|
|
Justin Raimondo versus ‘white supremacists’Earlier in the year libertarian Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com wrote an article for Taki Mag arguing that racialism was pseudo-science. Now he’s back just in time for the apparent election of Barack Obama with White Supremacists for … Obama?. (I’ve always been annoyed by the term “white supremacists”. After all we don’t hear advocates of other races referred to as “supremacists”). Raimondo writes:“‘These people are crazy, of course, as are all racialists: they have race on the brain, and very little else in their brains”. I responded:
I then picked up my back issues of the Rothbard/Rockwell Report from the 1990s. (Justin Raimondo occasionally wrote for the RRR and he also wrote a book on Murray Rothbard).
Libertarians are the first to criticise white collectivism but are very shy about similar activity from non-whites. Yet it is hard to think of a whiter ideology than libertarianism. White libertarians absolutely have to know that black Americans, Latin American immigrants to the USA, Asian immigrants to Canada and Australia, and Muslims in Europe will never ever become individualists quoting Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard. They have no interest and never will have any interest in Anglo-Saxon individualist anti-statism. (I can’t say I blame them). Libertarians also must know that such immigrants have little interest in pet libertarian concerns like the right to smoke dope and consume homosexual and child pornography. If libertarians are sane (?) then they must be the most die-hard believers in the idea that human beings are blank slates. Leftists, at least, understand that Third World immigrants are useful to their cause. Libertarians cannot say the same thing yet they continue to support racial egalitarianism and open borders. Libertarians are not serious people.
Posted by Matra on Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 12:20 AM in Comments:2
Posted by Wayne on November 02, 2008, 04:14 AM | # That’s the crux - libertarianism logically leads to the destruction of liberty because it has no capacity for defending itself on its own terms - there is no reason to believe that mass immigration (which libertarians support) will actually be good for the right to freedom of speech, association and property, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. But libertarians still support mass immigration. Whenever they are called upon to make concrete predictions about how this is going to end up, they refuse to come clean. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 02, 2008, 08:29 AM | #
4
Posted by Diamed on November 02, 2008, 10:11 AM | # Bravo for taking the fight to the libertarians! Ayn Rand was a jew, her real name is Rosenbaum, and most of her followers were also jews. It is just one more ploy to disarm and destroy the white race. “Hey whites, be completely individual! Don’t care about anyone else! Don’t care about the past or the future! Do whatever you want to yourself, no one has the right to stop you!” Meanwhile they’re organizing the ‘national association for the advancement of colored people,’ ‘la raza,’ ‘united negro college fund,’ ‘jewish congress,’ ‘anti-defamation league of bini b’rith,’ on and on and on. Who are they kidding? For the last 50 years libertarians have been trying to destroy every last vestige of organization, solidarity, love, duty, and community in the white race while their ethnic kinfolk have been trying to build that up in all non-white races just as diligently. When do we realize the only possible winner in a fight between an organized united group and a bunch of selfish uncontrollable individuals? How can there be any libertarian of good will, or in good faith as you put it? They know for a fact that unilaterally disarming your community only makes you prey for other tribal thinkers, and they don’t care. Why is that do you think? Maybe because the ‘tribe’ that’s disarming was never their tribe in the first place? Not only that, but libertarians sicken me in the abstract because they hold no higher value than their own pleasure. These people are amoral and capable of anything, you can never trust someone who rejects honor pride or duty as ‘fetters to his freedom.’ Whether liberal or libertarian there is no way to live alongside them or their poisonous values, they destroy everything they touch. 5
Posted by Gudmund on November 02, 2008, 10:29 AM | # Excellent comment by Diamed. Libertarianism is a trojan horse for our people. I know, because I was one back when I was a young, naive college student. Some people try to bring up the academic libertarianism (i.e. von Mises, et al - all Jews as well), with its sense of German ethics, as the “true libertarianism.” But the type that most whites are exposed to is the vapid “Randian philosophy” (she was hardly a philosopher) which is a rationalization of rank hedonism. 6
Posted by Fr. John on November 02, 2008, 10:35 AM | # Isn’t Raimondo a HOMOSEXUAL? talk about posing…as a real man. The hubris of homosexuals lies in the fact that they are at war, with God and man, for their conscious ‘choice’ of a sexual perversion. The reason Raimondo is opposed to ‘racialism’ is that he HAS none; in that (to be blunt)his ‘seed’ is going into the anus of his partners (and thus, down the toilet, to be blunt) rather than creating a racial continuity that he so despises. Or is he the ‘bottom’ in his unholy alliances? Truly, ‘all those that hate Me, (YHWH God/Wisdom) love death.’ Prov. 8:36 And, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them ... because of that, when they knew God, the glorified him not as God. but beame vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” - St. Paul, Romans, 1: 19-21 You wonder why Gays are in league with the liberals, and the anarchists. Their entire lives are one anarchic ‘finger’ to God. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 02, 2008, 10:36 AM | # The thought just popped into my head that Jonah Goldberg is the American Perry de Havilland (or de Havilland the British Jonah, whichever). Yes, forget the labels “neocon” and “libertarian,” and forget one or two unimportant details. They’re virtually identical twins right down to their airheaded adolescentoid personalities. 8
Posted by Diamed on November 02, 2008, 10:43 AM | # P.S.—- If I’m a farmer, and I have a choice between two strains of wheat: One that yields 20 bushels an acre, and one that yields 50 bushels an acre, am I a grain supremacist for preferring the 50 bushel an acre strain? Is it grain supremacism to plant the 50 bushel an acre strain and not plant the 20 bushel an acre strain? Is it grain supremacism to want to spread the 50 bushel an acre strain all around the world replacing the 20 bushel an acre strain wherever it is still foolishly being planted? Is it grain supremacism to forbid any further 20 bushel an acre strain wheat to be planted in my land which has been happily growing and harvesting 50 bushel an acre strain wheat for centuries now? If such obviously salutary policies are ‘grain supremacist,’ does that make the common sense policies evil or supremacism natural, just, and good? The obvious implications for miscegenation, immigration, and foreign policy should now be understood! 9
Posted by John on November 02, 2008, 11:01 AM | # Imo, the white dispossession and displacement that we are witnessing around would be infinitely slower if it could occur at all without focing us to subsidize it through the welfare state and curtailing freedom of association. The illegal drug market created by prohibition and the bullshit “drug war” don’t help us much either (perhaps they enrich the psychopathic among us on both sides of the law). Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. 10
Posted by Matra on November 02, 2008, 11:47 AM | # The reason Raimondo is opposed to ‘racialism’ is that he HAS none Homosexuals do not necessarily oppose racialism or protecting one’s ethnic genetic interests. Many homosexual men still marry and have children - not so much today as they are no longer considered social pariahs needing to hide their inclinations. Even those who wish to live the gay lifestyle are probably aware that they have more freedom in white countries - generally speaking. As long as they don’t try to undermine their ethnic group (eg. promoting legislation undermining family formation) I don’t have a problem with them as they are only a small percentage of the population. Unfortunately, the most visible activists do try to undermine societal norms. In that respect they can be another useful battering ram for the left. 11
Posted by Wayne on November 02, 2008, 11:52 AM | # Imo, the white dispossession and displacement that we are witnessing around would be infinitely slower if it could occur at all without focing us to subsidize it through the welfare state and curtailing freedom of association. John is right, but here’s the problem: Libertarians STILL support mass immigration (and oppose all measures to restrict it) in SPITE of the Actually Existing Welfare State. What gives? When pinned down, they are usually forced to admit that immigration is a “problem”, “but”, they say, “only” because of the welfare state. Ok, so far so good for what it’s worth. However, this logically implies that so long as welfare is not or cannot be taken off the table (i.e. forever so long as every adult above 18 is allowed to vote in a democracy), there is no reason to support continued mass immigration (which COULD be restricted given that a majority of voters in most advanced democracies tend to favour restricted immigration whenever they are polled on the issue), unless one is suffering from cognitive dissonance, or is motivated by malice. Yet, how many libertarians opposed the amnesty legislation, given that there were no provisions in that bill to abolish welfare? Did any prominent libertarians oppose amnesty, knowing full well that welfare was going to continue and even expand in the future, partly because of the illegal alien amnesty? What did they all have to say about it? The answer is that CATO supported the bill (saying that it “wasn’t perfect” but still “better than nothing”), Lew Rockwell’s site was silent or even in favour of it (Ryan McMaken is rabidly pro-immigration), Raimondo seemed to support it, citing some gay Moroccan friend of his who made it to the USA illegally. A couple of neo-cons at NRO had to be dragged kicking and screaming to an anti-amnesty position, but basically their default line (i.e. whenever their feet aren’t being held to the fire) is pro-amnesty. That should tell you more than you need to know about the “libertarian” movement. 12
Posted by Wayne on November 02, 2008, 11:58 AM | # ” Even those who wish to live the gay lifestyle are probably aware that they have more freedom in white countries - generally speaking.” Yes, restricted immigration is LOGICALLY in the interests of homosexuals, who will be murdered in the streets under any local shariah regime. But are homosexuals, generally speaking, logical people? I haven’t encountered that many, myself. In fact, most homosexual activists are hysterical queens who oppose free speech and are totally on board with creating ever-expanding categories of “hate crimes” to combat the omnipotent forces of “bigotry”. Not very useful, are they? 13
Posted by Matra on November 02, 2008, 12:02 PM | # Oz libertarian Steve Edwards (“Raving Wingnut”) doesn’t fit this mold of course, and libertarians like Sean Gabb, Prof. Chris Brand, and Prof. John J. Ray John Ray’s more of a conservative than a libertarian. The others are, of course, preferable to the Samizdata/Reasonoid types (indeed I wish Steve Edwards were still posting here) but unless Ron Paul is having a greater impact than I imagine he is the vast majority of libertarians are more Nick Gillespie than Steve Edwards or Hans-Herman Hoppe. Just imagine how the average poster at Reason or Samizdata would react to Chris Brand’s website! Besides Justin Raimondo is a so-called paleolibertarian. They are good on foreign policy, including the Israel lobby, and in the 90s they went out of their way to give us the impression that they agreed with paleocons on national and cultural issues. Yet JR went nuts after Ron Paul put out an anti-illegal immigrant commercial and Lew Rockwell lets his contributors gloat about the decline of white America. Their singular obsession with the state means they would look harshly on anyone advocating state action on immigration. 14
Posted by John on November 02, 2008, 12:04 PM | # I agree with you Wayne. There’s a “libertarian” on a board I post on alot who is nearly omnipresent on threads having anything to do with race or immigration and is always on about peoples’ “right” to live anywhere they want and against “racists” and “white supremacists”. He gives lip service to free markets and being against welfare and for free association once in a while but his real agenda is obvious. I have no doubt there are many disingenuous “libertarians” like him. 15
Posted by Armor on November 02, 2008, 12:19 PM | #
And leftists are posturers ( —j.ray ) —> They must be the same kind of animals.
I think race differences should be used exclusively as a useful argument against third-world immigration to the West, not to justify the replacement of Africans by Europeans, or the replacement of Europeans by Chinese people! 16
Posted by Captainchaos on November 02, 2008, 12:21 PM | # I posted the following comments over at Takimag: Man was social/tribal before he was Man. You kill the one and the other necessarily dies. They are not separable. Those who would deny to us our peoplehood deny us everything. They have not a moral leg to stand on. Posted by Captainchaos on Nov 02, 2008.
It is nothing less than Love. What is Love/altruism but the evolved affinity and obligation that Man feels for his fellows? Understanding Love is the awareness of Life’s only purpose, the transmission of itself through time - our genetic continuity. If not so, provide me with a better definition. Love, Love of one’s own, for the “flesh of my flesh of my flesh”, is Nature’s most precious gift and pressing necessity. Loving, however, is not free, it comes at a price. To fully Love, a man must submit to all the obligations that the object of his affections requires for its sustenance. A man who sees his people thrive will know joy and a man who believes his people will live forever will know peace. A man who will not submit to Love’s heavy obligations is not worthy of it, nor will a people which is not long subsist. We White Men, the only ones worthy of the name, fight for the continued existence of our people. Verily it can be said that we fight for Love. So that this Love will never end. Those that deny to us the necessary means to ensure the continuity of our White people are complicit in the destruction of that which we Love. That we cannot abide. Our will to fight for our people is only breakable by death. We will never give in. Posted by Captainchaos on Nov 02, 2008. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Let us see if the weight of the moral argument does not crush them. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 02, 2008, 12:54 PM | # Very good statement above by CC, on love, never giving in, and our will that is breakable only by death. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 02, 2008, 12:56 PM | # And it doesn’t even break with death, of course, but lives on in whatever form the soul takes after leaving the mortal husk. Our will in this is immortal. It never breaks, never dies. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 02, 2008, 01:00 PM | # Robert E. Lees’s soul is alive. Stonewall Jackson’s soul is alive. Jefferson Davis’s is alive, Jeb Stuart’s is alive, Nathan Beford Forrest’s is alive. Yes and Judah Benjamin’s soul is alive. My soul receives nourishment from their living souls, and after I am gone from this mortal state my soul will impart nourishment to the souls of others, among our brethren who will, if need be, carry on this fight. This fight will never end. 20
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 02, 2008, 02:08 PM | # Not that I’ve given it much thought, but it occurs to me that I have two problems with Libertarians: 1) They’re men of principle. I hate men of principle. Men of principle are morons, caring more for their abstractions than they do for reality (usually because they’re going to be the last to actually face the reality they’re creating with their abstract stupidities). Priorities libertards, priorities! Living is more important than abstracting. Life is more important than the abstract. 2) They’re not even men of principle, because if they were, the specifics of libertarianism would be very different. E.g., the right of individuals to form collectives is nowhere on their radar. That said, if they have their priorities straight (life > abstractions) then they can make perfect sense. 21
Posted by Captainchaos on November 02, 2008, 02:22 PM | # Here is a comment I was going to post in Raimondo’s “white-supremacist” thread but was blocked from doing so. Hey, Raimondo, you are an anti-White hypocrite! “...some of the country’s most unabashed bigots…” - Raimondo Bigot - “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” Example: Charles Lindbergh who said: “Our bond with Europe is a bond of race and not of political ideology. We had to fight a European army to establish democracy in this country. It is the European race we must preserve; political progress will follow. Racial strength is vital politics, a luxury. If the white race is ever seriously threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its protection, to fight side by side with the English, French, and Germans, but not with one against the other for our mutual destruction.” http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech3.asp Love - “A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship…” Example: see Lindbergh. Boilerplate: - “Inconsequential, formulaic, or stereotypical language…” Example: “...former Grand Dragon of the KKK and currently Supreme Nutball of the “White Aryan Resistance,”...” - Raimondo Raimondo on Lindbergh: “...American hero sprung from the heartland…” Raimondo on logic, proof, and the argumenum ad Hitlerum: “That Gaynor has no use for such old-fashioned devices as logic and proof is evident by the second sentence of his screed, when he resorts to the reductio ad Hitlerum, as Leo Strauss dubbed it.” http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7908 And what fate awaits the White people of the “heartland” and their tradition culture that Lindbergh so loved? “A concept nation is incapable of principled defense against ethnic replacement. The doctrine is as pathological as a conception of the family that did not allow parents to show preference for their children.” - Dr. Frank Salter, author of On Genetic Interests 22
Posted by silver on November 02, 2008, 02:36 PM | #
Many might. Plenty of jews have. The real point is no group, not even whites, will ever form a critical mass in favor of libertarianism. Who knows why these people are libertarians? It’s true that economy opportunity would increase, which would enable them to escape the ravages of diversity. That’s perhaps one reason. “Americanism”/Constitutionalism is closely aligned to libertarianism, which might be another reason. Most of them, I suspect, argue from incorrect first principles, going on to fantasize about the glories that will then redound. Libertarianism philosophy hopelessly overrates itself. Its supporters love to spout Randian flapdoodle about the only about the only justifiable function of a government being protection from physical violence. They can never actually explain why beyond it simply being a reasonable preference; even the attempt to explain is often enough to fry their brains. Unfortunately, when Raimondo says…
...he’s only too right. 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 02, 2008, 03:12 PM | #
I don’t get what he’s criticizing there, “having race on the brain” or “having very little else in their brains”? I have race on the brain, and as for what else I have, I dunno, I’d go up against Raimondo in a test of 1) general academic knowledge and 2) general cultural knowledge, and make a respectable showing I’m sure (I think I’d frankly leave him in the dust, is what I think). I suspect so could GW, so could “a Finn,” so could James Bowery, so could JWH, so could Svy, so could Ben Tillman, so could Desmond Jones, so could Wintermute, so could Friedrich Braun, so could Rnl, so could Matra, so could Prozium, so could lots and lots and lots of other guys who “have race on the brain” and have posted here — not mentioning guys who “have race on the brain” and haven’t posted here, such as La Griffe du Lion, Greg Cochran, Thrasymachus, Steve Sailer, Prof. Rushton, Prof. Andrew Fraser, Prof. Tomislav Sunic, Prof. Richard Lynn, Prof. Ellis of Leeds University, Prof. Chris Brand, Prof. J.D. Watson, and ... well, you get the point. 24
Posted by Armor on November 02, 2008, 04:01 PM | #
Robert Putnam agrees. According to him, racial diversity means fewer close friends, less happiness, more television watching… So, there is only 1 possible conclusion: JR is anti-love! Besides, what Putnam doesn’t say is that racial diversity is racial replacement in the making. And I think this is what Captainchaos takes exception to. Why should we turn against our own people, the only people we love, and have them replaced with third-world immigrants? How can it be moral to do so? Once we’ve been used and destroyed, what made non-whites envious of our society will disappear too. What makes us rich and successful is not so much economic productivity as love, and the quality of the relations between people. We are told to share our wealth with immigrants. What they would really need is our IQ. We are told to give them our identity, but they already have one. We are also told that they must be “integrated”. But integration only goes so far: we can give them jobs and accept them in schools and everywhere, but the relations and the love that exist between white people cannot be transferred ! french maxim: il n’est de richesse que d’hommes. 25
Posted by Desmond Jones on November 02, 2008, 04:17 PM | #
The purpose of the site is to discuss culture and race. It’s not about renovating your kitchen or neural stem cell research. “Race on the brain” goes with the territory. Does silver posit the pros and cons of silicon brake fluid when here at MR? The best means to protect Juniperus chinensis in a Canadian winter? 26
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 02, 2008, 04:36 PM | # Yeah, that’s like saying libertarians have abstract stupidity on the brain, and little else in them. I’m sure libertarians have other things to do online (never mind offline), but they go discuss them in appropriate forums. It’s more instructive to show just how stupid libertarians are qua libertarians than it is to set up a side show about their “obsessions”. I have oodles of other interests, but they have little to do with politics. More to the point, JR is toadying up to the mainstream here; the establishment conspires (for various reasons) to exclude race-realism from the debate. Politics is a complex subject, and when you remove one strand from the web, it collapses into an unintelligible mess. It’s like trying to discuss politics under a taboo forbidding mentioning humans, or recognizing their existence. This would rightfully become the primary talking point of all sane people until it no longer obtains. 27
Posted by Al Ross on November 02, 2008, 05:00 PM | # Libertarians comprise only about 4% of the US electorate and they favour Obongo (53%) over McCain (38%) with the remainder being either ‘dont knows’ or preferring another candidate (Ron Paul?), so the Libertarian racial survival instinct seems suicidally unformed and uninformed. 28
Posted by Bo on November 02, 2008, 05:09 PM | # We’d like to point out that we need to start calling other people supremacists, with or without a racial implication. A happy litmus test exists for defining the other as a supremacist and that is when he or she claims the right to name us. It is clearly a symptom of supremacist leanings when someone else tells you your name or label. An example is being called “straight” by a gay person (however did that label arise, it’s like being called a breeder). And the single word label smothers all the wonderful diversity among those who prefer the opposite sex. Other examples are infidels and goyim which are direct impositions of religious names or labels on us and ours. The racial naming of us and ours abounds. Even the word “racists” is often a noun and suitable to build an argument on that the speaker is a supremacist. Black Americans enjoy honky, cracker, and peckerwood for us. Latino Americans enjoy blanco and anglo to smother our vibrant diversity. Asian Americans have a host of unfriendly names and labels for us, too. Most of the diverse white Americans pull back from resisting others’ names and labels for us to our great cost, and it is probably because of not wanting to sound like a crybaby sobbing over “offensiveness” as a measure. But we don’t need “offensiveness,” because we can launch a straight attack back by labeling the speaker as a supremacist who claims the power to control our name or label—hard to imagine a more pointed attack on who we are than to steal our name. This line of argument goes much deeper than just naming, but this is a good start. 29
Posted by James Bowery on November 02, 2008, 05:51 PM | # Actually, Bo, I’d like to take your own primary cause “resisting defamation” and apply it to a critique of your stance: The label of “supremacist”, like “racist”, is rarely used except to defame self-identified Euromen aka “whites” in the current venacular. Legitimately used “supremacist” is the imposition of government without consent of the governed and has a profound link to medical ethics wherein humans are not to be subjected to experimentation—or even treatment of “known” efficacy—without their consent. By this clearly reasonable definition “liberal democracy” is supremacist in that, in practice, it is a tyranny of the majority limited only by a selectively enforced wish-list of “minority rights”. The reason “majority rights” makes sense as the name of this blog in this pathological environment is that very phrase “minority rights” implies that if one can be identified with some kind of “majority” then one has no legitimate rights. Even being called a member of a “majority”—and one day this will change to “major minority when whites are no longer a majority—is a way of reducing one to subhuman status where the only escape is majority-bloc-voting to impose the will of the majority on others (hence falling into the “supremacist” trap)—OR and this is crucial—assortative migration supporting territorial secession aka “separatism”. Of course, since the current tyrannical regime conflates “separatists” with “supremacists” it is a no-win situation unless we neutralize its power structure. How hideous that the white culture was one of the first to free slaves in the world and provide universal franchise is the least trusted to be genuinely sincere in its separatist, as opposed to supremacist, desires. In my mind, it is simply the lack of trust that a murderer has of a last remaining victim when the victim pleads that s/he will not go to the police if the murderer lets them go. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on November 02, 2008, 06:00 PM | # I spent about a year exploring the libertarian mind on-line before MR was launched. It’s not complicated. The individual is All and Everything. And when you show that the individual is nothing and can never be free without Nation - and we all know what it is to test these characters to destruction - they fall back on the same Godwin-strewn, censorious ground as any common or garden Guardianista. They have to. Individual + Nation just does not compute for them. The excision of Nation from all conventional political thought, no matter how critically rationalist, is the postmodern condition (see James’ first comment in the thread to that linked post for his characteristically novel explanation of why). 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 02, 2008, 07:13 PM | # Samizdata.net, an old thread from 2003:
Perry’s flip brazenness there takes the breath away. He thinks he’s so cool, so hip, when all he is is a miserable little egotistical Salterian free rider. In any society I’d set up his ilk would be asked politely but firmly to please leave. It’s New Hampshire he wants is it? (I lived four years in that beautiful state.) Let’s see the kind of New Hampshire he gets when the white people who created it have been driven out or race-mixed to extinction. The utter fool. He’s what age? He thinks like a twelve-year-old and a lazy, shirking, disrespectful, bratty, irresponsible twelve-year-old at that. And to think this zero runs this famous blog all these oh-so-sophisticated Americans flock to — it’s pathetic, it really and truly is. Granted, that thread was five years old. But if you haven’t changed for the better since then, Perry, you’re what’s known as a free rider: look it up in Frank Salter. It’ll be like taking a look in the mirror — taking a look spiritually, potentially the scariest way to look. 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 02, 2008, 07:15 PM | # Forgive me, Perry got me so mad, I neglected to close a tag there. 33
Posted by n/a on November 02, 2008, 09:30 PM | # Don’t know about “white supremacists”, but a commenter at Sailer’s blog points out that there is an official European & Mediterranean Americans for Obama (to go along with Arab Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders, and Jewish Americans for Obama).
Note the conspicuous absence of founding-stock and (non-Irish) northwestern European Americans. Of course, this should present no obstacle for many “white nationalists” who fundamentally agree with the left that majority whites have no right to organize along ethnic lines to secure their interests. 34
Posted by Gudmund on November 02, 2008, 09:58 PM | # n/a, What if you don’t fit neatly into any community? I’m a Yank of 100% Euro stock. BUT: Polish, Anglo-Norman-Rhenish, Scandinavian, Celtic. In the USA, dare I say, White might have to suffice at this point. 35
Posted by n/a on November 02, 2008, 10:15 PM | # In the USA, dare I say, White might have to suffice at this point. No. Northwestern European-derived people remain easily in the majority among American “whites”. Even in your case, all the nationalities you name are on the northern side of the primary north/south European divide. 36
Posted by weston on November 02, 2008, 10:26 PM | #
The reason there isn’t an “Anglo-Americans for Obama” or a “German-Americans” for Obama is that these people see themselves simply as white. They eschew the hyphen. I’m 7/8 English and 1/8 German, and it was always the same way in my family. We self-identified as white, not as Anglo-Americans. 37
Posted by silver on November 02, 2008, 10:32 PM | #
That may be MR’s purpose, but racialism is also about politics, economics and philosophy. “Race on the brain and little else in it,” in this sense, refers to racialists’ tendency to summarily dismiss all competing ideologies with one word: race. Liberalism is wrong, race. Neoconism is wrong, race. Libertarianism, race. Paleoconism, race. Art, race. Education, race. Leisure, race. Race, race, race. Of course, I don’t disagree with you. Race is that significant, is that important. But it’s not the whole story, and, times being what they are, far greater elaboration is required than racialists have been willing or able to provide if racialism is to get a seat at the table—even the cream of racialist publications read like a litany of complaints . Blogs do likewise. There are no policy recommendations besides ending immigration, itself transparently inadequate. There is little attempt to illustrate the way in which racialist policies (whatever they might be) would impact on the population, discussion of the problems which may emerge and suggestions of how they might be tackled. The picture which emerges is one of fuming reactionaries with little to add to a public debate obssessed with inclusive betterment. Now, the Raimondos of the world have their own self-interested reasons for denouncing white race-on-the-brainers. It’s not just the foregoing that troubles them. A Raimondo has a certain idea of America in which he is firmly included. A race-on-the-brain conception of America, on the other hand, whose unstated tenets a mind as sharp as Raimondo’s can readily infer, risks excluding him. But why should that be so—how can that be so—a furious Raimondo wants to know. In every way but race-on-the-brain Raimondo is an outstanding American. How can race be so important to the goddam race-on-the-brainers that his every contribution, his every quality, his very existence is nullified with but one word? Of course, his concerns betray his (subconscious?) acknowledgement that his certain idea of America is white America. I can relate. Figuratively, I grew up a secular, assimilated jew (much like an Irving Berlin)—thus my frustrations, my sighs, my chagrin, on full display since my first day here (though my views have obviously evolved enormously since). They’re what a David Brooks, finally broken by the burden of having to lie, might confess to. 38
Posted by n/a on November 02, 2008, 11:06 PM | # these people see themselves simply as white Yes. Why? They identify as unhyphenated white/American because they descend from the people who founded America (or racially-compatible assimilants). As might be expected, majority Americans for a long time controlled America. Which made/makes them targets for white and non-white minorities seeking to advance the interests of their groups. Obama just wants to finish what Kennedy started. (Of course, this does not mean all “minorities” are interchangeable. Irish are obviously more assimilable than sub-Saharans.) 39
Posted by Captainchaos on November 02, 2008, 11:09 PM | # But, but,...silver? (lower lip trembling) You told us you were in favor of “assortative migration.” So you said, so we believed. “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Bastard, Odin will not be kind to you on Judgement Day. 40
Posted by Desmond Jones on November 03, 2008, 12:06 AM | #
Or maybe he’s “just a fool...and an ass, and a prating coxcomb.” 41
Posted by silver on November 03, 2008, 01:01 AM | #
And so I am. That would be a humane, minimally economically disruptive way to achieve racial separation (after the need for it has been established and territories assigned). I don’t know what gave you the impression I’d contradicted myself. Is your head hurting again? Desmond, That wasn’t particularly devastating. So the man’s not perfect, wow. No non-Anglo-Saxon is in your eyes, even if he does tell the truth about race and reality. You’re just being prickly as per usual. 42
Posted by Desmond Jones on November 03, 2008, 01:44 AM | # Tells the truth about race and reality? He’s an unmitigated liar. 43
Posted by J Richards on November 03, 2008, 02:03 AM | # No point in wasting discussion over the people at antiwar.com, except for….. Antiwar.com was formed by Jew Eric Garris and Justin Raimondo. Is Raimondo, the anti-war champion, oblivious to the fact that the despised ‘white supremacists’ would not have ordered an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq because they would not serve the interests of whites, cause terrible suffering for the Afghans and Iraqis, cause great losses for America, and couldn’t be justified on any grounds. These wars were instigated by Jews to serve the interests of Jews and Israel at the expense of others. The better informed ‘white supremacists’ also know that the trigger for the Afghan and Iraq invasions was 9/11, a false flag operation planned and orchestrated by Jews. The anti-war site gets tens of thousands of dollars in donations. What has it achieved? Nothing, and it couldn’t be otherwise because they deliberately blame the wrong people. We have Jews instigating wars and then we have Jews setting up ‘anti-war’ movements that serve to deflect blame from the true culprits – Jew criminals – by blaming everything from Bush-Cheney to the military-industrial complex, New World Order, Illuminati and other bogeymen. Of late, with increasing awareness of the global Jewish crime network, Jews and their agents have been forced to mildly criticize Israel more often to maintain credibility, but the pattern is clear. To Hell with these phony ‘anti-war’ groups. Instead of defending ourselves from smear, we should spend time documenting that the anti-war groups are controlled by the same people responsible for the wars and get the gullible goyim to stop funding these criminals. 44
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 03, 2008, 02:50 AM | # The extremely odd thing about Silver, aside from claiming he’s a Serb when he’s a Pakistani, is his insistence on hanging around here on the pretext that he opposes forced race-replacement when in fact he’s a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth race-replacement advocate, one the most extreme I’ve ever encountered. Silver and everything about him, every word out of his mouth, is one giant lie steeped in some sort of bizarre psychopathology. Go away, Silver. 45
Posted by Obamster on November 03, 2008, 06:57 AM | # http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/BritonsBritish-AmericansforObama 46
Posted by Guessedworker on November 03, 2008, 07:03 AM | # Obamster: The site informs us that:-
And just to the right:-
So that must have made a lot of difference. 47
Posted by n/a on November 03, 2008, 09:28 AM | # The “Britons and British-Americans” group is obviously by and for foreigners. Apparently anyone can create a group, but not everyone gets linked to from the official “people” page, nor from the “European and Mediterranean Americans” subpage. Just everyone except the people who created the country. 48
Posted by Bo on November 03, 2008, 12:56 PM | # Justin Raimondo shows his true colors today in his piece on Antiwar.com titled “The Limits of Change.” He openly endorses one of the most appalling bits of anti-white defamation, namely the Bradley Effect which charges the diverse white Americans with lying to pollsters. The entire hate campaign about the Bradley Effect was rendered proven false on October 19 in the New York Times when a Bradley campaign staffer outlined the reasons for its falsehood. Anyone promoting the Bradley Effect is a self-convicted liar and left-wing racialist. So now we know who Raimondo is. 49
Posted by Prozium on November 03, 2008, 02:25 PM | # Justin hates racialism because he has his boyfriend Yoshi on his mind. 50
Posted by Captainchaos on November 03, 2008, 02:49 PM | # “I don’t know what gave you the impression I’d contradicted myself.” - silver LOL! http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/06/tarnished-silver.html “Is your head hurting again?” - silver Don’t flatter yourself, big guy. Excedrin will do the trick. “Justin hates racialism because he has his boyfriend Yoshi on his mind.” - Prozium Speaking of tricks, maybe you should go ‘dialogue’ with Raimondo, er, about anti-racism; I’m sure to your mutual enjoyment. 51
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 03, 2008, 03:19 PM | # Proze, I’ve been wondering, have you yourself begun to veer away from viewing race as having lots of importance? I had the impression some months ago you were evolving in that direction, sort of in an “Amitai Etzione direction” where race is disregarded as something of primary importance. Something you’ve always had a tendency to do ever since I’ve known you has been part (only part) of what’s influenced me to think you may not assign to race the importance I and others do: you have a tendency, when talking about the subordinate position of Negroes to whites in the South under Segregation, to describe it as “white supremacy,” as if it’s artificially imposed rather than a natural state of affairs resulting from differences in the respective gifts of the two races. Segregation of course was imposed. But what would amount to the same effective subordination of Negroes to whites would naturally result without the “help” of Segregation, wherever the two races were thrown together in physical proximity. I do have to say, Proze, the emphasis you kept placing a while ago on an impending financial meltdown of catastrophic proportions, which at the time when you kept sounding the alarm I tended to think you were overdoing, has been fully vindicated: you were not only right, you even undershot the magnitude of it a little. You were closer to the mark, and earlier, than any blogger I’m aware of except Kunstler whom I don’t read (I only know of him through you). Congratulations. You certainly called it. 52
Posted by Prozium on November 03, 2008, 03:41 PM | # I’ve been mostly busy with real life lately, Scroob. 53
Posted by Prozium on November 03, 2008, 03:45 PM | # cc, I got banned from Takimag a few months ago for trashing John Zmirak in the comments during his anti-racist tirades. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on November 03, 2008, 04:50 PM | # Hope you can find time to post some new material, Prozium. I always enjoyed your writing. 55
Posted by Laughing on November 03, 2008, 07:11 PM | # I intent to buy some property in New Hampshire when the time is right for me.. Why not land in CA or FL? I’m sure the fact that NH is mostly white has nothing to do with it. 56
Posted by Guessedworker on November 03, 2008, 07:27 PM | # CC: Hope you can find time to post some new material, Prozium. I always enjoyed your writing. Second that 57
Posted by Prozium on November 03, 2008, 07:48 PM | # After Obama is elected president, I will have something new to talk about. I’ve snoozed through the election season. 58
Posted by silver on November 03, 2008, 10:20 PM | #
You can’t substantiate any of that, I’m afraid. I, on the other hand, can quite easily substantiate that you’re a headcase, likely sickened by many years of being viscerally repulsed by non-whites, miscegenation and the impending future they represent. Any neutral observer of any political stripe could not but conclude that I’ve made every attempt to be conciliatoryand that nothing I’ve posted this year could in any way be construed as advocating race-replacement, let alone doing so rabidly. The impression you leave, on the other hand, lol… 59
Posted by snax on November 03, 2008, 10:48 PM | # Fade should consider using his talents to write at someone else’s site. His instability and the lack of trust people understandably have for his ventures make that clear. 60
Posted by silver on November 03, 2008, 11:15 PM | #
What does “trust” have to do with it? Either what he writes makes sense or it doesn’t; either he’s convincing or he isn’t. Typical loony WN fare, this post by snax. 61
Posted by Rechill on November 04, 2008, 02:21 PM | # I have to admit, I’ve spent the last eight years in libertarian waters. After a while it feels directionless and self-defeating. I find white nationalism to be a better fit. “A man who stands for nothing, falls for anything.” 62
Posted by snax on November 04, 2008, 03:53 PM | # Silver, the best post by wintermute I ever read was at one of Fade’s vanished sites, other people also will have spent hours writing posts and bringing to light useful information at the same site. It’s a recurring pattern. 63
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 04, 2008, 04:45 PM | # Snax, what name did you post under at Proze’s last site? 64
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 04, 2008, 04:47 PM | # (last or the one before last, either one) 65
Posted by snax on November 04, 2008, 06:14 PM | # Fred, I don’t think I did. But I had posted at one of the torpedoed phoras, and at an earlier OriginalDissent which Fade is widely believed to have attacked. 66
Posted by Guessedworker on November 04, 2008, 06:54 PM | # Snax: Fade should consider using his talents to write at someone else’s site. This was something Fred and I raised during the end-time at Odessa Syndicate. After Original Dissident disappeared and before OS was set up I had already offered Proze a seat here if he wished it. But he’s his own man and there’s nothing wrong with that. The fact remains that of all the American conservatives I’ve encountered over the last few years Proze is closest to my own brand of conservatism. He is also a genuine historian of the South and a very talented scribe - in the first rank of our “daily writers” along with wintermute and Il Ragno. A way has to be found for talent like that to be put to good use, no matter what other considerations come into play. I hope he knows that my offer is always open if, as Snax suggests, he decides to step away from media management. 67
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 04, 2008, 07:58 PM | # Il Ragno I know nothing about. Brilliant is the only word for Proze and Wintermute. And yes, Proze should do what Fjordman has done, drop his own blogs and forums and their accompanying stresses and pressures, and switch to posting occasional high-quality entries entirely at his stress-free leisure, at one or a few existing blogs of his choice, covering topics of interest to him. To go back to managing his own sites will lead straight back to the same roller-coaster as berfore — even assuming he can muster sufficient readership to start again when so many are still miffed at him and have said, “never again.” 68
Posted by Englander on November 04, 2008, 08:12 PM | # If only wintermute were a “daily writer”. I think he has fallen off the face of the planet. There was even a rumour that he had died, but then he made one of his regular ‘appearances’ as a lurker which put that to rest. He’s out there, but he’s as mute as his name suggests. 69
Posted by Guessedworker on November 04, 2008, 08:19 PM | # WM has borne the burden for a long time and has posted to the effect that he needs some leave. Even so, he offered to join Tanstaafl at Age of Reason if the latter felt his support would be of value. He may see Tan as a kind of heir in the making, I don’t know. Anyway, it didn’t happen and if, now, WM is taking that break we should let him get on with it. He deserves it. 71
Posted by weston on November 04, 2008, 09:18 PM | # While we’re discussing missing racialists, does anyone know what Steven Palese is up to? Palese and wintermute were two commenters whose names I would get excited to see on the “Recent Comments” sidebar here at majorityrights. 72
Posted by Lurker on November 04, 2008, 09:38 PM | # I was wondering about Steven Palese too, did a quick search on him to see if he popped up anywhere - mostly MR and thats it… 73
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 04, 2008, 09:49 PM | # Steven Palese is quite good. Someone else who should be blogging regularly is Kai Murros. A mind like his shouldn’t be standing back from the daily churn of ideas at blogs, but particpating, leading, stimulating. 74
Posted by Matra on November 04, 2008, 10:22 PM | # I just had a glance at Reason, the libertarian site, and immediately came across this by Mike Riggs:
(A telling last remark coming from a no doubt white libertarian who supports open borders). Apparently it never occurred to the libertarian that many (most?) of those voting for Barack Obama but against gay rights might be blacks and Hispanics - neither group being well known for their pro-homosexual views. Based on what little I’ve seen from Florida it is more likely that those “Bible-beating hillbillies” up north voted more for McCain. So there’s a good chance that pro-Obama non-white voters (a significant proportion of them immigrants) will have been well-represented among the anti-gay marriage vote. But just like on bringing anti-libertarian immigrants to America the libertarian mind cannot take that in. Poor whites are automatically suspected of being the “bigots”. 75
Posted by weston on November 04, 2008, 10:48 PM | # Reason flipped out when it when it came to light that Ron Paul had mentioned that blacks are disproportionately criminal in one of his old newsletters. Later, they flipped out (but this time in a positive way) over Obama’s race speech. They’re about as far left on race as any white liberal I’ve ever encountered. 76
Posted by Lurker on November 04, 2008, 11:46 PM | # Matra - the term libertardian seems to have been designed with Riggs et al in mind. 77
Posted by Matra on November 05, 2008, 02:31 AM | # Lurker - I’d rather not insult retarded people by comparing them to the libertarians at Reason. 78
Posted by Guessedworker on November 05, 2008, 04:37 AM | # Steven Palese’s blog has not been updated for over a year. He arrived from nowhere and seems to have disappeared into nowhere. Maybe he will find a way back. Soren and I are in touch with Kai, and asked about a month ago if he would like to write some guest posts for MR. I hope he will. 79
Posted by Gudmund on November 05, 2008, 10:32 AM | # I posted this over at Takimag: Responding to Mike: “The “Racial Right”?” That’s what it used to be. That’s what it can be again. “Wow, some people are still living in those glory KKK days, arent they?” Yawn. Once again, progressive racialists being equated with some hate group. Get some new material. “You sound like an elderly, in-bred, narrow minded peasant that has never exited The “melting pot” is a myth. Multiracialism is code for race-replacement. Integration is code for genocide. We have every right in the world to associate with whom we please. Forcing us to live amongst blacks is not a very “libertarian” idea now is it? It is an honor to be considered a disgrace to humanism, since we have followed history and found out that it is a lie. Libertarianism is communism turned upside down. You agree with the Cultural Marxists on many things and don’t even realize. “Human descency and scientific advance have gone a long way, but apparently failed to Third World communities are maladaptive because of their own constituents, not because we “don’t aid them enough.” Cut the crap. Science HAS advanced. Real science, mind you, not Cultural Marxism masquerading as science. And it has shown that policies of multiracialism are maladaptive. They do not permit the survival of majority groups over the long term when they are combined with policies that give preferential treatment to the minorities (as has happened in this country. Human decency was pioneered by the West. If anything is a “social construct,” human decency is. In BHO’s homeland, Kenya, ask how minorities are treated there. Hint: human decency doesn’t apply. Admit the truth. This country was founded by whites. It was maintained by whites. It has declined exactly since it was usurped by others. “We will see what will happen in the next 4 years, fact of the matter is that the What the rest of the world thinks is immaterial. This is OUR country. If we want to maintain it as a White nation, it is damn well within our rights to do so. And please stop with the old KKK/Nazi memes. They are marks of rank intellectual indolence. ————————- Let’s see if they have the courage to keep it up, the scoundrels. 80
Posted by ben tillman on November 05, 2008, 02:06 PM | #
Don’t worry; he’s doing fine. 81
Posted by Celtic Queen on November 05, 2008, 06:55 PM | #
I had no idea who Ayn Rand was til I started hanging out with immigrants from India and their kids. They are the biggest single group of Randists I’ve ever met in my life. I mean like every single desi I meet is into her theories. Well, the ones from India anyway. Can’t speak for the Nepalis, Sri Lankans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, but I wouldn’t doubt it. 82
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 05, 2008, 07:07 PM | #
Haven’t you snagged one of those for yourself yet, Celtic? One would’ve thought so by now! You won’t get one by hanging around here hun, that’s for sure, so go out there and work your magic! Your biological clock’s ticking, sweetness — you’ve no time to waste. You’ve wasted enough on wymmin’s lib already: it’s time to get serious. (By the way, you forgot Bhutan and Sikkim in that list, but congratulations, it was pretty complete. Or has Sikim been taken over by India? I forget now. (Too bad, you could’ve been the second Hope Cook!) But Bhutan hasn’t, I don’t think — that’s till around.) 83
Posted by celtic queen on November 05, 2008, 07:16 PM | # Bhutan and Sikkim are considered “desh”? Had no idea. My biological clock is fine. I’m still young. What about your’s? Viagra much? Anyway, the point of my post was that the person qouted has no idea what they are talking about. Asians especially are all about getting ahead on the sweat of one’s brow and Indians especially are very individualistic. If anything it’s Americans that are lazy due to too much, too soon. Our society is SATURATED and our people spoiled. 84
Posted by celtic queen on November 05, 2008, 07:23 PM | # I propose we get rid of Welfare and keep immigration. The only people that will come here are those that want to work, and for the most part, it’s NOT immigrants on welfare anyway. Most immigrants work really long and really hard. However, I am in favor of helping sincere persons in times of need, like right now. I mean, I could use some help myself but I don’t qualify for government assistance. So I think there should be some programs to help people who are really in need. Some say churches and other community groups can do that but in our culture and society we are not close knit. People live on their own and sometimes don’t even exchange words with their neighbors. If it were Mayberry we wouldn’t have to have welfare because neighbors would help each other out, but it’s not like that anymore. We are not even close or tightly connected to our family members like cousins and such like we used to be in the old days or like other people on in other countries. We screwed ourselves pretty badly, don’t you think? Anyone here wanna subvert the system and send me a donation, like in the old days? Help a lady out? 85
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 05, 2008, 07:55 PM | # First she was here to proclaim her search for a desi husband, now she’s here panhandling. What’s next? Or maybe I shouldn’t ask .... Kidding aside, your proposal to “end welfare and keep immigration” is exactly the current libertarian position and very similar to the position Ron Paul actually campaigned on, where immigration was concerned. So you’re close to the libertarians in your thinking. As for Mayberry, you’re right, the U.S. used to be like that in the ‘50s, exactly so, and then came the ‘60s and it was no longer. What caused the change, do you suppose? I mean, if things were better then, and the ‘60s are touted as having been an improvement over the ‘50s, how is it that that desirable Mayberry character was stamped out?
Well sure ... if you’ll accept advice in lieu of cash ... Drop the wommynn’s lib stuff, all of it. Drop it completely, otherwise white men who are worth a damn will run as fast as they can in the opposite direction. Your lesbian “feminist studies” professors in college didn’t tell you this of course, but that crap is a guaranteed spinstermaker. You wanna end up alone like Gloria Steinem and Maureen Dowd, keep it up. You’ve wasted enough of your life with that already. Now’s the time to slough it off like so much dandruff. 86
Posted by Armor on November 05, 2008, 07:56 PM | #
Immigration is partly responsible for that. 87
Posted by Lurker on November 05, 2008, 09:47 PM | #
But not when it comes to voting for President and sticking it to whitey, if you care to check the figures somewhere. 88
Posted by Captainchaos on November 05, 2008, 10:01 PM | # “Let’s see if they have the courage to keep it up, the scoundrels.” - Gudmund Faileo-conservatism is a false opposition that drains off real struggle for our people into impotence. Takimag is where the fence-sitters are, the lemmings need to be kicked in the ass until they fall on one side of the fence or the other. For those so motivated: one comment per article which relates its topic, however tangential, back to our racial struggle would be helpful. 89
Posted by silver on November 06, 2008, 12:28 AM | #
No matter how hard they work, you don’t get any benefit out of it. Wanting “immigration” is like wanting someone to come and do your “living” for you. Why don’t you think of yourself for once? Whites always clear out once an area starts turning black/brown, never to return, so they clearly don’t enjoy living around these people. Yet they still manage to insist they want more blacks and browns to live in their countries. Maybe this is their way of “atoning” for the “racist” feelings that led to them fleeing? Could be. Another possibiliy is that being “in favor of immigration” means one is in favor of the current immigrants but doesn’t know any other way to state it since saying one is not in favor of immigration is too closely related to not being favor of the current immigrants, which is just too hateful. 90
Posted by Matra on November 06, 2008, 02:42 AM | # I had no idea who Ayn Rand was til I started hanging out with immigrants from India and their kids. They are the biggest single group of Randists I’ve ever met in my life. I mean like every single desi I meet is into her theories. Well, the ones from India anyway Anyway, the point of my post was that the person qouted has no idea what they are talking about. Asians especially are all about getting ahead on the sweat of one’s brow and Indians especially are very individualistic. Getting ahead by the sweat of one’s brow (don’t mention affirmative action!) doesn’t mean they are libertarians. As for the statement that every desi you know is into Ayn Rand. Let me guess you only know one desi and he’s seen the Fountainhead movie and imagined himself as the manly desi version of Gary Cooper with a young definitely non-desi Patricia Neal falling in love with him. 91
Posted by Armor on November 06, 2008, 05:27 AM | #
No they don’t. Except for a minority, most people keep saying they want immigration to stop. 92
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 06, 2008, 07:27 AM | # Most people keep saying they want immigration to stop, but as Steven Palese has said, something’s blocking the democratic process, something we can’t see, something which keeps itself hidden. A very big piece of that blockage where immigration is concerned is the Jews. Jews are open-borders fanatics (except for Israel of course, because open borders is a weapon they wield against their rivals, not themselves obviously) and wherever they have political influence national borders will keep being pried open in spite of the clear wishes of the people. The people will see it happening against their wishes and will keep scratching their heads wondering why the pols aren’t listening to them. They can’t see who’s behind the scenes forcing it on the country. 93
Posted by Captainchaos on November 06, 2008, 01:15 PM | # Setting the lemmings and the fence sitters at Takimag straight, one comment at a time: “And Western countries have lead a crusade against him for doing so even criticising for other thing he has done that you advocate…” Some say, and with justification, that a good question is closer to the truth than a sensible, yet mistaken, axiom. In other threads here, previously, I have explained to you, though perhaps less articulately than I would have liked, that just what you describe IS the crucial reason for the necessity of White Nationalism in ALL White nations. If it is just about culture and nothing to do with race then programs that Putin enacts (i.e., tending to the health of the racial body; e.g., ethnic Russians) and I advocate will not be respectable. Those who have an interest in using duped White people, one against the other, don’t want that to happen. Now I hope you see, or are beginning to realize, that not only will we continue to be duped and thus suffer unnecessary hardships, but that all that you and I rail against will ultimately result in the genetic annihilation of the White race. “Early 20th Century the US had quotas for entering universities. Thomas Edison…” I was aware of that, but there are certain things that you can say that I cannot, given that I am a hardened, ideological White Nationalist. We will do what it takes, but not more than what it takes. We are not barbarians. “Most people would reject your policies and would be out of office within a month.” I am not a sniveling bourgeois politician, john; neither are those that I call comrades. We try to find a “political” solution to downward pressure on the existence of our people if possible, that failing, we will not give up; we will do what it takes. There is no room in the vanguard of our movement for either the weak-kneed or the morally degenerate. I think you’ve heard this before: “We are White men, the only men worthy of the name.” “What about white nationalist conflict like in the former Yugoslavia were all three countries were white although there was religious differences.” Here is the reality: like it or not, Russia and the United States are the natural poles of power in the White world. Why so? Because we have the most White people united under one national/ethnic identity and the most territory/natural resources. We would try to broker a just solution to stop the slaughter of our White people guided by the principles of Salterian nationalism. In the real world things get messy and nobody gets all of what they want: reality principle versus pleasure principle. Putin was, at the beginning, open to cooperation with the West. We repaid his conciliation with effrontery. Now he has dug in, he knows, as Dugin has stated, there is no turning back, nor will there be. “Czar” Putin know, or semi-consciously suspects, that if he is not strong NOW the Russian people will perish. That is why the Russian people love him, that is why “Saint” Solzhenitsyn essentially gave Putin his “blessing.” That is Love. THAT is the ineffable weight of Solzhenitsyn’s suffering borne with courage and dignity. THAT is why Putin and Solzhenitsyn and we fight: “So that this Love will never end.” If you do not now understand me I’m not sure that you ever will. So: are you with us? Are you a White man? Posted by Captainchaos on Nov 06, 2008. 94
Posted by Celtic Empress on November 06, 2008, 05:15 PM | # 1.Scooby Doo; Gloria Steinem is MARRIED!!! No thankyou on the advice how to nab a white dude. I prefer men with high education, culture, religion, family values and morals. No divorcees with kids for me, thanks. Plus, Child Support Agencies are really strict nowadays. Not two weeks after marrying said American White Dude will I probably find be paying “conjugal visits” to jail! 2.Regarding immigrants and me and other white people not benefitting from their work - why should we? The people who should benefit from their work are the people working, just like I benefit from my own work. This is not a socialist state! Anyway, the overall ECONOMY of this country benefits from WHOMEVER works, so in a way, we all benefit, either directly or indirectly. 3.Immigration is easy to figure out; regarding Mexicans - they are willing to work longer and harder for fewer dollars than Americans. That’s why owners of farms, businesses and companies do not favor a ban on them. 4.When companies are willing to pay American citizens honorable wages for their work, then Mexican immigration, legal or illegal, will no longer be needed in this country. Right now it’s needed, due to the greed of CEOs. What do you think outsourcing is all about? 5.Regarding white people moving out once the browns and blacks move in; the blacks, yes. The browns? Depends on which ones. If they are middle to upper class professional ASIANS, no. White people do not move out of their nice comfy suburbs because of them.
95
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 06, 2008, 05:43 PM | #
You should have started younger, sweetheart — might’ve had a chance to land a single guy back then, one without “baggage.” But no, your wyminn’s studies classes in college taught you to disdain men right when you should have been getting paired-up with one and making lots of babies together (oh, I almost forgot, and staying barefoot and in the kitchen too): “Wymminn need men like a fish needs a bicycle,” remember that? Right, they sure filled your head with that. (So, going by that, I guess all the fish start to panic about not having a bicycle once they hit 39?) Desi men hate wymmynn’s libbers by the way honey, especially white ones, so you’d better try your best to hide it — have you seen Desi women? They’re not into that crap because they want to get married. They’re the picture of femininity, lovely gals, NOT abrasive, mannish, whiny, ego-driven. They’re good girls and make good wives. Better start praticing how to come across all meek and mild for the desi guys, darling, if you want to land one. Otherwise you may end up like Maureen Dowd, forced to pretend she hates Christmas because it’s the big family time and she hasn’t got a family, or Gloria Steinem who waited till what age, 70 was it, to snag a man? Of course at that age your cats will have to take the place of kids. 96
Posted by Celtic Desi Mrs. on November 06, 2008, 09:59 PM | # Ha. Ha. Hate cats, allergic to ‘em. Never kept any pets and ain’t gonna start now. Desis think their dirty, I agree. Guess you forgot how much desi men WORSHIP white skin. Ever heard of Fair and Lovely skin whitening cream? Now they’ve got Fair and Handsome with Shah Rukh Khan as the official Bollywood promoter of the product. Anyway, never had any problem snaggin’ desi guys. They love a feisty white woman! (as long as she’s a professional doctor, engineer, lawyer, etc) 97
Posted by silver on November 06, 2008, 11:33 PM | #
That’s what they say in private. But in any public discussion they rarely take such a strident stance. (Just trust me on this: I was hammering away at immigration way before I ever got to WN. The same people who hate everything immigration has done still find a way to argue they’re “not really” against immigration per se, just like Jihadwatchers who insist Islam but not muslims are the problem. Also not unlike nordicists who claim to speak for all whites, I might add. I can see a pattern there.)
I doubt there’s anything “celtic” about you. You’re probably just an Indian trying to excuse your presence. Why not come clean? 98
Posted by Celtic Lonely Planet on November 06, 2008, 11:43 PM | # I don’t know what country you live in but I wouldn’t be here in USA unless it was for my immigrant great-grandparents. And as mush as I hate it, that much I love it too. My American passport gets me into alot more countries in alot shorter time for alot longer stay than possibly your passport does. Women are treated with alot more respect here than in many places, and yada, yada, yada, there are other benefits as well. Therefore I, like most Americans, are not totally against immigration because we are PRODUCTS of it. The economy benefits from immigration because immigrants spend their money here. Many invest and buy homes as well. I can’t deny new immigrants the chance that was given my great-grandparents, now can I? And this is the case for MOST citizens in this very new nation (exception the Native American Indians). Maybe you were born and raised in an ancient place with a long history be we weren’t. What works for one country does not work for another. 99
Posted by Darren on November 07, 2008, 12:05 AM | # According to your logic, there is no difference between immigration of culturally and ethnically alient people and immigration of people who represent the traditional Indo European stock of America which is of course utterly ridiculous. As for money, we are certainly capable of having a perfectly healthy national economy without participating in the immigration pyramid scheme you speak of. It is not a matter of morality; it is a matter of the people who are here today asserting the will to do what is best for themselves and their future. 100
Posted by Captainchaos on November 07, 2008, 12:25 AM | # Celtic…: “The economy benefits from immigration because immigrants spend their money here.” No, any increase in economic production per immigrants is negligible in absolute terms aswell as when contrasted with the ravages of immigration on the social fabric of this country (i.e., “White-flight = in effect ethnic cleansing). I refer you to the findings of Robert Putnam generously provided by Armor earlier in this thread. “Many invest and buy homes as well.” LOL! Ever hear of ‘sub-prime mortages’ and the ‘housing bubble?’ “I can’t deny new immigrants the chance that was given my great-grandparents, now can I?” I can’t deny the homeless dregs of my city the “chance” at a ‘better life’ so I will give them some spare rooms in my neighbor’s house. “Maybe you were born and raised in an ancient place with a long history be we weren’t.” Maybe my neighbor hasn’t lived in his home for too long. He isn’t that attached to the place. So in come the homeless dregs whether he likes it or not and if he has any arguments Mr. 12 Gage will answer them. “What works for one country does not work for another.” You truly are a dense, frivolous woman. Immigration is not working for this country. Nor do third-world shitholes work for me. Wake the hell up. 101
Posted by Celtic Lonely Planet-o on November 07, 2008, 02:22 AM | #
Um, Darren dear, many immigrants are in fact Indo. Most likely your doctor, your lawyer, your investment banker, the computer software engineer who designed the software you use and your 7-11 down the street owner. Apu? Oh wait, you don’t live in USA, right? OK scratch the 7-11 bit and replace it with Sansburies or whatever. Where do you live? I travel frequently….. PS: if by culturally similar folk you mean more Xtians…. X marks the spot. No thanks! The problem with Euro immigrants is that they tend to be Xtian of one sort or another. USA is oversaturated already. Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs…. anyone but Abrahamic folk please! 102
Posted by Captainchaos on November 07, 2008, 05:27 AM | # Why is better for whites to see themselves as individuals only rather than as members of the white race? Dispossession and displacement seems to be all that it has brought them so far. Posted by silver on Nov 07, 2008 Silver did a good thing. This one is on me. 103
Posted by Celtic Caucas Mountains on November 07, 2008, 04:05 PM | # Darren dear, if by “culturally similar” you mean white euro Xtians - no thanks. USA is oversaturated with Abrahamic folk as it is. More pagans, more wiccans, more buddhists, more hindus, more jains, more zorastrians, more freemasons, more ANYTHING but Abraham fans please. Which other religions pushes themselves on people to the extent that the Abrahamic religions do? None. And what’s this “indo european” stock you speak of? Many of today’s professional immigrants are indeed already Indo! Thanks to them I got a fly pc. I guess according to you desis are within reason to call themselves “caucasian”? Anyway, where do you live? I travel alot 104
Posted by Mark on November 07, 2008, 04:44 PM | # Libertarians and anarcho-libertarians are the only moral, decent people. Why can’t you see that government is the problem. With freedom and no taxation, the cream will rise to the top. I am cream. What are you? 105
Posted by Celtics Invented Math on November 07, 2008, 05:11 PM | # Every comment I write here on this particular thread gets deleted and I wonder if it’s because of my Xtian comments? Anyway, if the found fathers of the USA had envisioned an exclusively white euro populated nation then instead of importing an astronomical number of black slaves for free labor, they could have just advertised all over the white euro world at the time “need workers to build new nation, will pay well”. Sorry, but they have only their ownselves to blame if they are turning over in their graves presently. And you people here have no one but THEM to blame. Like the “greedy jews” you criticize here, just to save a few bucks, they were willing to turn the ethnography of their dreamland fantasy on it’s own head. Bad planning? No foresight? What do you call it? Ever since then karma has been biting their descendents in the ass. What comes around goes around and every action has a reaction, etc. Simple physics, forget about metaphysics, it’s simple MATH! 106
Posted by Populares on November 07, 2008, 06:41 PM | #
I used to enjoy Samizdata, I forgave them the lingo that´d make my grandpa cringe. There is plenty of good in libertariansm. The problem is the cultural baggage, adolescentoid. In my mind White Nationalism is the only thing that could make libertarianism possible. Fraternity could replace the welfare state. 107
Posted by Captainchaos on November 08, 2008, 12:35 AM | # “Nowhere do I suggest that Nietzsche is anti-Semitic.” - A. Woodland Earlier I posted quotes from Nietzsche’s works I thought were relevant. They were removed. How can a serious discussion of Nietzsche vis-a-vis ANYTHING be taken seriously if we cannot even examine the writings of THE VERY THINKER BEING DISCUSSED under the cold light of day. Because: Nietzsche is too piercing, to trenchant a thinker to be discussed and not yet discuss the dirt that some wish to keep hidden under the rug. Nietzsche’s name is mentioned but without the courage to seek truth, seek a more healthy, vigorous life by self-overcoming through courage - the very meaning of Nietzsche’s life. His name is taken in vain. Nietzsche would laugh. Posted by Captainchaos on Nov 07, 2008. At Takimag. 108
Posted by Captainchaos on November 08, 2008, 12:41 PM | # Leon Haller say this at Takimag:
I wrote a lengthy set of comments (possibly better written, and certainly of greater importance, than the original article) directed to you guys. They were posted for a while; now they’ve been removed. Sorry. I was enjoying the discussion, and felt called upon to contribute. Why were my comments removed, you cowardly webmaster? Why don’t you expose yourself? explain yourself? What are you so afraid of? My posts are no more ‘extreme’ than many others. Yet they are routinely deleted. Why am I being ‘singled out’ for ‘invidious discrimination’? (I know why, and so do you - but I want to see if you have the guts to acknowledge the reason publicly.) Posted by Leon Haller on Nov 08, 2008. Click to flag this comment as abusive I’m Mr. Morose right now, more bummed by my hemorraghing portfolio than the Transformation, er, election, and am just too tired to respond appropriately or even cogently to the interesting comments which followed mine, esp the good stuff from Mike Gavin and CapnChaos, as usual, as well as the excellent ending posts from ‘silver’. I agree with ‘silver’ almost (but not quite) without reservation. I have thought about these issues a great deal; indeed, awareness of them (ie, Richard McCullough’s - apologies if misspelled - hypothesis of the inevitable Death of the (genetically recessive) West unless total white racial segregation is instituted) has spurred my realization of the desperate need for a complete examination, ‘interrogation’, and possible deconstruction of not only the whole history of Western ethics, but of Christian theology as well. Obviously, this takes (life)time ... But it must be done. In my perpetually enlarging book, tentatively titled RACIAL ETHICS, I try to situate not merely scientific race-realism, which is empirical and not idelogical or moral per se, but white preservationism WITHIN the broad traditions of Western moral philosophy and theology (I have never believed, for both intellectual and practical reasons, that white preservationists should cede our Western heritage of moral inquiry to the multiculti/race neutral perspective, either by becoming atheist tribal amoralists, or adherents to psychologically resonant, but empirically ridiculous, pre-Christian Euro-folk religions). I do not believe that Christianity mandates white racial death, or even indifference to extinction, which, given our collapsing demographic profile, amounts to the same thing. The tough questions, however, concern the moral legitimacy of, first, coercion to secure racial preservation (eg, keeping out Third World immigrants, who have no RIGHT to immigrate to our lands, is not coercive, however much liberal/neocon/libertarian traitors may whine; I’m referring to things like anti-miscegenation laws), and second, initiatory violence to save our race (eg, terrorism, assassination, guerrilla warfare, violent revolution). My (ongoing) reading is leading me to the conclusion that authoritarianism in defense of white racial purity, as well as white numerical/territorial supremacy, is morally justifiable in both secular and Christian terms (though the intellectual work demonstrating this conclusion mostly does not exist - yet). The REALLY tough question concerns the aforementioned initiatory violence, whether such can ever be justified, and to what extent. My intuition is that such violence cannot be justified within the philosophically sophisticated Christian mainstream (ie, one can always find, or form, violent white supremacist sects calling themselves “Christian”, but that does not mean they merit the designation, as there does exist a generally agreed upon body of core doctrine; it is that to which I refer). But I am discovering some intriguing evidence which may provide an eventual wedge ... I direct these remarks or hints to ‘silver’s’ observation that if we have societies that are half-white only, racial amalgamation is inevitable, leading to Western civilization’s eventual extinction. Believe me, my friend, I have thought about this problem often, even if I could not express it as artfully or at least precisely as you have. Racial repatriation/cleansing seems to be the only option, doesn’t it? Two comments. First, your conclusion re inevitable amalgamation in mixed-race societies is historically grounded and sociologically probable, but not logically valid, and not the chief racial threat. The presence of enormous non-white communities resident in the West represents a long-term amalgamationist threat, though also a physical / military one. While greater amalgamation certainly seems probable, given contemporary moral and cultural attitudes among whites, it is neither logically, nor probably empirically, inevitable, as you imply. Whites in many areas of the world over the past several hundred years have lived in intimate proximity to non-whites, yet have maintained their blood-purity (you’ve surely heard of the ‘one drop rule’?). Geographic racial integration is no argument against white nationalism, its possibility or necessity; quite the contrary. Moreover, the historical rate of amalgamation in white societies afflicted by multiculturalism along with immigration/ racial integration is likely to look like our old friend, the bell curve. Consider the US. At first, there was very little miscegenation, and the one-drop rule ensured that what mixing did occur did not pollute the racial constitution of the hegemonic ethnoculture (that is, the Obama-like hybrids produced in earlier times were not granted access to white women, or white society; the white race was thus kept pure, while, in the American case, the Negroids were the ones ‘amalgamated’ or ‘polluted’ with white blood). Later, with the rise of both racial integration and mass non-white immigration as well as racial egalitarianism and anti-anti-miscegenationist sentiment, ever greater numbers of whites have started falling by the wayside racially, so to speak. Amalgamation or blood pollution has increased. We are living in this period, where miscegenation increases as multiculti doctrines become more widespread across lines of class and geography. But what is the basis for assuming that the trajectory of this trend is linear-until-white pure blood-extinction? Such an asumption is empirically possible, but not logically necessary, and perhaps not even empirically likely. Eventually, white propensities towards miscegenation will be sated. That is, at some point, the bell curve will begin to shrink again, as the gene-pools most predisposed to miscegenation will have done so. Of the pure-blood whites remaining, an increasing percentage will be indisposed to miscegenation. What can be said, then, about whites in mixed race societies is that any transformation from reproductively restrictive to permissive attitudes will initially increase amalgamation, but that its rate will eventually slow down, and finally almost peter out. In each new generation, there will be some miscegenators, but there will also be pure-bloods still being born. Eventually, most existing whites will not only, by definition, be pure-bloods, they will be self-consciously so. Which brings me to my second comment. The real threat to the survival of white civilization is not amalgamation but alien conquest or physical extermination. The nation-state ultimately arose for military reasons as much as any others. For the West to survive, (pure-blood) whites must survive. Civilization, however, needs not only blood, but soil. In the contemporary world, it also requires sovereignty, not to exist briefly, but to survive indefinitely. If whites do not maintain their numerical majorities in their historic nation-states (assuming those polities remain democratic, which I believe they will; that is, I do not believe that whites will come to reject democracy at least until after they have become powerless minorities), then they will have allowed their race to be placed in a very militarily precarious position. If we have territory that WE control, our race can survive, and thus too our civilization. But if we should lose our RACIAL SOVEREIGNTY (a “Leon Haller original”, I think), if whites should end up a functionally diasporic people, like the Jews, then we could be, and, for reasons outside the scope of these comments, I believe will be, exterminated. The real threat we face is extermination, not passive extinction. Posted by Leon Haller on Nov 08, 2008. 109
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 08, 2008, 02:17 PM | # Leon, if they keep erasing your stuff over at Taki’s why not post over here from now on? Stuff like that comment would not be erased over here. It was overall a very good comment. I disagreed with a few individual parts of it, but on the whole it was damn good reading. If you post here, there are people here who could help you refine your ideas by critiquing them intelligently. Taki’s is not the blog for comments like yours. 110
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 08, 2008, 03:43 PM | #
I’ll answer my own question. The desirable Mayberry character was stamped out because the Jews hated it. This is the kind of country the Jews badly want to turn the U.S. into, and they are working as hard as they possibly can to bring it about:
Thanks mainly to the Jews, you’re not in Mayberry any more, my friends. You’re in Mexico now. The Jews are happy, yes. In fact, they’re ecstatic. They’ve never been happier in three thousand years. How do you feel about it? 111
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 08, 2008, 03:46 PM | # Let’s try that link again, non-embedded this time: 112
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 08, 2008, 03:48 PM | # Sorry, it’s a dead link (strange, the byline on the article I read was only November 4!). Well, anyone interested can google it up ... if you’ve the stomach for it ... . 113
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 08, 2008, 04:00 PM | # In regard to whom to hold responsible for the transformation in question: to those, such as Ian Jobling, who are skeptical of Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s scholarship: forget MacDonald. Forget he ever existed. Just try changing things back to the way they were in the Mayberry days and see who your chief opponent is by far. (Then send a humble apology to Prof. MacDonald. Don’t worry, he’ll be gracious. He won’t gloat or rub it in, Ian.) 114
Posted by Mark in Ark on November 09, 2008, 08:49 AM | # Obama was elected by white women, mainly. Thus, they have failed a character test. Replace them with immigrants. Seriously. Why anyone still pursues white American women, I’ll never know. Get Eastern European or Asian (or even Hispanic). 115
Posted by Captainchaos on November 09, 2008, 12:51 PM | # “Thus, they have failed a character test.” - Mark in Ark So have you, race traitor. 117
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 09, 2008, 01:41 PM | # Mark in Ark: women have far more difficulty seeing race than men do, Northern Euro women having most difficulty of all (Euro Med women see race way more readily than Northern women do; so do Jewish women). It’s not their fault: they’re born without the central-nervous-system hard-wiring and the accompanying hormonal functioning that men are born with which permit men to see race readily. Talk to a Euro woman about race and she has literally no idea what in the world you’re talking about. Persist in an effort to explain, and she’ll humour you good-naturedly, or she’ll shut up while privately categorizing you as a creep to be avoided, or she’ll back away as she’d back away from a crazy person. Ability to perceive race is not part of Euro femininity. You have to have certain neurons for it, certain neuronal connections, and certain hormones. Women simply haven’t got ‘em. It’s a huge stumbling block. We have to find some solution to it other than the one you propose, which amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Euro women never saw race, no, not the U.S. Southern white women during the centuries of Negro slavery, nor the Belgian women colonials resident in the Belgian Congo, nor even Euro women who get viciously raped by Negroes or robbed or beaten by them, or what have you: they don’t see race; nor can race be explained to them. Expecting Euro women to see race is exactly like expecting a computer to do a task for which it completely lacks both the hardware and the software. 119
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 09, 2008, 01:49 PM | # What happened in the olden days wasn’t that women saw race — they didn’t — but men, who of course saw race, ran things in a way that took reality into account. Now thanks in large part to the Jews, women, who are constitutionally unable to see vast swathes of reality including race, either run things or have the power to thwart the running of things by men, so there’s official race-denial. 120
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 09, 2008, 02:24 PM | # One reason you don’t have aggressive official race-denial in Japan is women there know their place, so men are interfered with far less than men are here. Women here used to know their place far better than now, but the Jews stirred them up inappropriately the way they stirred the Negroes up inappropriately. Israel is in better shape race-wise than we are partly because the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish mentality has decisive influence over that society in a great many cultural, spiritual, and political ways (not all obviously, but a great many), and Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women know their place, so that Ultra-Orthodox mentality is part of Israel’s “social matrix” so to speak, and as a result women interfere with men and men’s instincts less over there than they do here. Yes they have loud-mouthed, abrasive know-nothing women in Israel who don’t know their proper place in society and screw up whatever they touch, but less than we have here, far less. And of course Israel also doesn’t have the enemy fifth column we are cursed with in the form of diaspora Jewry operating freely within its bosom. Yes Israel has been cursed with plenty of Jews who are homozygous for the Jewish Nation-Destroying gene, who therefore do operate as a fifth column within their nation’s bosom, trying to destroy that society and nation from within, exactly as their diaspora Jewish counterparts try to destroy Euro societies and nations from within, but Israel’s government, its courts, its society in general aren’t vulnerable to the “anti-Semitic” smear the way we are, so they can deal with the homozygotes rationally and effectively where we have far more difficulty doing so. And of course we have far more of a Jewish nation-destroying problem than Israel does though our two Jewish populations are roughly equal in size, since in the diaspora both heterozygotes and homozygotes for the Jewish Nation-Destroying gene manifest phenotypically as nation-destroyers, while in Israel only the homozygotes do, the heterozygotes encountering moderating influences on their destructive behavior coming from the mere fact of living in a Jewish country, moderating influences which the homozygotes, precisely because they are homozygous for the gene, are impervious to. 121
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 09, 2008, 02:39 PM | #
And of course the society at large over there also isn’t held back from dealing with nonsense by the whole rest of the enemy fifth column operating freely within society’s bosom the way we are. In our case the fifth column is Jewish. If they had, let’s say, a Hamas fifth column operating freely within their society’s bosom the way the Jews operate freely as a hostile fifth column in ours they’d be facing the same problems, and would likely be on the ropes to the same extent, as we are. So Israel is able to deal more rationally with race than we are, and the signs of this are clear, such as their recent decision to stop the immigration of all Negro Jews. Imagine the uproar among the U.S.‘s Jews if this country tried to stop the immigration of all Somalis. Yes there was a mini-uproar over there, which the government simply ignored. Jews here would make such an uproar impossible to ignore. 122
Posted by Gottfried watch on November 12, 2008, 01:15 PM | # 123
Posted by Prozium on November 12, 2008, 04:08 PM | # Response to Gottfried: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2008/11/12/response-to-gottfried/ 124
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 12, 2008, 04:53 PM | # Excellent reply by Proze to Prof. Gottfried. Everybody should click on it (linked in Proze’s comment just above) and read it. 125
Posted by Prozium on November 12, 2008, 05:19 PM | # That about sums it up. In some countries, ethnic opportunism has been a factor: white ethnics (Slavs, Italians) siding with non-whites (other ‘outsiders’) against the native white majority (‘insiders’). 126
Posted by weston on November 12, 2008, 11:10 PM | # Vox Day may be the one righteous libertarian in existence.
127
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 13, 2008, 12:29 AM | # Weston, the thing is not all whites should be bound by whites who want to become Negroes: whites who don’t want to become Negroes should have that option. 128
Posted by silver on November 13, 2008, 09:09 AM | #
Dubious. Most Anglo women here can see race quite clearly. I’ve never had any trouble extracting admissions from them about their general dislike of Arabs/Muslims. One girl who was probably attempting to trumpet her “tolerance” by bringing up an essay she’d written about the incidents in Sydney in late 05, quickly admitted, with a laugh, after minimal prodding, that her essay was basically bullshit, though she was surprised that I’d (“Hello? Immigrants?”) hold such views. 129
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 13, 2008, 10:25 AM | #
What they’re “seeing” is something peculiar to the female brain, not what men see as race and not at all corresponding “functionally” to race as grasped by the male. I’m not saying white women can’t identify those of another race. They can, of course: when a white woman finds herself in a Negro neighborhood she knows she’s among Negroes and gets scared (as does a white man) but she can’t connect that piece of reality to the race concept with its essential ramifications. As there are things women see that men don’t, so are there things men see that women don’t: in addition to race these are manifold, for example that the water in a glass doesn’t tilt when the glass does, or the right and left hands: women have a little more difficulty with that than men. The philosopher Bertrand Russell never succeeded in explaining canal locks to his grandmother (who raised him after he’d been orphaned young) no matter how often or how clearly he tried: she always ended up telling him she couldn’t see how ships went uphill and downhill. Women do better at grasping man-type things like race, or what happens to the water level in a tilted glass, if those things can be brought somehow into close relationship with the things women care about, which are: 1) romantic love, 2) babies, 3) shopping, and 4) interpersonal relationships. Some women do see race, just as some men are metrosexuals, but few: neither seeing race, for women, nor being metrosexual, for men, is typical. 130
Posted by silver on November 13, 2008, 02:07 PM | #
How many men can? Could you, before the last few years? I don’t think men and women are seeing fundamentally different things here. I was aware that cultural/behavioral differences tended to correspond to racial differences but censoring myself (both because it was correct to do so and for fear of what it might entail for me, personally) prevented me drawing meaningful and wide-ranging conclusions from those observations. For example, I never liked muslims, neither the races that made up muslims, nor, in particular, their culture, but I didn’t allow myself to think much more about it. Aren’t women much the same? They know what an arab looks like, they know what arabs in a shopping center, arabs at a nightclub, arabs in the neighborhood mean, and they tend to avoid it (unless they’re practising anti-racists, and even then their actions probably don’t align as perfectly with their purported beliefs as they might imagine), but social strictures prevent too much being made of it. The real difference, I think, lies in each sex’s reaction to race’s real significance being explained; men much more likely to become antagonistic as a result, women more likely to become compassionate. That’s how I see it, anyway. Significant racial tensions down here are a recent phenomenon, however, and they’re not widespread or anywhere near the American black-white (or, increasingly, the mestizo-white) level. How on earth every white in America isn’t a frothing nazi (of the kind I deplore) is still something of a mystery to me; my only explanation being that the “white supremacist” structure is fixed in people’s minds as an artifact of the past that simply must be overcome, regardless of how loudly common sense screams that it can never be. That’s probably why American WN is mostly a guy thing.
Aren’t both just fashions? I flirted with “metrosexual” tendencies in younger days. I considered myself a liberal, and metros just seemed like a logical extension of my own beliefs, so even though I didn’t care so much for their lifestyles, I incorporated bits and pieces. Now, of course, I see it as complete crap, and loath almost everything about such types. Women tripping over themselves to “overcome” race/ism is likely a similar fad. God, I haven’t mentioned this before, my own mother, you should hear her go off about blacks whenever she sees one on the street. I’d never describe her as “smart”, but I’m pretty sure she sees the significance. Or my aunt, regarding my cousin’s marriage to a black; she knew how god-awful it was, but caved. I think you’re making too much of genetic sexual differences, and too much of the genetic (as opposed to cultural) north/south euro difference in this regard. (What does your own wife think?) 131
Posted by Captainchaos on November 13, 2008, 02:33 PM | # Gottfried is in it for the same reason that Hart and Weissberg are: to protect the Jews. __________________________ (insert expletives and curses here). 132
Posted by A son of Arminius on November 13, 2008, 02:46 PM | # http://theoccidentalobserver.com/articles/CollectiveEditorial-JewishAllies.html#Allies 133
Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 13, 2008, 06:13 PM | # That’s a good editorial Son of Arminius links to just above. 134
Posted by Captainchaos on November 13, 2008, 08:11 PM | # “MacDonald’s insistence that Ashkenazic Jews are naturally more http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-gottfried.html There you have it, bow down to your new masters. Gottfried has told you from up on high. The very fact that Gottfried associates himself with faileo-conservatives and that they associate themselves with him tells you everything you need to know. Faileo-conservatism is a false opposition that drains off real struggle for our people into impotence. 135
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 13, 2008, 08:13 PM | #
Oh for Gods’ sake. 136
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 13, 2008, 08:23 PM | #
Proof (Exit polls do not constitute proof)? If you show data, please show it broken into (at least) sex and race. 137
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 13, 2008, 08:25 PM | #
What’s wrong with that? I’m not Gottfried watcher, but every time I bump into the guy I rank him closer and closer to the Righteous Jew column. 138
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on November 13, 2008, 08:29 PM | #
All true, but on the other hand women (including white women) have a hard-wiring strongly steering them toward selecting men of their own race; corresponding wiring is absent in men. 139
Posted by Gudmund on November 15, 2008, 01:21 PM | #
Gottfried Its funny. I went to a public school years ago where there were floods of Jews, probably more than most of you have ever encountered in one place. I would consider it a decent sample size for a hypothesis test as at least 40-50% of the population there was Jewish. Not only Jewish, but Ashkenazic. And I’ll tell you something: out of that ENTIRE population, there were maybe 3-4 quite intelligent Jews (say, more so than your average poster here), two of whom were half-Gentile. The rest ranged from average (by White standards) to amazingly stupid. I think, and I say so from much experience, that the intellectual superiority of the Jewish population is a trumped-up myth. Next entry: Rupert Murdoch lectures on the global future Previous entry: The Telegraph censors refutation of Lewis Hamilton the hero |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Daniel Mccumllam commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/22/12, 04:57 AM. (go) (view) Scewoweks commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 02:51 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Shamim commented in entry 'Dawkins sides with the race realists.' on 05/22/12, 02:24 AM. (go) (view) Facebook Application Developer commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/22/12, 01:14 AM. (go) (view) rags6 commented in entry 'Black serial-killers' on 05/22/12, 12:23 AM. (go) (view) abibemume commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/22/12, 12:06 AM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/21/12, 09:58 PM. (go) (view) alexaesjiong commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 09:53 PM. (go) (view) cocreneamenrYk commented in entry 'Time travel and a pol in the MultiCult' on 05/21/12, 09:51 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 09:12 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 08:46 PM. (go) (view) sweectexcagma commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 08:45 PM. (go) (view) Hinksmick commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 08:43 PM. (go) (view) pet sitting commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/21/12, 08:36 PM. (go) (view) aharlesjaj commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/21/12, 08:26 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/21/12, 08:25 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 08:02 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) InsetaTemwews commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 07:08 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:54 PM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/21/12, 06:37 PM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:29 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 05:48 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 05:23 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 04:41 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 04:19 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 03:33 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 03:08 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 02:25 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) BroowlorCliEf commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/21/12, 12:44 PM. (go) (view) trobojertunny commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/21/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) trobojertunny commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 12:29 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by j on November 02, 2008, 01:50 AM | #
Libertarians are posing.