|
|
|
What is ‘White Supremacism’? Why is it bad? Typically, whenever anyone advocates any policy that remotely favors whites, he will be assailed 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. 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. Most of the right wing groups, in a desperate wish for respectability, play by the liberals’ rules and truckle under their demands. We’ll be ‘only so far to the right and no further.’ And in order to prove their true PC credentials, they will sharply vilify and attack anyone to the right of them, to show the leftie liberals 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. Let’s call a spade a spade. There are two definitions of white supremacy that make any sense, the objective and the subjective. I’ll explain each of them, and if you don’t fall under either category, if you are not a white supremacist in either sense, you should have no interest in being anything else either. 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. 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. Basically, you’re just a chink in our moral armor, a weak point liberals can chisel away at, dividing us amongst ourselves, causing friction and ultimately dissension and surrender in the ranks. Once you’ve admitted it’s immoral to be a white supremacist, everything else is immoral too, and it’s time to file for extinction. That’s the only other path that lays before us. People must choose. Definition 1, the Objective White Supremacism: The belief that whites are objectively superior beings, that by any fair measure, they come out ‘supreme.’ That whites are the best. That we are the best race and have the credentials to prove it. Is this true or false? First of course we must decide on what objective measures we will be using, to decide if we are superior or inferior. Let’s look at some simple ones then. Standard of Living. Whites have the highest standard of living in the world, we are indeed supreme at affording ourselves the very best lifestyle. 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. Perhaps a few asian countries like taiwan, south korea, singapore, japan will join in, but the map of the world will be colored distinctly ‘white good, non-white bad.’ Human Accomplishment is another objective measure we could use. Let’s go back through history and color the map of the world based on who did what. Again, you’ll get a few scattered good things in japan, china, or wherever—-and then a massive, dense, overwhelming scatterplot of white countries accomplishing virtually everything. Art, music, literature, math, science, technology, whatever you want, you will find it absolutely dominated by whites. Again, whites are supreme in their ability to accomplish, they take the cake by far. Read Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment if there’s any further doubt of this objective fact. ‘white good, non-white bad.’ It is a fact that even non-whites prefer the looks of white women. 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. Not just now, but across all time, not just blacks, but asians too. India has an entire caste system based around varna, or color, where the lighter skinned castes are respected more than the darker. The same is true in china, where parasols were used to keep the skin from tanning and skin lighteners used to chemically alter their basic skin color. We did not introduce that, they chose it on their own thousands of years ago. The objective superiority of our white women draws the lust of all the non-whites and makes them the constant victim of rape. White on non-white rape, however, is virtually non-existent. Why would a white want them? The difference is so vast, that while blacks rape 37,000 white women in America a year, not a single white on black rape occurred. Every single attempt the media has made to find a white on black rape has been discovered to be a hoax. The beauty of white women is supreme. Modeling magazines continuously find that white women sell, non-white women don’t, even in the non-white world. Commercials, billboards, and marriage online dating services, all feature lighter-skinned women even within their own race than their average skin tone. Young black children prefer playing with white dolls over black dolls, because they look better. White children, of course, are instinctively averse to non-white dolls, and when they grow up, refuse to miscegenate on the whole, at a vastly higher rate than non-whites who would love nothing better than to find a white woman. ‘white good, non-white bad.’ What about our physical, martial, and athletic prowess? Again, whites are supreme. The vast majority of the Summer and Winter Olympic Medalists are white, even though we are only 8% of the world population. This is just a hands down victory for the physical superiority of whites. Include any other sports, as many extra sports as you please, we would still come out on top. Whether it’s our teamwork, intelligence, strength, tenacity, or skill, somehow whites come out on top objectively, beyond all debate, so that’s that. What about war? On the battlefield, whites are again utterly dominant. Whites have rarely lost a war to non-whites, not in the long run, and we have with ridiculously small numbers routed non-white armies over and over again. The boxer rebellion, for instance, was put down handily by a handful of whites (and japanese). The mongols conquered china easily but lost to the not even united Europe (and to japan.) 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. The exchange rate between the USA and Japan, almost 10 to 1, showed again white superiority over even the best of the non-whites. And while the Roman Empire and the Greeks defeated Persia over and over again and took over much of the middle east, 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. Europe paid so little attention to these non-white aggressors that they still spent all their time fighting each other—-and STILL won. If one could ever imagine a ‘white army’ fighting as one against the non-white world, can anyone imagine anything but a smashing victory? Remember a few white texans took out the vastly larger mexican army, and the US-Mexico war was another easy victory for whites, that the boers at blood river defeated endless hordes of spear-chuckers, and that the US (or even the early settlers and pilgrims) traditionally defeated amerindians no matter what the odds over and over in our expansion westward. When it comes to the most basic measure of fitness, war and violent conflict, whites are supreme. It’s undebatable. We win, they lose, we are the best warriors of all time. ‘white good, non-white bad.’ So what is the use of not calling a spade a spade? The supreme race, the race that comes out on top in any competition, any measure of human fitness, any quality we respect, is the white race. We are the wealthiest, strongest, most accomplished, most beautiful race on earth. Objectively. Undeniably. Therefore anyone who even looks at the facts, anyone white or not, must through sheer logic and rationality, be a white supremacist. Whites are supreme, and therefore, anyone who acknowledges this fact, must be a white supremacist, by simple definition. Anyone who validates reality or cares about the truth, is a white supremacist, whether white or not, they must admit the superiority of the white race, as a whole, over any other. It is so impossible not to be a white supremacist, that only burying your head in the sand and intentionally looking for any little flaw in whites while exaggerating every good in non-whites, can remotely make the competition even. Only self-hating liberals are not white supremacists, there’s only two choices. To say that whites are the best in every field, but aren’t the supreme race, is just semantics. It’s moral cowardice. Definition Two, Subjective White Supremacism: The belief that whites, regardless of merit or cause, hold your supreme, over-arching loyalty. That the white race has a supreme place in your heart. That is trumps the other races, for you, simply because you choose for it to. Subjective White Supremacism would not be fazed by meeting aliens from outer space who are better in every way than us. Even so, we would proclaim, my duty, love, and loyalty are to my people, not yours, and I will live and die for them, not you. Rather than mercenary bean counting, rather than switching your loyalty to whoever meets some arcane criteria in your head, a simple, straightforward subjective white supremacy needs no rationale, no arguments, no proof at all. It just needs a willing heart. Subjective white supremacy is the counterpart to subjective racial solidarity among any other group. Saying your supreme interest, your supreme value, is the white race, is no different than Michelle Obama dedicating herself to the black race and its interests and valuing it above all others. It is no different from any other group forming an ‘asian blah blah’ or ‘jewish blah blah’ or ‘black blah blah’ or ‘hispanic blah blah.’ It’s an intentional effort to hold the interests of your group above all others, or loyalty to the in-group above the common or universal, of the supreme claim your race has on you. A white supremacist must simply care more about whites than any other, and he has quite clearly defined them as subjectively supreme, to him—after all it overarches all other races, and that is the definition of supreme. There is no escaping white supremacy then, if you care more about whites than other races, you are a white supremacist—they are supreme in your heart. They take the supreme place. They are on top. Subjective white supremacy can only be held by very confused non-whites, unlike objective white supremacy which should be held by any honest person on earth. Subjective white supremacy is the natural and instinctual and healthy and normal state of whites, the counterpart to every other group preferring their own and caring about their own. Whites who don’t love whites or care about how whites are doing all around the world, are race traitors, unnatural, they are like lepers and it hurts to even be around them, they are so offensive to our instinctual grasp of right and wrong. 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?’ If you don’t wish to see white interests secured first and foremost, above anyone else’s, if you don’t choose for the white to be happy or safe or free, if a choice must be made, then you’re not a white supremacist. Congratulations, you’ve completely denatured and castrated your moral sense, you can now join the ash heap of history with your non-evolutionarily successful views. For anyone who doesn’t hold whites supreme, will immediately lose to anyone who holds non-whites supreme, and while you go on compromising and giving away your interests, they will cling to all of theirs. 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, hispanics are cheering their coming majority status in the USA. Both people can’t be right. If it’s good to be a minority and dispossessed of your own land, then hispanics should be mourning their coming, woeful, hateful majority status. Somehow they don’t buy it though, somehow they don’t agree with whites in thinking majoritydom is all that hateful and bad, somehow they are quite happy with this result. Either one or the other strategy is correct. I believe in the one that will live. I believe in the one that grows. I believe in the one that lasts. Does white supremacism make any distinction between wishing whites well defensively versus aggressively? No, it does not. Objectively speaking, wanting the survival of the fittest, ‘may the best man win,’ would of course imply wishing to see whites spread and grow and flourish, as the truest inheritors of perfection, 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%. It would be seen as a horrible travesty, if whites stayed on earth perfectly defensively, keeping all their current land, while non-whites went off to colonize the universe. It would be a moral failure to not afford the best people the best chance at life. To not reward greatness with material goods, to somehow grovel and inch along on the edges and dregs of existence while placating our lessers and inferiors with all the fruits and pleasures of life. If we are better, we deserve better, and should get better, than our inferiors. 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. 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. If we were superior, but deserved nothing more, then what would being superior mean? What would it all be for? Are we seriously supposed to divide the world equally between apes and man? Between mud huts and skyscrapers? Between criminals and citizens? Superior always implies valuing them more, it cannot mean anything else, and those who are of higher value, deserve more than those of lesser value. 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. It was the flowering of the greatest race receiving its just reward, the greatest share of world population. It was matching our excellence to our rewards, our achievements to our population, our supremacy to our property. 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. That the world doesn’t belong to anyone in particular, that it is up for grabs between all lifeforms, that the best prevail in seizing it, that this de facto makes them the best, and the best deserve nothing short of the colonization of the world. I submit to you that homo sapiens did just this in their wiping out of neanderthals and homo habilus and all the other junk species long ago, and that it was moral for them to do so, because they were better and deserved better than their inferiors. 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. We should never allow the universe to slip away from us, we should never give away the future as someone else’s property, we should be first and foremost in everything, we should rule. Just as humans dominate the inanimate, anmal, and plant kingdoms, the best are the natural rulers of the world, and naturally who we wish to see survive AND grow, AND flourish, AND prosper. It is ridiculous to hold we are the best, but that therefore we only deserve 8% of the world, or that we can only defend our slowly dwindling land masses in some rear guard action. If we are the best, we deserve the best, and that’s that. And that chain of logic, of course, is why people are so opposed to white supremacism. Because in its implications, in its logical results, in its chain of reasoning, once you say whites are supreme either objectively or subjectively, you must also say they deserve the supreme share, the supreme good, the supreme victory, the supreme triumph over all others. You must immediately, logically, follow up by saying they should be supreme. But, does it help to shrink away from logic and reason? If it is logical and reasonable to be a white supremacist, if any honest person would be so no matter how they fight it, and if it is logical and reasonable that the superior should triumph and rule over the inferior, that the superior should succeed and the inferior fail, the superior grow and the inferior shrink, that the superior should replace the inferior and not the inferior the superior—-then what choice does an honest person have? What choice an honest thinker but go the whole way? What choice a moral person than to cheer for the most ‘immoral’ deeds? What choice but to rethink everything we were ever taught and start revering the true heroes of history? The colonists, the imperialists, the racists, everyone who helped not white ‘survival’, which was never their interest and would’ve sounded like a joke to them, the strongest people on earth, but white power, white rule, white imperium, white fecundity, white wealth, white victory. Was it not heroes who defeated the incas and aztecs? Heroes who drove out the mongols from Russia, the turks from Europe, the maoris from new zealand, the zulus from south africa, the apaches from the West, the muslims from sicily and spain, on and on? Were not our greatest presidents also generals who fought the Indians so that the white race might spread and prevail and grow and rule? Weren’t Hong Kong and Macao good things? Wasn’t Perry opening up trade with Japan a good thing? Isn’t Canada and Argentina better than what came before? Aren’t we glad France turned back the non-white tide at Tours? How is there any difference, the essence remains the same, defensive or offensive, what we celebrate, what we enjoy, is whites winning. Whites maintaining their power and success in the world. There can be no morality that artificially, arbitrarily draws a line and says ‘white rule is moral here but immoral there.’ ‘a white population is good on this square acre but bad on that one.’ It is meaningless. If it’s good, it’s good. It’s good anywhere, everywhere. If it’s better than anything else, it’s best, it should be striven for, it’s a good outcome when it happens. Though arguments can be made that objectively, non-whites are superior in some fields and thus should be, by dint of merit, given the just rewards of their supremacy, it would of course fall short of 92% of the world. It would fall short of 50% of the world. Whatever the fair debatable figure is, it is not today’s figure, and thus doesn’t matter. Another argument could be that like zoos or the endangered species act, even completely inferior beings should be allowed some representation on earth as simply a curiosity or exotic diversity, but such reservations would be small and essentially meaningless—it would not change the moral calculus. As far as today goes, all that can be said is whites deserve far, far better than any rear guard, or defense, or holding action, could give. 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. For things they never were and never will be. Whites deserve better, they invented the very way of life the rest of the world is living, they afforded it with their miraculous systems and devices, and now they are to be dispossessed of it all—the very wealth and happiness they created, that non-whites had no hand in making, but consume voraciously. Preposterous. We morally can take back the entirety of our contribution, which is debatable, but well over 50%, of all the world’s goods. 8% is a joke, our coming 1% is a sin. To sum up, white supremacism is holding that whites are either objectively superior, or subjectively superior in your love for them, just like a ‘family supremacist’ who cares more about his children than someone else’s children. Both are natural and logical, neither can be denied by any sensible white, the facts support the first case, emotions and human nature supports the second. Only pretzel people can avoid being white supremacists, and they are nothing but jokes and lepers to those of us who remain. White supremacy being true and right, it only follows that white supremacy in the material world, in resource allocation, in well-being, in power, in population, should also be good and right. If we are better, we deserve better. If we are the best, we deserve the best. White supremacy therefore advocates whites, in fact, be supreme. Starting from the initial cause that we are the happiest, brightest, fittest, most beautiful, most accomplished, best exemplars of the human race and indeed all life, we deserve nothing less than the best results, the best situation, the best position, the supreme height of the food chain, the pecking order, the totem pole. Winners should win. Anything less is a crime against nature. Any less support by a white for whites, is an act of race treason. By either definition, whites must support their own, all the way to the hilt, and though the environment means we can’t enact such a morality, we can at least celebrate the time it did—-The Age of Exploration, the Enlightenment, the whitening of the world that lasted until WWI, was indeed our finest hour. This pathetic groveling and decay, our darkest. With that in mind, we can keep the flame alive—for the age of salvation and rebirth. Comments:99002
Posted by Dharma Chakra on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:43 | #
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. 99003
Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:14 | #
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? 99004
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:
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. 99005
Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:42 | # “God is evolution.” And you prove yourself to be a joke. 99006
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) 99007
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. 99008
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. 99009
Posted by Armor on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:34 | #
I’m afraid he won’t accept it. Now, you’ll have to die.
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.
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.
No, immigration is organized by the immigrationists.
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.
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.
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?
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.
It is the gist of every intervention of yours: “seriously, folks, you make me cringe!” I think you just like to cringe.
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 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. 99010
Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:45 | # Armor + Scrooby + GW = MR Of course, that’s just my opinion! 99011
Posted by Dharma Chakra on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:53 | #
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. 99012
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! 99013
Posted by Dave Johns on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:22 | # Armor + Scrooby + GW = MR Let me add James Bowery on that list. 99014
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. 99015
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 99016
Posted by GoyAmongYou on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:57 | #
A Yenta in the Lotus ! Germans… By the target of their hatred ye shall know them 99017
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. 99018
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. 99019
Posted by Diamed on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:44 | # From Webster’s Dictionary: Main Entry: : 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? 99020
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. 99022
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:
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) 99023
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. 99024
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. 99025
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. 99026
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
:(. Come on Auster we’re waiting. 99027
Posted by Kolvar on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:03 | #
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. 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. 99028
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. 99029
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. 99030
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! 99031
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 99032
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. 99033
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. 99034
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. 99035
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. 99036
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.” 99037
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? 99038
Posted by proudwhite blacklover on Sun, 12 Jan 2014 07:38 | # This website is such bullshit. 99039
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.
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. Post a comment:
Next entry: Charity and the savage
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Fri, 02 Aug 2024 11:29. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Fri, 02 Aug 2024 01:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Fri, 02 Aug 2024 01:09. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Fri, 02 Aug 2024 01:08. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:56. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Wed, 31 Jul 2024 09:15. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:30. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:50. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 14:11. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 05:20. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 04:20. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 03:37. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 02:01. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 01:40. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:10. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 23:04. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sun, 21 Jul 2024 04:35. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 11:14. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 02:55. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sat, 20 Jul 2024 02:39. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:41. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Thu, 18 Jul 2024 23:57. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Thu, 18 Jul 2024 23:42. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Mon, 15 Jul 2024 23:03. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:25. (View) |
. 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 Dharma Chakra on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:36 | #
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.