garver on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:09 | # Most white nationalists seem to be like a man who has a glass of seawater and desires to create a volume of pure H2O and neat little piles of separated minerals, yet no realistic plan of how to realize his goals, instead occupying his time by pontificating at length about the superiority of such an arrangement, and waxing rhapsodic about implausible fantasy scenarios to achieve it. The only reasonable approach I’ve read comes from Silver, who seems to take into account the inescapable necessity for universal, voluntary participation in a project involving mass migrations on an unprecedented scale. The idea that a tiny group of embittered whites would somehow use force against an integrated, inacquiescent population to achieve racial separation, especially in an first world nation with the most heavily armed civilian citizenry in the history of the world, is completely ludicrous. 125
Posted by Matt Parrott on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:43 | # Randy, It is indeed possible to separate these groups out and it’s possible to do it with minimal force (perhaps none at all). One might have opined that the people of Yugoslavia are too hopelessly integrated to ever break apart into autonomous ethnostates. One might have opined that global Jewry was far too diverse and far-flung to reconstruct a dead language, reclaim some long-lost territory, and raise up an ethnostate from the desert wasteland. It may indeed be too late for a complete restoration, but the hope that we can manage to eke out some sort of future for our people isn’t as absurd as you and Silver would suggest. Behind the alarming statistics is a reality that the overwhelming majority of White Americans are still pervasively segregated. One wouldn’t know it from visiting the big cities, or from going to the mall (Do you people get some kind of miscegenation discount?). But the sea water analogy is hyperbole. It’s more like attempting to pick one type of item out of a salad. While many WNs are indeed out of touch with how far along America is down this multicult path, I believe many White elites in cosmopolitan enclaves suffer from a similar misgiving in the opposite direction. 126
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:51 | # “Do you people get some kind of miscegenation discount?” (—Matt Parrott) LOL 127
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:02 | # I have no illusions about whites taking back America, at least in the normal course of events. Europe is another matter. The European nations are still overwhelmingly preponderantly white, and they, unlike the Americans, have every system of morality backing their cause (though most don’t realize it due to immoral brainwashing). Thus, Europeans absolutely could physically remove non-whites if they so chose. Their Third Continental War would be by far their briefest, unless the Mahgreb invaded, in which case the Euros could threaten military, even nuclear retaliation. Whites would win. What they lack is the will to do so. Hence the need for WN deprogramming. My only disagreement, but it is foundational, is that the re-conquest of the continent would be more likely to proceed under a resurrected ethical Crusader Christianity, with a healthy admixture of “ethnonational liberationism”, than by adopting some neo-Darwinian, neo-Naziesque ideology. Silver is a complete ass, however. There will never be voluntary expatriation of anyone. Realistic? Utterly utopian. 128
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:52 | #
The number who implicitly agree with our aims is not “tiny” at all.
So I suppose you think we will all just get along, huh? Give me a break. The hostility is coming from without. With each passing year Whites are demonized and attacked more. The invaders and traitors aims are not “kumbaya” - they are hostile takeover.
The White population is nothing of the sort.
The vast majority of Whites have not “acquiesced” to multiracialism, liar.
This already happens - it’s called White flight.
The majority of whom are White and alienated. Are you really saying that there is no mass disaffection among Whites? You are a mendacious one, aren’t you.
You are a troll, and your purpose is to dishearten racial activists. Run along now. 129
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:07 | #
He (a thorn in MR’s side for many years now) and Garver (a comparatively recent arrival on the scene and clearly a Silver mini-me) are avowed liberals who pretend to be sympathetic to White survival but when it comes right down to it they are vehemently opposed to the only possible solutions. That, and they show open hostility and contempt towards Whites as if we were the “persecutors”, all the while ignoring that our ideology is merely a just response to persecution of the most hateful and vile sort. They are trolls and enemies, as far as I’m concerned. 130
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:19 | # Randy, Why are you here? This is a medium for intelligent people of European descent to discuss matters of political, cultural and philosophical interest to us and our people. You belong on an Negro forum or a Jew forum where your bugger’s self-loathing will be welcomed. You don’t belong among intelligent Europeans. Goodbye. 131
Posted by LEW on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:24 | # Silver:“Who should have the right to live in, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia? There’s no racial uniformity there; hasn’t been for centuries. So who should be permitted to live there? In Iran? In India? In Venezuela? WNs don’t care to think about such questions because they consider the stock that inhabits those territories so far beneath them that it simply doesn’t cross their minds to grant their circumstances any consideration.” I’m not following your point here. WN are concerned with the question of who should be permitted to live in our own native lands because we hope to prevent something you appear to welcome, White genocide. Why should it matter to us who lives in those other places? 132
Posted by Randy Garver on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 01:50 | # Matt, For what it’s worth, I would exclude you from the “Most white nationalists…” comment as you and your organization (CoCC) appear to expend considerable effort to develop a positive ethnic identity and community presence. Also, your focus on traditionalism and family values resonates with myself and others who might not identify themselves as “ethnic nationalists”. (Do you people get some kind of miscegenation discount?)
In all seriousness, I hate shopping and rarely ever go, preferring to send my traditional wife to perform this duty on my behalf. As for the difficulty of racially dividing nations, while I’m admittedly not a history expert, I would suggest that the examples of Yugoslavia and Israel aren’t accurate models for the US. Yugoslavia was a relatively recent amalgamated Slavic superstate without a broad or deep historical narrative of continuity, and Israel’s formation didn’t involve the territorial dissolution of any major world powers. 133
Posted by Armor on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:07 | # Silver: “People have a natural tendency to believe they have a right to live where they were born. No one grows up fundamentally questioning the propriety of his existence on a certain territory” Actually, many non-whites born in the West feel like misfits. Repatriation will take care of that. What is at stake is the survival of white nations. It isn’t a matter of individual rights for immigrants. It isn’t about title to territory either. Non-whites are not here for our territory, but for the money we give them. In order to get racial separation, we’ll have to forget about individual rights and think only in terms of morality: what is moral and what is not. It is certainly immoral to accept the death of white nations in order to avoid hurting the feelings and material comfort of third-world invaders. They have their own countries and their own nations that they can return to. I think when the English colonists were kicked out of India, they were able to readjust to life in Europe. From the dictionary: right = An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature morality = Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong — I have always thought it was sad that the Chinese Communist Party probably thought nothing of destroying the human diversity within China. I bet a lot of the destruction is done on purpose. But I never took the time to read up on the subject. The media didn’t give me any particular information. The media don’t even pretend to care. They say they care about immigrants living in the West, but they don’t. And I don’t think you really care what WNs think of non-whites. Me: “Happiness depends on having a meaningful life, which implies being part of something greater than ourselves. The nation plays that role.” When I wrote that, I took my inspiration from a speech I read by William Pierce. But what he said in fact is that having a purpose is more important than happiness. I think it’s true, but having a purpose also contributes to happiness. Anyway, there’s no point trying to improve our world when we know that our efforts will soon be obliterated by the growing non-white presence. Our sense of purpose is presently going out the window. It can only mean more suicides for white people —until we have a civil war. 134
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:46 | # Good reply by LEW to Silver, a few above. What has to be grasped about Silver and Robert Lindsay is their underlying motivation in all this is white-hot hatred of anyone having an unflattering thought about another race, just as Christopher Hitchens’ underlying motivation is white-hot hatred of anyone having an unflattering thought about a lower social class (Lindsay has some of that too).
But “the other thing” is genocide, Silver. People don’t find that normal but at the same time people like you don’t want to recognize my right not to undergo it. What’s going on now is planned, Silver: a nucleus of people behind the scenes want to eliminate the Euro races and are proceeding accordingly. They don’t want a bloody mess so are doing it the “clean” way, demographically, by making sure their people control or influence those elements of governance that determine a country’s future demographics: immigration policy, tax policy, the imposition of rules and regulations bearing on forced racial integration, the interdiction of free association, and so forth. If that’s OK — if Euros are supposed to be nice and lie down and take it — whom do we do it to next, the dagoes? The Jews? The Negroes? The Mexes? Whom? It can’t be that it’s OK to do it to whites but wrong to do it to anyone else. That’s not possible. If whites have to be genocided so does everybody else. If everybody else doesn’t have to be, whites don’t. If whites do, I vote for doing it to the Jews next. Is that OK with the Jews, do you think?
That’s the Jeffry Imm script. Stop it, you’re making my eyes tear up, Silver. (Can someone pass the Kleenex please? I ... I can’t go on just at the moment [sob .... sob .....] please just give me a minute to compose myself, I’ll be OK .....) [OK, there, I feel better now ..... a big thanks and a hug to whoever it was who passed the Kleenex ...]
I have no doubt the majority would have voted race-replacement down in an honestly worded referendum, no matter whether out of “revulsion,” or out of “love,” or out of you-name-it, they would have voted No had they been honestly asked in 1965. They weren’t. It was snuck through and has been rammed down their throat ever since. Furthermore every time a ballot initiative is passed the other side’s appointed judges strike it down on trumped-up grounds. If you’re asking why there hasn’t been an armed uprising yet, that’s a whole nother question from “the great majority don’t feel anything like the revulsion you do.”
OK but let’s get matters back to “a few” first, then we’ll decide where to go from there. Deal?
I didn’t get your point in this passage about “letting in a few” and “nationalists beating their chests.” The guy in the video btw didn’t strike me as an idiot or chest-beater whatsoever. He struck me as a really good, really normal guy. For the rest of your <strike>barely intelligible in parts, maudlin screed</strike> your comment, I agree with Armor’s and LEW’s answers to it. 135
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:49 | # Randy, after seeing your first and second comments above, I agree with those who think you should bog off. Bye. 136
Posted by Randy Garver on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:04 | # Guessedworker, I came here because I heard a radio program by Soren Renner and thought, “Here’s a sharp and interesting guy. They probably enjoy intelligent and spirited debate on his website.” 137
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:38 | #
Obviously he’s trying to be comedic. Asshat Randy. 138
Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:31 | # Gudmund, I’m not suggesting that there are not large numbers of dissatisfied whites, however I am suggesting that currently there is no critical mass of such whites who primarily and explicitly blame non-whites for their problems, and who would further be willing to organize and participate in a forced apartheid/expulsion project that would necessitate a suspension of the US Constitution, abrogation of property rights, large-scale coordinated violence, economic disruption on a grand scale, etc. You are a troll, and your purpose is to dishearten racial activists. Not true. I have genuine respect for those who work to better their people, which in this case, are my people too. We likely also share a similar disdain towards left-wing multiculturalism which has infected government, education, and to a degree the commercial sector. 139
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:44 | #
Oh dear. He thinks we blame non-whites, or necessarily must do so to achieve “critical mass” and, therefore, political agency. I suppose it could be just a poor choice of words. But I think it’s more likely that Randy simply doesn’t have all the pieces of the picture. 140
Posted by Armor on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:31 | # RG: “there is no critical mass of such whites who primarily and explicitly blame non-whites for their problems” There is nothing wrong with most non-whites. We don’t need to blame them for anything. What’s wrong is the forced racial togetherness on the same piece of land. It leads to the genocide of white people. What we need is a kind of no-fault divorce between us and them: they go back home, we stay here, but we still like them. We could also swap countries: all the third-world moves to the West, and we move to their former countries. We already have a majority of white people who would rather live among other white people and stop financing their self race-replacement. The problem is how to get rid of the current regime. I’m sure most third-world immigrants will peacefully go home if they are asked politely and if we stop giving them money. In fact, we can give them money to help them resettle. If some of them won’t go peacefully, maybe they can be given some kind of reservation, like the Indians. We don’t need a perfect solution at once. GW: “it’s more likely that Randy simply doesn’t have all the pieces of the picture.” He could be a troll, or if he may not have all the pieces. 141
Posted by wog pussy on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:34 | #
I wonder if it doesn’t have something to do with his non-white wife. 142
Posted by Silver on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:24 | # Haller, You could not hold a candle to my intellect, erudition, or educational background. That’s very likely true. Which only makes it even sadder that in all the years you’ve been hard at work thinking about these issues the ideas contained in your posts here are all that you’ve been able to come up with. If you were honest with yourself you’d admit there’s really not all that much there. (Perhaps you have no sense of reality.) If you cannot recognize that yours are what should be described as “rambling”, then you are simply dumb, which I believe you are. Thing is, they all have a point to them or respond directly to a point made by your side. Getting sore at me for pointing out your shortcomings doesn’t change that. Our position is crystal clear: we don’t want biologically incompatible aliens being forcibly imposed upon us. We don’t want to live in the same polities with non-whites. We don’t want them ruling us (as now with Obama, elected with a mere 43% of the white vote; or much lower, if one extracts all the non-white ‘whites’ - Jews, Arabs, quarter-mixed, Gypsies, etc, whom our methodologically flawed Census classifies as “white”). See what I mean? Who hasn’t heard that before? “We want this,” “we want that.” Big effin’ deal. You (especially you, personally) have yet to propose a way any of that can be gotten given the present political (and cultural) realities. If your diatribes were leavened with any historical knowledge, you might recognize that the views expressed by most of us here were the majority views across the Western world for centuries, until really the 1980s, when the combination of the Negro civil rights movement (a series of lies told to secure a bare majority of white popular support), unrecognized 1960s immigration changes, plus post-60s diversitarian propaganda inflicted in schools and the Jewish mass media, suddenly began to transform the traditional thinking about race among a substantial segment of the (like you, easily brainwashed) population. Wow, I had no idea. You think that race-mixers like yourself will win the war to destroy the white race. That brownnosers like yourself will come out on top. Persons like you won’t. The alien races you so cherish don’t give a fuck about little nobody appeasers like you. They will use your gullibility to steal our lands, but once they have them, they will tax, then enslave, and finally butcher you and your kind as much as any more manly whites. What alien races do I “cherish,” you wanker? I am the alien race (wrt WN politics). Nevertheless, I happen to believe “racialism” as a social and political principle makes a great deal of sense, regardless of how racial lines are drawn or races and peoples sorted. It’s how to get to that, how to achieve it, that I’m concerned with. If you were as sharp as you claim to be you’d realize that makes us ‘natural allies,’ despite my reasons for wanting to racially part ways differing substantially from your own. LEW, WN are concerned with the question of who should be permitted to live in our own native lands because we hope to prevent something you appear to welcome, White genocide. Why should it matter to us who lives in those other places? Because so much of your opposition to multiracialism rests on your claim to be in possession of some sort of suppressed truth about racial reality and racial behavior. Don’t play dumb. You people are forever screaming from the rooftops that multiracialism doesn’t work, cannot work, has never worked, anywhere at any time blah blah blah. Well then, if wanting to be in possession of a racially exclusive territory is as natural an impulse as you claim, if people of all races have some sort of divine right to their own racial territory, explain why there’s no outcry about “genocide” in those countries, which are certainly not racially uniform. 143
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:26 | #
No prob Bob. Marry a Negro like Silver’s bro, unless of course he’s lying. LOL. After all the guy is an inveterate liar. He holds his own people, the Serbs, (unless of course it’s just one more big fat lie) in contempt for being culturally alien. LOL.
There he goes again. He can’t help himself. Lies like a rug. In the beginning there is the word ...one big, fat, stinking, grotesque lie. Awww grasshopper…you fucking liar. LOL. 144
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:36 | #
145
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:54 | # Silver, the sanctimonious mendacious bastard. Silver dripping venom on all desire for preservation. Silver who portrays every effort in that vein as hateful, simply because it excludes him. God help those that embrace his lies. He’s nothing but an emotional Vampire sucking out their life force, their natural desire to survive as a unique entity. 146
Posted by LEW on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:16 | # Silver: “Well then, if wanting to be in possession of a racially exclusive territory is as natural an impulse as you claim, if people of all races have some sort of divine right to their own racial territory, explain why there’s no outcry about “genocide” in those countries, which are certainly not racially uniform. Well, I have seen no one but you claim that the desire for a racially exclusive territory is a natural impulse that universally exists among all races at all times everywhere. Some races clearly prefer their own racial territory and have their own racial territory, while others do not have their own territory and don’t care to have it. Among the races that don’t care to have it, such as the various groups in the places you mentioned, there is no outcry of genocide because from their point of view race mixing and replacement are not a problem. Among the races that do have it, such as the Japanese, there is no outcry of “genocide” because, unlike White people, they are not facing genocide. So what exactly is your point again? Are you suggesting that because some races don’t want an exclusive territory White people have no right to want one either? 147
Posted by danielj on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:44 | # What alien races do I “cherish,” you wanker? I am the alien race (wrt WN politics). Waaaaaambulance! 148
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:57 | # That’s very likely true. Which only makes it even sadder that in all the years you’ve been hard at work thinking about these issues the ideas contained in your posts here are all that you’ve been able to come up with. If you were honest with yourself you’d admit there’s really not all that much there. (Perhaps you have no sense of reality.) (Silver) You have read all my posts, here and elsewhere? Is a blog commenter expected to repeat ad nauseam his entire worldview with each comment? You (especially you, personally) have yet to propose a way any of that can be gotten given the present political (and cultural) realities. (Silver) So what exactly are you asking me for? On what aspect of our plight would you like me to explain my position?
I find this paragraph difficult to parse. First, for the record, are you non-white? Second, racialism makes sense, regardless of how races are sorted. What does that mean? Third, “It’s how to get to that, how to achieve it, that I’m concerned with” - is this what I’m supposed to address? In other words, I have nothing to add to the general discussion because I have not recently proposed how to ... what? Devise an appropriate political strategy to achieve racialist goals? I’m happy to answer questions, but try to be rigorous and clear in your formulation of them. I assure you, when I respond, it may be in depth, but it won’t be rambling. 149
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:47 | # Silver, Although we are, alas, merely in cyberspace (I prefer live challenges), let’s play a match before the MR community (and assorted others from your neck of the woods, if you would care to alert them) to see who is the better arguer, and whose grasp of racial/cultural, biological, historical, and political realities is the keener. Shall we? Seeing as you have time on your hands, why don’t you summarize your position on race. Here are some questions to mull before doing so. Does race embody something taxonomically meaningful, or is it merely a retrograde concept from a more barbarous past epoch? Are there statistically significant differences in ability, temperament, and behavior between the races, and if so, are they primarily genetically or environmentally determined (and in what relative percentages)? Can different races ever assimilate to different cultures? Can every race conceivably assimilate to any culture? If cultural assimilation across racial lines is held to be possible, do the relative sizes of the groups doing the assimilating and being assimilated to matter? Is the use of state coercion, or, conversely, non-state violence, to ensure racial, national or cultural preservation permissible? What is “national security”, and what is its ethical basis? Does Christianity mandate acceptance of race-replacement? Should any human regardless of individual DNA profile be allowed to procreate unlimitedly? Is there a moral duty to perform charity, what is its origin, what is its content, and how far and to whom does it extend? Is Jewry compatible with Occidental culture and/or European societies? To what extent is the individual Self externally (socially, culturally) constituted? Is demography destiny in democracies? Do whites in the USA owe blacks reparations for Southern state slavery - or do blacks owe whites reparations for post-Civil Rights Era criminal violence? Are whites a special race - biologically, psychologically or historically? Does modern race-denial contradict modern celebrations of racial diversity? Is multiracialism a species of philosophical utopianism? Is the white race going extinct, and should we or the world care? If the white race is going extinct, is this an epiphenomenon of passive (political, economic, social and psychological) processes, or the intended result of a campaign of genocide? Obviously, there are many other issues swirling around the race controversy, but thinking about the above should get you started. As you have implicitly claimed the right (and ability) to judge my productions, and found them wanting, let the MR community judge us both, and render a collective verdict. The loser shall exit this site forthwith and forever. Do you feel lucky, punk? 150
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:49 | # Meantime, from the How It’s Done in Japan department, this was posted yesterday over at Altright.com by a young Japanese woman living and studying in <strike>California</strike> Mexifornia:
“Very jealous” is right!!! I’m sitting here turning green!!!! 151
Posted by uh on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:51 | # “We want this,” “we want that.” As though this loose continuum of whites, 2010, is the only group of whites to have to fend for itself against overwhelming odds ever in history. Differences: Past groups didn’t imagine they were struggling for all other whites too—and were struggling in the real world. If you ask me, and as usual NO ONE has, you all confuse your peculiarities of ego for political theory. Haller wants his plodding elaboration of Christianity to save us all; GW and PF would see Ontology carry us out; Silver, you want YOU to do the job—like the Guru (who, however, mistakes himself for an entire thermodynamic world-process).
Leon, when will you learn that precisely is why Europe is failing? 152
Posted by uh on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:07 | # Leon, As a long-time follower of Silver’s activity, I can anticipate the answers to most of the questions. You should know however that you’re being too literal for Silver, as Silver was being too ironic for you. Humorless ‘honorable’ white vs. crafty ‘dishonorable’ wog. Ne’theless posing him questions is the best way to draw him out, as he likes nothing more than center-stage. Is multiracialism a species of philosophical utopianism? Silver will remind you, as you do all need constant reminding, that White Nationalism is as much a species of philosophical utopianism given the odds against recapturing the monoracialism, political and cultural, and disregarding white taxonomic differences, of yore. Is the white race going extinct, and should we or the world care? Silver believes that if you stretch the time-line a few thousand years, yes, white extinction is inevitable. I once argued to him that whites will always exist as racial debris - as in the Hindu Kush and northern Brazil - thus will never be zoologically extinct. The White Nationalist fear is that those existent whites will have no white consciousness; but that is metaphorical extinction.
This “showdown” approach really isn’t appropriate to MR. These guys don’t care, you have to understand that. They’re all about cryptic private emails and quasi-learnedness. That’s why you’re beating your head against the wall here. 153
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:35 | # “Uh” is self-admittedly not commenting as a strong opponent of government-enforced race-replacement of whites (if he’s an opponent at all, which is open to question). He has outright said he’ll never be fully on-board the opposition to race-replacement (if he’ll ever be on-board at all), and the reason he won’t, according to what he said, has something to do with his seeing himself as racially looked-down-upon by northern Euros, due to his being half-Italian I think he said — or something like that. This mentality is like Dienekes Pontikos who not only has zero sympathy for opponents of government-enforced race-replacement of whites (Dienekes sees such opponents as northern Euros who look down on Greeks racially — and even more so on Turks, which Dienekes apparently is but doesn’t want to admit it, a “Pontic Greek” — therefore has zero sympathy for their efforts to save themselves from extinction) — he not only has zero sympathy for opponents of race-replacement of whites, he positively gloats at every bit of news of race-replacement’s progress, carefully highlighting it as his blog. So if “Uh” (also known as “Marshal Lentini”) sounds defeatist, that’s probably some of the reason why. My sense is that an additional reason may be his personality type simply doesn’t care about anything but himself. It’s a very common personality type, one moreover that makes the bearer extremly uncomfortable and outright hostile when around people who don’t have that type of personality — people who actually care about things like white-race genocide for example. People like Uh are uncomfortable even being around them. Makes you wonder why he hangs around here. 154
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:41 | # “They’re all about cryptic private emails” (—Uh) I’m not a blogger here, just a commenter, but I post a lot of comments and am, I suppose, what’s called a “moderator” since I can edit and delete stuff. I don’t exchange “cryptic private e-mails” with anyone here, whether blogger or regular commenter. Occasional brief e-mail contacts with the blog owner about nuts-and-bolts management such as “should such and such post be zapped?,” that sort of thing. That’s it. There’s nothing “cryptic” going on behind the scenes as far as I know or am involved. Period. 155
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:13 | # The European nations are still overwhelmingly preponderantly white, Leon, when will you learn that precisely is why Europe is failing? (Uh) I don’t follow you. Please enlighten me. 156
Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:18 | # Guessedworker: I suppose it could be just a poor choice of words. Yes, it was admittedly an inelegant turn of phrase which deviated from the intended meaning. And I would agree with you that whites do not require a large “critical mass” to achieve a measurable amount of political agency. My original point was that the quantity of this political agency required to bring about a desired ethnostate, at least if that state is to arise within existing US territory and without the broad consent and positive participation of both white and non-white alike, would seem to be many orders of magnitude above what currently exists, and yet reading WN forums one might be forgiven for thinking that such a project is almost a near-future fait accompli, an inevitable outcome of the existing political and societal trajectory, an unguarded layup once the theoretical foundations of the movement have been more firmly established and refined. So it’s not the case that I’m arguing here against the theory of ethno-balkanism, but rather the practicalities of its execution without securing the grassroots buy-in from a supermajority of all those involved and affected. 157
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:23 | # You should know however that you’re being too literal for Silver, as Silver was being too ironic for you. (UH) “Irony”? I see no evidence of irony. Do you mean duplicitousness, sarcasm, things like that? ‘Irony’ has a specific meaning, with which I am acquainted (I’m not being ironic). This “showdown” approach really isn’t appropriate to MR. These guys don’t care, you have to understand that. They’re all about cryptic private emails and quasi-learnedness. That’s why you’re beating your head against the wall here. (UH) Who are “these guys”? GW, Scrooby, Dasein, the main persons? You don’t think they care about WN issues, or about my little proposal (directed to Silver, whom I intend to reveal as a fool, as I dislike being disrespected by my inferiors - a very European Old Stock trait, incidentally one now rather in abeyance amongst my people)? 158
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:31 | # That’s why you’re beating your head against the wall here. (UH)
159
Posted by Reginald on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:13 | #
What non-European ethnic groups are being race mixed and replaced again? I think I heard someone mention Iran. Here’s the thing: There are different Ethnic groups in Iran, and to some extent I suppose they mix, but genetically speaking these Ethnic groups appear to be extremely similar. What’s happening isn’t really race mixing, and the immigration policies of Iran are conservative enough that there certainly isn’t race replacement happening to them either. 160
Posted by cladrastis on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:17 | # If you stop feeding the trolls, they will starve from lack of attention. Save your energy for a debate with a human. 161
Posted by jabberwock on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:58 | # No offense, Scroob, but you can’t hold a candle to Uh’s intellect or analysis. And to think he’s like a third of your age. Now go back to biting black mailmen. 162
Posted by danielj on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:10 | # No offense, Scroob, but you can’t hold a candle to Uh’s intellect or analysis. And to think he’s like a third of your age. Now go back to biting black mailmen. Yeah. True. But, what you do with it is more important than how big it is. 163
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:21 | #
Big deal! Stretch the time line to 0.5-5 million years and 99% of all species will be extinct. 164
Posted by D-Uh on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:57 | #
When are you people going to realize he is no Serb? I have known many Serbs in my many decades on this planet and not a single, solitary one speaks or thinks like Silver. So, either we are quite privileged to have this unique individual gracing us or he is a lying POS. I know where I’m placing my bet.
Correct. Silver, in typical Paki fashion has the God complex of knowing it all and thinking only he can solve the problems that ail us. As an aside, the creepy fanboy act you have going with Silver is, well, creepy. I suggest taking his cock out of your mouth and moving on with your super intellectual and insightful self. 165
Posted by D-Uh on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:59 | #
Cool. A fanboy of a fanboy. LOL 166
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:03 | #
LOL! The only place Silver can even buy pussy is in Thailand. 167
Posted by Silver on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:18 | # LEW, So what exactly is your point again? Are you suggesting that because some races don’t want an exclusive territory White people have no right to want one either? The point is that desiring it isn’t nearly as natural as you people claim. Remember, you are the ones going about proclaiming We have the Facts, We have the Science, We are only in this position because they are denying Reality, They don’t debate us because they can’t! You’ve got that “Ben Tillman” poster spamming all the race blogs with his cockamamie theory that the multiracial conditions which make race-replacement possible could only possibly have come about as a result of some parasitic trick (anything else being an “absurdity”). Well, looking at the rest of the world, it’s obviously not quite so. Uh, If you ask me, and as usual NO ONE has, you all confuse your peculiarities of ego for political theory. I thought that went without saying. Hey, if it’ll make you feel better next time I’ll ask. Silver, you want YOU to do the job—like the Guru (who, however, mistakes himself for an entire thermodynamic world-process). What’s this? I think you need to get off the internet for a while, Lentini. I simply think that “standard WN” suffers from too many structural faults that make it desperately unlikely to succeed. Read properly, my objections amount to correcting for those faults; if the ‘N’ in WN needs to be scaled back accordingly, so be it. The attitude is: let’s get race right and go on to make decent lives for ourselves. No one needs a guru to teach them that. Desmond, No prob Bob. Marry a Negro like Silver’s bro, unless of course he’s lying. LOL. After all the guy is an inveterate liar. He holds his own people, the Serbs, (unless of course it’s just one more big fat lie) in contempt for being culturally alien. LOL. Well, er, “culture matters.” We find “familiar” those who think, speak and act as we do. Even a shithead like you would cleave to a slimy greasy dago like me if we found ourselves amid the swoogies in darkest Africa (or shithead like me, you, if you like.) The bulk of the people there didn’t, thus “alien.” Nothing I said could be construed as holding them “in contempt.” And I added that it wouldn’t be a problem if we all (the diaspora) repatriated together, since the enclaves we could form would greatly alleviate the cultural stresses. (It’s another matter entirely when you’re alone.) They wouldn’t even need to be Serbs (since we’d be getting by with English) just roughly racially compatible. Same thing goes for any other country. (Cousin married a negro, not my brother. A couple of years on, the predictable family breakdown has come to pass. People will make their decisions; what can you do?) As for “mendacious” and “sanctimonious,” anything you say about race that varies from Desmond’s take will dismissed as mendacious and sanctimonious. I see he’s still trying to get some mileage out of the button-pushing I did three years ago, all of it the result of a natural reaction against WN excesses, as anyone with half a brain could see. Get out of the way, Desmond; not for me, for your own people. Get out of their way and let them see the light. You may yet have your day, but for the moment, get the hell out of their way. 168
Posted by Silver on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:24 | # Leon, So what exactly are you asking me for? On what aspect of our plight would you like me to explain my position? What should be done and why? How should it be done and why should that be expected to succeed? Why are your ideas on this superior to any alternatives whose existence you are aware of? I find this paragraph difficult to parse. First, for the record, are you non-white? Second, racialism makes sense, regardless of how races are sorted. What does that mean? Third, “It’s how to get to that, how to achieve it, that I’m concerned with” - is this what I’m supposed to address? In other words, I have nothing to add to the general discussion because I have not recently proposed how to ... what? Devise an appropriate political strategy to achieve racialist goals? I belong to what I have learned (to my surprise) is a “white ethnicity.” A cursory look at my extended family admittedly lends credence to that supposition, though I myself bear what racial parlance terms a distinctly “mediterranid” visage—the latter itself lent credence by my experiences growing up around so many (S) Italians, Greeks and Maltese. Racialism making sense despite how races are sorted (who is who, what is what) means that other races living in white-founded (ie British, Nordic), white-majority countries have racial interests of their own, despite those not necessarily being “white,” and would be rewarded by pursuing them in cooperation with other racialists. Thirdly, it’s my opinion that too much energy is devoted to discussions about the anti-white power structure (seemingly ignorant of the fact that anything not explicitly pro-white is in effect, though not necessarily in intent, anti-white), how horrible its policies are, and how horrible non-whites are. It establishes that there is a problem but seems to have little to say about how it might be solved, including how best to counteract the forces that are intent on not only preventing any solution but also any recognition of a problem. Although we are, alas, merely in cyberspace (I prefer live challenges), let’s play a match before the MR community (and assorted others from your neck of the woods, if you would care to alert them) to see who is the better arguer, and whose grasp of racial/cultural, biological, historical, and political realities is the keener. Shall we? No, let’s not. You’re better than me. Seeing as you have time on your hands, why don’t you summarize your position on race. I think I’ve already done that: race matters, specifically “the white race” matters, and society (at least western society) should be reconstituted to reflect the degree to which it matters. Does race embody something taxonomically meaningful,...? Yes. Are there statistically significant differences in ability, temperament, and behavior between the races, and if so, are they primarily genetically or environmentally determined (and in what relative percentages)? Yes. Primarily genetically determined. I’d be comfortable with genetics accounting for even as much as 95% of the variance (but not 100%, that’d be ugly). I believe society should err on the side of heredity being “true” even if heredity is not perfectly established, as the downside in being wrong is less severe than the downside in erring that heredity is false. Can different races ever assimilate to different cultures? Can every race conceivably assimilate to any culture? Individuals appear to be able, but they likely distort the culture at least subconsciously, and given the opportunity will do so willfully. If cultural assimilation across racial lines is held to be possible, do the relative sizes of the groups doing the assimilating and being assimilated to matter? Obviously size matters. Is the use of state coercion, or, conversely, non-state violence, to ensure racial, national or cultural preservation permissible? With constraints, permissible. What is “national security”, and what is its ethical basis? Defense of state interests. State interests include protection of “way of life.” The ethical basis is self-preference. Does Christianity mandate acceptance of race-replacement? No. Should any human regardless of individual DNA profile be allowed to procreate unlimitedly? No. Is there a moral duty to perform charity, what is its origin, what is its content, and how far and to whom does it extend? Seems so. Love/compassion. The content varies from minimal to lavish. Restricting its sphere is moral. Is Jewry compatible with Occidental culture and/or European societies? To a degree. More so than other groups. To what extent is the individual Self externally (socially, culturally) constituted? A considerable degree. Is demography destiny in democracies? Is so for all societies. Do whites in the USA owe blacks reparations for Southern state slavery - or do blacks owe whites reparations for post-Civil Rights Era criminal violence? No, but if so it has been paid in full and then some. No. Are whites a special race - biologically, psychologically or historically? We’re all special! Um…yes. Does modern race-denial contradict modern celebrations of racial diversity? Yes. Is multiracialism a species of philosophical utopianism? As an ideology, yes. As a fact of life (where it has long since been), no. Is the white race going extinct, and should we or the world care? Yes and yes. (Electric Light Orchestra, amended: “It’s a livin’ thing If the white race is going extinct, is this an epiphenomenon of passive (political, economic, social and psychological) processes, or the intended result of a campaign of genocide? Former, with elements of the latter. As you have implicitly claimed the right (and ability) to judge my productions, and found them wanting, let the MR community judge us both, and render a collective verdict. The loser shall exit this site forthwith and forever. Get over yourself, will you. It comes with the terrain. If it’s any consolation, look at the derisive manner in which I’m routinely addressed. Do you feel lucky, punk? No. 169
Posted by Silver on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:32 | # When are you people going to realize he is no Serb? I have known many Serbs in my many decades on this planet and not a single, solitary one speaks or thinks like Silver. So, either we are quite privileged to have this unique individual gracing us or he is a lying POS. What an ignoble little guido you are. Supposedly in your world there are thousands upon thousands of Serbs running around grunting I’m White, man, I’m White, unh, unh, unh. To think that a mental midget like you might hope to exert some influence on the prevailing cultural winds is many, many times worse than an unfunny joke. I can only hope you meet a fitting end for a creature so vile, so foul, so full of futile fury. 170
Posted by D-Uh on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:53 | #
LOL! Paki, every single Serb was what you are not, and that is proud to be a Serb. Every. Single. One. Men and women alike and in the hundreds. No one gave a shit about white. The odds that you, our savior, is so different and they are all the same are astronomical. You give “self hating Jews” a run for their money. In reality, you are a crap-skinned POS. Go fuck yourself. 171
Posted by Silver's "button-pushing" on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:54 | # From this thread “Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste? Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you? Even now. Especially now. They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin. Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl. But think of the progeny of such unions. Darker skin AND more caucasian features. Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT. Face it white boy, your end is nigh.” “I *am* heartened that their efforts—*your* efforts*—are coming to naught and I am determined to do my best to ensure that they do.” “Yes, let’s cut to the chase here. I’m a Paki British citizen.” “And you can bet I’ll join forces with the Jew boys to carry you fellows beyond the point of no return. In fact, verily I believe you’re almost there and that I couldn’t prevent it even I wished to.” “If I were to impregnate a white girl (which I will, be sure of it…more if I can, now that I have added incentive)” “I am of the opinion that miscegenation is set to gather steam. I have no doubt, actually. “Race-replacement” is a non-issue for me. I came on here to goad, not because I “hate Anglos”, simply because I detest the views sites like this propound.” “I intend to see to it that WN fails.” “Now, I myself? In the interests of full disclosure, no, I doubt I would ever find myself betrothed to a Negro or an Asian. I’ve had short term relationships with both, including with one rather stunning South African “colored”. I was never particularly interested in Nordic girls. I never raved about or craved “blonds”. But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.” “I suppose I’m not too different to Alon Ziv, then: no, I’d never take one for myself, but it’s nice that some whites do.” 172
Posted by Desmond jones on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:41 | # Silver just frew in from Asia and boy are his lies tired. Silver went to the Doctor ‘cause he was feeling down. The Doc prescribed a dose of medicine. “Doc,” Silver exclaims, “that medicine tasted like bullshit!” “It was bullshit”, says the Doc. “You were down a quart.” Thai pussy…LOL. While in the mysterious East, Silver purchased the services of a prostitute from a local pimp. When he walked into her room he stepped in a box of cat litter. “Geez,” screams Silver, “this box is full of shit”. “Turn her over,” yells the pimp. 173
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:03 | # Silver, I’m not sure what to make of you. Some of your responses are sensible, but then you say outrageous things (which another commenter has collected above). I can’t tell if you are serious or merely ‘baiting the bear’ for fun. Anyway, it doesn’t matter enough for me to expend additional energy on this back and forth. I don’t have a whole lot of strategic political answers. There may not be any alternative to just slogging out the racialist education amongst our people, raising their ideological consciousness as we wait for some historical event or series of events which will lead them to rapid acceptance of radical solutions. One thing that is not being done, at least in the US, is politico-social organizing on the Racial Right. We need to stop this web crap and start meeting people face to face in our communities, forming little networks of the like-minded. Someone badly needs to start some kind of nationalist PAC. Nothing original, I admit, but until at least the conservative masses start demanding an end to immigration (which they definitely are receptive to), we will have no successes. And until we stop immigration/invasion, nothing else matters. Anyway, I really don’t fit in here at MR, either, though I like the site. I don’t like the term “WN”, because I find it difficult to distinguish from “Nazi”. While I am constantly being called a Nazi, and while I have been banned from many conservative sites for being an allegedly “obsessive racist” (which is just not true; I have many intellectual interests, as well as general conservative political ones), in fact, I am simply a true conservative who recognizes that race today is the dominant issue threatening the survival of Western Civ. My main intellectual concern is with demonstrating the compatibility and indeed necessity of white preservationism (my preferred term to WN) with/to both Christianity as well as traditionalism. I seek to integrate racial science into classical conservative political thought. Beyond that, I am interested in developing pure rightist political philosophy (and I have many other interests I will never write about). My main political concern is with developing and propagandizing the ideology of white survival, which is not just WN, but involves pushing many other issues which implicitly aid the survival chances of whites (eg, the death penalty). I also want to start a social organization for white Americans as whites, and someday soon try to get a talk radio gig (no doubt at some ungodly hour). Despite how I come across in comments, in person I am quite humorous, as well as fast and articulate. Innumerable persons, some with standing, have thought I should be in the media instead of business, and for the remainder of my career and life I seek to transition in that direction. 174
Posted by jabberwock on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:58 | # “Now go back to biting black mailmen.” Meant in the “vicious attack dog” sense, nothing else. 175
Posted by Silver on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:55 | # Leon, I’m not sure what to make of you. Some of your responses are sensible, but then you say outrageous things (which another commenter has collected above). I can’t tell if you are serious or merely ‘baiting the bear’ for fun. Anyway, it doesn’t matter enough for me to expend additional energy on this back and forth. “Outrageous,” you say. Very well, but you neglect the reasons behind it. I’ve noticed that career racialists—those of you who’ve been at it for upwards of ten, twenty years—often tend to be oblivious to how outrageous they sound to people with mainstream views. I was aware of the intellectual reasoning behind racialism when I first came across this blog, but let me tell you, my first exposure to the firebrands here left a very ugly impression. It’s only natural to hit back under those circumstances. I probably overdid it (to my credibility’s fatal detriment, which cheap-shot artists like the above never fail to remind me) but that only reflects the supreme distaste I felt. Nevertheless, racialism is basically correct (people will live better) and basically moral (it doesn’t require causing pain), so I plug away. I don’t have a whole lot of strategic political answers. There may not be any alternative to just slogging out the racialist education amongst our people, raising their ideological consciousness as we wait for some historical event or series of events which will lead them to rapid acceptance of radical solutions. I think strategic directions and policy proposals work hand in hand with education, often times spurring it. For example, Jarod Taylor makes a great fuss about freedom of association which then affords him the opportunity to provide a racial account of why he considers it necessary. That sort of thing. Another point which I’ll make here since you don’t intend to continue this discussion, the obvious objection to a racial morality based on racial self-preference is the risk of escalating tensions between competing groups leading to slaughter on par with the devastation of the world wars. (No problem there, the firebrands say. White makes right! Bring it on!) I hope you might devote some of your forthcoming book to a concept of “enlightened groupism.” McCulloch gives it some thought in a chapter of The Racial Compact but I think the non-racial aspects require more attention—since, in my opinion, the great mass of people is unlikely to ever “think racially” to any significant degree beyond what necessity dictates, even in a scenario in which separation was achieved. (This remains true even if significant coercion or violent confrontation proves necessary. After all, the dust will eventually settle, and an appreciation of the conditions sought to be created may help it do so all the sooner.) 176
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:46 | # These are complex issues. There is a huge range of us lumped together as WNs, mainly because the bulk of the population has been so bizarrely brainwashed (though a lot are kept deliberately ignorant: I have mainstream acquaintances and even friends who feel no revulsion to white/non-white miscegenation (“love conquers all, Lee, deal with it”), but who get worked up when I explain that in 2009 the US admitted about 138,000 legal immigrants every month, 99% of whom aren’t white). Some WNs are true Nazis. I don’t reject any white comrade, but I really have no desire for Nazism. Some are members of bizarre (un)Christian or even pagan cults. Some are not Nazis, but extreme Jew haters (I met one like this a few years at at a revisionism conference; the guy was very left wing, not really very pro-white - just blamed Jews for everything bad). Some are skinhead nihilists. Some are Darwinian atheists (a lot here at MR); others conservative Protestant fundamentalists. Some are eugenicists; some are radical natalists; others radical population reducers. I am a true conservative, a biological Occidentalist. I see the white race as the unique creator and bearer of Western High Culture, which I consider the world’s superior culture and civilization, and which I hold will only be passed on and forever renewed by whites. Otherwise I am honest, and thus a race realist wrt inherited racial differences. I am also attuned to cultural and ideological currents, and believe that whites as whites are widely (and unfairly) blamed and hated, and thus will be at great personal, that is financial and later physical, risk if we do not maintain racial majorities in sovereign polities. My basic position is based not on hate per se, but love and fear. I am not opposed to interracial commerce (except in militarily necessary technologies), or tourism, or cultural exchanges. I am not spoiling for a fight. I hate white PC traitors vastly more than I feel antagonism towards non-whites. But I don’t have any great liking of non-whites; I don’t think they add anything to my existence; I do feel racially superior to them; and I do resent their presence in my territorial world. But mainly, I fear the direction the West is headed in, and I now feel that a large measure of coercion will be inevitably necessary for whites to secure their existence as a people. If more persons had listened to the racialists decades earlier, things would not have come to this. Those who imposed the immigrants on us did them and us a great evil. But it is what it is. We can try to remedy matters humanely, but, finally, in Western lands, Europeans come first. We matter, while the others matter very little. 177
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:59 | # I might quibble slightly with just a few details but overall, Leon’s statement above, 3:46 PM, is outstanding. It’s nearly perfect. 178
Posted by Randy Garver on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:04 | # Leon, You seem like a thoughtful and intelligent person, so at the risk of being accused a troll, I’d be interested in your opinion about the following: why is it that miscegenation is deemed “revulsion-worthy” and “genocidal”, but the same language and attention is seemingly spared with regards to non-breeding whites? 179
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:53 | #
As my Daddy used to say, “Christ turned the other cheek and look what they did to him.” 180
Posted by one on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:14 | #
Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests
Richard McCulloch, Separation: The Preservationist Imperative
181
Posted by Silver on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 06:18 | # As my Daddy used to say, “Christ turned the other cheek and look what they did to him.” Who said anything about turning the other cheek? 182
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:17 | # Fred, Thanks for the vote of approval. ____________
Your question really has two parts to it: why do we oppose miscegenation? And, should we oppose/denounce whites who choose (no one would attach fault to the involuntarily sterile) not to reproduce? We oppose miscegenation both philosophically (as a principle), and psychologically, though not all WNs exhibit the latter outlook. One of my best friends is harshly opposed to immigration, and virulently hates and fears blacks, and blames them for every little thing (you can imagine his conversation in the Age of Obama), but when we pass by even the hottest white chick walking hand-in-hand with a minority, he just shakes his head sadly, while I start fuming. Miscegenation just doesn’t bother him very much. Well, that is how some of us are “neurowired”. It really “messes with my head” to see attractive white women with non-whites. I emphasize ‘attractive’, because with them there is the element of choice. I am more forgiving when I see really ugly white females with minorities; perhaps they wanted white men, but simply couldn’t find any. I prefer white women myself, but if I were a 19th century explorer shipwrecked in an exotic place, I would probably take a non-white woman, too. Of course, there is also the ‘commemorative’ aspect to seeing a white hottie with a mud: I am immediately and viscerally reminded of all that I can’t stand about the modern diversitarian regime, including its endless propaganda campaigns against white men - which, incidentally, reduce our sexual opportunities, and not only because WNs now have to compete for our preferred white females with muds as well as fellow white men. Women have a kind of instinct for Who Is Master, and they are drawn to that, however much their (pre-menopausal) bubblebrains may praise egalitarianism and multiculti. There has definitely been a huge loss of white female respect for white men across the social board, and this translates into not only racial survival problems, but relationship ones even where there is no mud anywhere in the picture ... most whites, even WNs, may not be aware of this. Indeed, I’m so ‘wacked out’ on this that I even believe that feminism is entwined with race-replacement, both sociopolitically as well as psychologically. Modern (Second Wave) feminism followed Civil Rights, and I believe they are more than temporally related. I think white male masculinity took a grievous blow (psychologically, as well as politically) from the empowering of minorities, and that females took advantage of that to press their own ludicrous (and race-endangering) agenda. Basically, the Jewish agenda of economically, politically, culturally and demographically dispossessing white men has also served to demasculinize them in the eyes of their own womenfolk (which may of course have been part of the intended purpose), and thus render us less sexually appealing. Female sexuality is nothing like the male’s. It truly is socially conditioned (even though that conditioning leads to real biological effects). Today’s white females sense general white male weakness stemming from larger political/cultural disempowerment, which they often then transpose onto all white men, thus making sexual conquests harder for all of us, even handsome white guys, wealthier white guys, tough white guys, etc. Obviously, plenty of us can overcome this disadvantage, but we, living in multiracial environments, all start out with a kind of rebuttable presumption (to use legal language) against us as real men. I resent that. So seeing a hottie with a mud is naturally annoying to the normal white man, as it reminds him of his lowered status in society. And for the WN, who is perfectly aware of how intentionally/artificially this has come about, it is doubly annoying. Our philosophical opposition to miscegenation stems from our natural concern not with race reduction so much as with blood pollution, at least today (one can imagine alternative contexts where our numbers would need to be boosted in a hurry). Non-breeder whites don’t change the genome. They just aren’t adding to it. Why would that be considered a problem, unless, again, our numbers had fallen so precipitately that a duty to reproduce could be imputed to everyone (in which case a voluntary non-breeder would be ‘letting down the team’, so to speak)? And, of course, one’s non-reproduction, within the Salterian defended ethny (see comment above), simply increases the ecological capacity for others to breed at greater levels. The concern is with race/blood purity within separate territory (unique ecological niches). [BTW, Randy, although I am perfectly willing to venture into sociobiological discussions of racial phenomena where important and appropriate, I am frankly more interested in the political struggle (and its moral justifications) actually to save our race - because it is primarily past political choices which have imperiled our race - than I am in rarefied, scientific and overly impersonal explanations for our plight. If you are interested in learning more about the issues pertaining to white survival I feel it incumbent to warn you against falling into the Darwinian theory ‘abyss’, in which humans are seen to be mere gene replicators, or some such nonsense, stripped of all their agency and capacity for moral choice. Our race is being herded into extinction as a result of perfectly conscious, deliberate acts of racial/legal aggression and attendant false-justificatory propaganda. What we need to do is uncover and disprove that propaganda, and then change our politics and laws from white race-destroying to race-affirming. Whether it is necessary or useful to translate our clear moral and political agenda into obscurantist, scientistic terminology is a matter I leave for the volkisch community to determine, though my stance is public and unwavering.] 183
Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:49 | # @ Leon Very interesting comment. It is a very accurate and fair analysis of the alienation between white men and women uncluttered with emotional baggage obscuring the message. I think the supposed “misogyny” of WN stems more or less from white men instinctively feeling what you are describing above but not being able to put voice to it as articulately or dispassionately as you have done. I hope that you will continue to comment here now and again despite what you have said about discontinuing it, as your insights on many of the topics covered here are certainly welcome. 184
Posted by Reginald on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:01 | #
But we aren’t within a Salterian defended ethny. Certainly we aren’t in America today, at least. Therefore if non-reproduction increases the capacity for others to breed at greater levels, a lot of those others will be non-Europeans. So if a white fails to reproduce in the current spatial-temporal context, it leads to two main effects: 1. Less whites. These two effects in concert would tend to render the creation of a Salterian defended area more difficult. Also, it would create a situation where if such an area was created, it would tend to be smaller. This is not to say that having and/or raising children is necessarily the most efficient use of this or that individual’s time. 185
Posted by Randy Garver on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:08 | # Leon, Thank you for the thorough and quite personal response.
Admittedly, I had carried rather uninformed opinions about white ethnic advocacy until just a few months ago. Part of the reason for this was no doubt attributable to default acceptance of media portrayals of costumed activists.
I agree with this conclusion, and would add that I believe it also holds true if you transpose genders. I’ve spoken with other men who have foreign born, non-white wives, and a common theme which emerges is that part of the attraction to these women is their preference for traditional gender roles and family values, and lack of American-style sexual egalitarianism. Modern feminism appears to cut 2 ways.
As Reginald pointed out, a Salterian-type of ethnic enclave doesn’t currently exist, which is why I am a bit surprised that “Breed More!!” doesn’t seem to be a top rallying cry of WNs, going hand-in-hand with political aspects of the movement. 186
Posted by danielj on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 03:08 | # I agree with this conclusion, and would add that I believe it also holds true if you transpose genders. I’ve spoken with other men who have foreign born, non-white wives, and a common theme which emerges is that part of the attraction to these women is their preference for traditional gender roles and family values, and lack of American-style sexual egalitarianism. Modern feminism appears to cut 2 ways. I think this is mostly bull shit. Most of these men just can’t pull a piece. 187
Posted by one on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 03:38 | #
You can breed all you want, but without geographic racial separation, racial destruction is inevitable. You can’t achieve racial preservation by increasing birth rates in a multiracial society. An increase in the birth rate of Northern Europeans would only slow the rate our demise, not prevent it. Separation must be our top priority.
Garver, we can do without your pathetic efforts to rationalize your marriage to an Asian woman. 188
Posted by Randy Garver on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:28 | #
WNs have expressed an interest in separation for a number of reasons which I’m not attempting to debate here, but from a purely mathematical standpoint, I’m not sure your claim is quite accurate. A recent Pew study reported 9% of white marriages in 2008 were inter-ethnic. This would seem to translate to 4.5% of potential white breeding pairs. Roughly guessing a fecundity parity between inter and intra-racial marriages containing at least one white partner, the white-white birthrate wouldn’t seem to have to increase much to make up for potential white births lost to miscegenation.
I imagine you could pursue both strategies simultaneously. Plus, you’d be able to achieve demonstrable results in under a year. 189
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:39 | # Gudmund, Thanks for the encouragement. My occasional fits of pique are really directed at myself. I’ve made many mistakes in how I have conducted my professional life, though it was never clear that they were such at the relevant times. The macro-mistake was getting comfortable in where I was at, and just drifting - which, with the passage of years, I’ve come to judge as a dereliction of my racial duties, as, whether you or anyone else will credit me or not, I understood the essence of our people’s plight long before the advent of the internet, whose knowledge sharing and exfoliating aspect has immeasurably increased the sum of racial awareness among our people (this, however, returns me to a deep fear I’ve implicitly expressed in other threads, in which you, too, have been a participant: viz, that we may be reaching our upper limit of converts at our present state of knowledge or polemical persuasiveness; that is, that most persons whose innate psyches predispose them to perceive racial truths easily may have been reached, given the ease of knowledge acquisition through the web ... how I remember nearly two decades ago making a special trip to UCLA’s library to get help in finding the mail address of the little racialist magazine, Instauration - which I never would have heard of if William F. Buckley, Jr., in his Zionistic attack on the alleged anti-Semitism of conservative writer Joe Sobran, hadn’t mentioned Joe’s earlier faint praise of it ...). I’m now in the process (as I mentioned in passing in an earlier comment on this thread) of deciding whether I shouldn’t transition to a fulltime activist life. By that I mean, I’m considering three overlapping avenues: returning to grad school to do the doctorate some of my college profs had encouraged me to do long ago, which would then give me serious standing to publish in both academic journals of the Right, such as there are, as well as learned periodicals; trying to get into talk radio (with a friend - we’re both pretty funny and passionate and knowledgeable and unintimidated - with good voices and demeanors, we’ve both been told independently by media producers); laying the groundwork for an American nationalist (not WN - that can come in future decades, when our people are more receptive) political activist and social networking organization. Or I can take a new business job I’m mulling, which would increase my working hours, and money, and then confine my WN contributions to comments as I do here. If I stay in biz, it’s goodbye serious WN advancement, permanently (until I retire). The dilemma is that I have the personal and intellectual qualities, I think, really to contribute to our cause in a big way,if I so choose. I’m not some socially inept WPower retread, without good credentials, skills or contacts. I think I could equal most of the big name conservative radio guys, while offering a format calculated to drive listeners still further to the Right - not because I’m special, but simply because the big shots aren’t that bright, or even all that entertaining, with the exception of Michael Savage. (Why is Glenn Beck big? Why??! Not funny, not original, not bright, not learned, nothing but “right place and time”). And my idea for a nationalist org, which I came up with 15 damn years ago, but did nothing towards, could catch on (esp if I could combine its theme with radio, as I have already thought out). Anyway, thanks again for your comment. 190
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:52 | # Reginald, Randy, one, I completely support white racial/political separatism. I also totally support any measure that will increase white birthrates. Randy is obviously correct that these objectives are not mutually exclusive. I recognize the non-existence of the white ethny. duh. I was simply responding to Randy’s query about why WNs view miscegenation with greater revulsion than white non-reproduction. 191
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:22 | # Leon, I just thought I’d make you aware that Grimoire had quite the response to you over at my ontology thread.
Wow, you seem like a man with diverse talents! I hope you make the right decision. Although I am in great physical condition, for some reason I don’t have the constitution to deal with quite as many people in my everyday life as yourself. Aside from close friends, family, and colleagues I was born a recluse and an academic; the fact that I have to leave my cave and attend professional meetings (every now and then) continues to irritate me. Unfortunately, I didn’t realize this path as soon as I should have because of my practical and antitheoretical Anglo-American upbringing. But I discovered that it’s never too late to make the right decision. 192
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 08:38 | # Notus Wind, I saw the Grimoire comment about the same time you did, and provided a brief response. I now have to study it more closely, and see if I have anything worth contributing in greater depth. I wouldn’t call myself very talented as a general matter. But I’m smart enough to do a doctorate (I know that, and by several measures); I’m good at ranting, articulate ‘monologuing’, and finding endless things to say on many topics, plus I enjoy instructing people, so I think I could have a legit shot at radio (if I can develop the right ‘hook’ or general presence to get a show initially); and I am good at managing people, as well as conceptualizing, developing and expanding organizations, plus my idea for an American conservative/defensive nationalist, activist, and educational group (along the lines of, say, the NAACP) is definitely one whose time has come (and will only become more relevant as we move to minority status - without ever of course having eliminated affirmative action, minority preference quotas, anti-white educational materials, etc). Who fights for us (but ... in a firm but moderate, non-WN, non-scientific racialist way)? The key is that doing these things (well, a relevant but PC doctorate comes first) can reinforce the other concerns. Obviously, I can’t excel in all three areas, but I can do them all to some extent. I can certainly write books and do radio; likewise I could write and build an organization (esp as it would take quite a while for such an org to reach a point of requiring fulltime employees). I’ve theorized and researched all this at some length. It’s just a big sacrifice (or at least risk) financially. It means a lot of suffering (just consider the doctorate - 5 years - though I would definitely try to so structure my studies as to produce as many media articles out of them as possible, and eventually a book out of my dissertation). Do I want this? Should I risk it? Give up my life as it is, in pursuit of a long-term dream(s) whose rewards are fairly far into the future? Tough call. 193
Posted by Ukrainian Nationalist on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 06:46 | # We know some Ukrainian leaders talk about our genocide in Canada, and bla bla - but NO UKRAINIAN LEADERS IN CANADA ARE NATIONALISTS! THEY ALL SUPPORT LIBERAL PARTIES IN UKRAINE!!!!. IN FACT, MOST UKRAINIAN LEADERS IN CANADA ARE SO STUPID THEY EVEN WORK WITH THE PARTY CHERVONENKO BELONGS TO!!!. They on’t look out for the interests of ethnic Ukrainians because the interestsest of ethnic Ukrainians are the same as for all Europeans/whites in Canada - a white country, a Christian country, no gay parades, no feminsim, bla bla. Next time you see one of those idiots who calls themself a “community leader”, undesrtand, they are probably even funded by the Canadian govenrment simply to liberalize Ukrainians abroad. God bless brothers. 194
Posted by Ukrainian Nationalist on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 06:56 | # Oh, and in Ukraine, we are fine with other whites living here. Most of it should be for us, but small minorities are natural. However, the minorities must be white. 195
Posted by EA Steve on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:22 | # Good luck keeping the Ukraine, Ukranian, Ukrainian Nationalist! You have my full support. I am a European-American, if you are curious. 196
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:24 | # “in Ukraine, we are fine with other whites living here. Most of it should be for us, but small minorities are natural. However, the minorities must be white.” (—Ukrainian Nationalist) Very well said. With emphasis on the word “small” and with emphasis on the word “white” (“white” meaning some form of European race, not “Caucasian” which can include Semites, Turks, Central Asians, North Africans, some Subcons, and so on, even — depending on whom you read — some Ethiopians). Those two words, “small” and “white,” in reference to minorities it’s OK to have, are absolutely non-negotiable. Very very very well said by Uke Nationalist. 197
Posted by pollution on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:06 | # EA Steve (in the Swamps), why did you endorse a blog that says we should encourage white women to mate with Jews and other Middle Easterners? 198
Posted by EA Steve on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:36 | # EA Steve, why did you endorse a blog that says we should encourage white women to mate with Jews and other Middle Easterners? Quoting a blog does not mean I necessarily agree with everything it says. And no, I strongly doubt the second link endorses inter-mixing between Europeans and Middle Easterners. I guess the blog entry’s theme is that allowing such intermixture is better than between Whites and Blacks & Browns. 199
Posted by pollution on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:47 | # Talk about a pathetic reply. If you’d just said you disagreed with the post, I’d have left it alone. But no, you had to have it both ways, saying you didn’t endorse the blog but also defending the post.
Yes it does, you pusillanimous nitwit. It doesn’t get much clearer than this: “We should include Jews in our White genepool!” It says “many-if not most- women” are uninterested in “blonde haired and blue-eyed men” and says “very fair White women” should be encouraged to mate with “darker men” like Turks, Jews, and Syrians. What is your specific ancestry, by the way? And what is your phenotype? 200
Posted by EA Steve on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:10 | # Pollution, In a literal sense, the blog entry does not say “many if not most White women are uninterested in blonde-haired men.” But, I will admit I do now notice your point about a potential misinterpretation, assuming my interpreation is correct about the wording. I see what you mean about “a little more color.” From blonde, or as a general term from say, albino? The author should have written his message more clearly, if my intrepretation is correct. If my intrepretation is incorrect, the blog entry is unacceptable for a pro-White forum. Regardless of what the possible theme of the blog entry was, I also disagree with the idea that White women are generally uninterestered in blonde men. They are a special part of our race, and my observations are that they are very popular among many White women, particularly blondes (women) . I am sorry I did not clarify that in my first response. Also, I do not see the necessity of quizzing me on my appearance and ancestry, but since you ask and I have written about my ethnic ancestry in the past: I am clearly White European, and I am genotypically Northern European. 201
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:50 | # EA Steve, I suspect “Pollution” is a troll. He’s been here before and, if memory serves, has had his comments zapped before. He’s very close to having them zapped again. 202
Posted by pollution on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:58 | # Someone isn’t a “troll” just because you don’t like him, Scrooby. I’m not surprised you’re itching to silence me. Post a comment:
Next entry: Abstract
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by john on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:30 | #
Quote:“Congress of Ukrainian Jews in Kyiv; one of its active members is the vice president of the Euro-Asian Jewish congress, my friend and colleague Yevhen Alfredovych Chervonenko”.