Posted by Homelander on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:49 | #

I believe Whites are superior, in one or another ways, to all other races. ( The only possible argument could be had about certain E. Asians…and even then, I’d take the other side of the case.)

I also believe superior peoples have a right to command scarce resources by force.

I am an ardent separatist, however. I dislike any arrangements that would require prolonged social interaction with significant numbers of non-whites. So I oppose any sort of slavery, multi-racial societies with caste systems, or the colonial occupation of non-white societies.

I don’t consider territory or un-skilled labor to be scarce resources. We can always work around small numbers and spaces. Just need to be free of “the White Man’s Burden”!

I think “supremicism” irresistably connotes situations where whites confront non-whites.

But I’m comfortable calling myself a racist, or racialist.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:21 | #

Instead of disavowing white supremacism while clinging to white separatist, white nationalist, survivalist, etc, you should just give it up and go back to being a good communist left-winger.

It’s amusing that upon examining the historical record the most ardent restrictionists eschewed the position put forth here.

Alfred Deakin, architect of the White Australia policy, conceded that non-whites might be superior, and it was belief in their superiority that necessitated that they be kept out:

“It is not the bad qualities, but the good qualities of these alien races that make them so dangerous to us. It is their inexhaustible energy, their power of applying themselves to new tasks, their endurance and low standard of living that make them such competitors.”

Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

One is struck in reading the 1924 Congressional debate that, while virtually all of the anti-restrictionists raised the issue of Nordic racial superiority, those in favor of the legislation rarely did.

Even Grant noted that the Nordic man was ill-suited to compete “in the labor market with the Slovak, the Italian, the Syrian, and the Jew.”

One thing is certain: in any such mixture, the surviving traits will be determined by competition between the lowest and most primitive elements and the specialized traits of Nordic man; his stature, his light colored eyes, his fair skin and blond hair, his straight nose, and his splendid fighting and moral qualities, will have little part in the resultant mixture.

The “survival of the fittest” means the survival of the type best adapted to existing conditions of environment, to-day the tenement and factory, as in Colonial times they were the clearing of forests, fighting Indians, farming the fields, and sailing the Seven Seas. From the point of view of race it were better described as the “survival of the unfit.”

Posted by Diamed on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:43 | #

@ Homelander:  No fears, I want nothing more to do with the other races, except trade and exchange of ideas, either.  Slavery, colonialism, and all that was a terrible mistake.  So long as you think superior people should, in a case of limited resources, be the first to have a claim to them, you’ve fathomed my point completely.

@Desmond:  I suppose I should redefine objectively superior.  If you think mankind is ‘homo economicus’ and the ‘fittest’ are those who most closely resemble robots in their tireless and efficient productivity, it may well be asians, or if it means the best at finagling money out of others, it may well be jews.  It never crossed my mind to rate the races by wealth though.  I do not mean the ‘fittest’ are the best, I mean those whose traits I most admire and revere are the best.  The beauty, kindness, genius, adventurousness, and courage of the white race is superior to any other.  It may well be in a direct economic competition with a myriad of races we’ll fall short, it may also be in a direct fertility competition with a myriad of races, we fall pathetically short.  But we don’t fall short in the beauty of Nastia Liuken, the music of Beethoven, or the introspection of Dostoevesky.  It’s our task to ‘subsidize’ if you will, our wealth and fertility to succeed on the same level as our true greatness.  Instead of laisseze faire, we’ll simply put a thumb in the scales until whites end up with all the wealth and fertility they need.  Restricting immigration so that employers perforce have to hire ‘incompetent’ whites and requiring higher birth rates so that women are required to have babies, are State solutions that can make up for our genetic deficiencies.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:43 | #

I see it as no flaw that Diamed’s vision is essentially aesthetic.  We “should” strive for the peaks of achievement in that which we are evolved to value.  Anything less would be not to fully value our what we are.  A self-imposed degenerative masochism.  Frank Roman of European Americans United suggests a soft eugenic approach of, through social pressure, encouraging the mating of men and women with desirable traits to amplify those traits to the future “improvement” of our genetic stock consistent with what we are evolved to value.  To my tastes this means the Nordification of our genetic stock, or the amplification of “Nordic” traits amongst existing Nordic stock.  The core, majority group of a restored North America will be Nordic - consistent with the wishes of America’s founders.  Of course it still is, as far as that goes.  We just need to accentuate the positive.

Silver, don’t make have to get the straitjacket and the Thorazine.

Posted by Homelander on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:04 | #

I should add also, that I oppose genocide (the real thing - not the twaddle contemporary Leftists dither on about.)

I suppose I care about obviously inferior non-Whites (negroes, Mestizos) at least as much as I do about polar-bears, pandas and such. Perhaps more, about Asians.

Some caveats:

I don’t care about disappearing aboriginals.

I can see a need for focused ethnic cleansing.

Except between whites, I’m not a Rules-Of-War fan.

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:03 | #

I don’t know what possesses GW to publish this sophomoric drivel (wasn’t one Hoffmeister enough?).  In all honesty, I could read Fred Scrooby or Michael Rienzi all day compared to two minutes of this ridiculous twaddle.  That it earns Crap’nChaos’s stamp of approval says it all really.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:22 | #

“While whites are cheering (I’m not even kidding, they cheered Bill Clinton in his speech in Portland announcing this fact) their coming minority status in the USA,”  (—from the log entry)

How many of those wildly cheering were Jews, Euro dupes/brainwashees of Jewish college professors, clueless female college students and female college professors, college guys hoping to position themselves to get laid later that evening by ostentatiously applauding race-suicide in front of the bimbos, etc.?  How many weren’t carefully pre-selected by Clinton’s people to be in the audience precisely in order to cheer loudly at that spot in his speech?  Exactly how much Jewish money and influence, whether direct or indirect, brought that wildly cheering audience into existence?  That wasn’t Euros cheering but a motely collection of nonce cases, drug addicts, guys hoping to get laid, and Jewish proxies.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:52 | #

Obviously Silver wouldn’t like the piece, he’s exactly the one described in its first couple of paragraphs:

“Typically, whenever anyone advocates any policy that remotely favors whites, he will be assailed [assailed by the Silvers of this world] with the usual cacophony of ‘racist,’ ‘white supremacist,’ ‘hater,’ ‘neo-nazi,’ etc.  Many people insist they are not white supremacists, not racists, not haters, they just want ‘x.’  As the argument goes, ‘x’ isn’t racist, it’s just common sense.  Or ‘X’ isn’t hateful, it’s just benevolent towards our own. Or ‘X’ isn’t white supremacy, it’s just nationalism, separatism, realism, etc, etc.  [That’s exactly how Silver perpetually demands that we here excuse our “racist badness.”]

“Various groups are giving strange dichotomies like ‘it’s okay to be proud of your race, so long as you aren’t a white supremacist,’ ‘it’s okay to oppose immigration, so long as you aren’t a white supremacist.’ Etc.  [Those particular strange dichotomies cooked up by the other side are exactly Silver’s game.  That stuff is EXACTLY, WORD FOR WORD, what he’s perpetually assailing us with.]  Most of the right wing groups, in a desperate wish for respectability, play by the liberals’ rules [or Silver’s, same thing] and truckle under to their demands.  [Yes that’s what Silver always demands our side do, and some may try to do, until they realize what Silver’s game is, realize he’s NOT one of us, realize he is NOT an opponent of forced race-replacement any more than Robert Lindsay is, and realize that when the chips are down he will ALWAYS, EACH AND EVERY TIME, side with the race-replacers against us because we’re “racists and neo-Nazis” whose heads he’d like to smash open.]  We’ll be ‘only so far to the right and no further.’  [Big mistake, HUGE mistake, to take that attitude in an attempt to please the Silvers of this world.]  And in order to prove their true PC credentials [in order to prove them to, among others, the Silvers of this world], they will sharply vilify and attack anyone to the right of them [precisely what Silver wants them to do], to show the leftie liberals [like Silver] that they’re really good people, that they’re basically on the same side, and they hate the evil white supremacist nazis too.  This moral cowardice infects even the ‘hardest core’ which turns out to be quite spinelessly soft in the end.”

No wonder Silver hates the piece:  IT’S ALL ABOUT HIM.  It’s blowing his cover!

Posted by Sly Greek on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:13 | #

Frank Roman of European Americans United suggests a soft eugenic approach of, through social pressure, encouraging the mating of men and women with desirable traits to amplify those traits to the future “improvement” of our genetic stock consistent with what we are evolved to value.

In contrast to Frank Roman, Sly Greek advocates an explicit eugenic program based on fostering social cohesion by providing incentives and rewards for co-operation.  Sly Greek’s program recognizes the inequality of human differences and seeks to compensate those who, through no fault of their own, are forced to endure an inferior position in life, and to place an on obligation on those whose ‘high birth’ obtains for them enviable privileges.  Sly Greek’s program is based on his belief that people co-operate most willingly when they perceive a personal benefit in doing so.  For example, Sly Greek believes the ugly are more likely to admit admiring the beautiful when the beautiful act modestly; similarly, the stupid are more apt to acknowledge a debt to the smart when the latter behave responsibly.  In sum, Sly Greek understands the passions of men can never be eliminated, but believes a socially cohesive eugenicist society which mitigates them can be forged. 

To my tastes this means the Nordification of our genetic stock, or the amplification of “Nordic” traits amongst existing Nordic stock.

Sly Greek wonders what an existing Nordic might do to “amplify” his Nordic traits.  Maybe Crap’n could start with himself and “amplify” his command of the English language.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:55 | #

Fighting the definition of words is very difficult when you don’t have control of your own cultural institutions.

The way the word definition wars are fought is ambiguity via maintained multiple senses of the word/phrase.  The colloquial name for this tactic is called “smear”.

The best known of these confusion words is, of course, “racist” which is always used to stop any rational treatment of race by labeling it “racist”, which is—in the least restricted sense—true, but which brings with it the other senses of the word “racist” that include, basically the definition “A person who wants to have the majority race—of which they are a part—gang up on a minority race so as to have an unfair advantage.”  Even in the case where it is demonstrably true that whites have been the minority and yet still conquered, there is an entire literature devoted to explaining it in terms of accidents of history—ala Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel”—a literature tenaciously supported by the Holocaustian zeitgeist.

The present essay is a good example of the failure to address the weak position we are in with respect to this war of words—the “culture war”.  “White supremacy” has not just the two senses posited in this essay, but also at least a third sense which corresponds to the the “unfair fight” sense of “racist”.

Indeed, the entire semantic war boils down to the question of what constitutes a “fair fight”, and therefore the last thing you will ever see portrayed by Hollywood is a realistic portrayal of what would happen if two men went off to a wilderness area large enough to support strategy, equally equipped with primitive tools, clothes and weapons but no other rules, to settle a dispute in single combat to the death with no outside interference or help.  The closest you’ll see is David Brin’s portrayal of the “outcome” of such a fight in “The Postman” where a man, disfigured and crippled from such a fight is the virtual dog owned by the victor—an outcome specifically prohibited by the only non-fictional body of law codifying such a fight I have seen (a body of law I strongly suspect Brin was responding to in the mendacious manner so typical of his type).

Here’s a realistic portrayal:  A white guy in a white town sees a “person of color” with a prize white girl in the town.  He challenges the “person of color” to a fair fight:  10 inch sword, 10 meters of strong cordage, equal clothing and entering on opposite ends of a nearby hunting area, with only one of them to come out alive.  The white guy kills the “person of color” after a day or so, in a fair fight to the death.  A grand jury hands down an indictment for murder.  The Sheriff’s swat team uses nonlethal methods to capture the man and bring him before a “Judge” where the “Prosecutor” has offered a plea bargain involving a charge of second degree murder rather than first degree murder.  The accused demands a jury trial and is treated to a “jury” selected for its bias against heterosexual white men.  He is convicted, sentenced to life in prison without parole for his “hate crime murder” and is incarcerated in a wing of a maximum security institution controlled by “person of color” gangs to have all his teeth knocked out so he can’t bite off any penises while he is being gang sodomized by them until he dies of AIDS.  Hollywood then makes a “docudrama” movie of these events portraying the dead man as narrating his own account of having cheated at the “fair fight” by hiding a gun in the wooded area prior to challenging the “person of color”, and then his “Sexual Awakening” by compassionate “persons of color” inmates, and his death due to AIDS as the result of white supremacist prison guards refusing his “lovers” the use of condoms.  An Ashkenazi attorney who has helped shepherd the white guy through his “Sexual Awakening” under the guidance of the “corrections system” meets, in a subplot, the prize white girl from the white town over which the original challenge was issued.  They get married and have many children who grow up to be doctors, lawyers, stock brokers and—well, no, we’ll leave the movie makers part out of the docudrama…

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:16 | #

Thanks, Scrooby, for another sterling example of your peculiar brand of pigheaded perversity. 

“Typically, whenever anyone advocates any policy that remotely favors whites, he will be assailed [assailed by the Silvers of this world],

Lie number 1.  Far from “assailing” anything which “remotely” favors whites, I staunchly support that which categorically favors whites.

[That’s exactly how Silver perpetually demands that we here excuse our “racist badness.”]

Lie number 2.  I don’t demand you “excuse” it; I demand you justify it. I haven’t seen any justification for it—this piece didn’t provide any—so I assail it, on both moral and pragmatic grounds.

“Various groups are giving strange dichotomies like ‘it’s okay to be proud of your race, so long as you aren’t a white supremacist,’ ‘it’s okay to oppose immigration, so long as you aren’t a white supremacist.’ Etc.  [Those particular strange dichotomies cooked up by the other side are exactly Silver’s game.  That stuff is EXACTLY, WORD FOR WORD, what he’s perpetually assailing us with.

Lie number 3.  Strictly speaking, I’ve never used anything like those words, let alone “word for word.”  Moreover, I’ve never opposed professing belief in “white” (I’d use “nordic/ish”) supremacy (meaning superiority) nor even the very fact of it.  Nor have I ever demanded policies favoring “whites” (of any stripe) justify themselves on grounds other than supremacy. In fact, I don’t recall ever even touching on “supremacy” in any way. 

Most of the right wing groups, in a desperate wish for respectability, play by the liberals’ rules [or Silver’s, same thing] and truckle under to their demands.  [Yes that’s what Silver always demands our side do, and some may try to do, until they realize what Silver’s game is, realize he’s NOT one of us, realize he is NOT an opponent of forced race-replacement any more than Robert Lindsay is, and realize that when the chips are down he will ALWAYS, EACH AND EVERY TIME, side with the race-replacers against us because we’re “racists and neo-Nazis” whose heads he’d like to smash open.]

Lie number 4.  You have zero evidence for this assertion, Scrooby.  Having an intense dislike for neo-nazis in no way implies approving race-replacement, nor does opposing race-replacement (“forced” or not) require approval of neo-nazi scum.  (National Socialism, I should add, is perfectly respectable.  “Neo-nazis”—a catch-all term for skinheads, kluxers and “Identity” wackos—are a combination of circus clown, ignoramus and vile scum.)

We’ll be ‘only so far to the right and no further.’ [Big mistake, HUGE mistake, to take that attitude in an attempt to please the Silvers of this world.]

This is one isn’t so much a lie as it is breathtaking stupidity.  For you, you human stain, it may be no more than an “attitude” (a fraudulent pose), but others can (and should) be rightly outraged at the assertion that there is no limit on how far “right” they “really” are.  What insanity!  (And you’ve exposed another of your lies: the claim that you (speaking both for yourself and claiming to speak for everyone else, as you typically do) only wish to do “the minimal amount required” to preserve your race.  Please don’t bother denying it.  You’ll only succeed in making yourself look stupider than you already have.)

No wonder Silver hates the piece:  IT’S ALL ABOUT HIM.  It’s blowing his cover!

Actually, Scrooby, no.  It’s a truly, self-refutingly sophomoric essay that stands no chance of engaging sharper minds.  Its only effect will be to confirm the moral and intellectual vacuousness of “movement racialism.”  (Again, what on earth possesses GW to publish this stuff?)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:25 | #

The readership will be the judge, Silver.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:26 | #

You’ve proven what I said just in this very comment you just posted.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:27 | #

You’re a one-hundred percent fraud.

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:28 | #

Indeed, the entire semantic war boils down to the question of what constitutes a “fair fight”, and therefore the last thing you will ever see portrayed by Hollywood is a realistic portrayal of what would happen if two men went off to a wilderness area large enough to support strategy, equally equipped with primitive tools, clothes and weapons but no other rules, to settle a dispute in single combat to the death with no outside interference or help.

As a matter of fact, Karate Kid II portrayed two quite realistic possible outcomes: (a) the man challenged refuses to fight; (b) the winner spares the life of the vanquished.

And a word to the wise, taking care of what you wish for lest it come true carries added significance in your case, ie, I’m pretty sure I’d make short work of you.

Posted by Prozium on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:29 | #

In the American South, “white supremacy” was contrasted with “negro supremacy.” It meant the government should be controlled by whites and should promote white interests. Although separatism would be ideal, I have no objection to segregation or “white supremacy” in this sense.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:33 | #

“And a word to the wise, taking care of what you wish for lest it come true carries added significance in your case, ie, I’m pretty sure I’d make short work of you.”

(The fraud’s not even waiting till he’s actually challenged now.)  Who challenged you, Silver?  No one that I saw.

Guilty conscience or something?  Expecting a challenge one of these days are we?

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:45 | #

This moral cowardice infects even the ‘hardest core’ which turns out to be quite spinelessly soft in the end.

Get over it, triangulation is a great tool.  The guy to the right should be happy to take the hit, exchange a wink, and meet up later for a beer.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:55 | #

And a word to the wise, taking care of what you wish for lest it come true carries added significance in your case, ie, I’m pretty sure I’d make short work of you.

Yeah?  Use your hands a lot, do you?

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:19 | #

Guilty conscience or something? Expecting a challenge one of these days are we?

No.  I’ve wronged no one.  But I would relish one from a moral bankrupt like Bowery.  If I could bring myself to believe the freak (seen that hair?) was serious, I could probably set aside my revulsion of the strong lording it over the weak long enough to make an example of him.  I guess that’s my inner commie shining through yet again.  Oh well.  I’ve conceded as much as I can.  It’ll never be enough it seems (even though, technically, it is—more than enough).  I used to wonder whence antifas’ rage.  I wonder no more.  You people truly are viler than I ever imagined a person could be.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:25 | #

silver writes:  “(a) the man challenged refuses to fight;”

Not realistic.  The “person of color” might refuse to fight but the prize white girl would then, realistically, take off with the white guy.

“(b) the winner spares the life of the vanquished.”

Not realistic in this scenario.

“And a word to the wise, taking care of what you wish for lest it come true carries added significance in your case, ie, I’m pretty sure I’d make short work of you.”

I’ve run across your type before:  Anonymous, plausibly working for the government (or NGO), willing to come “out” as some other person (hired by the government/NGO and trained in wilderness combat arts), with the backup of the “justice system”, “corrections system” and zeitgeist stacked against the heterosexual white man willing to defend his territory.

What a warrior.

GW:  I think “silver” who ever he/it is/they are, just earned his/its/their much-wished-for ban.

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:47 | #

Not realistic.

Let’s just let that hang in the air.

The “person of color” might refuse to fight but the prize white girl would then, realistically, take off with the white guy.

Exquisite. 

Well, I’m off to track down Arun Nayar then.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:55 | #

““Not realistic.”” Let’s just let that hang in the air.”

Sort of like your identity and the global “civilization” that let’s Arun Nayar accumulate wealth?

PS: Hurley is used up, unless you’re talking cloning technology for genetic preservation for after the collapse, in which case the game is entirely different.

PPS:  In a society upholding the agreements for single combat, refusal of challenge to formal combat brings with it a death sentence for the crime of cowardice.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:13 | #

Fred writes: (The fraud’s not even waiting till he’s actually challenged now.) Who challenged you, Silver?  No one that I saw.

Guilty conscience or something?  Expecting a challenge one of these days are we?

I suspect you’re correct, Fred.  I did not have “silver” in mind when I wrote what I did and to the best of my knowledge, nothing in what I wrote could be taken as in opposition to “silver”‘s professed beliefs.  A very likely reason I can think that “silver” got so touchy about my post is that he is the “person of color” who wants to live in the “white town” where he can get the “prize white girl” on the strength of a “civilization” that protects foreign males as they invade.  Hence, his guilty conscience.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:21 | #

Slimy Geek (sliver [not a typo]): “Sly Greek wonders what an existing Nordic might do to “amplify” his Nordic traits.  Maybe Crap’n could start with himself and “amplify” his command of the English language.”

I said: “To my tastes this means the Nordification of our genetic stock, or the amplification of “Nordic” traits amongst existing Nordic stock.”

I meant the eugenic Nordification of non-northwestern European Whites over successive generations in North America and/or the eugenic amplification of “Nordic” traits amongst northwestern Europeans over successive generations in North America.  You do understand that is how selective breeding works, don’t you wog?

“...and to place an on [wog] obligation on those…”

When wogs start talking about placing things “on” Nordics I am ill at ease.

“If I could bring myself to believe the freak (seen that hair?) was serious, I could probably set aside my revulsion of the strong lording it over the weak long enough to make an example of him.”

Don’t worry, sliver.  I think you’re even beneath being on Bowery’s “humane euthanasia” list.  Turn the lights on you’ll scatter with your buddies.

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:30 | #

Re: Silver

I still take me cue from JWH. Not that we can read what he said now.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:08 | #

I had written: PPS:  In a society upholding the agreements for single combat, refusal of challenge to formal combat brings with it a death sentence for the crime of cowardice.

I just had an idea:

What if we invoked old Norse law by the simple expedient of enforcing the 7 points of agreement between individuals on anyone who occupies territory that is majority northern European ancestry?

For example, when the Sheriff’s DHS-funded and trained swat team comes to get the individual indicted by the grand jury for murder (or comes to get the individuals who have, as a group, killed the “protected minority” male for cowardice in refusing a challenge, by a NON-ANONYMOUS person, to formal single combat to the death), they are met with a posse comitatus of “The Hundred” men devoted to protecting individual sovereignty?

Where does this lead?

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:11 | #

Sort of like your identity and the global “civilization”?

You’ll have to be more specific.

PS: Hurley is used up,

You’re no spring chicken yourself.  Have you managed to bequeath some of that high quality genetic material yet?  Prick that you are, it’d be a pity to let that go begging.  Speaking of which, I might have use for you yet:

unless you’re talking cloning technology for genetic preservation for after the collapse, in which case the game is entirely different.

Not precisely, but I’ve been thinking along those lines.  See, I’ve recently rekindled an old flame, precious little nordic princess, liberal as they come (and, incidentally, already with child). The haruspices have divined much toil and trouble so I’m little inclined to sire my own brood, which would only distract me during the turbulent times which lie ahead.  But I wonder if the inamorata couldn’t be put to use bearing a few more nordlings, preferably female, which is where potential donors like yourself (well not you, certainly not you) enter the picture.  Can embryos be manipulated to fix their sex?  (Just think what this one move achieves, what it adds, what it subtracts.)  Of course, I’m the owner of some pretty spanking genes myself , but contrary to hereditarian fantasists, I feel no overwhelming urge to pass them on (Simon Blackburn, iirc, had some interesting thoughts on this). 

PPS:  In the society upholding the agreements for single combat, refusal of challenge to formal combat brings with it a death sentence for the crime of cowardice.

Hmm, yeah, well, whatever.  I’d rather drop this.  I’m not the man you want to challenge, anyway.

Posted by gaspedshirker on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:13 | #

GW:  I think “silver” who ever he/it is/they are, just earned his/its/their much-wished-for ban.

James, haven’t you learned by now that Guessedworker values silver’s presence here more than anyone else, including you?  It would be fascinating to figure out the rationale behind that preference, but years of pyschoanalysis are beyond the scope of this blog.

Guessedworker’s favorite commentator speaks:

But I would relish one from a moral bankrupt like Bowery.  If I could bring myself to believe the freak (seen that hair?) was serious, I could probably set aside my revulsion of the strong lording it over the weak long enough to make an example of him. I guess that’s my inner commie shining through yet again.  Oh well.  I’ve conceded as much as I can.  It’ll never be enough it seems (even though, technically, it is—more than enough).  I used to wonder whence antifas’ rage.  I wonder no more.  You people truly are viler than I ever imagined a person could be.

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:33 | #

I meant the eugenic Nordification of non-northwestern European Whites over successive generations in North America and/or the eugenic amplification of “Nordic” traits amongst northwestern Europeans over successive generations in North America.  You do understand that is how selective breeding works, don’t you wog?

I know what you meant, cockrider; it’s your imprecision I was poking fun at.

And looky looky, whaddya know, you’ve provided me with more material again.  No, crap’ncockrider, I don’t know how “selective breeding” works.  In your ideal racial scenario you’re either going to kick out all non-northwestern whites, which delivers immediate “nordification,” or you kick out all but “compatible” non-northwesterners.  In the latter case, you don’t have to “selectively breed” anything; “nordification” would occur on its own. 

I still take me cue from JWH. Not that we can read what he said now.

Believe me, Lurker, you’ve already convinced me you’re a brainless twit.  You really don’t need to keep proving it.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:36 | #

silver writes: I wonder if the inamorata couldn’t be put to use bearing a few more nordlings, preferably female, which is where potential donors like yourself (well not you, certainly not you) enter the picture.  Can embryos be manipulated to fix their sex?

Interesting that plagiarizing my stuff is now part of silver’s infantile pseudonymous tactics—particularly just a couple of days after Randall Parker censored my post of the same idea in response to his take down of the Taliban for its sexism—it was in response to RP’s last message.  I wish I’d kept a copy now but then I had never known Parker to be such a weasel as to censor a provocative use of genetic technology before.  I was genuinely caught by surprise.

I wonder if “silver” is really one of the gnxp “cognitive elitists” with whom Randall Parker holds some truck.

Posted by gaspedshirker on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:37 | #

cockrider

crap’ncockrider, I

Believe me, Lurker, you’ve already convinced me you’re a brainless twit.

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:41 | #

James, haven’t you learned by now that Guessedworker values silver’s presence here more than anyone else, including you?  It would be fascinating to figure out the rationale behind that preference, but years of pyschoanalysis are beyond the scope of this blog.

Bah, kwichyabichin, Rienzi, ya sore loser. 

(Oh, and the bolded bits. Classic Rienzi barefaced make-it-up-as-you-go-along lies.  Just classic.  A sorer loser there has never been.)

Posted by gaspedshirker on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:54 | #

Oh, and the bolded bits. Classic Rienzi barefaced make-it-up-as-you-go-along lies

In other words, directly quoting from silver is a “make-it-up-as-you-go-along lie.”

The post at “Posted by silver on January 10, 2009, 09:19 AM | #”
doesn’t really exist.  It’s a lie - a damn shiteating lie I tell you.

Silver also did not refer to anyone as a “cockrider” either.  It’s a damn lie, a make it up as you go along shiteating lie!

Folks - the problem here is not silver.  The problem here is the blog itself and its “leadership.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:58 | #

“I wonder if ‘silver’ is really one of the gnxp ‘cognitive elitists’ “  (—James B)

Well, the continent of ancestral origin certainly fits ...

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:02 | #

Interesting that plagiarizing my stuff is now part of silver’s infantile pseudonymous tactics—particularly just a couple of days after Randall Parker censored my post of the same idea in response to his take down of the Taliban for its sexism—it was in response to RP’s last message.  I wish I’d kept a copy now but then I had never known Parker to be such a weasel as to censor a provocative use of genetic technology before.  I was genuinely caught by surprise.

Bowery, you’re the most incredible egomaniac I’ve ever encountered.  Rather than be pleased that someone independently reached the same conclusion (mine is actually superior, if you think about it) or even that someone (finally, no thanks to your skill in persuasion) saw sense in your argument, you’re miffed about “plagiarism.” 

Rienzi, obviously I’m responding in kind.  But, please, keep it up.  While Bowery insists on obscuring any hint of humanity, it’s only right for you to continue your infantility.  The doyens of far-right racialism are doing superb work discrediting themselves right as we speak.  Good.  It’s high time a humane alternative arose to supplant them.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:04 | #

James, haven’t you learned by now that Guessedworker values silver’s presence here more than anyone else, including you?

I actually haven’t found “silver” interesting enough to read much of his/its their writings, so I never really looked much at the issue. 

However, the tactic “silver” just used on me is well known to me and is strong evidence for his/its/their hostility toward reasonable dialog.  If he/it/they were not pseudonymous, that would be one thing, but to pseudonymously de facto issue me a challenge to formal combat in the context of my discussing the potential of reinstituting old Norse laws upholding it is short-circuiting an attempt to achieve exactly what GW claims is the purpose of this blog:  Finding an ethos within which we might found our self-preservation.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:11 | #

“silver” writes: “Bowery, you’re the most incredible egomaniac I’ve ever encountered.  Rather than be pleased that someone independently reached the same conclusion (mine is actually superior, if you think about it) or even that someone (finally, no thanks to your skill in persuasion) saw sense in your argument, you’re miffed about “plagiarism.””

No, what’s truly incredible is the coincidence that you brought up this idea, posted previously to this blog and then just a coupe of days ago to Randall Parker’s blog, not only as your idea, but TO ME as your idea.  It’s just too coincidental to be credible.

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:14 | #

Well, the continent of ancestral origin certainly fits ...

You must be referring to Eurasia.  That’s the first true statement you’ve made in a long time.  There may be hope for you yet.

Folks - the problem here is not silver.  The problem here is the blog itself and its “leadership.”

The ‘problem’, Rienzi, is outsized egos unwilling or unable to debate, certainly unwilling to admit when they’re wrong.  That’s the first problem right there.  Forget about anything else.  Deal with this.  Okay?

If you think I’m wrong, demonstrate it.  Show me where.  Don’t insinuate, don’t resort to innuendo—I know I just exhausted your arsenal, but show me the error of my ways.  Or show it to others.  But do it forthrightly. And kwichyabichin.  Or don’t.  But then don’t expect to be taken seriously.  Now, I know I’m not taken seriously by you, erm, “people.”  But who cares about you people?  You’re nobodies.  I can easily put my ideas to normal people without having them run out of the room.  Don’t kid yourself, Rienzi, you’d cream your pants to have that sort of reception.  Alternatively, stay a Rahowian—and keep spinning your wheels.

Posted by Diamed on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:18 | #

I’m kind of curious, do the silvers of the world think—

a) We are not the best examplars of mankind and life itself, the masterpiece of nature?
b) We should not have settled the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa?
c) They do not especially love whites or think of them as family?
d) Our resources and circumstances should not reflect our contribution to world progress?

Instead of ad hominems, it would be nice if people engaged on the issues.  I made my case for why whites are superior, why whites should not pretend anything else, and that whites should act on this knowledge in concrete ways that secure the good of whites around the world.  If there’s a hole in my logic go ahead and tell me.  If you just come here to call people names for entertainment, please stop.  You’ve gotten your kicks, now let the grown-ups talk about real things.

Posted by gaspedshirker on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:19 | #

it’s only right for you to continue your infantility.

Am I lying by directly quoting silver?  Point, ignored. As usual.

Actually, this has all been good fun, but I came back to this atrocious, disgusting, and pathetic blog only because Auster was babbling about how “anti-Semites” were attacking him here.  I looked at that thread, and it is classic deranged “Majority Rights” nonsense.  I’m satisfied.  Picking between VFR and MR as which is more interesting and useful, I’ll choose the former.  And, that’s given my opinion that Auster is wrong at least half the time and that the critiques of Auster here at MR are correct.  But, at least - as wrong as Auster is (and he is wrong) - his site is readable, interesting, and non-vulgar.  MR, in contrast, is a sewer.

short-circuiting an attempt to achieve exactly what GW claims is the purpose of this blog:

The key word there, James, is “claims.”  Ask yourself if the “facts on the ground” as to what this blog is achieving matches the claims.

I’ve often disagreed with you in the past (as you know); however, this silver is a completely different case entirely.  There is a difference between heated debate and “freak,” “cockrider,” “shiteater” and the like, never mind the constant lies, distortions, and what Guessedworker himself referred to as the “chameleon like” quality.  Yes, indeed, Scrooby’s “mystery meat” is an indication of how “vile” we all are, but posting “nigger” over and over again in a post is just sensible race realism.  And, it’s “humane.”

I’m done with this blog, but you are still an active participant.  Perhaps Guessedworker can explain to you (offline if need be) why individuals who wish to engage in intellectual discourse have to be dragged through the sewer by (as you put it) “he/it/they” that most here ignore of consider illegitimate.

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:24 | #

No, what’s truly incredible is the coincidence that you brought up this idea, posted previously to this blog and then just a coupe of days ago to Randall Parker’s blog, not only as your idea, but TO ME as your idea.  It’s just too coincidental to be credible.

I seldom read futurepundit.  It’s like Sailer-lite without the comments.  You’re right that it’d be insane to bring it up to you if you’d only mentioned something like it (what precisely I have no idea) two days ago.  That speaks for me, Bowery, not against me. 

(Clearly I’m no shrinking violent when it comes to posting comments.  If I read a blog, I comment there. Why don’t you ask Parker if I’ve ever commented there.  GW can provide you the IP details.  Or ask if him he’s had any comments originating in Thailand in the last year.)

Posted by gaspedshirker on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:26 | #

The ‘problem’, Rienzi, is outsized egos unwilling or unable to debate, certainly unwilling to admit when they’re wrong.  That’s the first problem right there.  Forget about anything else.  Deal with this.  Okay?

Sounds a lot like Guessedworker at the Dienekes blog.  Where is Dienekes standing politically, by the way?  Or, it sounds like silver refusing to answer the polite, directed questions I asked him on this blog months ago - followed by the “passive aggressive” attacks once I was no longer here.

If you think I’m wrong, demonstrate it.  Show me where.  Don’t insinuate, don’t resort to innuendo—I know I just exhausted your arsenal, but show me the error of my ways.  Or show it to others.  But do it forthrightly.

This was done on my blog and there isn’t any more to be said.  It’s also, of course, easier to deal with someone’s “arguments” when they are not changing them drastically from month to month.

I can easily put my ideas to normal people without having them run out of the room.

Then do so.  Restrain yourself from screaming “nigger” though.  Most “normal people” may run out of the room.

Alternatively, stay a Rahowian—and keep spinning your wheels.

I have in fact been openly hostile to the “Rahowa” crowd for years.  Who’s lying now?

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:33 | #

Instead of ad hominems, it would be nice if people engaged on the issues.  I made my case for why whites are superior, why whites should not pretend anything else, and that whites should act on this knowledge in concrete ways that secure the good of whites around the world.  If there’s a hole in my logic go ahead and tell me.  If you just come here to call people names for entertainment, please stop.  You’ve gotten your kicks, now let the grown-ups talk about real things.

Diamed, I’d be willing to provide you with a more detailed response.  But then I require you to debate the issues I raise, not just to brush them aside with a breezy rationale that the opinion of a slimy, greasy, southern european wog could hardly matter.  Okay?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:35 | #

shitver: “I know what you meant, cockrider; it’s your imprecision I was poking fun at.”

I’m not the one pining away after the Aryan stud Aaron Eckhart, now am I, cockstroker?  Sorry to have been so imprecise; I’ll give you the k-12 version next time.

“In your ideal racial scenario you’re either going to kick out all non-northwestern whites, which delivers immediate “nordification,”

The expulsion of all non-Nordic Whites is not my ideal scenario; if it was I would have said so, it is not.

“...or you kick out all but “compatible” non-northwesterners.”

That is why I like Frank Roman’s soft approach to eugenics - social pressure - because it avoids those crude tactics directed at other Whites.

“In the latter case, you don’t have to “selectively breed” anything; “nordification” would occur on its own.”

My way we can avoid the Nordic/Med conflict and still preserve - and enhance - the Nordic qualities.  Besides, most Americans and Canadians of northwestern European stock don’t live near non-Nordics, hence the soft approach would be more than sufficient.

“Bah, kwichyabichin, Rienzi, ya sore loser. 

(Oh, and the bolded bits. Classic Rienzi barefaced make-it-up-as-you-go-along lies.  Just classic.  A sorer loser there has never been.)”

Sliver, you truly are a vicious little cuss.  Like a little dog that barks and sprays its spittle but all it ends up doing is biting a few ankles.  LOL!  You sure you were in the Paki special forces or whatever they pass off as that over there?  Why don’t you pick a redneck bar of your choice, challenge a random patron to a fight, and see just what happens?

James Bowery:  “Finding an ethos within which we might found our self-preservation.”

GW abhors National Socialism and seems to like the orderly, genteel Victorian way of doing things: I doubt he favors the implementation of your system.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:35 | #

Diamed writes: now let the grown-ups talk about real things.

Please try restarting the discussion by addressing my responses to your post here and here.  Those responses seemed to send “silver” off the deep end—possibly as a way of stopping them from being discussed calmly and dispationately by adults interested in Euro preservation.

Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:45 | #

Or, it sounds like silver refusing to answer the polite, directed questions I asked him on this blog months ago - followed by the “passive aggressive” attacks once I was no longer here.

I asked you to repeat them or link to them.  You failed to do either. If you did, I missed it.  So do so now and I’ll be glad to answer them.  Normal people wouldn’t it difficult to acquiesce to such a simple request. 

This was done on my blog and there isn’t any more to be said.  It’s also, of course, easier to deal with someone’s “arguments” when they are not changing them drastically from month to month.

It’s customary to deal with one’s current positions; not with the positions one formerly held (particularly those only tentatively held during a formative stage). 

Obviously if you still disagree with me (which you clearly do, since you consider me a ‘problem’), then there is clearly a need for ‘more to be said.’  Rather elementary, wouldn’t you say?

Then do so.  Restrain yourself from screaming “nigger” though.  Most “normal people” may run out of the room.

I’ve never “screamed” it.  And no, people don’t run out of the room at the mere mention of that word, not in these parts.  And certainly not ‘our’ kind of people.  (Hehe, keep your hair on.  You’re “100% European,” I know, I know.  But most southern euros don’t yet identify with numbers on a lab report, so, for now at least, you’re stuck with me.)

I have in fact been openly hostile to the “Rahowa” crowd for years.  Who’s lying now?

Oh, pardon me.  I missed your scathing response to this essay.  And the rahowians (or rahowians-lite) on this board keep referring to you reverentially, so I thought you were on board with it all.  If that’s not the case, I take it back.  My apologies.

But you’re still far too caustic for mainstream consideration.  Far too.  Far, far too.  Fuggedaboudit far too.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:47 | #

Captainchaos writes: GW abhors National Socialism and seems to like the orderly, genteel Victorian way of doing things: I doubt he favors the implementation of your system.

I seriously doubt Hitler would have lasted long under the proposed system—that is unless he changed his definition of National Socialism radically in conformance with the 7 points upholding individual sovereignty.  I don’t know—he was a decorated war hero so he might have sprung for it, knowing that the most virulent Jews would be killed in single combat or as cowards.  How many of us would be willing to die if it would increase the protection of our lands and our people from invasion?  I think most of us would.  I know I would.

Posted by gaspedshirker on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:19 | #

I asked you to repeat them or link to them.  You failed to do either. If you did, I missed it.  So do so now and I’ll be glad to answer them.  Normal people wouldn’t it difficult to acquiesce to such a simple request.

A. This was long ago.  I’m not going to waste my time going through many MR sewer posts looking for questions you could have very easily answered at the time, but chose not to.

B. The questions are not currently relevant.  The questions were directed toward silver Mk 2 or silver Mk 3 (I forget which).  You’ve already passed through at least two other (inconsistent) incarnations since then.

It’s customary to deal with one’s current positions; not with the positions one formerly held (particularly those only tentatively held during a formative stage).

Stop lying.  Most of the “silver” posts at WB were based on current comments you were making at that time. 

Obviously if you still disagree with me (which you clearly do, since you consider me a ‘problem’), then there is clearly a need for ‘more to be said.’ Rather elementary, wouldn’t you say?

I see.  Because Guessedworker doesn’t have the good sense that god gave a block of granite, it’s my obligation to continuously answer all your nonsense?  No, I’ve already wasted enough time at WB.

I’ve never “screamed” it.  And no, people don’t run out of the room at the mere mention of that word, not in these parts.

I see.  But “mystery meat” will send them screaming and running out of the room.  Let’s see: we’ll take a poll, which would “normal people” find more offensive - “mystery meat” or “nigger?”  Also, explain how the use of the word “nigger” is consistent with “humane” “non-extreme” and “non-Nazi” discourse?

And certainly not ‘our’ kind of people.  (Hehe, keep your hair on.  You’re “100% European,” I know, I know.  But most southern euros don’t yet identify with numbers on a lab report, so, for now at least, you’re stuck with me.)

Typical silverian side commentary.  Actually, polls show that up to 80% of people want more genetic information available.  The onus is on those who don’t want people to know their own genetic information.  Let’s hide facts.  That’s honesty.  Newsflash - most “southern euros” - at least in the USA - identify as white.  Also - I thought you were more interested in preaching racial honesty to gullible Nordics than to “southern Euros?”  Did I miss something?  Have you reverted back to silver Mk 2 again?  Excuse me for losing track.  If I’m gone from this blog for several days, you would have already changed your ideological focus 10 or more times.

Oh, pardon me.  I missed your scathing response to this essay.

I will repeat for the cognitively deficient: I consider “Majority Rights” to be hostile to Euro preservationism, a filthy sewer.  Why should I respond to this essay?  There’s far worse on this blog. 

And the rahowians (or rahowians-lite) on this board keep referring to you reverentially…

As if I control what “rahowians” (whatever that means) refer to me as. 

....so I thought you were on board with it all.  If that’s not the case, I take it back.  My apologies.

I am and always has been hostile to hyper-extreme neo-nutzism, and most of the so-called “movement.”

But you’re still far too caustic for mainstream consideration.  Far too.  Far, far too.  Fuggedaboudit far too.

All you people think too much of yourselves.  “Mainstream consideration?”  Do you think anyone in the “mainstream” knows or cares about this blog?  I also made it clear, several times, that WB was just one person blowing off steam and I was under no illusions anything was getting accomplished with it.  Particularly wasting time with “flamewars” with obvious frauds.  Realizing what a waste of time it all was, I shut it down.

There’s more important things to do, re: activism, than this blog, or answering the likes of silver.  It goes without saying that there are people, other than myself, who are interested in intelligent discourse, who are disgusted by MR.  These are non-“mainstream” activists.  The blog did have potential when it first started.  It went in the wrong direction.  I cannot be too critical, because I let WB go in the wrong direction as well.  At least though I had sense enough to pull the plug on a failed experiment, while watching for new opportunities.

Who’s the ones not being able to admit being wrong?

And that’s enough waste of my time here.

I’m sure if I come back here in 4 months, we’ll still be seeing the same silver vs. Scrooby byplay, the same passive aggressive fetishism in my direction (even though I won’t be posting here), the same bizarre comments (Western civilization as some sort of Jewish plot)....there’s no progress here.  And there never will be until the powers that be here have the sense to realize how shockingly imbecilic and juvenile so much of the material here is.

The “problem” is not so much people like me who post to express their disgust.  The real problem are those quality people who may (sometimes) lurk here, and who will never participate, or who will not continue lurking, because they’ve been totally turned off.

With respect to my “causticness” - that’s just the behavioral sinkhole at work.  If you check out my early posts here, I tried to keep things at a higher level of discourse.  That’s impossible here, as is quite obvious.

Posted by Diamed on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:20 | #

Honestly I think dueling is a good idea.  Like everything that existed in the 1600’s, 1700’s, and 1800’s, it seemed to encourage nobility and discourage vice.  Especially adultery, seducing a virgin without an offer of marriage, and slandering people with lies.

We all know the preferred dishonorable act of men today is slander, smears, and lies, and that virtually the entire liberal mouthpiece would have been challenged to a duel in the 1700’s or 1800’s.

We all know the preferred dishonorable act of women today is fornication and adultery, as well as divorce and running off with a new guy.  If duels existed to make men not so fortunate when they stole someone else’s woman, you would see this activity dry up rather quickly.  Furthermore, when a woman’s actions start directly being responsible for the death of people she loves, she might realize that her choices also involve morality, guilt, and shame and just because she isn’t directly robbing or murdering anyone, her choices carry just as heavy moral burdens and responsibilities.  It would quite simply bring the criminal code up to equality between the sexes.

In a world of duels, manners and conduct increase magnificently.  They are an ancient custom of the white race precisely because they have worked for us so long.  In some ways they’ve always been better than trials—which more often suit the richest and slickest tongues (aka jews) instead of courage and integrity (aka whites).

I don’t believe in duels completely replacing the justice system or the state itself like you’ve previously suggested.  But as an alternate channel of conflict resolution I think they are good.  The first 50 years of American history were full of duels and dueling presidents—it was also the best the USA has ever been governed with the most honorable and truly great leadership we’ve ever been blessed with.

I think it is precisely right-wing cowardice that makes name-calling effective.  There should be ‘no enemy to the right.’  White survivalists, white separatists, white culturists, white anti-anti-semites, white whatevers—spend most of their time attacking perceived enemies to the ‘right’ and trying to look ‘respectable’ and ‘really quite modern and enlightened.’  It is pathetic. It’s a walk of shame and wormlike groveling to the present-day arbiters of morality in the schools and the press.  Secretly, I believe all of them know whites are superior, thank God we settled the rest of the mostly empty world, and care more when a white girl is raped and murdered than a chinese, a bantu, or an aztec.  It is better to simply call ourselves the worst possible slur and then ask what exactly is wrong with it—-thus getting back to the argument at hand—than pander to their various word games and definitions, which will obviously never be good.

As to your point that white supremacism is defined as using vast numbers to bully a minority regardless of merit, that’s certainly not my meaning nor is that the commonly accepted meaning.  Most people accused of white supremacism are accused of thinking a) whites should be treated better than others.  b) whites are, really and truly, better than others.  For instance, someone who says whites are the smartest people on earth are ‘white supremacists.’  When Rushton writes a book about it, he is a “scientific white supremacist.” etc.  I don’t even contend whites are the smartest, I think whites are supreme in this sense: they are the apple of God’s eye.  They bring a smile to His face when he looks upon his works.  Because in sum total, there is no greater repository of beauty, virtue, and love than the white race.  This doesn’t mean we should then sully the very things I admire by ruthlessly enslaving or bullying non-whites, but it does mean that in this world of finite resources and darwinian selection, whites should come out first—whites must prevail and inherit the future.  It’s important everyone get out of their comfort zones of ‘white x,’ and continue moving to the serious position of white supremacy—because that is the only moral justification for our actions.  I despise relativism and equalitarianism.  “We want whites to live precisely because we want pandas to live.”  No, I want whites to live far more than I want pandas to live, because whites are SUPERIOR to pandas.  For the same reason, I want whites to live more than I want blacks to live.  People need to continue their intellectual journeys and not stop in liberal designed tripwires.  They Want you to stop at separatism, survivalism, or whatever.  Don’t let them.

Posted by Diamed on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:26 | #

And silver, go ahead, present your reasonable objections and logic.  Despite the endless names you throw at me, I don’t bother with personal insults. (haven’t you noticed this already?)  I honestly enjoy being corrected or wrong, it means I can learn something.  If you can nail me to the wall with some scathing criticism, I’ll thank you for it.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:31 | #

James Bowery: “I seriously doubt Hitler would have lasted long under the proposed system—that is unless he changed his definition of National Socialism radically in conformance with the 7 points upholding individual sovereignty.”

Yes, it all hinges on the centralization of power or not.  Obviously the centralization of power provides a wide target for the infiltration of Jewish virulence.  So, there is the Hitlerian approach of rendering centralized power impervious to Jewish virulence or the decentralized approach you advocate.  Even granted the pursuit of a non-statist, decentralized strategy, I don’t believe Hezbollah goes with the “best single combat fighter as leader” approach to authority and hierarchy - and they prove pretty effective.  As with the case of Hitler: the best leader is not necessarily the best single combat fighter.  Such a confluence of characteristics would be relatively rare, I imagine.  Order and discipline within a respected, responsible and experienced chain of command is what has shown most effective.  A commanding officer who also acts as executioner is bad for moral and discipline.  If a man (a member of the in group) is treasonous in his conduct he is tried according to established, known standards of evidence and handed over to the firing squad having been found guilty.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:45 | #

Hmm, yeah, well, whatever.  I’d rather drop this.  I’m not the man you want to challenge, anyway.

Please elaborate on your badassness.  I hardly ever get to see that kind of stuff on the Intarwebs.  This isn’t like that super-duper-plus argument you have vs. Euro ethnonationalism, but hold in reserve, is it?  Because I don’t think I could take another disappointment like that again.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:47 | #

Bah, why play coy?  I’d fuck you right up, silver, bank on that.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:59 | #

Diamed writes: As to your point that white supremacism is defined as using vast numbers to bully a minority regardless of merit, that’s certainly not my meaning nor is that the commonly accepted meaning.  Most people accused of white supremacism are accused of thinking a) whites should be treated better than others.  b) whites are, really and truly, better than others.

Careful reflection should reveal the negative connotations of both a and b are based on the idea of mass warfare waged by whites against non-whites—mass warfare at which whites may excel, but which has no primal pull as “fair” as does the “fair contest”.  The widening spread of the idea, presently led by Jared Diamond, that there is no such thing as “scientific heroism”—merely the “good fortune” to be born in proximity to certain conditions that render one’s civilization more capable of waging mass warfare, is central to the negative connotation of “white supremacy”.  In such mass warfare, an “unfair advantage” is enjoyed by “whites” due to either “ganging up” on a smaller target population or to “historical accidents”.

My contention is that whites instinctively understand that high gene flow rates—particularly from more tropical demes—with peripateticity and loss of control over the indoctrination of their children is equal to death/extermination/genocide for them—and will be willing to do virtually anything that is effective to fight it.  Whites are also instinctively fair.  This is what makes them turn away, not from your definitions of “white supremacy” per se, but away from the negative connotations imposed on that phrase by our enemies.

So I’m suggesting calling their bluff by going to the ultimate fair fight to provide the much sought-after ethos; whether this “ultimate fair fight” involves pitting human ecologies against each other in formally sanctioned voluntary assortative migrations to establish appropriate “experiments” (aka, “fair contests”) between human ecologies, or involves upholding single combat, testing sovereign individuals as whole beings—not just as gun-slingers or swordsmen or sophists… etc.—whole beings within the law of the jungle from whence man, the sexual species aware of his nature, arose.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:01 | #

This doesn’t mean we should then sully the very things I admire by ruthlessly enslaving or bullying non-whites, but it does mean that in this world of finite resources and darwinian selection, whites should come out first—whites must prevail and inherit the future.  It’s important everyone get out of their comfort zones of ‘white x,’ and continue moving to the serious position of white supremacy—because that is the only moral justification for our actions.  I despise relativism and equalitarianism.  “We want whites to live precisely because we want pandas to live.” No, I want whites to live far more than I want pandas to live, because whites are SUPERIOR to pandas.  For the same reason, I want whites to live more than I want blacks to live.  People need to continue their intellectual journeys and not stop in liberal designed tripwires.  They Want you to stop at separatism, survivalism, or whatever.  Don’t let them.

Why is this so important?  I’m a “white supremist” in your sense of “whites first,” in the same way I’m a “me supremist.”  Don’t need to think of any sort of logical underpinnings (“because I’m the best in the world!”) for that one, or any kind of label either.  The action’s always been around the “me” word in my experience, or “self vs. non-self” to quote Tillman.

All sounds very ideological to me.

Posted by Jews Hate Whites on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:02 | #

Jew Robert Reich calls for discrimination against white males in the coming economic stimulus even though white males are the majority of the workforce: http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/stimulus-how-to-create-jobs-without.html

“And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most—women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed—will be shut out.”

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03 | #

Most of the discussion is useless and off-topic.  Time to return to the topic.

White supremacism is a bad argument, and Diamed’s version is the worst

Desmond Jones said it best.  No supremacist arguments are required to make a case for immigration restriction or cultural and racial preservation.

Nothing is more pathetic than people who refuse to maintain a principled and orderly moral system but contort themselves into loops and pretzels of contradictory views.

And this principled orderly moral belief is one of white supremacism?

What is the objective argument for white supremacism?  Listing some advantages makes a race superior on measures where it has an advantage but not superior, period, because it’s bound to have some disadvantages compared to other races.

Roll out a map of the world, color it in with ‘wealth, freedom, longevity, lack of corruption’ or any other objective measure, and white countries will come out the highest.

The Japanese have a longer lifespan than whites.  Do you believe that the Jew-occupied governments in America or England are among the least corrupt in the world?

Art, music, literature, math, science, technology, whatever you want, you will find it absolutely dominated by whites.

Don’t forget that the average Japanese or Korean is more intelligent than the average white, but whites outcompete them hands down when it comes to per capita intellectual accomplishments.  No straightforward superior race here.

Every other race attempts to lighten their skin complexion so they can look more like the human ideal, whites, even with dangerous toxins and bleaches that leave them looking ridiculous.

...while lots of whites darken their skin in the sun or in tanning salons.

White on non-white rape, however, is virtually non-existent.

Lots of white pedophiles head over to Thailand and other Asian destinations to cavort with boys and girls, committing statutory rape.

India was conquered by a handful of british troops against giant Indian armies. The same is true in africa, and the conquistadores against the Incas and Aztecs accomplished similar marvels.

India didn’t exist in present form when the East India company arrived there.  It was basically the equivalent of many small countries, not centrally united and easily conquered.  Conquering black African tribals armed with spears is hardly a yardstick of military prowess.  And the Incas/Aztecs thought the white gods had returned when they came across the Spanish, not to mention their mass deaths from infectious diseases.

no Persians, Arabs, or middle easterners ever conquered Europe. The Ottomans gave the best shot and even they couldn’t beat a dis-united Europe with various countries all still squabbling among themselves.

Look up Saladin.  Look up the Moors.  The Ottoman Turks occupied the Balkans for like 300 years. 

Definition Two, Subjective White Supremacism: The belief that whites, regardless of merit or cause, hold your supreme, over-arching loyalty.

This isn’t white supremacism of any sort, but simply racial loyalty or greater concern with one’s own kind than others, best illustrated by Desmond’s quoting the immigration restrictionists.

Whites cheering for blacks against whites in a sport, a war, a nobel prize award, a courtship, are all despicable and immediately yield the question: ‘what is wrong with that person? Doesn’t he know his own? Doesn’t he love himself? Why would he do such a perverted thing?’

A Nobel laureate deserves to be cheered for what he has done, not what his race is.  The only thing that approaches the despicable and perverted is cheering or rooting for another race when it undermines one’s own.  If racial interests are not in conflict, may the best man or woman win the sporting event and the Nobel Prize, regardless of his or her race.

Does white supremacism make any distinction between wishing whites well defensively versus aggressively? No, it does not.

Your version doesn’t.

there would be no desire to see it stay at 8% of the world’s population, while failed, imperfect, shoddy hominids of others sorts were 92%.

The 8% translates to hundreds of millions, which is plenty.

If we are better, we deserve better, and should get better, than our inferiors.

If merit earns us our assets, the better will naturally obtain more or the better.  There’s no need for “should.”

This same logic extends not just between the races, but between species. Superior species deserve better and more than inferior ones, like bugs, rodents, bacteria, and cockroaches.

The concept of superior species is alien to biology.  Successful species are well-adapted to their niches.  You might consider humans to be superior to bacteria, but what if there were no bacteria or other organisms to break down human and other animals’ feces?  There’d be feces all around, and us superior humans will long-ago have drowned in feces, if we’d be there in the first place.

Just as humans deserve the lion’s share of resources and happiness and rights over non-humans, and bugs and germs deserve the least and worst spot in life, just as human interests trump non-human interests, the objectively superior white race deserves the lion’s share of the world, and the dregs should go to the dregs.

Bad argument.  The issue should be what is one able to obtain on one’s own merits in fair play, emphasizing one’s interests over others when it’s us vs. them.  The more able will naturally obtain more or better; there’s no deserve. 

Are we seriously supposed to divide the world equally between apes and man? Between mud huts and skyscrapers? Between criminals and citizens?

No.  Apes live in jungles.  We need to stay out of the jungles and keep the apes out of our cities.  This doesn’t have anything to do with supremacy.

I submit to you that the greatest thing that ever happened in world history, was the colonization of much of the world by the superior white race. The conquest and colonization of North and South America, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand was the high point of world history.

For whom?  Not the subjugated non-white people, not the subjugated non-white men who lost their women to white men as in South America, not the non-whites who died of infectious diseases brought by the white man, not the people who had their cultures destroyed by white missionaries.  And not modern whites who have to bear the white man’s burden for crimes they and in many cases their ancestors didn’t do.  The shipment of black slaves to the Americas was almost completely a Jewish enterprise and Jews were the majority of black slave owners, but whites, not Jews have to pay for it.

I submit to you that it was moral and good to wipe out the scattered tribes of stone age barbarians all around the world and replace them with hundreds of millions of beautiful, brilliant white families. I submit to you that it would be a good thing to do it now, today, again.

I submit that the wiping out of the savages was immoral.  The hallmark of the superiors is that they don’t need to prove their superiority, and leave the inferiors alone unless it’s the superiors vs. inferiors, initiated by the inferiors.  “Superiors” taking the initiative to undermine the “inferiors” are being bullies, not superiors.

I believe that whites are superior on multiple counts pertaining to civilization, quality of life and many achievements, but this should be self-evident.  Diamed’s argument is useless at best and most likely harmful.

Posted by J Richards on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:22 | #

We win, they lose, we are the best warriors of all time. ‘white good, non-white bad.’

This is a statement from Diamed.  I’m sure that Diamed will agree with the need of the hour.  The superior shall prevail.

Posted by Dave Johns on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:42 | #

“I’m sure if I come back here in 4 months, we’ll still be seeing the same silver vs. Scrooby byplay,”

I hope so; it’s always good for a laugh… but then again, I’ve been accused from time to time of having a warped sense of humor. Anyway, maybe if people wouldn’t spend so much time and energy attacking silver, he wouldn’t spend so much time counterattacking? I personally think silver can be a positive rather than a negative if given the chance.

Posted by Diamed on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:11 | #

“No supremacist arguments are required to make a case for immigration restriction or cultural and racial preservation.”

Perhaps, but if our moral foundation for preserving whites is they are superior to the alternatives, it is stronger than any other argument which can’t differentiate between the races and can’t say why exactly whites should continue existing.  An awful lot of people believe because whites aren’t special, it doesn’t matter if they are race-replaced.  What will you say to them?

“And this principled orderly moral belief is one of white supremacism?

What is the objective argument for white supremacism?  Listing some advantages makes a race superior on measures where it has an advantage but not superior, period, because it’s bound to have some disadvantages compared to other races. “

I think there are certain traits and virtues everyone should esteem and thus there is an objective measure of good and bad.  I also think these measures vary between the races and when added up whites possess the highest score.  I reject relativism, or a relativist defense of whites.  It doesn’t have the moral authority of an absolute, ie a categorical imperative we all must respect.

“The Japanese have a longer lifespan than whites.  Do you believe that the Jew-occupied governments in America or England are among the least corrupt in the world?”

Japan is the greatest country on earth, I gave them due credit in my post.  If you take corruption by its normally understood term, then yes American and England are not corrupt.  We don’t have to give bribes, we follow the rule of law, police aren’t normally working with drug dealers on the side, organized crime doesn’t have a strong hold, etc.  Asia is far more corrupt than us, as China itself readily admits.  Even japan has their yakuza.  Africa and Mexico are nothing but corrupt.

“Don’t forget that the average Japanese or Korean is more intelligent than the average white, but whites outcompete them hands down when it comes to per capita intellectual accomplishments.  No straightforward superior race here. “

Like I said, when you add it all up, whites win.  There’s just too much going for us to give an affirmative action win to east asians.  This is nothing against them, it’s just a fair comparison when you look at all possible virtues, reflect on how much they each individually mean to you, and then sum up someone’s worth.

“...while lots of whites darken their skin in the sun or in tanning salons. “

It’s not equivalent.  They aren’t trying to ‘pass’ as naturally darker skinned.  They are trying to look like fair skinned whites with tans.  Big difference.  A lot of whites dye their hair blond too you know.

“Lots of white pedophiles head over to Thailand and other Asian destinations to cavort with boys and girls, committing statutory rape. “

37,000 a year?

“India didn’t exist in present form when the East India company arrived there.  It was basically the equivalent of many small countries, not centrally united and easily conquered.  Conquering black African tribals armed with spears is hardly a yardstick of military prowess.  And the Incas/Aztecs thought the white gods had returned when they came across the Spanish, not to mention their mass deaths from infectious diseases. “

The battle of Plessy still had an army outnumbering the british 30 to 1 with more artillary and guns but the Indians still lost.  The battle of blood river was composed of whites with one-shot muskets that took eons to load and they were outnumbered 10, 20 to one but they still won without losing a single man.  The spanish were still outnumbered 100s to 1 and it’s not our fault they’re superstitious idiots, it’s theirs.  Don’t downplay the courage, organization, and martial prowess of our people with a ‘guns, germs, and steel’ excuse.

“Look up Saladin.  Look up the Moors.  The Ottoman Turks occupied the Balkans for like 300 years.”

None of which contradicts my point that no one has conquered Europe.  Turkey, Kurdistan, and the Moors have all been conquered by Europeans though.

“This isn’t white supremacism of any sort, but simply racial loyalty or greater concern with one’s own kind than others, best illustrated by Desmond’s quoting the immigration restrictionists.”

Fine by me, ‘a rose by any other name—’

“The 8% translates to hundreds of millions, which is plenty.”

Plenty?  I want trillions of whites to exist.  Quadrillions.  We are a good people and each new white is a blessing.  To themselves and their close friends and family, they are uniquely precious.  The more whites you have, the more people there will exist who value each other and make each other happy.  I’m not getting why a ‘cap’ should exist.  There’s no real diminishing marginal utility to human life—only to life without enough resources to express itself properly.  And so long as there are more resources to grab, what moral reason not to?

“If merit earns us our assets, the better will naturally obtain more or the better.  There’s no need for “should.”

This is apparently the best of all possible worlds theorem where there is nothing unfair on earth and everyone justly gets what they deserve.  I don’t see that and I don’t buy it.  It also seems to presume that wealth-accumulation and moral goodness or quality are one and the same.  My idea of merit is not laissez faire economics.

“A Nobel laureate deserves to be cheered for what he has done, not what his race is.  The only thing that approaches the despicable and perverted is cheering or rooting for another race when it undermines one’s own.  If racial interests are not in conflict, may the best man or woman win the sporting event and the Nobel Prize, regardless of his or her race. “

I didn’t say we should hope the worse team/man wins just because they are white.  I said we should hope the better team/man is the white team and be cheering for them while the competition is ongoing.  We can gracefully accept our losses, as rare as they are.  ^_^.

“The concept of superior species is alien to biology.  Successful species are well-adapted to their niches.  You might consider humans to be superior to bacteria, but what if there were no bacteria or other organisms to break down human and other animals’ feces?  There’d be feces all around, and us superior humans will long-ago have drowned in feces, if we’d be there in the first place. “

Who cares about biology?  I am saying morally, humans are superior to bacteria, they are worth more.  They possess a greater moral worth and quality.  It is not based on utility but on moral quality.  Why should humans who have brains judge things like bacteria?  Why should we base our system on biology when biology gives no worth to music, art, love, or anything truly great?  Biology must be tamed and used for the sake of human ends, humans must not be lobotomized so that we can go back to acting and thinking like giant bipedal bacteria.

“Bad argument.  The issue should be what is one able to obtain on one’s own merits in fair play, emphasizing one’s interests over others when it’s us vs. them.  The more able will naturally obtain more or better; there’s no deserve. “

Again the idea that justice naturally occurs and this is already the best of all possible worlds where everyone receives what they are due.  I simply disagree.  The world I see around me is not meriticious or rewarding everyone precisely what they deserve.  I don’t think mexicans deserve america, or arabs Europe.  I’m not sure why you think that ‘nature’ is always right when you can see right in front of you ‘nature’ playing out horribly, terribly wrong.

“No.  Apes live in jungles.  We need to stay out of the jungles and keep the apes out of our cities.  This doesn’t have anything to do with supremacy.”

We need to clear the jungles and turn them into cities of beautiful brilliant white children, who are better and more precious than apes.  We do not need jungles to overgrow the cities and turn them into ape preserves.  This is relativism vs. absolute worth and a clear definable superior-inferior scale.  At one point nearly the whole world was wilderness and a tiny few villages were humans.  Under your advice it should have stayed that way since one situation is as good as any other.  Under my system humans go forth and clear the wilderness and terraform the land to something that serves human needs and goods, because we are superior and this is the march of progress.

“For whom?  Not the subjugated non-white people, not the subjugated non-white men who lost their women to white men as in South America, not the non-whites who died of infectious diseases brought by the white man, not the people who had their cultures destroyed by white missionaries.  And not modern whites who have to bear the white man’s burden for crimes they and in many cases their ancestors didn’t do.  The shipment of black slaves to the Americas was almost completely a Jewish enterprise and Jews were the majority of black slave owners, but whites, not Jews have to pay for it.”

For the objective minded alien in the sky.  For God, if you will.  Looking down at the world, he sees hundreds of millions of beautiful brilliant white children being born into wholesome, vibrant, enlightened white cultures instead of dark skinned savages prowling in their packs of tens and hundreds killing and eating each other with no culture, no beauty, and no intelligence at all.  The alien in the sky and God isn’t going to care about the suffering savages, for the same reason we don’t care when we stomp on ant hills or other inferior life forms.  Because they are inferior and their feelings don’t matter.

“I submit that the wiping out of the savages was immoral.  The hallmark of the superiors is that they don’t need to prove their superiority, and leave the inferiors alone unless it’s the superiors vs. inferiors, initiated by the inferiors.  “Superiors” taking the initiative to undermine the “inferiors” are being bullies, not superiors.

I believe that whites are superior on multiple counts pertaining to civilization, quality of life and many achievements, but this should be self-evident.  Diamed’s argument is useless at best and most likely harmful. “

I submit it was moral and a great boon to the white race, the world, and to God who looked upon it and was pleased.  The hallmark of superiority is our beauty, accomplishments, culture, and virtue—something the savage-wipe-outers all had in spades.  Our ancestors were heroes.

Maybe my argument is useless and harmful, but I think unless we rely on the moral foundation of an absolute superior-inferior judgment scale, we will be whittled away with excuses into the world we have today.  That all ‘white x’s’ are still liberals and will inevitably slide back to their original craven surrender modes of today.  Just a hunch.  Relativism will not work.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:26 | #

“Where is Dienekes standing politically, by the way?”  (—Gaspedshirker, 8:26 PM)

 

Dienekes, that “defender of Greece and all things Greek,” advocates, it turns out, the forced transformation of every Greek man, woman, child, and old person on the planet Earth into an individual whose ancestry is 1/32 Greek and 31/32 Sub-Saharan.  That’s where Dienekes stands politically.  Did he actually say he wanted it to be “forced” on every Greek man, woman, and child in the world?  Or did he just say it would be perfectly OK with him if it came to pass?  Answer:  he didn’t actually say he wanted it forced.  But he said the logical equivalent thereof.  And according to James Burnham, “Who says A must say B.”  Which is why as of the other day I no longer read his blog.  I used to go daily to Steve Sailer’s and from there check out Hawks, Dienekes, Kalb, and Frost, on a daily basis.  Starting the other day, that daily routine of mine began omitting Dienekes.  And so shall it continue to do.  I’m done with the Pontic Greek.  Forever.  He’s now on my Zeroes list.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 01:04 | #

What is ‘White Supremacism’?

On a similar subject: American Renaissance has an 1999 article by Michael Levin,
with the title: Is There a Superior Race?
It explores the morality of lions and gazelles (among other things).

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:30 | #

This isn’t like that super-duper-plus argument you have vs. Euro ethnonationalism, but hold in reserve, is it?

- Svigor.

Aha! I remember that from silver’s first incarnation. That big killer argument he alluded to but somehow never quite got around to outlining, I wish he had. Ive long since stopped reading anything by silver, I have to agree with JWH. Why is silver here at all, whats the point? He just derails any discussion. I’m not sold on having a no comments policy though, I cling to the belief that an intelligent debate can be had and good ideas are strengthened. Im used to seeing leftist types bleating about how they are ‘bored’,  ‘tired’ or *yawn* when certain issues are discussed. Or they are ‘disgusted’ , so they arent going to debate any further. Absolutely fucking pathetic responses, when you read that you know you’ve won the argument and they know in their hearts they’ve lost, we are better than them. Silver’s ramblings however dont count as arguments, just spoilers.

I’d fuck you right up, silver, bank on that.

- Svigor.

I’ll hold your coat Svi.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:41 | #

“I’d fuck you right up, silver, bank on that.”  (—Svi)

“I’ll hold your coat Svi.”  (—Lurker)
______

I’ll hold your hat, comrade.  (Just let me know date and time.)

Posted by Dave Johns on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:44 | #

Lurker,

In the grand scheme of things, silver is a non entity. Always remember that.

Posted by California = Multicultural Sewer on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:58 | #

Nothing illustrates the decline of White America more than California - California has become America’s South Africa/Brazil.  The state is bankrupt, towns and cities are more and more overrun by non-Whites who pay little to nothing in taxes yet increasingly leech off government services, increases in crime have been massive, community cohesion is decreasing, education is all but non-existent, etc…inequality across the board has increased as there are now hordes of non-Whites (mostly dark-skinned Hispanics) presided over by a small White, light skinned Hispanic, and/or Asian financial and cognitive elite.  White are leaving the state in droves as they sense its imminent collapse or they are relocating to White-majority areas which of course remain the most functional areas of the state.

If you throw this stark example in the face of the champions of multiculturalism it should easily shut them up.  California should be used as an example of the bleak future of White countries as a whole if the multicultural experiment is not soon exposed as the fraud which it is and opposed by a vigorous pro-White movement.

Posted by W. Lindsay Wheeler on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:11 | #

On Lawerence Auster,

Auster is the typical Jew, the typical hypocrite. This man is a Judas goat. Tell me, how does a Jew, which is an Eastern people, a semitic people, tell us Europeans how to behave and act??????? This man has the brass balls of Baal.

Lawerence Auster banned me from his website. Why? Because I do not subscribe to the State of Israel. See, Lawerence Auster goes out and says “anti-semitism”  is an “ideology”. Well, if we ban, excoriate and disfranchise people because they are not Pro-Israel—-that is Zionism and that is an Ideology. This is the pot that calls the kettle black. Auster is an ideologue for at the basis, the foundation of all his criteria is Israel, Israel, Jews, and More Jews. Auster is to make sure that European conservativism is Zionist. That is his mission (probably assigned to him by his rabbi master). All things come down to Israel. All things are judged according to how well you support Israel.

All things are driven down to only ONE Criteria—-Are you a Zionist. That is what Auster is all about. To make sure the stupid goyim European cattle sheeples adhere to Zionist propaganda.

I got news for you Mr. Auster, The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church as always taught that the Jew is to wander. That is the punishment. To uphold the state of Israel is an act of disobedience to God.

It has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Jews are to wander and the Jews are to be suppressed. That is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. And so Mr. Auster condemns the teaching of the Holy Catholic Orthodox Church?  I think not.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:42 | #

If you throw this stark example in the face of the champions of multiculturalism it should easily shut them up. (—California=MCS)

It is important to get normal people into a vigorous pro-White movement that will prevail in the end. But the crazy multiculturalists will probably stay crazy. Watch this interesting speech about manic liberals, by Sam G. Dickson. (2mn45)

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:46 | #

“I’d fuck you right up, silver, bank on that.” (—Svi)

I admonish people to stop posturing like this—particularly where identities are anonymous.  Formal single combat is a most sacred aspect of our heritage as a lawful and eugenic culture.  We should treated it with the utmost respect.  “Entertainment” makes a mockery of this key aspect of masculine sexuality in everything from “westerns” where the “Sheriff” has a showdown with a scoundrel, to All-Star-Wrestling.  In so doing they spiritually castrate our people and leave things like sophistry and money as the “better” measures of honor—with the outcome we see in the world around us.

There is an article to be done about reinstituting this sacred tradition.  Perhaps the beginnings of it are in a prior hypothetical question.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:13 | #

I admonish people to stop posturing like this—particularly where identities are anonymous.

James.

Normally I would agree, but this time I got a guilty pleasure from reading about it.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:22 | #

I agree that something must be done about “silver”—if not banning then require his/its/their continued participation here be made contingent on coming as clean with their identity as I have been—as he/it/they presume to insult me.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:22 | #

California should be used as an example of the bleak future of White countries as a whole if the multicultural experiment is not soon exposed as the fraud which it is and opposed by a vigorous pro-White movement.

Conservatives, Republicans especially. After November its exasperating to see so many of them reiterating the same old apparently sensible conservative theories about small government, low taxes etc etc and trying to talk up non-white conservatives. Its easy to to find on-line polling data going back to ‘72. Jews, Blacks and Hispanics always vote majority Democrat. Yet each time we are led to believe that now, somehow, they are going to settle down and become model citizens.

You all know this anyway!

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:48 | #

Just as a hyena will drink from water even as he is urinating in it, so silver drones on and on and on with a catholicity of anti-White sentiment so indiscriminate it almost forces admiration.

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:02 | #

More replies to Diamed

An awful lot of people believe because whites aren’t special, it doesn’t matter if they are race-replaced.  What will you say to them?

These people will certainly not be convinced when you start praising the wiping out of “the scattered tribes of stone age barbarians all around the world” and their replacement with “hundreds of millions of beautiful, brilliant white families.”  And you are saying that this needs to be done again!

These people need to be told what virtues/advantages whites possess and others don’t and why these virtues/advantages cannot be acquired by non-whites any time soon.  This doesn’t have to be portrayed within a supremacy framework.  People are receptive to the notion that advantages and disadvantages differ by race.

If you take corruption by its normally understood term, then yes American and England are not corrupt.  We don’t have to give bribes, we follow the rule of law, police aren’t normally working with drug dealers on the side, organized crime doesn’t have a strong hold, etc.

Is this a joke?  Drugs are a massive business in the U.S.  How difficult is it to make a severe dent in the supply by sealing the U.S. Mexico border?  But this’ll not be because the people ultimately in charge of the drug business are Jews.  Maintaining open borders also allows the Jews to flood the U.S. with illegals.  The personal taxes paid by Americans go to pay off the government’s debt to private bankers.  The mighty U.S. government is unable to generate its own money and has to borrow trillions from the bankers.  But where do the bankers come up with all this money?  Out of nothing.  The people who rule are those that issue money and we have criminal Jews in charge of issuing money.  We have government officials lie blatantly to justify the Iraq invasion (weapon’s of mass destruction).  We have dual citizenship for Jews, contrary to the constitution.  We had the USS Liberty attacked by Jews, and the criminals didn’t even get a slap on the wrist.  We have a Senate and a House of Representatives bought by the Jew lobby.  The list is too extensive.  There’s corruption galore.  Remove the Jews and white nations will be the least corrupt. 

What is the normally understood term, “corruption”?  According to the Jews, this refers to petty items such as bribing one’s way out of a traffic ticket.  America and England are not corrupt with respect to these petty matters, but they are extremely corrupt - courtesy of Jews - with respect to the big matters that have national or global consequences.

There’s just too much going for us to give an affirmative action win to east asians.

With respect to the intelligence issue, the topic of affirmative action win for east Asians doesn’t arise.  Let there be merit-based competition.

They aren’t trying to ‘pass’ as naturally darker skinned.

But then they couldn’t.  They sure are loving the darker look though.

37,000 a year?

I don’t know about the exact numbers but suffice it to say that your statement, “White on non-white rape, however, is virtually non-existent” is falsified.

The spanish were still outnumbered 100s to 1 and it’s not our fault they’re superstitious idiots, it’s theirs.  Don’t downplay the courage, organization, and martial prowess of our people with a ‘guns, germs, and steel’ excuse.

Here you have people thinking the gods have come back and the gods end up killing them!  What kind of courage is this on the part of the gods?  Proper examples of European courage and fighting ability should be drawn from events inside Europe such as Charles Martel decisively preventing Muslims from marching up North, the Nazis standing up to Jewish criminals, Rudolf Hess voluntarily going to Britain to make peace, a small number of Finnish individuals holding against masses of Jewish Bolshevist criminals during WWII, etc.  White Death Simo Häyhä personally sent hundreds of criminal Bolshevists to Hell: http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/simohayha.asp

None of which contradicts my point that no one has conquered Europe.  Turkey, Kurdistan, and the Moors have all been conquered by Europeans though.

Europe comprises of many countries, whereas the conquered regions you named are individual countries.  Of course, individual European nations have been conquered by non-whites, and I gave you examples.  Europeans also lost for good the northwest part of Turkey to the Muslims.  The historical city of Constantinople became Istanbul, which is what it remains today.

Fine by me, ‘a rose by any other name—

A stronger interest in one’s own kind has nothing whatsoever to do with supremacism.  If you have a child with an IQ of 95, you’ll still emphasize his interests over those of someone else’s child with an IQ of 135. 

Plenty?  I want trillions of whites to exist.  Quadrillions.

The more the merrier doesn’t apply when you have finite resources.  And if whites are as bright as you claim, they can come up with ways to enhance their numbers in the sparsely populated regions under their control.  There’s no need to seek territories occupied by non-whites.  Live and let live.

The more whites you have, the more people there will exist who value each other and make each other happy.

Well, I suppose there’s good historical precedent: the Franks and Saxons killing each other, the Dorians invading Greece, Swedes attacking Finns, the Angles and Saxons killing the Celts, the 30 years war, and numerous other examples of fine intra-European brotherhood.

This is apparently the best of all possible worlds theorem where there is nothing unfair on earth and everyone justly gets what they deserve.

Incorrect.  Unfairness is part of life and has to be dealt with.  All we need to do is make it as fair as possible in so far as events under our control go, and the more able will naturally be more successful.

It also seems to presume that wealth-accumulation and moral goodness or quality are one and the same.

No. 

I am saying morally, humans are superior to bacteria, they are worth more.

Morality doesn’t apply to bacteria.

Why should humans who have brains judge things like bacteria?

Bacteria don’t judge.

Why should we base our system on biology when biology gives no worth to music, art, love, or anything truly great?

Biology or more specifically physiology produces the ability to see or create worth in the form of music, art, love, etc.

Again the idea that justice naturally occurs and this is already the best of all possible worlds where everyone receives what they are due.

Non sequitur.  One has to make the world more just and indulge in fair play.

We need to clear the jungles and turn them into cities of beautiful brilliant white children, who are better and more precious than apes.

Jungles collectively are the lungs of the planet.  Remove them and we don’t have enough oxygen to thrive.  And what about farmland to grow crops?  You can’t just keep increasing the population.

We do not need jungles to overgrow the cities and turn them into ape preserves.

Another non sequitur.  The jungles and cities occupy different areas.  Let this be so. 

At one point nearly the whole world was wilderness and a tiny few villages were humans.  Under your advice it should have stayed that way since one situation is as good as any other.

Wrong.  When it was so, there were few humans and they effectively had almost limitless resources.  They wanted to expand and so they did.  Now there are billions and consuming a lot of resources, and we know about sustainable living.  So things are very different presently.

For God, if you will.  Looking down at the world, he sees hundreds of millions of beautiful brilliant white children being born into wholesome, vibrant, enlightened white cultures instead of dark skinned savages prowling in their packs of tens and hundreds killing and eating each other with no culture, no beauty, and no intelligence at all. The alien in the sky and God isn’t going to care about the suffering savages, for the same reason we don’t care when we stomp on ant hills or other inferior life forms.  Because they are inferior and their feelings don’t matter.

God doesn’t give a damn about the color of your skin.  He cares about the color of your soul, and yours isn’t white.  And please don’t tell me “we don’t care when we stomp on ant hills or other inferior life forms.”  Many people I know and I aren’t part of this “we.” 

Maybe my argument is useless and harmful, but I think unless we rely on the moral foundation of an absolute superior-inferior judgment scale, we will be whittled away with excuses into the world we have today.

This moral foundation had better not be based on supremacism and especially your version of supremacism where the superior are entitled to undermine the inferior because of their inferiority.  The problem’s not with superior-inferior judgment.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:22 | #

I don’t know about the exact numbers but suffice it to say that your statement, “White on non-white rape, however, is virtually non-existent” is falsified. (—J Richards)

Have a look here:
US Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics

Victims and offenders 2006
Table 42 (cv0642.csv).

In the first column, look for Rape/Sexual assault
race of victim:
  1 line for White
  1 line for Black

Number of single-offender victimizations
White only   194,270
Black only   17,920

Offender: White - - - Black - - - - Other - - - - Not known
Victim:
White - - - 50.6 % - - 16.7 % - - - 15.5 % - - - - -  17.2 %
Black - - - - -  0 % - - - 43 % - - - -  32.3 % - - - - -  24.7 %

The cell (Black victim * White perpetrator) contains the number 0.

Posted by Diamed on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:22 | #

These people will certainly not be convinced when you start praising the wiping out of “the scattered tribes of stone age barbarians all around the world” and their replacement with “hundreds of millions of beautiful, brilliant white families.” And you are saying that this needs to be done again!

These people need to be told what virtues/advantages whites possess and others don’t and why these virtues/advantages cannot be acquired by non-whites any time soon.  This doesn’t have to be portrayed within a supremacy framework.  People are receptive to the notion that advantages and disadvantages differ by race.

I think it’s more important to be right than to be convincing.  Once someone is right, the convincing works it self out, because reality itself convinces everyone of the truth of his words.  In any event, my beliefs aren’t based on how good they sound to others but how good they ring true to my own observations and reflections.  Nothing is going to convince me that when homo sapiens replaced homo habilus and homo erectus it was some terrible sin and moral wrong.  Likewise, nothing will ever convince me that when the more highly evolved and developed european man replaced all the cave age savages of the world it was some terrible sin and moral wrong.  Believing anything like that begins the cycle of self-blame, apologies, retreats, and surrenders of what is rightfully ours.  It’s also repugnant from a simple standpoint of dysgenics and a lack of confidence and pride in our own people and culture.  How can it possibly be wrong to replace cave men with the great white western civilization that split the atom and got us to the moon?  And yet you think it was.  By the way I wouldn’t be alive if america weren’t settled by whites, so I’m not very interested in claims that my existence is immoral and my ancestors were evil.

. . .What is the normally understood term, “corruption”?  According to the Jews, this refers to petty items such as bribing one’s way out of a traffic ticket.  America and England are not corrupt with respect to these petty matters, but they are extremely corrupt - courtesy of Jews - with respect to the big matters that have national or global consequences.

After Bernie Madoff I have no argument there.  But jews aren’t white, so I apologize for any lack of clarity:  the white race is less corrupt than any other race, though many white nations have enough non-white corrupt jews in them to make their national corruption be uncomfortably high.  This is a non-issue when comparing the relative superiority or inferiority of whites though.

With respect to the intelligence issue, the topic of affirmative action win for east Asians doesn’t arise.  Let there be merit-based competition.

Honestly I think we are smarter than asians where it counts, high achievers who break new ground for humanity, and creative thinkers that break stultifying cultural uniformity and despotism.  It doesn’t matter though, there are enough other traits that make whites superior to asians even without intelligence.  Our beauty, compassion, martial prowess and intolerance of injustice come to mind.

I don’t know about the exact numbers but suffice it to say that your statement, “White on non-white rape, however, is virtually non-existent” is falsified.

Would you prefer ‘minimal’ ?  It doesn’t change the overall picture.

Here you have people thinking the gods have come back and the gods end up killing them!  What kind of courage is this on the part of the gods?  Proper examples of European courage and fighting ability should be drawn from events inside Europe such as Charles Martel decisively preventing Muslims from marching up North, the Nazis standing up to Jewish criminals, Rudolf Hess voluntarily going to Britain to make peace, a small number of Finnish individuals holding against masses of Jewish Bolshevist criminals during WWII, etc.  White Death Simo Häyhä personally sent hundreds of criminal Bolshevists to Hell: http://www.mosinnagant.net/finland/simohayha.asp

So long as you agree we have always been the premier warriors of the earth.

Europe comprises of many countries, whereas the conquered regions you named are individual countries.  Of course, individual European nations have been conquered by non-whites, and I gave you examples.  Europeans also lost for good the northwest part of Turkey to the Muslims.  The historical city of Constantinople became Istanbul, which is what it remains today.

Now this is just sophistry and nitpicking.  Europe, the white race, has never been conquered, not even half of it, at any point in history.  Meanwhile we conquered virtually the whole world.  My point about our racial strength, our civilizational strength, stands.

A stronger interest in one’s own kind has nothing whatsoever to do with supremacism.  If you have a child with an IQ of 95, you’ll still emphasize his interests over those of someone else’s child with an IQ of 135.

Fine.  Disregard my second definition of supremacy.  “we should treat our own better than anyone else” is certainly not ‘equal’ treatment, and certainly not ‘inferior’ treatment, so I figured it had to be by process of elimination ‘superior’ treatment.  That’s just me though.

The more the merrier doesn’t apply when you have finite resources.  And if whites are as bright as you claim, they can come up with ways to enhance their numbers in the sparsely populated regions under their control.  There’s no need to seek territories occupied by non-whites.  Live and let live.

If it wasn’t wrong in the past, it can’t be wrong now either.  If it was wrong in the past, then we must hand back north and south america, south africa, australia, and new zealand.  After all, stolen goods, once you find out the original owner, are illegal to keep under the law.

The moral justification for taking, holding, or retaking land is one and the same.  We merit it.

Well, I suppose there’s good historical precedent: the Franks and Saxons killing each other, the Dorians invading Greece, Swedes attacking Finns, the Angles and Saxons killing the Celts, the 30 years war, and numerous other examples of fine intra-European brotherhood.

I meant people who individually on a micro-scale lived and loved.  I fail to see how macro-scale warfare renders the blessings of life and love void.

Morality doesn’t apply to bacteria, etc.

I simply reiterate my perfectly sensible point that the interests of humans trump the interests of bacteria, apes, trees, or any other non-human interest, because we are superior.  If the interest of humans happens to coincide with the interests of bacteria, apes, or trees, we promote those interests for ourselves not them.  You seem to keep pointing out cases where we should value bacteria, trees, and monkeys for our own sake, but that in no way invalidates my point that human interests trump non-human interests.  Do you actually mean to say that all living things have equal value and humans are worth no more than any other species in particular?  That would be the only objection that actually contradicts my point.

Wrong.  When it was so, there were few humans and they effectively had almost limitless resources.  They wanted to expand and so they did.  Now there are billions and consuming a lot of resources, and we know about sustainable living.  So things are very different presently.

So you Are okay with humans displacing non-humans?  Why are you okay with this?  Is it because we are superior to plants and animals and homo habilus and homo erectus and neanderthals occupying that land?

Perhaps the circumstances do call for restraint.  That’s unimportant to me.  My question to you is, should the superior supplant the inferior?  Is that a good thing?  Once that moral question is solved, we can turn to practical down to earth matters.  I just want to know the answer to this question for now.

God doesn’t give a damn about the color of your skin.  He cares about the color of your soul, and yours isn’t white.  And please don’t tell me “we don’t care when we stomp on ant hills or other inferior life forms.” Many people I know and I aren’t part of this “we.”

*yawn*  Yes yes I’m an evil black souled ant-stomper, unlike you and your friends who are good. I get it.  Can we return to the argument yet?

Posted by Binary on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:21 | #

The superior-inferior dichotomy is illusory.

Posted by Prozium on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:20 | #

William Pierce made a point in one of his broadcasts that the biggest flaw of the white supremacist mindset was that it discouraged vigilance. I find that to be very true.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:54 | #

I agree with JRichards’ point that “white supremacy” shouldn’t have to be artificially imposed if whites are naturally more gifted in certain ways.  If whites are naturally more gifted in certain ways whites will reign supreme in those ways when a level playing field is assured.

What is, on the other hand, permissible is for formal state education to make clear to white pupils and white students the ways in which whites should be proud of and value their race and not squander it by, for example, miscegenating.  Pride in whiteness needs to be taught in schools the way it was in the Third Reich, otherwise quicker than you can say Jake Rabinowitz the Jews will have all your race’s girls hopping into bed with every non-white they run across, the Jews telling them white men are bad people and give them inferior orgasms and only Negro men are good people and give them superior orgasms (Jewish girls have different vaginas so this doesn’t apply to them, only to shiksas).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:06 | #

A small point of information:

I remember saying some years ago, when I was new at this blog, that I agreed with Steve Sailer’s dictum that everyone should marry the one he loves regardless of racial considerations.  I also remember saying that a Negro-white couple’s miscegenation was the business solely of the couple, not of the wider community or the government, and that I viewed it as none of my business beyond wishing them every happiness as I would a white couple, a Negro couple, or any couple.

I’ve evolved.  I now reject Steve Sailer’s dictum, and I consider a Negro-white couple’s miscegenation to be the legitimate business of the community, and I consider it legitimate for the community to officially frown on it.  I no longer accept the legitimacy of Negro-white miscegenation on an individual level.  Rather than endorsing Steve’s dictum I now consider that every Euro-race person should marry the one he loves with the proviso he find someone within the European race to fall in love with.

I just wanted to make clear that I’ve changed my view of that.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:11 | #

Fred writes: I agree with JRichards’ point that “white supremacy” shouldn’t have to be artificially imposed if whites are naturally more gifted in certain ways.  If whites are naturally more gifted in certain ways whites will reign supreme in those ways when a level playing field is assured.

And there’s the rub.  What are the rules of the Holy Grail:  The Fair Contest.

Understand that artificial environments select for artificially adapted characteristics—and since we are the creators of those artificial environments, we bear responsibility for consequential evolutionary direction.

This idea of The Fair Contest is at the heart of any social contract and cannot be deferred to God, Nature, The Government (the social contract itself which we must create), or any other entity.  If we are to look for some higher authority’s guidance, what we can do is look to Nature for evolutionary patterns that may reveal to us God’s Plan for His Creation and try to construct social contracts hence governments accordingly.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:29 | #

To be clear:  I was at that time, as I am now, against forced race-replacement, I viewed rational people-supported immigration policy as one natural protection against the people’s loss of race, and I was furious (and still am) at the Hebrew overriding of the people’s natural preferences in regard to immigration policy, equivalent to a Hebrew dismantling a natural Euro protective barrier, opening the way to Hebrew-engineered race-replacement of Euros.  This race-replacement process is being forced on the people, the Hebrew race playing a decisive role in that forcing.  My opposition, in other words, used to be to Jewish-engineered open borders (which had the effect of doing away with nature’s barrier against a community’s loss of race), not to individual miscegenation which I had no objection to because it didn’t singlehandedly genocide the race.  Government policy singlehandedly did that — the Hebrew-engineered government policy did singlehandedly genocide the race — so I opposed that, I opposed government policy, rather than sticking my nose into the business of the individual miscegenating couple.  I now stick my nose into the business of the individual miscegenating couple.

Excuse me, I just wanted to explain that.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:37 | #

Interlude

I don’t recall seeing this on the BBC news.

Pc PC’s in retreat

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-lwSe2llg&eurl=http://barnsley-nationalists.blogspot.com/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:06 | #

To Bill:  let all Jews watch that video to see what their race has done in bringing those people here into the West, forcing them on us who never wanted them but got called every vile name by the Jews and the bought-and-paid-for Jewish proxies if we uttered so much as a peep of protest.  Now they’re here, these people who don’t belong here, thanks to your friendly neighborhood Jewish organizations who for decades have been strangling Euros to extinction in their own lands and forcing CRAP like this on them.  Let the Jews have a good look at their handiwork.  Let the Jews see the tiger they’ve now got by the tail.  Let them start getting scared.  Let them start getting terrified.  Let them watch this video and others like it before sitting down next time to write a check to Abe Foxman, Eurochristian Destroyer, and Morris Disease, Western Civ Wrecker.  The U.S. and Great Britain gave the Jews a home, safety, and opportunity.  And what did the Jews give the U.S. and Great Britain in return?  How did they thank them?  By dealing them their death blow.  By knifing them in the back.  That’s how the Jews thanked them.  Euros must never, ever forget that.  NEVER AGAIN!

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:21 | #

“And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most—women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed—will be shut out.”

I don’t know how anyone at least as connected to reality as to have to do most of his own driving says something like this.  Has he no honor at all?

You can’t DRAG women into hard labor.  When was the last time you heard a professional bitch complain about how wymmin are locked out of the trades?  If it doesn’t involve air conditioning (and I don’t mean installing it), fuggedaboutit.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:28 | #

Roll out a map of the world, color it in with ‘wealth, freedom, longevity, lack of corruption’ or any other objective measure, and white countries will come out the highest.

In Saudi Arabia:

The government cannot take a census, because it’s afraid of its people.

The government cannot institute conscription, because it’s afraid of its people.

The government cannot, or at least does not, tax its people.

(Yes this was all ripped from an article I read recently, mises.org I think)

I say the Saudis are superior to us.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:31 | #

I forgot to mention that in SA, the government generally stays out - far out - of the people’s business.  Oh, and as the author suggests (google Saudi Arabia and libertarian analysis if you want to read it), Islam means that there is a very real system of limits on what a government can do.  This has nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with Muslims.

Posted by R CROSS on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:45 | #

Very good post DIAMED,it is time that whites grew some backbone and asserted themselves.

Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:44 | #

“Oh well.  I’ve conceded as much as I can.  It’ll never be enough it seems (even though, technically, it is—more than enough).  I used to wonder whence antifas’ rage.  I wonder no more.  You people truly are viler than I ever imagined a person could be.”

And then the four letter words start from his [Silver’s] mouth… Unbelievable. Talk about pot calling kettle black!

And that others on this board also engage in genitalia-naming, and intercourse wish-fulfillment scenarios as substitutes for reasoned discourse… it sounds about as turgid/sophomoric as VNN!!

“I’ve evolved.  I now reject Steve Sailer’s dictum, and I consider a Negro-white couple’s miscegenation to be the legitimate business of the community, and I consider it legitimate for the community to officially frown on it.  I no longer accept the legitimacy of Negro-white miscegenation on an individual level.  Rather than endorsing Steve’s dictum I now consider that every Euro-race person should marry the one he loves with the proviso he find someone within the European race to fall in love with.”
- Fred Scrooby

Fred- Why is this POV any different from that which I articulated in a prior post, (which raised the hackles of many who don’t even darken the door of a church anyway) which said that the Church should ask for/require DNA testing before ANY communicant member is to be wed via the Sacraments of the Church? The Deuteronomic race-mixing prohibitions in the OT found similar beliefs already existing in the ‘pagani’ of the North; so the Vikings, Celts, Danes, and Germans adopted Christianity, because they saw their “White Christ” as like unto them, wanting to maintain the Aesir for Asgard, the Valar for Valhalla, etc..

Diamed, I think this article is very, very good. (Not that my opinion matters, you know…) But in subsequent posts, you give away that which you did not articulate in the original post. You PRESUME a MORAL race of Anglos. But, without the religion of Christ, you cannot HAVE a ‘noble Christendom,’ as we CANNOT go back to a ‘pre-Christian’ era- for we have been indwelt by the H.S. for over twenty millenniae (when we were most ‘Supreme.’ If one is willing to note that White Supremacism is due to the Election of YHWH God (which it is) then pride is gratefully tempered with HUMILITY.

Not because we are NOT superior, (the witness of history is on our side) nor that our religion is not CLEARLY ‘supercessionist’ to the Old Covenant (and the utterly false talmudicism that is a bastard stepchild of it), which it is, Roman Catholic b.s. notwithstanding- (see my 23-post series on that!)
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/something-wicked-this-way-comes-1/

but because ‘to whom much is given, much is required.’ It is the ‘burden of royalty’ applied to an entire race of men, you see.

IF we can temper our ‘Supremacism’ by charity (never forgetting that we ARE ‘the best’) then we are EVEN MORE Supreme- i.e, ‘making our calling and election sure’, as St. Paul noted. For only the most noble attain to Godhood- but in Christianity, there is truly an end predetermined for us- the ‘sitting on 12 thrones judging the Twelve Tribes, as Christ said of the Apostles, and the ‘theosis’ of the Orthodox Church, summed up in the words, “God became Man, so that [Adamic] Man might become gods.”

This, of course, is WHY the WORLD hates us- and are aided and abetted by one group above all others. In that the DEICIDES (Christ-killers) -i.e., Jews.Zionists, AshkeNAZIS, PRESUME that THEY are the ‘masters of the Universe’, instead of US, we have the battle between St. Michael and ‘that old dragon.’

NOw, the Jews are utterly cut off, and are only here under suffrance of the Almighty. THey are not even the people mentioned in Romans 9-11, if one takes into account the conversion of the Khazars some 700 YEARS AFTER the Resurrection! But as for us- In that we have departed from the Law of God we are guilty of punishment; and, in that they [Jews] have used the Lies of their Father in Hell [John 8:44] we have been ‘disenfranchised’ - wrongly, but disenfranchised nevertheless. But God can raise up ANY tribe to cause HIS PEOPLE [Matt. 1:21] to turn from their sins and live, even if that people are a bunch of hook-nosed Turks, or some Muslim millionaires building mosques in “England’s green and pleasant lands.”

In America as well, we have the Deicides acting as agent provacateurs, in that sub-human, mental retards that think only with their crotches believe that “Out of Africa” they were once princes and kings- when they are, and always will be nothing more than ‘3/5ths of a person,’ we have yet ANOTHER caste of ‘white wannabes’ who do not measure up, except for the DISCRIMINATORY ANTI-WHITE Judaized laws they Deicides have implemented to castrate we Whites.

But the truth is that “I have chosen you, you have not chosen Me” says the Lord. We Whites ARE Better than others, on so many levels. But it is not our doing, for we are not our own Gods, but serve Another. It all boils down to the Christian concept of Predestination… which, if memory serves, was THE motiviational factor that led to the ENTIRE GLOBE’S COLONIZATION and all the ‘supremacist’ stuff that we now claim as cultural capital, by men of Christendom from 1492 to 1945.

God has a PEOPLE. They are NOT the “Jews”. That they are some other race, is manifestly clear. We need to recapture Jerusalem again for her RIGHTFUL FOLK, and understand that Blake’s vision was not as far off as some now believe. What is the name of that song? Oh, yes. “Jerusalem.”  If, with humility, we can instill a sense of gratitude to YHWH God for our ELECTION to BE that WHITE race, unique among all the ‘nations round about us,’ we might (instead of calling each other gutter names) rise again to BE that People that God wanted us to be. But PRIDE will always presage a downfall. Look merely at Judas, and his kin, to see how evil a prideful people can become… even unto ugly beasts.

May we be spared our annihilation, or our bestialization, for either is the curse of Ham, and the irredeemable state of Judas.
Misericorde, Domine.

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:04 | #

But, without the religion of Christ, you cannot HAVE a ‘noble Christendom,’ as we CANNOT go back to a ‘pre-Christian’ era- for we have been indwelt by the H.S. for over twenty millenniae

Posted by Fr. John on January 12, 2009, 02:44 PM

We don’t have to go backward to pre-Christian but we can move forward to post-Christian. Post-Superstition.

The White Man has been to the heavens Fr. John. There is no God there.

And I don’t quite think the two thousand year description is accurate.
Christianity didn’t reach all of Europe until about 13th or 14th century and begun to be rejected just a few centuries after that.

One of the better parables I’ve come across on Man’s relationship to the Magical went as follows,
.
.
.
Once a stranger went walking down the lane and came upon well attended and bountiful fields of various kinds of gardens.
Seeing the farmer at work in one of the rows he shouted, “The Lord has certainly been good to these fields!”

The farmer looked up and wiped the sweat from his brow before responding, “Yeah. But you should have seen how he treated them when I wasn’t around!”

...

Posted by silver on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:02 | #

Svigor,

I’m not the man you want to challenge, anyway.

Please elaborate on your badassness.  I hardly ever get to see that kind of stuff on the Intarwebs.

You read that line all wrong. I simply meant I’m not Bowery’s enemy; not that I’m so tough he’d better think twice about challenging me.

In fact, the whole thing about the “challenge” came out wrong from the beginning, which is mostly my fault I guess.  I was growing tired of Bowery’s harping on about “challenges” and I wanted to warn him that an aging-hippie lookalike like himself might want to tone down the rhetoric a little in case someone as annoyed as I am takes him up on it.  I never wanted to imply that I felt challenged by him etc.  I’m sorry about the whole kerfuffle.

This isn’t like that super-duper-plus argument you have vs. Euro ethnonationalism, but hold in reserve, is it?  Because I don’t think I could take another disappointment like that again.

I thought we’d gone over that?  If not, briefly, there’s two parts two it, both of whose effect is to defeat WN, without necessarily “refuting” any of it:

(1)  The claim that if nothing can be morally done (ie no moral separation), nothing at all should be done.  This can be argued by highlighting the difficulties of determining who is who and what, that despite “illusions” to the contrary, the emergence of ‘X’ number of whites relied on environmental conditions that once disturbed cannot be replicated, thus whether or sooner or later, whites will eventually fade away and it’s pointless to attempt to halt or reverse the process.

(2)  Target the argument at women.  Reasons why should be obvious. 

Rienzi,

Stop lying.  Most of the “silver” posts at WB were based on current comments you were making at that time.

If that’s the case, then what problem do you have with me now?  Anything other than that I am an “obvious” fraud because of… things I stated in the past?

I see.  But “mystery meat” will send them screaming and running out of the room.  Let’s see: we’ll take a poll, which would “normal people” find more offensive - “mystery meat” or “nigger?” Also, explain how the use of the word “nigger” is consistent with “humane” “non-extreme” and “non-Nazi” discourse?

Rienzi, I guess one of us is clearly not living in the real world.  My contention is that anything overtly offensive to non-whites turns off nordics (and closely-relateds), regardless of whether it’s ‘nigger’ or ‘mystery-meat’ or loids/groids/toids etc.  S. Euros, at least in my experience, aren’t remotely as offended by vulgar language directed against racial others, least of all towards blacks.

As for you second question, I agree that it isn’t.  I suppose I forgive myself my slip-ups because I know I don’t harbour anything like a desire to hurt or disadvantage these people.  Most nights after posting here I go to bed wracked by guilt not only over things I’ve said, but over things I’ve felt.  Unfortunately, I don’t have the same assurances when it comes to others’ motives; then, I can only go on what they say, which typically leaves me feeling much more ill at ease than things I’ve said myself.

Typical silverian side commentary.  Actually, polls show that up to 80% of people want more genetic information available.  The onus is on those who don’t want people to know their own genetic information.  Let’s hide facts.  That’s honesty.

The typical reaction is yours, Rienzi.  I said they don’t identify with a bunch of numbers yet.  They may come to do so.  I wouldn’t try to stop them obtaining their genetic data. 

Newsflash - most “southern euros” - at least in the USA - identify as white.

I don’t doubt it.  That, I can assure you, is most certainly not the case here, where the term “white” is rarely ever used by anyone.  Though, with the recent immigrant influx I can see that changing.  Still, I imagine very few would attempt to racially identify as “aussies,” a term signifying real Australians, similar to the Canadian “cakers,” though not a pejorative (although it can be).

Also - I thought you were more interested in preaching racial honesty to gullible Nordics than to “southern Euros?” Did I miss something?  Have you reverted back to silver Mk 2 again?  Excuse me for losing track.  If I’m gone from this blog for several days, you would have already changed your ideological focus 10 or more times.

I have no idea what your designations refer to.  My interest is in preaching honesty to all.  I’ve never attempted to deny that my racial preference is for S. Euros.  They have racial interests regardless of what degree they form part of a larger “pan-european” circle to. 

For me, it’s not about “nordics” per se; it’s just that, FFS Rienzi, it was their freaking country.  Really, I’m in no position to dictate terms to them at all.  But there are fairer, gentler ways of going about a separation, and there extremely harsh, I’d say, inhumane, ways of going about it and I’m simply recommending the former, and not least because I consider that infinitely more likely to gain traction in the mainstream’s mind.  But as far as aiming for gullible nordics goes, ho ho, I think you’ve got that ground well covered, my man. 

I will repeat for the cognitively deficient: I consider “Majority Rights” to be hostile to Euro preservationism, a filthy sewer.

I see. You’re just generally cognitively challenged.  I had thought it was only in response to me.

All you people think too much of yourselves.  “Mainstream consideration?” Do you think anyone in the “mainstream” knows or cares about this blog?

Oh please.  I’m well aware of what a tiny niche this is.  The only chance I see of attracting mainstream interest is in significantly toning down the rhetoric.  Other sites are busy doing that.  My worry is that their good work will be undone by the nutzi wing.

There’s more important things to do, re: activism, than this blog, or answering the likes of silver.  It goes without saying that there are people, other than myself, who are interested in intelligent discourse, who are disgusted by MR.  These are non-“mainstream” activists.  The blog did have potential when it first started.  It went in the wrong direction.  I cannot be too critical, because I let WB go in the wrong direction as well.  At least though I had sense enough to pull the plug on a failed experiment, while watching for new opportunities.

Very well then.

Who’s the ones not being able to admit being wrong?

I’ll admit to it every time, Rienzi.  I do need to be told where I’m going wrong first, though. 

With respect to my “causticness” - that’s just the behavioral sinkhole at work.  If you check out my early posts here, I tried to keep things at a higher level of discourse.  That’s impossible here, as is quite obvious.

That seems to be the case in general when it comes to racialism.  I’ve encountered some extremely caustic commenters who later proved much more amicable. 

“Father” John,

And then the four letter words start from his [Silver’s] mouth… Unbelievable. Talk about pot calling kettle black!

What’s unbelievable about it?  I’ve got a guy here set on the extermination of every non-white, a commentariat whose reaction, in the main, is to stroke their beards, and a stream of mindless accusations against me but it’s my occasional four letter word that sticks in your craw?

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:09 | #

Here’s a better one for you Narrator:

SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, “Lord, we don’t need
you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of
nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the ‘beginning’.”

“Oh, is that so? Tell me…” replies God.

“Well”, says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness
of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”

“Well, that’s interesting. Show Me. “

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.

“Oh no, no, no…” interrupts God,

“Get your own dirt.”

Posted by silver on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:22 | #

Dienekes, that “defender of Greece and all things Greek,” advocates, it turns out, the forced transformation of every Greek man, woman, child, and old person on the planet Earth into an individual whose ancestry is 1/32 Greek and 31/32 Sub-Saharan.  That’s where Dienekes stands politically.  Did he actually say he wanted it to be “forced” on every Greek man, woman, and child in the world?  Or did he just say it would be perfectly OK with him if it came to pass?  Answer:  he didn’t actually say he wanted it forced.  But he said the logical equivalent thereof.  And according to James Burnham, “Who says A must say B.” Which is why as of the other day I no longer read his blog.  I used to go daily to Steve Sailer’s and from there check out Hawks, Dienekes, Kalb, and Frost, on a daily basis.

Scrooby, I completely fail to see what concern of yours that dago country was in the first place. 

Are you Greek?  Are you related to any Greeks?  Do you happen to know any Greeks?  Do you even have any positive feelings towards Greeks (in general, not just the few that pass your racial standards)?

No, no, no and no?  Then I think Dienekes’ opinion and certainly, in this case, my opinion, holds a bit more water than does yours.

Personally, I oppose Dienekes. But your logic is a mess.  Not resisting is not the same as forcing.  It just isn’t.  You can wish it were, plead that it were or burst a vein screaming that it must be, but it’s not.  And if the alternative is, or, the way I’m feeling at present, even risks being, a Diamedic solution, then to hell with it: the negroes stay.  (Or at least some of them stay—many, many more of them than I had previously been willing to permit.) Of course, it’s not really my shot to call, but that’s my position. 

Starting the other day, that daily routine of mine began omitting Dienekes.  And so shall it continue to do.  I’m done with the Pontic Greek.  Forever.  He’s now on my Zeroes list.

So that’s why the earth stood still!

Posted by Armor on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:17 | #

I’ve got a guy here set on the extermination of every non-white, a commentariat whose reaction, in the main, is to stroke their beards (—Silver)

I agree that Diamed’s stuff is often in bad taste and somewhat ridiculous, although he says intelligent things occasionally. Besides, his article is much too long.

Not resisting is not the same as forcing. (—Ssssssss!)

The result will be the same. Not resisting is wrong. Preaching against resistance is even worse. You could say just as well that, although you do not approve of rape, women are morally wrong if they try to resist their rapers.

Immigration does not just “happen” like rain. If you stand neutral while the immigrationists get busy, or if you say that getting alarmed is wrong, you are not neutral at all.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:20 | #

Silver, don’t you agree you have an obligation to out your identity here since you have impugned my character here and my identity is known?  If not, why not?

Posted by silver on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:57 | #

Diamed,

And silver, go ahead, present your reasonable objections and logic.  Despite the endless names you throw at me, I don’t bother with personal insults. (haven’t you noticed this already?)

I don’t think I’ve called you names or insulted you beyond referring to you as deeply morally flawed—in effect, anyway, though terms I employed may have been a little more, er, colourful.  But you are right, you haven’t personally insulted me.  I hadn’t noticed that.

If it wasn’t wrong in the past, it can’t be wrong now either.  If it was wrong in the past, then we must hand back north and south america, south africa, australia, and new zealand.

Wrong.  I’ll elaborate later. 

Perhaps the circumstances do call for restraint.  That’s unimportant to me.  My question to you is, should the superior supplant the inferior?  Is that a good thing?  Once that moral question is solved, we can turn to practical down to earth matters.  I just want to know the answer to this question for now.

My answer: It’s a good thing for the superior to supplant the inferior.  The superior should attempt to supplant inferior, but the ends don’t necessarily justify the means. 

You may think I’m attempting to have it both ways.  That’s not necessarily so—though I confess my thinking is somewhat muddled.  I unquestionably consider myself and others like me (I’m unaccustomed to speaking in terms of “race” or “my race”—there’s too great a “range” in “types” I have affinities with) superior to many others.  It would be better if there were more of me and fewer of them.  But I find it very difficult to locate a moral imperative to bring such a condition about using any means at my disposal.

On the other side of the coin, I can acknowledge the superiority of the northern man in a—allow me to put it delicately—‘technical’ sense.  What do I mean?  IQ, culture, capacity for creating technology and art, looks—the last only as they stand in the highest echelon, though.  The last is of particular concern to racialists, so it merits a few more words.  Whites are the best looking people, but among them, I really only have admiration for the best of them; I don’t find the average nordic—people I see every day—remotely as appealing, and there is no question I prefer being around the “southern variety” of European (indeed, even the (whitish) levantine), despite having grown up with nordics and finding them culturally more familiar than comparatively ignorant and loutish Greeks, Sicilians, Maltese etc.  However, beauty at the highest echelons, like intelligence at the highest echelon, pairs with beauty at the median; I may not see it at this level—certainly I don’t experience it—but ‘technically’ I guess it is there. 

So what should this mean for me, if I accept that the superior should supplant the inferior?  Should I off myself?  Obviously not.  Should I make way? Perhaps.  But there is no question I consider myself superior to vast numbers of nordics.  How can it be an improvement for a brutish, lower order nordic to supplant me?  Particularly when I’m amiable to—an avid proponent of!—eugenic measures (among other policies) that would see nordic numbers skyrocket?

I’ll have to leave it at that for now.

Al Ross,

Just as a hyena will drink from water even as he is urinating in it, so silver drones on and on and on with a catholicity of anti-White sentiment so indiscriminate it almost forces admiration.

If Ross spent as much time construing my statements as he does to sharpening his zingers he would not spend so much time chewing crow.

Posted by silver on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:20 | #

Bowery,

Silver, don’t you agree you have an obligation to out your identity here since you have impugned my character here and my identity is known?  If not, why not?

Quite possibly I do.  My head aches too much to think about it at the moment.

Would you settle for a retraction and an apology?

Armor,

The result will be the same. Not resisting is wrong. Preaching against resistance is even worse. You could say just as well that, although you do not approve of rape, women are morally wrong if they try to resist their rapers.

No.  Resisting rape is right.  The equivalent to miscegenation would be to force someone to mix.  But no one is forcing anyone.

Immigration does not just “happen” like rain. If you stand neutral while the immigrationists get busy, or if you say that getting alarmed is wrong, you are not neutral at all.

Well, it does happen like rain, actually.  No one needs to ask for rain for it to rain.  Immigrationists, to continue your analogy, prevent anyone from taking shelter.  That’s wrong.  I’m foursquare against any further immigration.  I’m foursquare behind sending immigrants home.  But all immigrants?  Every single one?  What about mixed children?  At some point, I think, people develop sufficient attachment to the new ‘homeland’ that it’s morally very, very difficult to require them to leave (not that I’m not open to suggestions—that’s what separation/partition is all about).

Requiring immigrants to leave could be done on a time-in-country basis.  At a ratio of 1:1, an immigrant who’s been here one year is given one year to finalize his business and leave; after five years he’s given five, and so on.  The ratio could be adjusted in any number of ways. 

What I very, very much oppose is the mistreatment of people.  I can accept that the idea of even “partial” race-replacement is galling to people.  But I cringe, I seriously cringe at the loosey-goosey talk of exterminating people, or even of rounding them and just “dumping” them somewhere (Brazil, usually).  I have been opposed to this sort of wanton disparagement of racial others right from the beginning.  I’ve wavered on it a number of times, as is normal for a human being.  I can accept that stern language may sometimes be necessary.  But some of what is being advocated goes well beyond that into territory I can’t help but consider terrifyingly immoral. 

Armor, I have a cousin married to a negro.  I admit to being greatly disturbed by the very fact of it as much as by what it portends.  He makes it a challenge to like him, too: I can barely understand his Caribbean babble and he’s forever on the lookout for racial slights.  But after reading some of the more appalling racialist postings, I often have an urge to grab him and cry on his shoulder asking all be forgiven, cursing the day I ever encountered racialist literature.  No wonder people hate racists; we make it so easy to hate us!

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:50 | #

silver,

The extreme measures recommended here are done out of a sense of doom and desperation, not from bloodlust; at least I hope.  It is our people that face genetic annihilation, not “the other.”  In the final analysis though, our genocide is not acceptable.

Posted by Uh oh on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:30 | #

“Bad Economy May Fuel Hate Groups, Experts Warn - Experts Warn That Downturn Could Drive Discontent, Help Extremists Recruit”

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/10/AR2009011002039.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:36 | #

India has an entire caste system based around varna, or color, where the lighter skinned castes are respected more than the darker

Can you name 3 “lighter skinned castes” and 3 “darker skinned castes?

As far as skin lightening, it has it’s sister in tanning salons and spray on bronze.

Personally I always thought both of the above were strange. 

It seems that neither pale nor very dark skin is desired by folks, but rather a happy medium, “golden” hue.  Kind of like what you get with miscegnation, or rather, exactly like that. 

I really disagree about the desire to look “white”.  Golden hued - yes, if you are dark, and a healthy tan if you are pale.  But really, I’ve never come across anyone anywhere seeking the pale look of Nicole Kidman (or the extreme dark of Wesley Snipes, for that matter), Japanese geishas notwithstanding.

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:43 | #

White on non-white rape, however, is virtually non-existent. Why would a white want them?

My wife just read this.  She worked with rape victims for 5 years and she says the above is just not true.  Moreover rape is not about “desire”.  This statement of your’s betrays your lack of knowledge about the nature of this crime.

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:14 | #

White on non-white rape, however, is virtually non-existent. Why would a white want them?

Dharma Chakra: My wife just read this.  She worked with rape victims for 5 years and she says the above is just not true.

My god! Are you just playing silly games, or are you and your wife really that stupid?

Posted by Diamed on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:30 | #

@ Friar John:  Whites were chosen by God, you just have to realize God is evolution. 

@Silver:  Where in this post do I advocate the extermination of all non-whites?  Here is the appropriate quote: 

I submit to you that we should take it all back, return to our just spot in the world, not as 8% of the population, but 40% like in 1900, and that we of all people deserve the stars.

For the people who created virtually everything good on earth, who created the technology and culture that allows for the carrying capacity of 6.7 billion people in the first place, to be the ever dwindling minority of the enjoyers of their own creation, is a grave injustice. A cosmic injustice. Whites must benefit from white achievement proportional to their achievement, non-whites should not be allowed to be the prime beneficiaries, the evolutionary victors, for things they never even did.

You’re jumping at shadows.  There are humane ways to reclaim our power, numbers, status, and territory.  A couple posts ago I outlined a plan that doesn’t require the death or even the hardship of a single non-white on earth and endorsed it.  I’m willing to do practically anything for them if they just leave.

I think this is a delicate point that maybe I didn’t make clear—It’s vitally important that white supremacism, as well as conquering and race-replacing lands full of primitives and savages, be identified as a good era where we did the right thing.  It’s important for our psyche.  It’s important for our mental self-defense against the claims of non-whites against us.  It’s important to take pride in our ancestors and the precious gift they gave us by opening up new continents for us.  As an American, it has special worth because I wouldn’t even be alive without it.  I owe my life to those ‘monsters’ who ‘genocided’ the Indians (never mind there are more Indian genes in the world now than ever before).  The only moral defense of our actions in the past is that we were superior and we were improving the lot of the world by filling it with hundreds of millions of beautiful brilliant white children—many of whom went on to make major discoveries and inventions that today enrich the whole world.  Cars, airplanes, computers, phones—you’ve got America to thank.  So give us some slack.

It is not vitally important that we engage in a new wave of conquest and race-replace the remainder of the world.  Ask me if I think Africa would be better as a white continent I’ll say yes.  But I’m willing to compromise with the rest of the world.  I’m willing to ‘save the world without harming a single hair on anyone’s head.’  What I won’t compromise is our moral self-defense to the land we currently live on, the pride I have in my ancestors, or the truth that we are in fact better than them.

@Armor:  Sorry about it being too long.

@Dharma:  Tell your wife to check out the department of justice statistics.  37,000 black on white rapes, 0 white on black.  Armor posted them in this very thread!  Btw congrats on your happy home.  .  I know rape is supposed to be about ‘power and the thrill of dominance’ but if so the same case holds. Why would a white need to rape a non-white girl to feel dominant?  We can just look at them and know how absolutely superior we are to these people.  Whatever the motive, the numbers don’t lie.

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:42 | #

“God is evolution.”

And you prove yourself to be a joke.

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:47 | #

Because Diamed, rape is not about the power of one race over another, nor is it about beauty, it’s about the power of men over women and sometimes adults over children (of either sex). 

It’s a shame I have to spell all of this out to grown and supposedly intelligent men.

Anyway, can you name those 6 castes I asked you too?  Afterall, if you are going to comment about something as foreign and exotic as South Asia’s caste system, I would expect you to have at least some basic knowledge about it.  And the naming of a mere 6 castes in nothing, when you consider there are hundreds of castes and sub-castes in that system.

As far as the beauty of white women.  Some.  some

As a man who has been to a pretty good amount of places, I can say they do not have the monopoly on beauty or anywhere near it.  Especially the Scotts and Brits.  Hardley a good looker among them.

However, there are some Icelandic lasses I’ve dated.  And of course Italians, Spainards and Greeks (like I would even have to mention that, famous as they are for their physical features).  The French are not too bad either.  Some of them, anyway. 

Russians, Ukrainians, and others of their ilk tend to be lacking in the looks department as well. 

Germans are too manly.  Fins can be sweet though.

Yes, I’ve had a good life.  Don’t start hatin’.

(and God, don’t let my wife read this)

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57 | #

Diamed,

Don’t dignify that filthy festering pustule with an intelligent response—he’ not worth it.

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:08 | #

On second thought, Dharma Chakra, sounds more like your typical angry brainwashed radical-lesbian-bull-dyke than the south-Asian (it) is posing as.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:34 | #

Would you settle for a retraction and an apology? (—Silver)

I’m afraid he won’t accept it. Now, you’ll have to die.

The equivalent to miscegenation would be to force someone to mix.  But no one is forcing anyone.

You are playing with words. It’s like the word genocide. It means you kill a people, a nation. But it doesn’t mean you kill every person belonging to that nation. I think we can say what is occurring now is a rape of the West even though few people (as a percentage) are being raped in the process.
It’s like race-replacement. You could say that no one is being replaced, since it is not a one-for-one replacement. When a brown Mexican gets in, you don’t ask a white American to move out. But still, the overall result is race-replacement.

no one is forcing anyone.

At least in the case of rapes committed by third-world immigrants, we can say that force is applied. And there is much pressure for “integration”, and “assimilation”, and interracial sex by schools and the media. The pressure is applied on young naïve people with no one to give them counter advice.
Anyway, the result of immigration can only be that 1) whites are replaced by non-whites, 2) whites will have sex with non-whites. Even with unwanted immigration, the obvious result is that many white people, especially misfits and morons, will engage in consensual miscegenation. Force is used against western society, but not directly against persons, although every person will suffer from the general destruction.

Well, it does happen like rain, actually.

No, immigration is organized by the immigrationists.
Besides, you put a roof on your house, you don’t let the rain fall in.

I’m foursquare against any further immigration.  I’m foursquare behind sending immigrants home.  But all immigrants?  Every single one?

Not necessarily all immigrants. Mainly those young enough to have children. Let’s talk figures. How many million non-white immigrants would you keep in the West? If you were foursquare behind sending immigrants home, you would not waste time arguing against no-exception deportation at a time when we are swamped by mass immigration. No-exception deportation will not happen tomorrow morning. For someone who is foursquare behind sending immigrants home, it seems you do not have your priorities straight.

What about mixed children?

There is something wrong with people assuming that mixed children can only stay in the white country where they were born. We don’t owe any loyalty to white people who marry non-whites, and there is no reason why mixed-race people should live in the West rather than in the third-world. After all, their parents think it makes no difference whether people are white or not. Let them live among non-whites.

At some point, I think, people develop sufficient attachment to the new ‘homeland’ that it’s morally very, very difficult to require them to leave

It is very easy. You don’t take just one Mexican or Arab person and send him back to Mexico or Northern Africa. Instead, you transplant the whole colony back to its home country, so you won’t break their hearts. They stay together if they want. Besides, it seems that it is never a problem for Mexicans to leave Mexico for the United States, even when their family has lived in Mexico for generations. It is never a problem for them to settle in a small place in Montana where they will be the first third-worlders in an all white setting. Do they have no attachment to their own country? What is it they don’t like about Mexico? The food, the cactuses, the landscape? How can you say that you are foursquare behind sending immigrants home if you think an exception should be made for any immigrant who claims he’s become more attached to white people than to his own family back in Mexico?

What I very, very much oppose is the mistreatment of people.

Me too. In order to get immigrants out of a white country, the first step is to tell them that they are required to go back home. The second step is to no longer give them any money or jobs. If there is any violence, it will come from them, not from the police. And the police has been trained to deal with violent protesters in non-violent ways.

I seriously cringe at the loosey-goosey talk of exterminating people

It is the gist of every intervention of yours: “seriously, folks, you make me cringe!” I think you just like to cringe.

rounding them and just “dumping” them somewhere (Brazil, usually)

It is only a pleasant fantasy. I really like the idea of parachuting immigrants back to their home jungle. But I’ll be satisfied with sending them back in normal planes, through normal airports.

I have been opposed to this sort of wanton disparagement of racial others right from the beginning.

I think that racist jokes, for example, can give some relief from the politically correct madness. It takes some of the tension away. It also makes it possible to have a discussion. I don’t mind blacks making fun of whites, or whites making fun of blacks. What I don’t like, and what should be opposed, is today’s generalized racial attack against the whites.

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:45 | #

Armor + Scrooby + GW = MR

Of course, that’s just my opinion!

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:53 | #

I’m foursquare against any further immigration.  I’m foursquare behind sending immigrants home.  But all immigrants?  Every single one?

Not necessarily all immigrants. Mainly those young enough to have children.

The most financially productive ones?  Not a grand plan.

I’d favor sending the old ones home for retirement instead.

By the way, I’m NOT South Asian, despite the moniker.  I just happen to have adopted (some aspects of) a religious system that was created in South Asia.

Posted by Dave Johns on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00 | #

“I just happen to have adopted (some aspects of) a religious system that was created in South Asia.”

That’s not true. You’re a homo! Go away!

Posted by Dave Johns on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:22 | #

Armor + Scrooby + GW = MR

Let me add James Bowery on that list.

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:59 | #

Regarding immigration.

The more I read cases like those of Charlene Downes, which I happened across just today while reading about something else, and the more I read about the problems the UK is facing, the more it becomes clear to me that more screening and indeed TRAINING needs to be implemented in the immigration process.

GOVERNMENT HAND-OUTS ARE THE CAUSE OF UNDESIRABLE IMMIGRATION

How many listless, restless, unemployed male youth are roaming the streets of UK causing havoc?

Too damn many.

The dole should be wiped out completely and the only immigrants allowed in the country should be those who are already employed by a multi-national company and coming to whatever country in order to work for it, OR those are employable immediately.  This would require already knowing the language of whatever country they are migrating to.  As for bringing the family members of such an employed or employable migrant over, well, they should all know the language as well and be employable also. 

This would prevent backwards thinking men who do not want “their women” working from gaining access to the country.  Anyone of adult age must be employed and contribute to the economy of the country.  In any case, no one would have access to the crazy sign on benefits that UK currently shells out to all and sundry, thereby creating a class of bored, jobless youth from all ethnic backgrounds.

There is no incentive for many of these young men to work at all.  It’s a disgrace of a “system”.

Idle mind is a devil’s workshop.

At least the Mexicans in the USA WANT to work, and work they do indeed - very hard.

I have nothing against any particular group of people, racial, cultural or religious.  However, when one is seeking to become a citizen of a country, any country, I think the onus is on that individual to conform as much as morally possible to the larger cultural ethos of whatever country they wish to become naturalized in, while still maintaining their individuality and sense of personal or religious ethics. 

For example; the Muslim areas throughout UK.  While it seems that many of the young men are wearing “western wear”, what about the women?  Sure, wear your hijab (headscarf) if you want to, but what is up with the black Darth Vadar ensamble?  Where in the Quran does it say to cover your entire face? 

The problem is that most countries to not have a legal dress code.  People can basically dress anyway they want, which is a good thing, ideally.  But in Western cultures, well, in MOST cultures, the face is an important aspect of human interaction.  And if the niqab (black Darth Vadar dress) is meant to draw attention AWAY from a woman, it makes sense that in countries where it would DRAW ATTENTION TO HER, well, that garb should be discarded for something more unassuming. 

Basically only employable, national language speaking, moderately clothed migrants should be allowed access into whatever countries they are applying for. 

If they really want to move to UK, France or Holland, then they should learn English, French, or Dutch. Teach yourself lessons are afterall, available on the internet these days. 

For highly employable migrant individuals who wish to bring their family members, well, in order to qualify those family members should be required by law to undergo a 6 month course in which they are taught the language, customs and acceptable dress code of those countries. 

They can still build their mosques, churches, synagouges, temples and what-not, but they should be required to meet us halfway.

Posted by Let Multicult Cali Rot on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:48 | #

Whites are leaving the multicultural paradise of California in droves in search of Whiter pastures as the state begins to collapse due to the invasion of immigrants who give little but take much - http://fe30.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/us/story/ap/20090112/ap_on_re_us/fleeing_california

Posted by GoyAmongYou on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:57 | #

Posted by Dharma Chakra on January 12, 2009, 10:53 PM

By the way, I’m NOT South Asian, despite the moniker.  I just happen to have adopted (some aspects of) a religious system that was created in South Asia.

A Yenta in the Lotus !
Aw… how sweet.

Germans…
Russians…
Ukrainians…

By the target of their hatred ye shall know them

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:13 | #

I’ve nothing at all against any group - russians, ukranians or germans.  In fact, two of my best friends come within one of the above.  I just said that generally speaking they are not a good looking people.
So unless you equate looks with character, there is no reason to get your undies in a twist.

Posted by John on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:43 | #

With your redefinition of the word, you completely ignore the chief (in most dictionaries) definition of “supremacist”, and a distinction, I might add that’s completely ignored by Cultural Marxists when they inappropriately, imo, and dysphemistically apply the term to white/European/Nordic survivalists, separatists, etc. Was General Eisenhower “better” than Generals Patton (ha!) or MacArthur or the Supreme Court better than the 9th Circuit? I have no desire that any of my people rule over any other peoples. I don’t want to be ruled over by any other peoples. I am no “supremacist”. I consider the question of whether and where my people are “better” a largely irrelevant side issue. To use the oft-invoked analogy, I love my family more than any other and I don’t give a shit whether they’re “supreme” over other families.

Posted by Diamed on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:44 | #

From Webster’s Dictionary:

Main Entry:
  white supremacy
Function:
  noun
Date:
  1864

: a doctrine based on a belief in the inherent superiority of the white race over other races and the correlative necessity for the subordination of nonwhites to whites in all relationships

I believe the white race is inherently superior to the other races, and the correlative necessity for the subordination of nonwhite interests to white interests in all relationships.  Do you?  It’s not an attempt at redefinition, nor does the definition require we rule over nonwhites.  In all relationships whites must come first, nonwhites second, but it doesn’t say anywhere in there that we must engage in said relationships, rule the world, take slaves, etc.  In fact my ‘redefinition’ fits the definition exactly and then argue my case why this is true and should be followed as our general outlook on life.

Perhaps you care about your family without any concern for their merit, but most people would stop caring about a family member who was particularly evil, vicious, or dissolute.  Plus it isn’t a very convincing argument to non-family members that regardless of the merit of your family, because we share the same race other people have to take care of your abusive deadbeat dad.  Something people do care about though, is an argument that your family is full of wonderful people who don’t deserve what is happening to them, and it’s the duty of all wonderful white people to look after each other so that justice is done.  Objective white supremacy, based on our objective, verifiable superiority in Every Single Field That Matters and Has Moral Worth, is what powered our ancestors to conquer continents, tame the wilderness, throw back the turks, the mongols, and the moors, and even cultivate our artistic sensitivity, manners, and courtesy.  “We whites must be held to a higher standard” was something objective white supremacy taught us.  “We whites can engage against impossible odds” was something objective white supremacy taught us.  There has never in the history of the white race been white nationalists in power who were not white supremacists.  Think about that for a moment.  No ‘white separatist,’ ‘white survivalist,’ ‘white anarchist,’ ‘white realist’ etc party has ever been the philosophy and inspiration of a people or a nation.  For most of history every nation, everywhere, have been supremacists.  Their justification for their actions was they were superior.  Their battle cry was, from the romans to the french to the english to the spanish to the russians to the germans to the greeks—-> “don’t let these inferior barbarians supplant us, instead let us supplant these inferior barbarians.”  Whether they were inferior due to their race, their religion, their dietary habits, their looks, whatever.  Every nation had a reason why they were superior to the people around them and thus why they must prevail over them.  Is it therefore reasonable to rely on any other philosophy than supremacy?  In one case, we have the entirety of human history with many example of supremacists leading wonderful civilizations: White American Supremacist Slavers from 1600-1865, the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the Greek cities and their stand against Persia, the Reconquista against muslim-controlled Spain, the age of discovery and exploration full of Supremacists who looked down upon every new naked cannibal tribe they came across.  Or, you can be a relativist and say ‘everyone has an equally valid claim and everyone is equal, but out of sheer caprice I prefer myself and my family.  I expect everyone to get behind this capricious whim and help me achieve all my goals, because it would really help me out if they did so.’  Sorry bucko, that’s never worked in all history.  And such a battle cry will be devoured by black supremacists, jewish supremacists, hispanic supremacists, and asian supremacists.  You can BET the chinese who think they are the Middle Kingdom and all non-chinese are inferior barbarians are not mouthing platitudes like ‘I don’t care if we’re better or worse we should just leave each other alone.’  They are as we speak colonizing America, Canada, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Siberia, building up a strong military and strong industrial base, sending people into space and planning moon missions, practicing a eugenics policy of three children for the rich and one child for the poor, winning the most gold medals in the Olympics, and not allowing a single non-chinese immigrant into their country.  Is China healthy because of its vaunted human rights record?  Its democracy?  Its buddhist detachment and pacifism?  From its enlightened understanding of cultural and racial relativism where nothing matters and nothing means anything and we’re all equal through some arcane formula of subjectivism?  Or is it healthy because China is still a Chinese Supremacist state?

Which horse will you bet on?

Posted by John on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:04 | #

The definition you site buttresses my argument in that it incorporates the chief definition of “supreme” I referred to earlier: the supreme ruling over those inferior. You (and cultural Marxists), for some reason want to blur a well-demarcated distinction (in my mind, anyway) between those who want to rule over other peoples and those who want both themselves and other peoples to stay with their own kind and rule over themselves.

Posted by John on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:06 | #

Sorry, fourth word should be “cite” above.

Posted by Mayo on Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:53 | #

@ W. Lindsay Wheeler

“The article is in fact an extreme, or, if you prefer, logically consistent, expression of white supremacism” Auster - http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012325.html

Here is an expression of Jewish Supremacism:

- Israelites are a “chosen people,” chosen by God above all the other peoples of the world.

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)

- Israelites have a right to rule over all other people and are promised that they will someday own and rule over the whole world.

[K]ings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the foot of the sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which is under heaven, and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire; and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit it for ever’ (Jubilees 32:18-19)

- Israelites boast of genocide against whole peoples and kingdoms.

But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes (Deuteronomy 20:16)

- Israelites are commanded to murder all the people of the lands where they intend to live and to kill all the people of foreign nations that do not submit themselves in slavery.

When you approach a city to fight against it, you must make an offer of peace. If it accepts your offer of peace and opens [its gates] to you, all the people found in it will become forced laborers for you and serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you but wages war against you, lay siege to it. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, you must strike down all its males with the sword. But you may take the women, children, animals, and whatever else is in the city—all its spoil—as plunder. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are far away from you and are not among the cities of these nations. However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that they won’t teach you to do all the detestable things they do for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)

- Israelites are forbidden to make slaves of their own people, but are encouraged to enslave non-Israelites whom they may pass down as slaves to their descendants forever.

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

- Israelites are forbidden to intermarry or “mix their seed” with other peoples.

Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. (Ezra 9:12)

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:13 | #

The ancient Greeks had a saying:

“Tis meet that Greek rule barbarian”.

That is all that needs to be said.

Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:41 | #

Lawerence Auster has noticed my comment in this thread about him, here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012325.html Since I do not have the opportunity to respond on his website, I ask the forbearance of Majority Rights to respond here to his post.

First. Napolean Bonaparte took it upon himself to emancipate the Jews. Did he have this authority? Did he countermand the age old practice of the apostolic churches? Mr. Auster needs to ask this question to himself. The Czar of Russia, French Bishops, and the Vatican protested. Clearly, the Church, the authority of the Lord, was not involved. What Napolean Bonaparte did was overturn a religious teaching. He has NO authority to do what he did.

Second. If Auster claims to be a “traditionalist”, a “conservative” why is he NOT upholding the traditional teaching regarding the Jews? Zionism is progressive. Zionism is a new thing. Zionism when first broached was REJECTED by the majority of Jews themselves! So where is the authenticity of the State of Israel in traditional apostolic Christian teaching? Auster is not a traditionalist; he is not CONSERVING the Old teaching! He is pushing a progressive agenda.

Third. What does the Bible say? Does Mr. Auster post Deut. Chapter 28? Does he obey the Word of God? It is clear right there that when the Jews Stop Adhering to Every Word of God—-they will be cursed. What of this curse does Mr. Auster NOT understand? It is there in plain English. Everybody knows, Jew and Christian, that the Jew is to wander.

Fourth. I think Mr. Auster fails at one point—-Obedience to the Will of God. What is the Will of God? What did He Command? Mr. Auster, I point you to the Old Testament story of when God commanded that the Israelites thoroughly annihilate a people from old to young, male to female, from human to animal. This was a very hard command. The Israelites did NOT complete what God asked. God punished them for it. 

What is the moral of this story? God occassionaly commands hard things.  Are they to be carried out by man? Sure enough. What about the curse, Mr. Auster? Is because the curse is hard, then us humans have a choice NOT to obey it? Unlike the Jews Mr. Auster, who were a stiffnecked and rebellious people, us Indo-Europeans, us Japthites, we obey. We bend our necks. We love God. “If you love me, you will obey me.” Is that not the rule Mr. Auster. What part of obedience don’t you like? For me, I have a “Fear of the Lord”.  I obey. That is what I do. If God punished the Jews with wandering and with persecution——SO BE IT. I do not shrink from what is hard.

Fifth, Mr. Auster, please post Deut. Chapter 28 in its entirity please.

Sixth. When the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected Truth. If one rejects truth, one becomes a nihilist. Nihilism is the basis of liberalism. Furthermore there is another side to this. Nihilism is coined from Nietzschean sophistry that says “God is Dead”. Nietzche meant that metaphysically. Well, the Jews actually killed God. They killed him physically. The Jews are literally nihilists. I ask you Mr. Auster, should we allow Nihilists to roam around and do whatever they want? No, Nihilists have to be suppressed. That is what Common sense teaches. That is what prudence teaches. That is what the traditional Catholic and Orthodox churches have taught.

You need to get in line with orthodoxy Mr. Auster. Speak the Truth.  If you have any questions you can e-mail me at wheelerplatsis(at)hotmail(dot)com.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:20 | #

WLW,

I wouldn’t expect any emails from Auster. You may however vent all you like at Auster Projecting, Again where his attacks on you and MR incited me to put his hypocrisy under a microscope, again.

Posted by Diamed on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:41 | #

I confess I was looking forward to Lawrence Auster’s dissection of my post:  http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012325.html

The article is in fact an extreme, or, if you prefer, logically consistent, expression of white supremacism (in the same way that Sayyid Qutb’s writings are a logically consistent expression of Islamic supremacism), and it doesn’t even mention the Jews. I’ve been looking through it, and will be saying something about it later.

:(.  Come on Auster we’re waiting.

Posted by Kolvar on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:03 | #

oll out a map of the world, color it in with ‘wealth, freedom, longevity, lack of corruption’ or any other objective measure, and white countries will come out the highest.

And if we drew a map of the white world and looked for who’s best we’d find that the nordic countries have been the best for the longest time. Therefore, it’s only logic that once the white race has gained it’s deserved share, that the nordic among the white receive more than the nonnordics.

The measures that should be taken in phase I of the plan are:

1) Make a big alliance among all white people. If squabbling among ourselves we’ve conquered the world, imagine if we united.
2) Take care of the nonwhites that are among us. That means controlling immigration so that it’s never a danger to us. My proposal is to sterilize all the nonwhites in white countries, so that demographically they could never overtake us or soil our white genes. If some nonwhite wanted to immigrate to a white country, he or she’d have to accept this simple demand.
3) Force our women to have more babies. Our feritlity rate should never be below replacement level. Every white woman should have at least 2 babies in her lifetime, taking care to raise them well as women in the past (i.e. before feminism) did.

After these simple measures are done, we could work to make our white countries more eugenic. Sterilize the mentally handcaped or genetically ill, so that their ills no longer afflict the rest of society (and themselves). Maybe putting some incentives so that nordic families had more children than non-nordic ones, so that slowly (over the generations) society becomes more nordic. Imagine a world where not only whites have regained their place, but where all our lives are like the people of Norway or Sweden.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:40 | #

Count me out, Kolvar. 

Humane, financially reimbursed repatriation (“pull” in other words, or “the carrot”) together with (for any hold-outs) taking away all artificial and inappropriate incentives to stay (“push” in other words, or “the stick”:  no more welfare, no more affirmative action, no more forbidding of complete freedom of association to whites even if it costs non-whites jobs, promotions, private club membership, desirable apartments or housing, etc.) is reasonable and christian.  Two-thirds of your program isn’t. 

I want to do this the humane, christian way and I insist there’s a way to do that.  In accomplishing this I don’t want to do wrong or put an indelible sin on my nation’s soul.  I want to do only what’s right, reasonable, humane.

Why do it at all then?  Because the most unreasonable, inhumane, unchristian thing a traditional community can do is dumbly acquiesce in its own racial extinction at the hands of its ethno-racial enemies, and the most reasonable, humane, and christian thing it can do is not to so acquiesce.

Period.  Full stop.  End of story.

Posted by Whence "White Supremacy" As A Label? on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:48 | #

Whence “White Supremacy” as a Label?

One of the problems in any discussion about “White Supremacy” is that there seems to be an utter lack of understanding where and how this term arose, at least in the American sense.  Most people have forgotten, or never been taught, that there was a period of “reconstruction” in America from 1862 until 1877 when the rebel southern states were forcibly reconstructed and reintegrated into the American system.  White citizens of the rebel southern states were stripped of civil rights (no voting, no holding office, etc.). 

Naturally the newly enfranchised black citizens in the rebel southern states took over all municipal, county, and state offices aided and abetted by carpet-baggers who were you-know-who (i.e., not Yankee traders) and who invaded the rebel southern states to egg on the newly enfranchised black citizens to excesses that rallied the horrified white citizens into mobilizing to fight off the claims of the black citizens.  This was 15 years of pure hell for white citizens.

At that time, the practice arose of characterizing the conflict as one of “Negro Supremacy” versus “White Supremacy.”  Naturally that usage has lost its character as the name of one faction vying against another faction for power, and we have been left with “White Supremacy” as a stand-alone label for evil white people.  The “Negro Supremacy” excesses of 1863-1877 have been left out of histories, the dominant media culture, and the corporate entertainment culture.

Whether that takes some of the sting or meaning out of the label “White Supremacy” would be up to the reader, but it provides us all with the knowledge that some dirty deeds were done in the rebel southern states that may have left a shadow of fear and memory that reconstruction was a very bad time, and that “Negro Supremacy” lacks all attraction.

There does seem to be an historical pattern which lends itself to swings in who rules whom, and we are now seeing in the remarks by the president (“a typical white person”) and his attorney general (“Americans are cowards”) a resurgence of the same hostility we learned about during reconstruction.

There is no basis for believing that “Negro Supremacy” in the 21st Century in America will turn out differently from “Negro Supremacy” in the southern rebel states back in the 19th Century or even how “Negro Supremacy” in the Haitian Revolution of 1791–1804 turned out in Haiti in the 18th Century.  The diverse white American peoples are going to get a severe lesson over the next few years that the residents of the rebel southern states received 150 years ago, and that France learned in Haiti in the 18th Century.  Human nature does not change.

Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:06 | #

@ Kolvar,

I am 100% North European myself, but I cannot agree with your interpretation.  I could not in good conscience treat other Euros, regardless of latitude of origin, with the lack of dignity that you suggest. 

One of the reasons people find “Nordicism” repugnant is because of views like this which seem to me borderline sociopathic.  In it there is always a tone of condescension and even dehumanization toward other Euros that are not privileged to be good Nordics - even though if you look at this chart you’ll see that South Europeans are roughly our equals in terms of intellect at least.  And other Europeans are not going to be keen on joining our side if they think they will just be treated like second-class scum should we ever “win”.

I’m sorry to step on toes but I’m sick and tired of hearing about Teutons as the pinnacle of evolution whereas Slavs and Celts are derided as “barbarians.”  There is very threadbare evidence that this is the case.  Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing modern Nordicism espouses.  If anything, it is damaging to our side for just this reason (we want more allies, not less!). 

Also, eugenics are probably a doomed cause no matter how you feel about them.  Most people react with outrage even at the suggestion of such practices.  Not that they couldn’t work positive effects in some cases, but they’re just not marketable in this modernist/egalitarian dystopia.

If Nordicism contributes to inter-Euro strife rather than inter-Euro unity, then it holds little utility for us, the would-be uniters!

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:00 | #

Kolvar,

In case you haven’t been following what’s gone on here recently, the post you are responding to was authored by a sociopathic crypto-Jew; and no, that’s no bullshit.  It is now his sage advise that elite Whites should inter-marry with Jews and Asians.  He is truly “the lowest form of bacterial life that ever got swilled down a sewer.”  Disregard everything he says.

He was exposed here:

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=3590&cpage=1#comment-105480

Posted by pasta on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:01 | #

“Humane, financially reimbursed repatriation (“pull” in other words, or “the carrot”) together with (for any hold-outs) taking away all artificial and inappropriate incentives to stay (“push” in other words, or “the stick”:  no more welfare, no more affirmative action, no more forbidding of complete freedom of association to whites even if it costs non-whites jobs, promotions, private club membership, desirable apartments or housing, etc.) is reasonable and christian.  Two-thirds of your program isn’t.”

At some point White ethno-nationalists will have to come clear about what they intend to do about those people who can’t be “repatriated” because no other country will take them back. Many non-Whites have lived in White countries for several generations already and many of them have partial White ancestry. A policy of repatriation alone will not get us our countries back. Legal prohibition of reproduction for certain (combinations of) people, enforced by threat of legal punishment or possibly forced sterilization, is the only humane way. Personally, I don’t care if it’s Christian or not.

Posted by torgrim on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:02 | #

“One of the reasons people find “Nordicism” repugnant is because of views like this which seem borderline sociopathic.”—-Gudmund

Like you, Gudmund I am from the northern realms and I agree with your above statement.
Much of our problems come from the welfare/warfare statism and empire building, in history and present time, too. This has allowed the alien thought and concepts into our nations. Immigration, both legal and illegal are a part of this nation wrecking military/industrial/corporate, jaugernaut.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:19 | #

Kolvar is a rare beast, normally we hear about nordicism on MR but but not from them. And it’s not a story I like the sound of.

The sole purpose of nordicism in this context seems to be divisive, That makes me highly suspicious of Kolvar’s motives in posting here.

Its always time wasters like Silver and the like on about nordicism, never any of the heavy hitters on MR.

Posted by jerrym7 on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 20:36 | #

Thank you so much Heavenly Father for the decline of the the white race. It comes to show that you are Lord. In Jesus’ most Highest and Holiest name that we could possibly praise Him with, Amen.
Yes, the white race will disappear. Thank you Jesus.

Posted by So Souix Me on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:01 | #

I always say this slogan: “Don’t say it, do it.” While you guys keep going on and on about supremacy, I have slept with more white women than any of you supremacists here who keep constantly stating your ill facts. And its not cause I manipulate them, but more of my physical and intellectual features. Right now I can pick up the phone and call a beautiful white woman and she will come over and give me everything I want. So like I said, “Don’t say it, do it.”

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:10 | #

@So Souix Me

Well done - so you are a ‘mack Daddy’ and can bring out the whore in white sluts. Like to tell me about all the black versions of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, Goethe, Dostoevsky, Handel, Mozart, Newton, Darwin, Vermeer, Coorte, Laplace or Maxwell?

No didn’t think so.

Now run along…I guess you have hoes to pimp, crack to deal etc., - life is never dull for the modern nigga is it?

Posted by proudwhite blacklover on Sun, 12 Jan 2014 07:38 | #

This website is such bullshit.
To even glance at what has become of the people I thought I once was a part of makes me want to dye my skin black and shoot everysingle one of you and your entire families so that the infection of facisim does not spread.

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:30 | #

Posted by proudwhite blacklover on January 12, 2014, 02:38 AM | #

This website is such bullshit.
To even glance at what has become of the people I thought I once was a part of makes me want to dye my skin black and shoot everysingle one of you and your entire families so that the infection of facisim does not spread.

proudwhite n-lover:

In a very real sense we want the same thing: i.e., nothing to do with each other. We can accommodate you - dye your skin feces color and go live with Negroes. Stay there but do not dare impose their consequences upon us. Live with their way of life absent our presence. After all, you find us so offensive.