Race replacement in Britain

Posted by John S Bolton on February 12, 2006, 09:50 AM | #

It is also not other ‘than through war’, since immigration into a welfare society on the necessary scale, is very warlike aggression. Given the afe ranges of immigrants, their fertility would have to be half that of the citizenry, to not increase their proportion of the total by births.

Posted by José María on February 12, 2006, 01:30 PM | #

Good bye to the White race in USA and Western Europe!
Elites have planned it for many years and they are about to get it.

How will look like Europeans next century? Look at Northern Africa or Pakistan and you will know.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 12, 2006, 02:04 PM | #

Race replacement is actually the oldest game in town.

I’m currently reading a book on Neandertals and how they were replaced (physically exterminated, actually) by the more advanced (and more violent), invading H. sapiens.

We are a very violent and ruthless species; our first burst onto the scene was accompanied by a successful war of extermination on another human hominid (mass-murder on a truly epic scale)...our close competitor for resources: the Neandertal. .

If, as it seems likely, the White Man ceases to exist sometime in the next century (perhaps sooner, in light of current demographic trends, immigration, and miscegenation)...once again, history would simply repeat itself. The current waves upon waves of migrants carry with them people who are more vigourous, masculine, confident, less decadent, weak, emasculated...The era of the White Man nears its end...He’s already just about to leave the scene...I can see Him already apologizing all and sundry for His existence, he’s shutting down the lights, and closing the door behind Him.%0

Posted by friedrich braun on February 12, 2006, 02:06 PM | #

Unless some miracle occurs (and I doubt that a miracle will occur...what could it be?), the White Man is finished. Done.

Is there any doubt that the White Man has voluntary acquisced to His own descruction? People on this blog are an infinitismal minority of a minority...and not representative of the mindset found in the (formerly) White West.

Posted by Kulturkampf on February 12, 2006, 06:52 PM | #

The common denominator in all of this is simply liberalism - best defined by Robert Frost: ‘A liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in an argument.’ That’s the nub of all our problems with race replacement, our indulgent attitude towards crime, the leviathan welfare state, the victim ‘rights’ culture, feminism, our Sisphyean obsession with polishing the Turd World, and our guilt-soaked attitude towards our own race, history and culture. Liberalism.  There’s no great mystery.  The West has been captured by a minority ideology that holds the greatest sin to be standing up for one’s own interests.

Frankly, in the grand scheme of things it shouldn’t be that difficult to remedy what’s gone wrong. There’s no call for the Spengleresque doom and gloom expressed on this thread. All we need to do to promote majority rights is to reverse the left’s long march through the institutions. If in the space of forty years gays can go from being pariahs to being placed on the same level as man and wife, while swimming against the current of public disgust, why the hell can’t ordinary people eventually organise themselves with the same effectiveness to promote the interests of the majority?  After all, this is the intention behind this blog, isn’t it?

Posted by Mark Richardson on February 12, 2006, 08:08 PM | #

Kulturkampf agreed. Remember too that science in the next decade is going to decisively prove the existence of race and liberals like to think of themselves as being scientific. Liberals are going to be confronted by a choice between science and their denial of race. Not all of them will reject science. The presence of Islam in the West will also test the openness of liberals to the “other”. And the very politically correct generation, now in their mid-50s, will be retiring soon. Then there’s the potential for influence of the internet, as well as newer technologies which might enable low cost radio and TV broadcasting.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 12, 2006, 09:07 PM | #

The Anthony Browne article, from 2000, is probably out of date already.  One should, in any case, be considering not who is “white” but who is English and then, as a corollary, who is Scots or Welsh.  That’s the information we need if we truly want to assess the job that must be done.

On that basis I would hazard the guess that London is already majority non-English, possible non-British.

Race replacement and all the other problems faced by Western Man arise out of the corrupted state of our political milieu.

As for ourselves, I do not believe that we have lost our essential vigour in the course of two generations.  It is a mistake to confuse the stable genetic stock of Western Man with our overall political culture.  That culture, which is over three centuries old and is liberalism in the broadest sense, has always carried within it the propensity for decay.  The pursuit of “Man as free individual” is so philosophically vague and so impractical that the only possible outcome is social disintegration and prostitution by “external interests”.  (At the latter one can hardly be surprised when invitations to benefit from the system are accepted.)

So my view, as I have stated many times before, is that we cannot easily achieve what we need to within a corrupted political milieu.  There is a danger that we will change the furniture but not the room.

Posted by Phil Peterson on February 12, 2006, 10:39 PM | #

The current waves upon waves of migrants carry with them people who are more vigourous, masculine, confident, less decadent, weak, emasculated...

Friedrich,

I don’t wish to give the impression that I am always picking on you, but you do have an absolutely remarkable capacity for self-contradiction.

This comment of yours is another brilliant example of that. In another thread where we discussed Razib’s appalling tactic of linking to a porn site, you asserted that you were different from others at MR and that you did in fact believe in confidently asserting that whites are superior to sub-continentals.

Now, you are telling us that they are in fact superior to us as they are replacing us (not sub-cons alone but they are a part of the broad mass of immigration pouring into the West). 

Can you make up your mind please? 

Your self-contradictions aside, your comment is wrong. I suspect much of your politics is derived from a sense that all is already lost. Therefore, no matter how bombastic or irresponsible the rhetoric, it is no big deal because everything is lost anyway.

I don’t see things that way. Nothing is certain on this earth other than death and income tax. The destruction of the West is also far from certain (speaking of this century and the next - all things must eventually be destroyed for that is the way of this world but we aren’t talking of eternity). Most Western nations do not have non-white immigrants that exceed 10 percent of their population. It will take several decades for this to change to a majority. And a lot can happen in several decades. 

Every generation throws up a new kind of politics. The generation that produced the soft liberal bourgeoisie liberal soul is now passing. We will not see anything like it in the generations to follow.

Posted by Phil Peterson on February 12, 2006, 11:11 PM | #

People on this blog are an infinitismal minority of a minority...and not representative of the mindset found in the (formerly) White West.

We are indeed a minority but this minority has grown from next to nothing in the early 1990s to a significant number of people now. Anti-immigration feelings run very high in most of Europe where there is already a sizeable immigrant presence. As that presence begins to manifest itself - riots in France, bombs in Britain etc., this minority will expand and eventually throw up a political crisis.

Most people do not think about these issues because they do not think about anything. They are too engrossed in their private lives and are too private as people to become interested. But once their interests are directly affected (and there is no escape - as in America or Canada), they will show interest.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 12, 2006, 11:40 PM | #

Phil, there’s no contradiction. I do regard the White race as superior in terms of achievement. However, this doesn’t blind me to the fact that we’re being replaced by younger and more vigourous races. The signs of our decline are everywhere. Do you dispute that? Additionally, I don’t see how our eventual death can be avoided in the current system.

Posted by Deconstructionist on February 12, 2006, 11:53 PM | #

Fred,

Female suffrage is definitely a problem, but doesn’t this force us to ask ourselves why women were given voting rights in the first place?

Posted by Al Ross on February 12, 2006, 11:54 PM | #

I believe that a number of MR supporters might share Friedrich Braun’s pessimism on the subject of our survival and I dont think he is actually being self-contradictory. This is because the superiority which is displayed by the Indian sub-continent’s denizens is a numerical one and this is crucial, given the West’s suicidally foolish immigration ‘policies’.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 13, 2006, 12:00 AM | #

Nothing is certain on this earth other than death and income tax...and evolution. As Darwin so brilliantly suggests, outgroup sympathy, empathy, sentimentalism or liberalism is evolved. It then is re-inforced, as he suggests by public opinion. It evolved because it enhanced survival. Family became tribe, tribes became city-states and city-states nations. Nations, in the American example, became one. The Irish were redefined as white. The Jews, Italians Greeks, Poles etc. etc. etc were redefined as white. And similarly, a Syrian Christian who marries an Irish women who have sons who marry Italian women, self-define as white. England may be different, however, sociologist George Yancey suggests that whites will not become a minority in the US because the whiteness line will shift, as it did for southern and eastern Europeans, to embrace browns and yellows as white. As Madison Grant predicted the European races would mix. And as has happened in the past the European Caucasians will mix with non-European Caucasians, Hispanics and Asians. Sexual selection, much to the chagrin of J. Richards, is not necessarily based on race, but other aspects of fitness.

I’ll go with GW on this one, however, changing the room may be more difficult than imagined because of its evolutionary foundation. It does not mean that a few hummingbirds won’t break from their ancient Mexican migratory path to veer east to winter in Georgia. It is also arguable the Europe’s heterogeneous nature has been it strength. Conflict and competition enhances fitness. Thus the German or Austrian penchant for higher levels of ingroup altruism (National Socialism) may better serve its future than an England (and the Anglosphere) with a higher sense of outgroup altruism.

Posted by Al Ross on February 13, 2006, 04:49 AM | #

The Celts, from whom the Irish are descended, have been called by several historians, ‘The Fathers of Europe’, and are thought by some to have come from the plains of Hungary.
An outdated American social definition of Whiteness is of very limited value.

Posted by Phil Peterson on February 13, 2006, 08:10 AM | #

However, this doesn’t blind me to the fact that we’re being replaced by younger and more vigourous races.

I see little vigour in them to be honest. Very little.

The signs of our decline are everywhere. Do you dispute that?

I don’t. If I did we wouldn’t be here on this blog. But the only question which remains is whether these sings mean we are doomed and have crossed the point of no return. I don’t think we have yet. Some nations have - like Canada for example. But not every nation in the West.

Posted by AD on February 13, 2006, 10:10 AM | #

Phil, i’ve noticed you mention Canada as a no-hope a few times. Is it really that further gone than any other western nation?

Posted by JW Holliday on February 13, 2006, 10:43 AM | #

Desmond Jones: The Irish were redefined as white. The Jews, Italians Greeks, Poles etc. etc. etc were redefined as white. And similarly, a Syrian Christian who marries an Irish women who have sons who marry Italian women, self-define as white. England may be different, however, sociologist George Yancey suggests that whites will not become a minority in the US because the whiteness line will shift, as it did for southern and eastern Europeans, to embrace browns and yellows as white.

This is why race and ethnicity should not be based on people’s perceptions, but based on biological and historical/civilizational realities, emphasis on the biological.  Gene assays clear up the Ignatiev-Barone-Yancey nonsense quite nicely.  This also underlines the problem with the subjective term “white”, which should be replaced by “European.” The EAIF’s agenda in promoting “European-American” rather than “white”, and their attempts to make the US census more accurate is to be commended. 

And as has happened in the past the European Caucasians will mix with non-European Caucasians, Hispanics and Asians. Sexual selection, much to the chagrin of J. Richards, is not necessarily based on race, but other aspects of fitness.

I wonder if it is to the “chagrin” of all here.  In any case, past mixture is irrelevant for future genetic interests.  The aim is not to give up but to attempt to preserve European Caucasians as they exist.

“It is also arguable the Europe’s heterogeneous nature has been it strength.  Conflict and competition enhances fitness.

How about “conflict and competition” between European Caucasians on the one side and ethnocentric Chinamen and Islamists on the other?  One would think that would enhance fitness as well?  What reflects adaptive behavior changes with the times and different contexts.  What was adaptive in the year 1806 may not be adaptive in the year 2006.  In the former, conflicts were primarily intra-continental and national; in the latter, inter-continental and racial/civilizational.

Posted by José María on February 13, 2006, 08:50 PM | #

I see little vigour in them to be honest. Very little.
Well I see a world of difference between Muslims and Whites on that issue. For instance Whites are in general afraid of physical fight with anybody, Muslims are not.
Muslims are ready to die for its life we aren´t, if you don´t see vigour there, then where?

I don´t agree with the general idea in this forum that Women should not vote. It is a nonsense to state that. If you mean that women lack intelectual capacity or lack interest in the public affairs I don´t agree. You seem to describe the “general” type of women, emotional and with a poor intelect, but I don´t find either a remarkable intelect in the “general” man more worried with sex, beer or games than on political topics. Intelectuals are a minority, no matter if men or women.

Posted by Phil Peterson on February 13, 2006, 11:34 PM | #

Phil, i’ve noticed you mention Canada as a no-hope a few times. Is it really that further gone than any other western nation?

AD,

Canada is much further down the road to destruction. I would go to the extent of saying that it has crossed the point of no return. This subject has been broached a few times.

Matra is extremely well informed on this subject and he may well be best suited to comment. Having said that, everything I have seen of Canada and of Canadians suggests to me that it is finished as a country.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 14, 2006, 12:16 AM | #

I don’t know why Canada is “further down the road to destruction” than Western Europe.

What criteria have you used to make such a sweeping statement?

Posted by ben tillman on February 14, 2006, 01:07 AM | #

A few thoughts:

Canada has the most-aggressive immigration program, and perhaps the most-restrictive speech codes.  I expect it does not have the same sense of identity as long-standing European nations, and it has always been internally divided between French and British Canadians.  It has far more Jews, I believe, than do any of the countries on the Continent.  And it has a vast physical expanse, facilitating the severing of the ties between the rulers and the ruled.  The governments of compact, densely populated countries like Denmark and Holland have proven more susceptibe to democratic influence.

Posted by JW Holliday on February 14, 2006, 01:07 PM | #

Fred, I have known, and know, a few women who do recognize race and would not want race replacement to take place.  The major difference though (and a number of people, including Steve Sailer and William Pierce, have noticed this) is that women - even ones that recognize race - tend to have a “smaller worldview” than men, on average.

Thus, racially conscious white men may participate in this blog, or join National Vanguard, or go to Amren meetings, or whatever, while racially aware women are more concerned with how to deal with race in their own private lives.  Men try to “change the world”, while women try to adjust their personal lives in a practical manner.

So, a racially aware man is useful for political purposes, a racially aware woman useful in deciding where the family should live so as to avoid minorities.  There are exceptions, but it seems that even the nationalist female politicians seem to have a narrower, “pragmatic”, “Sailerian” view, while male nationalists tend to see the “big picture” to a greater extent.

Unfortunately, most white men seem no more racially aware than the white women.  I’ll agree that men tend to be, on average, more aware than women, but it is not an all or nothing difference.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 14, 2006, 11:17 PM | #

tillman,

Canada’s Jewish population represents 1.2 % of the total population. This percentage is similar to the one found in Western European nations.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html

Further, I doubt that Canada has greater censorship than Western Europe:

http://www.vho.org/censor/

One constantly hears of someone being hounded in Western Europe for questioning or doubting aspects of the holocau$t story or for running afoul of some “racist” or “hate” laws.

As far as immigration goes, Canada at least has a point system and in principle only accepts skilled migrants.

I just don’t believe Canada is any worse off than Western Europe. I was working in Bonn a few years ago and living in Bad Godesberg and let me tell you Bad Godesberg has got to be majority non-White city (certainly majority non-German); and this is just one city. Berlin is increasingly becoming Turkish…Paris is an Arab city…where you see Muslims praying on the streets and blocking traffic…London is fast become African…Additionally, when I’m in Europe I can’t access a bunch of racialist or Revisionist sites without using a proxy, this doesn’t happen to me when in North America.

Posted by Desmond jones on February 15, 2006, 03:13 AM | #

This is why race and ethnicity should not be based on people’s perceptions, but based on biological and historical/civilizational realities, emphasis on the biological.

It does not matter if it is to the chagrin of all here. (I suppose that means me )The problem with the above position is that in runs smack up against the is/ought fallacy. While it should not be based on people’s selections, definitions of sexual preferences or dare we say’ love’, it often is. People ought not to mix because it is racial suicide, however they do. Sailer has shown some patterns, in his Is Love Color-blind [?] piece, such as body mass correlations, which relate to masculine/feminine perceptions. For example predominate race mixing is black male/white female and white male/yellow female. Black males (less body fat) appear more masculine to some white females and white males (less body fat than yellow males) appear more masculine to some yellow females.

In any case, past mixture is irrelevant for future genetic interests.

Not necessarily because it is indicative of outgroup sympathy.  And again future genetic interests (i.e. preservation of race) are not necessarily paramount in sexual selection.

The aim is not to give up but to attempt to preserve European Caucasians as they exist.

Again this is an American concept because the starting point for Americans, because of the intermixing of the European races, in America, is different than for Europe. The starting point for a European is national self-identification; i.e. English, Scottish, Dutch, Danish, German etc. etc. etc.

How about “conflict and competition” between European Caucasians on the one side and ethnocentric Chinamen and Islamists on the other?  One would think that would enhance fitness as well?

The point was that European heterogeneity, although enormously expensive in terms of human life, was a driving force for European world dominance. Homogeneous China and Islam were unable to deal with European militaristic skills and equipment, honed and developed in intra-European conflict. It would enhance fitness, however, between 1500 - present it’s been basically no contest.

What was adaptive in the year 1806 may not be adaptive in the year 2006.  In the former, conflicts were primarily intra-continental and national; in the latter, inter-continental and racial/civilizational.

Not entirely true. The Cold War ran up to the nineties and racial/civilizational conflict has risen to the forefront since 9/11. Sexual selection also has changed. Darwin outlined female selection in the UK in his era, largely status/monetary based, and now that women are ‘free’ sexual selection may have returned to its more primal ‘bad boy’ nature. 

Posted by JW Holliday on February 15, 2006, 10:24 AM | #

DJ: This is why race and ethnicity should not be based on people’s perceptions, but based on biological and historical/civilizational realities, emphasis on the biological. It does not matter if it is to the chagrin of all here [I suppose that means me].  The problem with the above position is that in runs smack up against the is/ought fallacy. While it should not be based on people’s selections, definitions of sexual preferences or dare we say’ love’, it often is. People ought not to mix because it is racial suicide, however they do. Sailer has shown some patterns, in his Is Love Color-blind [?] piece, such as body mass correlations, which relate to masculine/feminine perceptions. For example predominate race mixing is black male/white female and white male/yellow female. Black males (less body fat) appear more masculine to some white females and white males (less body fat than yellow males) appear more masculine to some yellow females.

First, you are (intentionally?) mixing a comment on racial identification with one about sexual preference and mixing.  Second, you miss the point that the purpose of this blog is to be prescriptive as well as descriptive.

DJ: In any case, past mixture is irrelevant for future genetic interests. Not necessarily because it is indicative of outgroup sympathy.  And again future genetic interests (i.e. preservation of race) are not necessarily paramount in sexual selection.

I guess now you are hung-up on “sexual selection.” It is still irrelevant.  Genetic interests are what they are, from the prescriptive standpoint. Some people chain-smoke and eat deep-fried twinkies.  Do doctors just ignore that and say, “it exists so we’ll just sit back and let it happen”, or do they attempt to alter maladaptive behavior?

DJ: The aim is not to give up but to attempt to preserve European Caucasians as they exist. Again this is an American concept because the starting point for Americans, because of the intermixing of the European races, in America, is different than for Europe. The starting point for a European is national self-identification; i.e. English, Scottish, Dutch, Danish, German etc. etc. etc.

Starting point, yes.  But not the ending point.  The FN’s statement of a “French France in a European Europe” is correct, because a “French France is an Afro-Asiatic Islamic Europe” is not only evolutionarily unstable and unsustainable, but, most, likely, unattainable.  From the genetic and cultural standpoint, it is not desirable at all.  Of course, the vast majority of FN effort is, as it should be, focused on France.  But they do have a “foreign policy”, so to speak, and it is one that encourages nationalist movements in other European nations.

DJ: How about “conflict and competition” between European Caucasians on the one side and ethnocentric Chinamen and Islamists on the other?  One would think that would enhance fitness as well? The point was that European heterogeneity, although enormously expensive in terms of human life, was a driving force for European world dominance. Homogeneous China and Islam were unable to deal with European militaristic skills and equipment, honed and developed in intra-European conflict. It would enhance fitness, however, between 1500 - present it’s been basically no contest.

Essentially correct, but without making a distinction between past, present, and future, the initial statement was incorrect.

DJ: What was adaptive in the year 1806 may not be adaptive in the year 2006.  In the former, conflicts were primarily intra-continental and national; in the latter, inter-continental and racial/civilizational. Not entirely true. The Cold War ran up to the nineties and racial/civilizational conflict has risen to the forefront since 9/11. Sexual selection also has changed. Darwin outlined female selection in the UK in his era, largely status/monetary based, and now that women are ‘free’ sexual selection may have returned to its more primal ‘bad boy’ nature.

Back to “sexual selection” again?  Anyway, re: the Cold War, both Huntington and Yockey would put Russia outside the Western civilization.  I <i>disagree</i> with them, but Marxism itself is outside the West.  There is confusion as well between prescriptive and descriptive - partially my fault for not being clearer, although I
One crucial point of Yockey - one that I need to expand upon in the future - is that when a war is fought between two groups that are not really enemies, both sides lose, regardless of the outcome.  Although communism needed to be ended, the ultimate point is that Russia and Eastern Europe was not the real enemy of the “West”, and America and Western Europe was not the real enemy of Russia.  The real threat to Russia lies to the east and to the south (China and Islam) and the threats to the West have long been the “rising tide of color.” From a racial and civilizational perspective, both “the west” and Russia lost the Cold War.  China is rising, Islam is expanding - just as WWI and WWII unleashed colored nationalism and the downfall of European empires.

Thus, perhaps the better point is that, for at least a century, the conflicts should have been racial and civilizational.  I would be hesitant to state that the de facto conflicts of today are - well, from the non-white side they are, but from the white side they are not, for the “west” does not represent anything but a side-show of specific “Magian” interests.

Posted by friedrich braun on February 15, 2006, 11:52 AM | #

Orthodoxy and geography have put Russia outside the West.

Marxism certainly has a Western pedigree; Marx himself didn’t regard his theories separate from Western Philosophy and considered himself as ‘follower of Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach’.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 15, 2006, 03:22 PM | #

He also said, Friedrich, “We are all Hobbes’ children.” But did he mean it?

Posted by JW Holliday on February 15, 2006, 03:25 PM | #

Four points:-

1. Sailer’s biological rationale for inter-racial mating preferences does have some validity, in my opinion.  However, it is incomplete, in that it leaves out causes due to memetic attacks on European-derived whites.  For example, “feminism”, counter-culture, artifically-shifted social mores, etc. have masculinized white female behavior and feminized white male behavior.  Media propaganda and selective law enforcement, coupled with affirmative action and racial double standards have inflated the social status and masculine reputation of black males.  Sailer does not want to consider these issues, because then one has to ask “who is responsible” and “why are they doing it” - questions Steverino does not want to address.

2. The ultimate measure of fitness is genetic continuity/expansion.  True, Europeans wiped the floor with the Chinese in the Opium War and Boxer Rebellion.  Today, however, rising China is demographically secure while Europe is well on its way to becoming Eurabia.  It is high time to shift focus.  Guys like Le Pen are not a real problem for guys like Nick Griffin, while guys like the great Bruce Lahn and the Islamists are.  Dealing with Islamic expansionism is a matter of will, dealing with the Orient will be a matter of both will and skill.  There are sufficient challenges there to last for centuries; that is, if the West survives its current crisis, which I doubt.

3. I’m familiar with Yockey-Huntington-Spengler, and am aware of the arguments against Russia as part of the West.  Although, I’ll go along more with Huntington and say that Russia is a “torn nation”, sitting between two alternatives. They can go either way.  In my opinion, we need them, and they need us.  Jean Raspail’s genius was to recognize - in the 1970s with the Cold War raging - that Russia, a white nation, is part of “us” and threatened by “them” the same as the rest of Europe.  Raspail’s vision of Chinese infiltration of Russia in “Camp of the Saints” is coming true today, and the great Putin does nothing to stop it.

Indeed, one wonders at the pro-Putin enthusiasm at “National Vanguard.” I guess that shows what happens when one gets too much into the “JQ.” Because Putin jails oligarchs and sells missiles to Syria, some think he’s the second coming of ‘you-know-who.’ Yeah, but Putin is just as happy to jail Russian racial nationalists, to ban nationalist Russian parties, and he encourages immigration.  The Chinese violate Russian sovereignty as much as Mexicans do to America, but Putin does nothing to deal with that.  And, yes, developing new nuclear weapons cannot compensate for a declining population; what point a “strong Russia”, if there are no more Russians left within it?

4. I had a feeling I would get nailed for saying that Marxism was non-western.  Let me rephrase, and say that Marxism was a non-western distortion of western thought, with an agenda hostile to the West.  Marxism is certainly not representative of Russia itself, nor Western Europe.

Posted by allen segal on July 13, 2006, 03:30 PM | #

Think about it, what all you guys are winging about, its all to do with happiness, quality of life...and it is all being destroyed by economics, capitalism, greed, corruption. Is the extra buck in your pocket in 10 years time worth the decline in quality of life, the inequality, the threat, fear and higher crime rates...this is what western society needs to consider. Is ecomonic progress of a greater priority then social welfare, relativity and status...at the moment western society thinks so!

Posted by Rusty Mason on July 13, 2006, 03:45 PM | #

Allen,

Well put.  More, more.  Solutions too, please.  What should be the highest value, the lowest common denominator, if not money?  How do we move from the false Communist vs. Capitalist dichotomy?  Attenmpt to restore a Republic, revive tribalism and feudalism, Anarchy, theocracy?  If we could all get on the same page on this, I think we’d earn our bread for the day.

Posted by allen segal on July 13, 2006, 03:47 PM | #

my other idea is land...to be displaced of your land is what everyone fears the most...this is what you all worry about. That your future genes will not have access to the land, the soil...maybe someone else can shed some light
And for those who view such ideas above as racism, it just depends on how you view it, interpret it all...self-defence might be more appropriate?
migration, genetic mixing is good, but things need to be in moderation, balanced...i think this is what needs to be considered, not the sensationalism above...things at the moment are very imbalanced, the imbalance in migration is a response
their are many reasons for the declining birth rates in the western world...i think, the main reason is the rise of feminism, women who choose careers as opposed to the house-wife situation...and with the growing competition in the west from the female, we have a growing level of white male under-achievers…
now for all those who say this is merely generalisations...look around you, consider what you see then reconsider what you think...to dismiss these statements as generalisations is ridiculous

Posted by allen segal on July 13, 2006, 03:57 PM | #

racism needs to be something consider in the context from the other persons perspective...this is the only way we can understand this concept of fear, of displacement and decline

Posted by allen segal on July 13, 2006, 04:04 PM | #

but in the end...the truth...the main driving force is economics...to have a per capita income of this much more, to lower cost of making something from $5 to $1, a product that will still be sold at $100 in the west no matter what...(rationale economics might say this is not so, but the truth is otherwise) is more important then social welfare. To be open is good, but to be too open too quickly is dangerous

Posted by Rusty Mason on July 13, 2006, 04:32 PM | #

Allen, I don’t think I agree with your statement that genetic mixing is good.  Perhaps you miswrote.  And which statements above do you think are so sensational?  I’m simply looking for clarification, no argument (yet).

Yes, land is indeed a big deal.  It’s a justified fear.  No group can build what Whites have built without a permanent base of operations.  Without land, a tribe becomes parasitic; they may survive, but cannot be builders.  Freedom of Association would remove many hurdles for White self-determination and would allow Whites to reclaim the necessary elbow room to repair themselves and civilization.  They could collect together in permanent, exclusive settings.  There could better control crime, expelling degenerates; they could better control their own production and capital.  OK, blah, blah, you get it.

What about your specific solutions, as I asked earlier?  Generalizations are never bad, but I think generally most people here on this forum generally recognize the general problems, generally anyway.

Problem identification is great, but it’s time to move on.  The time for “understanding” is at an end.  What Modern White Man is looking for today is an ideology to which he can blindly attach himself.  Something easily believable, unfalsifiable, and makes him more rich, powerful, and sexy.  It should look good on a bumber sticker, or as a part of his child’s middle name, or as part of his PIN.  Soups, shoes, and cereals should be named after it.  Politicians should praise it as they receive their renumerations under the table.  Holy men should take for granted that it is a natural part of the cosmos and build their doctrines around it.

Seriously, that’s what we need, and fast.  You got anything like that?

Posted by allen segal on July 13, 2006, 04:40 PM | #

sure thing, you will eventually realise that all of this is not the real issue facing society, humanity. The real issue is environment...this is being destroyed by economic progress at an unprecedented level...and economic...well resources as we know are limited...wants are limited...therefore, by deduction increased population size, increased openess, increased demand...will lead to increase prices, meaning less for everyone...why don’t they just mention this on the first page of an economics textbook. So globalisation is bad, very bad! It is destroying the environment! As environment is destroyed, there will be war, fighting…
I think the only solution is reductions in global population to an equilibrium between human and environment...my idealogy is not on the same scale as anyone here

Posted by Rusty Mason on July 13, 2006, 04:41 PM | #

andallencouldiaskthatyoupleseusemorepunctuationandcapitalizationithinkitsdisrespectfultoreadersnottothankyoubestrusty

Posted by allen segal on July 13, 2006, 04:43 PM | #

my native language is not english…

Posted by Rusty Mason on July 13, 2006, 05:16 PM | #

Allen,

Well, you’re doing very well, then, but I encourage you to improve.  You are in danger of being misinterpreted.  The way you write is similar to how children write today on the Internet.  I’m not trying to offend, I just think it’s something you should know.  I know I have a hard time writing Deutsch sentences properly, even though its punctuation is very similar.  You’re ahead of me.

What is your mother tongue?  Do you use ellipses at the end of your native sentences?  English uses periods or question marks at the ends of sentences, as well as capital letters for the first letter of each sentence.  Names of proper nouns are also capitalized.

I agree that the environment is very important, but only in White areas.  And, remember, as the good book says (sorta), What profit a man if he gain a clean world but loseth his DNA?

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 13, 2006, 05:58 PM | #

The environment is important in all areas, not just “white” areas. Resource depletion and climate change (to the extent that these are affected by people) create emigration pressures - leading to conflict. I’m not a Kyoto-supporting globalist or anything, but there’s a lot to be said for “think globally, act locally”. And the more people who catch on, the better.

Besides, opposition to race-replacement and “soft genocide” should be consistent, no? I believe we must oppose these processes because they constitute aggression - and if aggression is wrong and to be condemned, we should condemn it whenever and wherever it takes place.

Posted by rustymason on July 13, 2006, 06:15 PM | #

“I agree that the environment is very important, but only in White areas.” That was supposed to be a joke.  Sorry, the stage lights got in my eyes and I couldn’t read the cards. 

Noble ideals of no aggression are grea, but that will never be more than an ideal.  A good and proper one, of course.  But as a universal, it’s merely pacifism.  Wars are reality, peace is a dream; so thus has it ever been.  Amen.

What we need today, tout de suite, is a grand assumption for the White masses that brings back the old determination to do something about our problems.  Right now, the wretched peoples got nothing but global communistic Jewish-inspired jibber-jabber.  It takes away hope and heart.  What d’yall think about Stevens’ Wake Up Whites as Victims strategy?

Posted by rustymason on July 13, 2006, 06:33 PM | #

Kulturkampf: “All we need to do to promote majority rights is to reverse the left’s long march through the institutions.” OK, institutions need to be recaptured, the leaders deprogrammed.  How?  Which institutions first?  Tickety tock.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 13, 2006, 08:18 PM | #

“But as a universal, it’s merely pacifism.”

Since when? I think ending, and reversing, the aggression against Europeans is perfectly consistent with, say, condemning Israeli occupation of the West Bank, or Arab incursions against Israelis. If you support the aggression of others, you immediately forfeit the moral highground for oneself.

Steven Palese is right to point out anti-white racism, and he should be supported in his endeavours. Simultaneously, however, I believe the very concept of racism, as it is widely held, is also highly flawed, and we should seek to erode it in the minds of ordinary people.

Posted by rustymason on July 13, 2006, 10:18 PM | #

Sorry, I went back and reread your post and I misinterpreted what you meant by aggression.  I was thinking that sometimes, for survival, one has to get aggressive.  Some may call it aggressive, but you would call it self-defense.  I mistakingly thought you were indirectly advocating pacifism. 

How exactly, do you believe the concept of racism, as it is widely held, is flawed?  Your “however” implies that Steven’s victim strategy may contain something of that same flaw.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 13, 2006, 10:39 PM | #

You have my terminology correct. I define “aggression” in the Rothbardian/Hoppeian sense.

“How exactly, do you believe the concept of racism, as it is widely held, is flawed?  Your “however” implies that Steven’s victim strategy may contain something of that same flaw.”

There is far too much public hysteria over “racism”, to the point where nobody really knows what it means. Racism, simply put, is the attribution of cultural characteristics to genetics. It is not the same as “tribalism” or “ethnocentrism”, which I have no problem with.

I think we need to bring down the anti-racist edifice by discrediting the deployment of “racism” everywhere and anywhere it occurs...while simultaneously condemning anti-white “racism” (what we really mean is “bias” or “hypocrisy").

Posted by rustymason on July 13, 2006, 11:42 PM | #

I think we need to bring down the anti-racist edifice by discrediting the deployment of “racism” everywhere and anywhere it occurs...while simultaneously condemning anti-white “racism” (what we really mean is “bias” or “hypocrisy").

Sort of join the anti-racist party as subversives?  Gain acceptance and then change the terms from the inside?