Kai Murros on the European Revolution!

Style/Attitude/Revolution - A Letter to a Friend

by Kai Murros

The fundamental question us, white nationalists, are facing today is how to take over our societies psychologically, how to rise from the political and intellectual periphery in to the centre, refine our sub-culture to make it main stream and force the public in our societies to accept our vision of the future as the only possible alternative. To do that, we must first perfect the concept of the Pan-European nationalism and in doing so we must pay great attention to how the Pan-European movement looks like and feels like. Therefore we must be conceptual artists, fashion designers and copywriters rather than boring intellectuals and helpless theorists. If our concept is good it will dwarf other political styles and begin to dominate people’s thinking.

Seizing the hegemony in the society requires that nationalists are determined to become the new elite and understand that fundamentally they must wage politics of power and will. Today nationalists have nothing but if they at least have the right attitude then they have a chance, because what makes elite an elite is precisely the attitude. The conviction of being right and above others gives the members of the elite self-confidence and determination, which is then reflected in their appearance and behaviour. Outsiders recognize very easily those who seem to be on top of things, assertive, cool and even good looking. The masses inherently despise desperate people and rather follow those who are arrogant and bold.

Nationalists must tirelessly talk about power and how to get power. Nationalists must make it absolutely clear that the movement is all about power, absolute power, power for the sake of power, a cynical conspiracy to get power. Nationalists must make everybody understand that one day they will have absolute power. This is important because all this talk about power makes nationalists look powerful and dangerous even when they don’t yet have power. Women, for example, love determined men who give the impression that they have great plans for the future. Power is sexy, nationalists have to make it their fetish.

Nationalists must always emphasize that they know more than the outsiders—after all they understand the process of how and why western civilization will collapse and thus prepare conditions for the nationalist takeover. People are often very curious about groups/societies/cults/sects etc. that seem to have information that is not openly shared. Once there is a body of knowledge—New Right philosophy, nationalist theories on revolution or urban warfare techniques and combat exercises that can be acquired by joining this elitist, closed organization people get an irresistible urge to join - the more difficult it is to get in the more attractive it becomes. And once you are in the group, you can really feel that you are better than the outsiders.

Since nationalists do not yet have the money or means to effectively broadcast their message, the best platform for nationalist propaganda are the nationalists themselves and therefore their appearance is of utmost importance. Nationalists should create a style that reflects power, strength, arrogance, danger and intelligence. The style should be easily recognizable so when nationalist youths are out in the town people notice them immediately—every single nationalist should be a walking propaganda poster for the movement. When nationalists are gathering it should immediately give a sense of downright occupation. There are several psychological studies on how a uniform affects the people who wear it and those who are outside the group—the effects are very dramatic! Once nationalists are oozing with sex, death, and danger, more and more people will want to join them. Fighting for your people is sexy—this is extremely atavistic—looking good while fighting for your people is even sexier.

Now how should a young cadre of the national revolution look like? Unfortunately I am not a fashion designer - although I really would like to be - anyway, I’ve been toying with some ideas. First of all I like very much the Mod -style and attitude, the colours of the today’s Mod-nationalist should definitely be black and dark grey. An addition to the smart suit would be Dr. Martens boots laced up to knee high—like mormons gone bad. Imagine a young stylish nationalist wearing a black suit, white shirt, black tie, Dr. Martens boots and a shoulder bag. In the shoulder bag the nationalist could carry books from Juenger, Evola, Nietsche, Thiriart, Niekitsch etc. and maybe a brass knuckles or something. The message would be that I can have an intelligent discussion with you or I can kick your teeth in—a nice combination of intelligence and violence.

The nationalist street combat uniform should definitely be the black biker all-leather outfit, with a white shirt and black tie. Against head injuries the nationalist shock troops should wear the black crash helmet. A crash helmet provides the best possible protection against any projectiles and blows as long as firearms are not used. The crash helmet also covers the shock trooper’s face revealing only his eyes—this way the fighter can hide his identity and in a combat situation you are always more threatening to your enemies if they can’t see your face and read your facial expressions so you don’t give away any signs of individual weaknesses.

Nationalist shock troops should be armed with aluminium baseball bats. By wielding the bat with both hands you can deliver terrible blows to your enemy, but more importantly the shining silver bat looks nice against black leather mass—the aesthetic aspect is always just as important as the practical one. Black and silver were the colours of the SS and in this way they could be our colours too—in a very modern way. I’ve also been toying with the idea that the shock troops could also use American football pads as protective armour. Wearing black leather and football armour the shock troopers would be like some cool apocalyptic Mad Max road warriors—a fitting reference to the ongoing collapse of our civilization. In case football armour is a bit uncomfortable to wear in a fight, there are also other body armours that are lighter and easier to use ... but still look great, check this out:

http://www.ioffer.com/146998239

Nationalist shock troops should then learn to carry their weapons and move about in a uniform manner. The shock troops should learn to march in the same rhythm—the sound of the steps alone is a psychological factor. The shock troop formation looks great when it learns to move, turn, fold and unfold like a real military formation or like a mechanism made of leather and steel. The ability to move about like a real military formation requires a lot of drill but if done properly our fighters definitely give the impression of discipline and power—power has to be their fashion.

We must aesthetisize violence and spice it up with a hefty doze of sex—if we can do that our movement will become irresistible to young white males looking for action and purpose in life. The movie Clockwork Orange is a good example of how even cruel and senseless violence can be made appealing—we’ll just have to do it in real life and give it an ideological frame. Biologically sex and violence always go together—in nature males fight for their right to procreate and then defend their offspring and territory—this is in a nutshell exactly what the white nationalists are facing today. White national revolution is a biological phenomenon and that’s why it’s unstoppable!

Drill is very important because it gives nationalist units command structure and cohesion and their enemies get the idea that nationalists really mean business. A well drilled shock troop unit is the best publicity the movement could ever have, because the masses follow the strong and the self-confident. A riot or a street fight should be regarded as a spectacle, an opportunity for the shock troops to be seen and be admired by the timid public—nationalist demonstrations should never be just an angry mob of men with short hair. When the movement shows signs of strength and discipline, young males will flock under its banners—this pack mentality is in their genes, it just has to be activated. If the movement can make the young fighters to submit themselves to the tedious drill, it will turn them into real soldiers of urban warfare.

I’ve also been thinking that paint ball war gaming could also be an excellent opportunity to wear smart gear and look intimidating. Instead of guerilla fighting in the forests nationalists should especially simulate urban warfare, which is something they are most likely to face in the future as societies begin to fall apart. And, like I said, extra attention must be given to what the combatants wear—they should look as stylish and militant as possible—the best thing would be if we could create a cool nationalist city-camo look for them.

One option here is that we go for a fusion of different elements such as (city)camo, army surplus, leather, studs, dyed jeans, hoodies and other combat/martial arts paraphernalia. With a little imagination everyone could create their own personal look—just like punks, they all look so different—their creativity seems to be absolutely endless in that department—but still in a uniform sort of way. This would give an impression of a ragtag army instead of the faceless mass of black leather, but I think it would fit the concept of post-collapse urban warfare well. Combatants having their own customized style and gear would be like characters in computer and video games—this time they would be creating their own real-life fighter characters. The most effective way to activate young people is by giving room for their individual creativity and imagination.

The idea of paintball war gaming is, of course, that nationalists publicly start preparing for war. The worst mistake would be to do this secretly somewhere in the forests. Combat training for the coming civil war must be brought outrageously in the open—obviously, where there are vacant buildings and rundown factories, but hopefully near where people live so that as many as possible can see what nationalists are doing. Once people realize what is going on they begin to believe that the country really is heading toward a violent confrontation and those who prepare for it openly and systematically are seen strong and powerful. Considering the state our societies are today, it doesn’t take much to shake people’s confidence in the system, this way we will scare the general public to accept our vision of the future.

Nationalists should start to act like a real insurgent army and start forming real units, where fighters have ranks and specialized tasks for different situations—it doesn’t matter how small this unit is as long as long as everything is done properly: Uniforms, training and structure. What ever nationalists do as a group they must always have a structure—this way outsiders take them seriously and they take themselves even more seriously—and obviously, nationalist fighters must look good!! Paintball war gaming is not just a bunch of lads running around and shooting each other but a PR campaign, a publicity stunt, a way advertize our concept to the general public and to other nationalists. Creating paramilitary combat units is in itself an open challenge to the system and it will not go unnoticed. By giving an impression of structure, discipline and determination nationalists will spread a sense of unease among the liberals as they start to wonder if there is something going on that they have no control upon. Nationalists do not have fire arms, but their attitude and attire alone make them look dangerous and appealing enough.

I guess I have a very one track mind when it comes to style and it seems that all I can think of is just recycling already existing elements—this way they are more easily available, though, but I do believe that uniforms like these would give their wearers a lot of needed visibility and credibility in the streets. I am convinced that somehow we should launch a brand new line of nationalist street fashion—in the post-modern world the coming revolution will be, above all else, a revolution of fashion and style as representation is just as important as the content itself—if nationalist fighters look good they feel good and the audience will love them. The Fascists knew this well—fascism is not an ideology but a style and a state of mind—and that’s why Fascism will always make a comeback. If the soil is fertile, the change can come very suddenly and the ground zero for the explosion of new creative cultural energy can be a small group of people or a geographical space—just imagine how Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood launched punk style from their SEX boutique.—The stage is set: now we must make our entrance.

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Sunday, May 15, 2011 at 05:42 AM in New Right
Comments (218) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Grimoire on May 15, 2011, 07:20 AM | #

This I imagine, is stated tongue in cheek. Conjure aggression out of a bottle, you cannot put a cork in it when you want it stop. Lot of people will die in the new style, the masses will turn against us, gifts for the left…law and order should be on our side, until it’s not, not theirs. We need grandma and grandpa along with the teds.

I remember exactly and precisely the first time I saw mods in England, I will never forget it….sitting on a stoop on Bridle lane, not far from the new Piccadilly. Along come 5 or 6 lads, a gang taking up the street with everyone moving out of the way, beautifully turned out in impeccable Edwardian haberdashery of the like I’d never seen, or imagined in the wildest dreams, uncommonly fine tailoring, herringbone cheviot lounge waist coats, oxford shirts and tie, short back and sides, I’d never seen such elegance on youth. Yet these were not conservative young men.

As they walked by I asked ‘what_the_fuck_are_you?’ in my best english, they surrounded me for the obvious reasons as I was alone, and one said in the sweetest, friendliest voice I had ever heard a stranger speak to me….,

‘We are the mods…’.

Unbelievable. It was like a drop of water falling from heaven and striking me on the temple. It wasn’t the splendor of the attire, of which I was dazzled, it was I had never been spoken to by a stranger in such a open, guileless voice…ever….ever. There is always attitude and suspicion towards a stranger, much less a foreigner…these lads ready for it, yet with completely open hearts, taking anyone at face value.

I had never been so completely sold on anything so quickly in my life. That was it, best of friends forever- straight to a pub and non stop for days and nights. To this day I have never encountered anything like those mad few weeks. The fashion and style was unparalleled, nothing compares, but what made it magic was their openhearted acceptance, of me - a hostile hun, they took me as their own without a seconds thought.

That was the thing about punk, people are unaware . They only see the image of aggression.It was an image meant to say fuck off fakes and hypocrites. The yobs and skinheads were late comers , crashers. When punk began there was a most genuine and innocent sincerity, mutual support and community among the punks.

Style is life itself. You are the English. What’s different is the absolute nonchalance, saine d’esprit, of the gentleman, the European. That is true style…the rest is rags.
Try that on and your unstoppable.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on May 15, 2011, 07:24 AM | #

I hope this is satire, or else the care in the community scheme needs fundamental reappraisal.

Its sounds like some homosexual fetish wank mag - all ripped young guys in leather uniforms and the worship of violence.

Ernst Rohm would have loved it.

Talk about camp.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 15, 2011, 08:25 AM | #

Good grief what is it about fucking uniforms???

Let me repeat - I like to think I’m a fairly average person and let me tell you fetishsizing the Nazi’s or Spartans et al (or some post-modern version) just puts ordinary people off anything you might have to say. I think a Schmittian discourse is a much better starting point (what are the boundaries a community can draw around itself etc).

I was recently chatting with a really good, but ultra liberal/PC, friend of mind about society and politics etc. I brought up the fact that apparently London is now the most ethnically diverse city in the world. So we talked about the pros and cons of this and I got onto some of the practical issues - schooling, housing, jobs, crime etc.

Eventually we got onto practical/political issue of just how many immigrants could the UK take and she admitted that there had to be a limit, moreover if 50%+ of people living in England were African in origins then “England would no-longer be England”. Now of course 50% is a silly proportion but a seed had been sown. Getting someone that’s a ‘normal’ well-educated middle class person (but been constantly exposed to PC crap) to effectively admit that Africans are not interchangable with Europeans, and we are being replaced by them and this is a bad thing, is for me a minor victory. We really need to get many more such people to admit this obvious truth. Talking about body armor is dumb beyond belief.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 15, 2011, 09:05 AM | #

Here’s what your revolution looks like…..don’t see anything? Right, because it’s not going to happen. You are taking what is largely an American concept, namely “white”, and trying to apply it to Europe. Some Europeans may complain about non-European immigrants, but they are never going to accept this “we’re all white” nonsense and you know it. Why do you think the same people who complain about non-European immigrants are just as willing to bitch about Poles, Balts, or other Eastern Europeans when they come in large numbers? Hell, just look at the way English people reacted to a Scottish PM. You’ve heard it a million times but there is no such thing as “white” as a nationality, culture or whatever. Even the names by which many European nationalities identify themselves today may be relatively new. How often to people readily call themselves ‘Yugoslav’, ‘Prussian’, or ‘Genoese’ these days? How people identify themselves, like society, has changed throughout time. (Oh yes I am aware that your movement is full of amateur geneticists who can type walls of text about the precious haplogroups of Europid people or whatever. Just one problem- no society ever organized itself based on such information, and you can’t really provide a decent answer as to why we should start. In the end, you are still basically classifying people based on certain facial and skin features, which begs the question as to why not draw the line at hair color too? )

Migration is a normal part of history. It does not matter whether you think it is “right” or “wrong”, it happens. As long as we live in a capitalist world, their will be reasons for migration simply because with capitalism, for a few nations to enjoy a high standard of living, a lot more others must have a much lower one by comparison. Outsourcing of course reduces the need for migration, but it does not eliminate it entirely. Your movement may enjoy a short bout of success, because capitalism is in crisis and it needs to lash out against a rising working class, hence it may give you a little slack. However, your kind of fascism is not conducive to capitalism, which must be able to exploit labor freely.

So no, you are not going to have a “revolution”, but the good news is “white people” aren’t going anywhere. The sooner you realize that the happier you’ll be. And one more thing, you guys have to stop looking to Russia as though it is going to save Europe. You would have to be either blind or a total ignorant moron to think that Russia, which can barely save its own population, could ever be Europe’s or anyone’s salvation. Russia lost another 2 million people in the last few years, it’s mortality is high, and people will do almost anything to leave the country permanently. It is expected to lose a very large portion of people by 2040.

If you’re hoping for Russia to “save” you, kill yourself now and save yourself the disappointment. Besides, how stupid does it look when a movement which for decades declared Russians as mongrels has been kissing their asses for the last 20 years or so?

Posted by Bill on May 15, 2011, 10:13 AM | #

Skimming around hither and thither, as you do, I’ve noticed that there is still a post mortem going on concerning the local elections earlier this month. Something has changed say the talking heads.

Myself, I couldn’t raise much enthusiasm for the ritual carnival of the blue team red team tag match, even so, something seems to have emerged (under most folk’s radar) that could prove interesting.

The political coroners are saying there’s been an observable change in the pattern of voting in the recent local elections. Results demonstrate the British voter has gone tribal they say. The SNP (Scottish National Party) check mate Scottish politics by sweeping the board, Liberal Democrats suffer wipe out and smug Cameron Tories are smiling as they consolidate their vote in England. The Progressives of the poor left don’t get a mention and are left trailing in the dust. Is it true? Is this a rational conclusion to be drawn, that the battered British voter has gone tribal? It could well be, maybe the voters are circling the wagons around their historical loyalties in the wishful thinking that Cameron really is a conservative and will govern in the interests of Britain. (Some hope, methinks)

Why aren’t the British (English) mirroring the European trend in traversing to the right? This is a question that has preoccupied this website for several years to no real avail.

Since New Labour came to power, the voters loyalties have been tested to the limit. Blair’s/Brown ditching of the working class and embrace of Thatcherite neoliberalism only to be followed by Cameron’s liberal globalist politically correct agenda, all has helped send the British voter into a tailspin of cognative dissonance.

Furthermore, Cameron is sacrificing his ambitions (or maybe not -judging by Blair’s success since leaving domestic politics) beyond a one time parliament with his seamless continuance of Brown’s destructive scorched earth tactics.

The British voter’s generational allegiance to his red team blue team has propelled him into a vice like grip of cognitive dissonance from which, it seems he cannot escape. His, (voter’s) political compass is spinning like a top, it cannot function in this crazy upside down postmodern world of liberal politics.

The bemused voting public is still placing its faith in the faux red team blue team dichotomy. With Cameron’s antics of outblairing Blair, for how much longer can this continue?

If the talking heads have got it right and the voters are going tribal, then the penny must surely drop (as it has in Europe,) and the whole scam becomes transparent - even the most obtuse observer will question - What the heck’s going on?

Trouble is, I’ve said this so many times before.

What irony, just when the fruit of nationalism is ripening all over Europe, the British National Party recedes to its lowest ebb with no successor in sight.

LJB. As an infant, my (our) Victorian great grandfathers taught us that beyond the three mile limit - lay Johnny Foreigner. I well remember school’s Empire Day when the principle actors coated themselves with cocoa and bore sham spears.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on May 15, 2011, 10:37 AM | #

Hi Bill,

I thought that Empire Day was about the idea that all races were ‘British’ as being part of the British Empire, and that white British people dressed up as African natives to show the scope and breadth of the British Empire and the racial diversity within the Empire such as in South Africa ?

That the Empire Day was about showing how white / black etc were all part of the same Empire as a celebration of the success and power of British imperialism ?

It wasnt about white pride, but multi-racial, multi-national British Empire pride ?

The sun never sets on the British Empire - and all that ?

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 15, 2011, 11:10 AM | #

I am no expert on Empire Day, Lee, but English people certainly did have an idea of “race”. For example, they referred to themselves as the English race or Anglo-Saxon race, while referring to the Irish as the Irish race, and so on. So as I was saying, this concept of “race” has always been malleable and so it is foolish to speak of a “white” race made up of many radically different cultures.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on May 15, 2011, 11:12 AM | #

Great essay, Mr. Murros.

Sorry about the twits that have taken up residence here lately.

Posted by Bill on May 15, 2011, 12:16 PM | #

Lee.

I was only an infant at the beginning of the end of Empire. To me it was just part of being British, it was the culture of the day, you wore it like a second skin.

War was still raging when snippets of memories take me back to those days, how strange that war and empire meant little or nothing to me at the time, how could it, what do children know, far away from wars front? Ours was a quiet war, though trappings of the times were never far away, the brick built air raid shelter with a roof of reinforced concrete, nearby a water tank the size of a swimming pool for fighting fires from air bombing. They were never used in anger. I’m just saying I took all of this as normal, I knew no different.

Looking back, the spirit of the age for children was deference and discipline, be it school, parents, doctor, uncles, aunts, the local shopkeeper and so on. It was all quite normal.

The war was over and empire was dismantling, the war weary ‘40’s gave way to the not so different early’50’s, to a child nothing much changed except one was growing up and life was beckoning. I always think that it was the mid ‘50’s when it all began to change, television, availability of consumer goods after years of rationing and scarcity. With hindsight the green shoots of decay were starting to appear. It was a time of transition from a Victorian Britain to something else, something that I could not have defined at the time - but all too clear to me now.

By the time I had completed my National Service (1958) I was the finished article, an Englishman.

Many say there never was a golden age, I don’t agree, I maintain for most it is the growing up years that are the best, whatever the prevailing social conditions ‘60’s,‘70’s, 90’s whatever. Having said that, it is no surprise that I would say without doubt it was the ‘50’s for me. By the end of the’ 60’s I had the wherewithal to see that things were deteriorating piecemeal. Suffice to say the BBC would not agree with me on that - but there you go.

What I do find fascinating (and puzzling) is that material progress, for some reason is gained at the expense of social decay. Food for thought there.

I could go on and I’m rambling anyway. Time for tea.

Posted by Thorn on May 15, 2011, 01:42 PM | #

This essay that started out well enough, but it suddenly took an abrupt turn into the realm of perverted fantasies somewhere around the midway mark. Only weirdos/social misfits could agree with or go along with such grotesquely odd propositions.

We can do better.

Seriously.

Posted by morris on May 15, 2011, 02:55 PM | #

Did Greg Johnson aka “The Cat Lady” write this?

Posted by Gregor on May 15, 2011, 03:38 PM | #

Yes, the twits have arrived.

I’ve never seen such prune-faced negativity as a reaction to someone who is thinking inside the psychology of identity, the real psychology that permeates how young people “are” in the world.

One thing is for sure, we will not be seeing much style gracing the bodies of the prune-faced nay-sayers.

While I too am not a fashion-designer, Murros conceptualization of sexy danger is nothing more than what is already going on in the Simulacra Sphere of media. But it is different in that it’s focused on OUR PEOPLE and a gathering under stylish identity rather than the DIVISIVE and destructive fashion-identities that are flogged by the Simulacra Sphere currently.

Kai, pay no attention to the nay-sayers. They’re probably lounging in nigger attire as they tap away their anti-fantasies.

Posted by gregor on May 15, 2011, 03:43 PM | #

@Guessedworker

“Morris” wrote, “Did Greg Johnson aka “The Cat Lady” write this?”

GW, could you please take the trash out and put it where it belongs, ie, not here?

Posted by Alaric on May 15, 2011, 03:45 PM | #

I, Alaric, performed in a tentacle bukkake porno movie, in the role of receiver.

Posted by Piers on May 15, 2011, 06:16 PM | #

Saw him speak at a London New Right meeting a couple years ago, he definitely didn’t look fat then.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 15, 2011, 06:31 PM | #

Actually Kai might be on to something. White Nationalism is basically LARPing. There’s not going to be any “revolution”, and it sure as hell isn’t going to be in Europe. Armies of European nationalists? Yeah that will last until the Irish and English nationalists, the Slovak and Hungarian(and Romanian) nationalists, and the Croat and Serbian nationalists meet with arms. Oh, don’t want to forget Western Ukrainians, Poles, Bulgarians, Macedonians and of course, the Greek nationalists who practically hate everybody around them. Stand in the middle of those guys when they’re armed and you’ll learn a powerful lesson about the “white” race. The beauty of it is that each nationalist faction’s hero is another faction’s villain.

But that’s a bit of a digression. As I began, Kai is on to something because if you’re going to give a lecture in Russia of all places about the future of Europe, you might as well talk out your ass about uniforms and assorted frivolous bullshit.

You’re not going to win, your people aren’t going to “wake up”, and you’re not going to change European multi-cultural reality with neo-Pagan D&D;bullshit. So why not just have fun and use your movement to create some kind of RPG?

Posted by RS on May 15, 2011, 07:39 PM | #

> Black and silver were the colours of the SS and in this way they could be our colours too—in a very modern way.

I was thinking the exact opposite, sort of: namely, matters of style including sex etc are a big part of our strife for our own existence - but since fascism was highly esthetic (and often very tasteful indeed), the main challenge is how to create a successful style that is totally different from the fascist one.

Placing fascist history back in context, particularly the context of bolshevism that it has been deliberately shorn of, is one thing; stances that are actually pro-fascist are a whole nother story. To me it’s obvious that fascism’s legacy is dominated by severe defects. It doesn’t matter all that much whether one agrees with that: for the fact that fascism will never sell is at least five times more obvious. To me a pro-fascist stance is like wanting to lead the whole movement of preservasionists up to the summit of Everest and back down, sans oxygen tanks—before, or midway through, doing anything that actually matters. In a word it’s sheer insanity.

Even ‘nationalism’ is far from optimal. ‘Defensive nationalism’ is more like it, but ‘preservationism’ is much more marketable (and true, for what I want) yet.

Posted by Grimoire on May 15, 2011, 07:58 PM | #

Arsian: White Nationalism is a crude term more relevant to the American discussion. Revolution is also an inexact term, ‘revanchement’ would be more correct.
The diorama of Ukranians, Poles, etc. you suggest, indicates you do not understand what is happening. As for your bet that the movement is a failure, fair assessment if you count this and other blogs as essential. However, these blogs are symptoms, not causes. The movement is not driven by people writing on blogs.
I predict you will be unpleasantly surprised by it’s growing success.

Posted by Appomattox on May 15, 2011, 08:41 PM | #

Its sounds like some homosexual fetish wank mag - all ripped young guys in leather uniforms and the worship of violence.

Yes, I would think Kai of Finland would be familiar with Tom of Finland and thus be aware of the kinds of connotations this leather stuff has.

I mean come on. Black biker leather? Helmets? American football pads? Seriously?

Posted by Anonymous on May 15, 2011, 09:41 PM | #

Black biker leather? Helmets? American football pads? Seriously?

In case you couldn’t tell, Kai’s writing about SHTF. Given that, his recommendations are tactical and practical. And except to those familiar with gay niche porn perhaps, there’s nothing funny about a big aluminum baseball bat. How did/do the Israelis chase the Palestinians out of their homes? I’ll bet in the early days they had irregular costumes and weapons.

Posted by Gudmund on May 15, 2011, 11:22 PM | #

I predict you will be unpleasantly surprised by it’s growing success.
>Grimoire

Arslan here (also known as Captain Marinesko, J.P. Slovjanski, Thomas Sankara, and probably a dozen other names) is a person, for lack of a better term, not worth taking seriously. He is a communist who has become obsessed over the years with trolling racialist blogs, to what end is anyone’s guess. Probably an irrational symptom of severe mental illness.

At any rate, the future of Europe is not quite so hopeless as he seems to think. Even a simple perusal of the headlines recently shows that all is not sitting well with the inhabitants of the EU, and that there is a great likelihood of reaction in the years to come. I actually agree with him that this will not look like “white nationalism” per se, but let’s not pretend we are dealing with a rational or even sane individual here. The irony is that he is as much a reality-denier and role-player as anyone he accuses, I believe Freud’s concept of projection is actually valid in this particular case.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 02:33 AM | #

Oh Grimoire and Gudmund, ye high level players of the racialist MMORPG, don’t make me laugh. Your movement is failing and though individual nationalist parties may have a success here and there as the economic crisis worsens, in the end they will betray you because they know they need those immigrants. You know how desperate you are when you turn to Eastern Europe to save you.

Now, for Gudmund, a special message. I know little of these other names you call me by, but I find it funny that people like you speak about mental illness. For one thing, pretty much the entire world and of course the scientific community says your movement is based on bullshit. The best counter your people can come up with is to allege some big conspiracy theory whenever science or history goes against you. Your movement is also filled with numerous anti-social, corrupt, and even perverted individuals, and you are well aware of this because you have likely been involved in it for some time. There is also some irony in calling me mentally ill and then insisting in paranoid fashion that there is a conspiracy of online Commies going under several names whose only purpose is to annoy you. Yes, you’re the sane one; the rest of the world is crazy. Keep telling yourself that.

Your nationalist parties will fail, they will sell you out, and you will retreat back to your forums to cry and moan about it. That is the way the capitalist world works. They’ll rail against immigrants to get into power if they must, but they are ultimately beholden to that class which needs a supply of cheap labor. Not to mention the fact that someone must pay into your social welfare systems.

I find it most hilarious that the best answer any of you can come up with consists of:

1. NAH AH!! THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT IS TOO GOING TO SUCCEED!!!

2. You’re insane!!!!

Here’s a better way to do things. Get out one of your 20 or 30-sided dice, and if you roll say 18 or higher, Europe will be saved, and you get the valkyries. Anything lower and you get butchered by a horde of wild Captain Marineskos, Slovjanskis, and Sankaras.

Posted by AnalogMan on May 16, 2011, 02:57 AM | #

Count me with the twits. This is silly.

Nationalists should create a style that reflects power, strength, arrogance, danger and intelligence.

How did that work out for the skinheads? Oh, yeah, the intelligence thing… so, let’s add lace-up boots and a stylish shoulder-bag. There, fixed.

The most surprising thing (apart from this article’s appearance on this site) is the reaction of some commenters whose intelligence I had respected.

(Full disclosure: I couldn’t actually finish the whole article).

Posted by Lee John Barnes on May 16, 2011, 04:09 AM | #

Hi guys,

last night I decided to give Kai’s idea a go.

I put on a black leather jacket with black shoulders pad from American football, a black bullet proof vest, a black leather cod peice, an black american football helmet, black leggings, big black biker boots and carried an aluminium baseball bat and wore dark sun glasses.

I went in town to see what people think.

I met some really nice guys, all body bulders in tight t-shirts who just loved my look.

None of them had their girlfriends with them though, but they were really really friendly.

They have asked me to go to a sauna and then a party next week in Soho in London.

It sounds great.

You should try it - you meet some really friendly people when you wear the New Look

Posted by Appomattox on May 16, 2011, 05:02 AM | #

Isn’t the first and most important principle of guerrilla warfare the ability to slip and blend into the larger civilian population?

How does owning a cache of black leather, helmets, metal, American football pads, etc. and strutting around the streets in the stuff help achieve this? Is the presumption here that ordinary European civilian populations will also possess and regularly deck themselves in black leather, helmets, metal, American football pads, etc.?

Posted by Lurker on May 16, 2011, 05:22 AM | #

Arsehole Something-or-other - So as I was saying, this concept of “race” has always been malleable

Is this where you get to have your cake and eat it, bleat about the horrors of racism while ridculing the concept of ‘race’?

Seems to me you can have race without racism but you simply cannot have racism without race.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 05:47 AM | #

Well of course it might seem that way, Lurker, but only because you are a moron. Just because there is no such thing as “race” beyond what humans decide to call them at one time or another, doesn’t mean that people can’t do terrible things in the name of race. There is no god, yet people murder in the name of god, see? Today you can see many nations which were for much of their history divided into separate, smaller states. Amidst such states were often wars, sometimes quite bloody, often justified by some alleged profound difference between the people of X and those of Y.

Posted by Lurker on May 16, 2011, 06:47 AM | #

Arsehole - Well of course it might seem that way, Lurker, but only because you are a moron

I defer to your clearly superior and intimate personal knowledge on matters moronic.

There is no god, yet people murder in the name of god, see?

You could say that was a wholly abstract difference, though often religious strife is overlaid on ethnic, racial difference too. Are you saying that current divides between European & Asian are wholly abstract then?

often wars, sometimes quite bloody, often justified by some alleged profound difference between the people of X and those of Y.

The differences were often more than just alleged.

Anyhow why are you here whining about alleged differences? Take your alleged differences to to the jews, the Africans, the Asians. Why do they insist on behaving en masse in a different ways to Europeans, if we are all the same, all differences are alleged? Tell them to start acting white why dont you. They can hardly complain, what with all differences being wholly abstract and all that. Or are they a wee bit more than abstract perhaps?

Why are whites being killed in SA and Zimbabwe? Take your complaints to southern Africa and explain to your black pals how they are murdering on the basis of alleged difference. Dont waste your time on us, you’ve already dismissed us as losers.

Posted by Leon Haller on May 16, 2011, 07:07 AM | #

There is some truth here, but mostly you reveal your own ignorance. All the science is against you, not us. For example, about a quarter century ago, a conference was going to be held on the genetics of criminality, I believe at the University of Maryland (USA). It was preempted and cancelled due to protests from the NAACP and “anti-racists”. Why?

Why must leftists always use coercive power against WNs? Why shut down conferences, shout down speakers, ban books, etc? Would such efforts be expended against, say, a conference of Flat Earthers or geocentrists?

WN is correct in the sense that it has a theory, rooted in the very best science, that has been repeatedly confirmed by historical and sociological observation. Moreover, apart from scientific racism, WN speaks to perfectly reasonable grievances, as well as widespread desires and prejudices, that (Jewish influenced, if not dominated) Western elites simply refuse to acknowledge, and use propaganda to discredit or, failing that, totalitarian coercion to suppress.

I agree that there are too many weirdoes, and mentally unstable (or at least, extremely unrealistic) types, floating around the WN movement. You see this in the mostly negative response to some of my arguments here at MR about the necessity (at least in America) of developing a WN that is philosophically compatible with Christianity, and tactically in sync with the modal lifestyle and cultural attitudes of whites today.

But make no mistake: our fundamental message is correct, and will resonate with uncommitted whites to an ever greater degree as the full costs, in all senses, of the West’s unprecedented experiment in multiracialism come to be more widely recognized, and felt. The future will belong to us.

Posted by Arslan Amikhan on May 16, 2011, 07:10 AM | #

Please present proof that Jews, Africans, and “Asians”, or Europeans for that matter, behave in uniform ways. The behavior of a Spaniard will differ greatly from that of a Pole or Russian. Meanwhile the behavior of the Russian will more closely resemble that of various non-European inhabitants of Russia. Why it’s almost as if a shared geographical, economic, and historical environment has some kind of effect on peoples!!!

“The differences were often more than just alleged.”

Pay attention here. I am referring to the wars between various European peoples, including those which are now known by the same nationality today, such as Germans, Russians, Italians, and so on. Were you to go back to a certain point in time and tell a particular member of one of those states that they would one day exist as one nation of Germans, Russians, etc., you’d likely be beheaded, shot, or whatever.

Now please explain what “acting white” means. Show your work.

Posted by Leon Haller on May 16, 2011, 07:36 AM | #

The future will belong to us. (me)

I must clarify this. I don’t mean “whites” per se. The white race is on a path to extinction within a century or so. I have discussed this many times, arguing that the only hope for white survival is for racially conscious whites from all nations to emigrate and demographically ‘conquer’ a sovereign polity, and transform it into an apartheid Racial State (this is not a fascist or WN fantasy, however: Mexicans are in the process of peacefully ‘conquering’ my state of California, and there is no reason that racially conscious whites, simply wishing to live among those who are most like themselves, could not do the same on an international level - after all, we are modern, mobile, and have plenty of skills many countries would welcome).

I mean that WN will eventually be the majority ideology among whites, though that may not count for much, as by the time this transformation has occurred, whites will likely be demographic minorities in most of their historic homelands, very much including the US, whose whites are on the most “advanced” edge of racial minoritization among the major white countries.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 08:07 AM | #

“There is some truth here, but mostly you reveal your own ignorance. All the science is against you, not us.”

Incorrect. This is why you have to come up with conspiracy theories, mostly involving Jews, to explain why your theories can’t pass peer review. Watch, you’re about to do it right now.

“For example, about a quarter century ago, a conference was going to be held on the genetics of criminality, I believe at the University of Maryland (USA). It was preempted and cancelled due to protests from the NAACP and “anti-racists”. Why?”

I see, so the conference was canceled, ergo the theory that genetics and criminality must be linked is TRUE!! Brilliant.

“Why must leftists always use coercive power against WNs? Why shut down conferences, shout down speakers, ban books, etc? Would such efforts be expended against, say, a conference of Flat Earthers or geocentrists?”

1. What racialist books have been banned in the US?

2. When flat earthers or geocentrists seriously try to hammer their way into the educational system, you’d better believe they are going to be resisted.

However, the problem with your analogy is that flat eathers don’t support deporting and separating people based on arbitrary notions of “race”. The modern flat earth movement also hasn’t had any instances of terrorism of which I am aware. Feel free to correct me on that point.

“WN is correct in the sense that it has a theory, rooted in the very best science, that has been repeatedly confirmed by historical and sociological observation.”

Um…nope, no it hasn’t, and historical observation shows just the opposite. Race has not been the basis for human society. History is full of examples where societies transcended such barriers.

“Moreover, apart from scientific racism, WN speaks to perfectly reasonable grievances, as well as widespread desires and prejudices, that (Jewish influenced, if not dominated) Western elites simply refuse to acknowledge, and use propaganda to discredit or, failing that, totalitarian coercion to suppress.”

Like I said, you can’t explain why your supposedly proven theories aren’t accepted by the scientific mainstream, so you have to resort to a Jewish conspiracy. It is funny how your precious race seems to have been so easily dominated by these Jews. How pathetic.

“I agree that there are too many weirdoes, and mentally unstable (or at least, extremely unrealistic) types, floating around the WN movement. You see this in the mostly negative response to some of my arguments here at MR about the necessity (at least in America) of developing a WN that is philosophically compatible with Christianity, and tactically in sync with the modal lifestyle and cultural attitudes of whites today.”

Would you like me to answer the riddle that has been plaguing WN pseudo-intellectuals for decades as to why your movement attracts so many losers? It’s simple: You’re movement is based on the idea that there is some kind of inherent value to being white. Unity based on a collection of physical traits. Thus you will always attract a large amount of people who have nothing else of merit in this world save for the fact that you consider them “white.”

“But make no mistake: our fundamental message is correct, and will resonate with uncommitted whites to an ever greater degree as the full costs, in all senses, of the West’s unprecedented experiment in multiracialism come to be more widely recognized, and felt. The future will belong to us.”

Nope, no it won’t. All trends are against you. The majority of people you consider “white” will never buy into your nonsense. There is no such thing as a “white”. There are Germans, Italians, Ukrainians and so forth, but they will never buy into your personal multi-cultural experiment.

“I must clarify this. I don’t mean “whites” per se. The white race is on a path to extinction within a century or so.”

Luckily, it was nothing but an arbitrary social construct whose definition changed numerous times throughout history, so it won’t be missed. If you are talking about the “white” phenotype, it’s not going anywhere I’m happy to say. “White” folks evolved from “non-white”, so the genes are always going to exist in one form or another.

The problem is your classification is completely arbitrary. A white woman can give birth to a non-white baby according to you, but non-white women never give birth to white babies. When you think of a racially mixed child, you think they are somehow lost, never considering that depending on the mates of its own offspring, you may end up with someone who easily fits your “white” phenotype again.

” I have discussed this many times, arguing that the only hope for white survival is for racially conscious whites from all nations to emigrate and demographically ‘conquer’ a sovereign polity, and transform it into an apartheid Racial State”

And the benefit of this would be…?

” (this is not a fascist or WN fantasy, however: Mexicans are in the process of peacefully ‘conquering’ my state of California, and there is no reason that racially conscious whites, simply wishing to live among those who are most like themselves, could not do the same on an international level - after all, we are modern, mobile, and have plenty of skills many countries would welcome).”

Mexicans are conquering California? Are they re-writing laws? Are they forcing non-Mexicans to move out? Are they denying you bank loans?

“I mean that WN will eventually be the majority ideology among whites, though that may not count for much, as by the time this transformation has occurred, whites will likely be demographic minorities in most of their historic homelands, very much including the US, whose whites are on the most “advanced” edge of racial minoritization among the major white countries.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

Keep dreaming. Roll the 20-sided die now and see how it works out.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 08:19 AM | #

Read about the conditions of working people in Victorian England(one doctor remarked that the workers had been so deformed by their work that looked as though they were another “race”), and then speak of “racially conscious whites”.

Posted by Thorn on May 16, 2011, 08:39 AM | #

“Your nationalist parties will fail, they will sell you out, and you will retreat back to your forums to cry and moan about it. That is the way the capitalist world works. They’ll rail against immigrants to get into power if they must, but they are ultimately beholden to that class which needs a supply of cheap labor. Not to mention the fact that someone must pay into your social welfare systems.”

In a certain way, I actually agree with most of that.

Yes, our nationalist parties will only fail if we keep making the mistake of using anti-Semitism as the centerpiece of our platform. If WNs (or at least like many at MR do) continue blaming the Jews for all our problems and continue to assert silly notions such as: “WASP CEOs are “zombies” and “extended Jewish phenotypes” who take their marching orders from the JOOOOZ wheather they know it or not because they’ve are been brainwashed by the JOOOOZ”, blah blah blah…. then NOBODY outside of a small circle of misguided dupes will want to join in.

Secondly, capitalism per se is NOT the problem either; in fact it has served us quite well, thank you very much. However, global capitalism, especially when it’s allowed to be practiced devoid of a code of ethics thus driven by an unrestrained “by any means necessary” pursuit of profits value system, is the main reason behind the ongoing massive third-world immigration into white homelands. This in turn has resulted in all kinds of anti-white genocidal byproducts; the type in which “anti-racist” Jews, et al., do a little “capitalizing” of their own. For instance: the Swedish Government’s funding of Barbara Spectre with Swedish tax dollars to hold seminars for the purpose of teaching Swedes how to make the transition from a homogeneous nation to a multiracial one.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 09:01 AM | #

I’m not sure the various European populations who experienced the war of 1914-18, among many others, would agree with the sentiment that “capitalism” served them well (ignoring the implication that they were one monolithic group of people). Capitalism naturally evolved into global capitalism. In fact, globalization has existed far longer than most people think. You can see the beginnings of global capitalism in the 19th century with the rise of imperialism. Capitalism is everyone’s problem, whether they live in Europe, Africa, Asia, or wherever. Hell, most of Africa’s modern problems after the end of colonialism came either from neo-colonialism, bad advice from neo-liberals at the IMF and World Bank, or proxy wars and careless “foreign aid” which actually does more harm than good.

The problem with your movement is that once you get past the anti-Semitism and start looking at economics(which has a far more influential role in human history than any arbitrary term like “race”), you make the mistake of thinking that there is some better form of capitalism you can go back to. But what we see in the world today isn’t the result of some anomaly or a takeover of “the wrong kind of people”. It is the natural progression and evolution of the capitalist system. Capitalism requires new markets, new investment, and sources of cheap labor. You cannot roll it back.

Suppose you have a country where your nationalists take over and manage to install some kind of “nation-friendly” protectionist economic policy. That will last only until the people at the top of your new society decide that they deserve the same perks and benefits as their counter-parts in other countries. And of course they will have more resources and influences than the mass of people in your new nation, especially when you campaign on the politics of eugenics and the idea that inherently better people should rule as opposed to the masses. So eventually this system would break down.

More likely, such a system will never come into existence. Virtually all successful fascist and nationalist regimes came to power via the blessing of the local bourgeoisie, as well as with their money and sometimes media support. Nowadays your politics aren’t 100% useful to them. That’s why you have this big Tea Party movement which may attract your sympathy but you’ll never feel they are like you. The system dictates that overt expressions of racism must not take place.

Posted by Leon Haller on May 16, 2011, 09:33 AM | #

There are some valuable insights in this piece, though they are enveloped in a great deal of nonsense (not to mention the risible lack of understanding about capitalism that follows in the comments).

One issue does occur to me. Actually, I’ve been thinking about this for years, and would now like to hear from MR regulars.

Real whites (say, those at least 31/32nds European in ancestry, itself already rather generous, if you take a gander at many Mediterranean persons; I do allow for my own family, which has a bit of Amerindian in it from way back; not me, as far as I know, but another branch) will be a minority in the US no later than 2020. Using even the most elastic possible definition of “white” (nb: NOT the ludicrous Census standard, which counts Muslim Arabs, as well as many Hispanics, as “white”), whites will be less than 50% of the American population by 2030.

What do we do then? Or, what will be the shape of the “Right”, and the larger society, when whites are a minority? My suspicion is that the persecution and dispossession of whites will only intensify, but how should we, and WN, respond?

I don’t think Murros’s neo-Ralph Lauren vision of stylish manque fascists is exactly the way to go, but it does seem obvious that whites need to organize themselves racially in some way. We need a white movement, one that combines social activities with politics and group protection.

Thoughts?

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 09:37 AM | #

“Real whites (say, those at least 31/32nds European in ancestry, itself already rather generous, if you take a gander at many Mediterranean persons; I do allow for my own family, which has a bit of Amerindian in it from way back; not me, as far as I know, but another branch) will be a minority in the US no later than 2020. Using even the most elastic possible definition of “white” (nb: NOT the ludicrous Census standard, which counts Muslim Arabs, as well as many Hispanics, as “white”), whites will be less than 50% of the American population by 2030.”

Ah you see, EVERYONE can make their own criteria for “white”. That’s why it’s not a real scientific concept. What gives you the right to get all pissed about where the census bureau draws its line? Last time I checked there were two categories for Hispanics- European and non-European descent. There is also a good reason why Arabs might sometimes be considered “white”, because many of them are in the sense that they appear to fit the arbitrary collection of physical features you deem to be “white”. Their religion has nothing to do with it.

Posted by Thorn on May 16, 2011, 11:49 AM | #

Sounds to me like someone here (whose initials are AA) gets his talking points straight from the left-wing dung-heaps commonly referred to as The Huffington Post, Moveon.org, and Media Matters.

AA is so cliched, so wrongheaded, so predicable ....... so borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.

Posted by Gladiator on May 16, 2011, 01:17 PM | #

Hey I already wear my black suit, white shirt and narrow black tie, old style narrative from the old Southern countries. Old habits die hard one could say. That also includes thick black sunglasses too, coming across as a Sicilian Don and the Blues Brothers.
Having said that, I still believe that futuristic pragmatic ideas are better than dress and looks to win over the hearts and minds of the other 50%!

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 03:03 PM | #

“The Huffington Post, Moveon.org, and Media Matters.”

Whether these sources are truly left-wing is a matter of debate.

First on Huffington Post, they are full of shit. Huffington built the site on the free labor of naive bloggers who hoped that they would get noticed and become real journalists. As you see, they only made her rich. Were it not for the fact that they were naive if not stupid, and that the “work” was merely blogging, I would say Huffington was practically using slave labor. She is the ultimate example of what is wrong in a country where “left” is totally unconnected with the concept of class.

And besides, what is Huffington post but an endless collection of Sarah Palin jokes and articles that basically state: “X conservative said this, but earlier said something completely opposite.” No shit; does anyone ever expect conservatives to be consistent?

Now as for Moveon.org- two words: George Soros. Yes, we are DEFINITELY going to get a more egalitarian society led by an organization funded largely by a speculator-billionaire.

Lastly, Media Matters. Media Matters actually a good purpose because it archives actual videos of conservatives saying moronic things. It obviously seems to lean toward mainstream democrats, but if anyone doubts that the media is actually conservative, you can see real-life examples of this because they are archiving it.

For the record, I don’t concern myself with “talking points”. Their very existence bears testament to the degeneration of political discourse. Reality does not boil down into easily digested sound bites.

Now if you are interested, you may please explain why I am so “wrong-headed.”

Posted by Thorn on May 16, 2011, 03:41 PM | #

You’re wrongheaded because you beleive race is nothing more than a social construct.

Scientists beleive otherwise .. and they have proven so. In fact they’ve already discovered hundreds upon hundreds of genetic markers that are clearly present and unique in each particular race and not the others. That, sir, is a biological fact! ... no social construct there.

Now if you want to argue the case that one race should not be regarded as superior to another, you have a case based on moral grounds. But keep in mind, morality in a secular society is a social construct thus relative. On the other hand, verifiable biological diffences between races is an absolute truth.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 03:56 PM | #

“You’re wrongheaded because you beleive race is nothing more than a social construct.”

Race is a social construct.

“Scientists beleive otherwise .. and they have proven so. In fact they’ve already discovered hundreds upon hundreds of genetic markers that are clearly present and unique in each particular race and not the others. That, sir, is a biological fact! ... no social construct there.”

Sorry but they also said that populations within one “race” have more genetic variation among themselves than with other groups. Presence of unique genetic markers? Wow- name a society that was built on the basis of unique genetic markers. Every individual carries admixture of various other groups, and this trend will continue.

So no, science is against you and your claim that there is a “white” race, among other races. If you need a DNA test to tell what race someone really is, you don’t have a basis for a healthy society.

“Now if you want to argue the case that one race should not be regarded as superior to another, you have a case based on moral grounds. But keep in mind, morality in a secular society is a social construct thus relative. On the other hand, verifiable biological diffences between races is an absolute truth.”

Again, the main markers that separate “races” are insignificant; things like eye-color, hair, skin, and what-not. Mankind has never organized on the basis of “race”, and the meaning of race changes all the time. It is a social construct because you have to draw the line arbitrarily. Some idiots want to draw it at Jews, some want to exclude obviously “white” people from the Middle East, some just plain don’t like Bosnian Muslims even though they’re clearly Slavs. Some, even on this thread, don’t like those who they class as “Meds”. Where do you draw the line?

Now let’s imagine your society based on genetic markers. An immigrant wishes to come in from Ukraine. Blonde-hair, blue-eyes. You do a DNA test, because we can’t be too sure right? “Oh I’m SOOO sorry Taras, but your level of Asian admixture is a bit too high. Probably got it from those generations of Pechenegs, Tatars, and other Turks who lived in Ukraine. This means you obviously can’t hold a job and be functional in our all-white society!! Try that other, far more successful country next door. The one that doesn’t waste its resources on DNA testing every member of the population.”

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 04:02 PM | #

“Race doesn’t matter. In fact, it doesn’t even exist in humans. While that may sound like the idealistic decree of a minister or rabbi, it’s actually the conclusion of an evolutionary and population biologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right qualitative type of variation—it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.

Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, the world is colorblind. That is, it should be.”

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

Yeah, science is on your side.

Also I find it funny that some of you claim a study where people identified with certain groups and then found that their DNA was mostly from that group. Of course something like this will happen, when you ask someone to identify themselves as “white”, or “Asian”. Of course in the real world, people in Asia don’t identify themselves as such, and Europeans typically don’t identify themselves as white. So in the end it turns out that “white” people happen to have European genes. AMAZING!! What did they ask Iranians or Iranian-descended people in Central Asia to identify themselves as?

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 04:30 PM | #

““In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic “racial” groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within “racial” groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.”

Then there’s this, from the American Anthropological Association’s Statement on Race. Oh but I’m sure there must have been some Joo pulling the strings, or perhaps an ARA member with a molotov cocktail hiding under the podium right?

Posted by Thorn on May 16, 2011, 04:38 PM | #

Yes, of course there is more genetic variation withing a particular race than between races. That’s just the way genetics works.

But what is more important is the genetic markers that are present and unique in one race and not the others. That’s the crucial difference.

A common misconception people make regarding genetic variation withing races and between them is referred to as the Lewinton fallacy.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 04:44 PM | #

And these unique genetic markers do what exactly? How does this negate the out-group genetic admixture that all people have? Why should we base our society upon the presence of these alleged unique genetic markers. Also, please provide a peer-reviewed source on the significance of said markers if you think they are so important.

“Good news Taras! We just remember you have a genetic marker that is supposedly unique to Europeans, so your probably-Turkic admixture doesn’t matter so much now!! I’m sure you’ll go far in our society!!”

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 04:57 PM | #

By the way, that article is replete with idiotic logical fallacies. You can tell things are going to be bad when it begins with this:

” Danes cannot produce a Bantu, and Bantus cannot produce a Dane “

Uh yeah genius, DANES ARE NOT A RACE, NEITHER ARE BANTUS. And that’s according to THEIR OWN RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS! Danes can also not produce Poles, Serbs, Ukrainians, or Irish people for that matter.

Then it goes on to show a Chinese and a Japanese person and ask the difference? First of all, many people in East Asia can tell the difference. I can easily spot members of certain East Asian nationalities such as Japanese, Mongolian, Vietnamese, Thai, etc. I’m not even Asian. And guess what- I can usually spot a Russian, a Yugoslav, a Pole or Western Slav, an Englishman or Irishman, etc.

I could play the same game with you. Perhaps I should present photos of people so “white” that “even a child could spot the difference”, and see if you can actually spot the person who fits into a category you call white. Because as I said, that definition has repeatedly changed throughout the short history of “race”.

Oh and he figured out that we are genetically close to chimps and mice too. WOW, this must mean that a little genetic difference goes a long way? Oh wait, humans can’t breed with mice or chimps, yet humans of any “race” can produce live offspring without a problem.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 16, 2011, 05:18 PM | #

@Appomattox

I did chuckle at your “Tom of Finland” link.

Kai the 1970’s called they want their clothes back.

Seriously dressing likes rejects from Studio 54 or the Village People will not save the European ethnic phenotype. This is a satire yes? Please let it be a joke.

@Jimmy Marr - twits? Nothing personal but I do believe I’ve seen a picture of you on the old interwebs. A tattoo covered thug might be apt. No offense. honestly, but you are not seemingly the best example of the European high culture I wish to defend. We need a little more Roger Scruton and Carl Schmitt around here and a little less leather subculture.

Posted by Thorn on May 16, 2011, 05:20 PM | #

Oh wait, humans can’t breed with mice or chimps…..

LOL!

Yes, and even as much as you’ve personally tried, you just can’t seem to breed with goats and sheep either. But I’m sure you’ll keep trying…...

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 05:27 PM | #

Well Thorn, it looks like with your last comment you have conceded the debate and cannot answer simple questions. Not to mention you seem to be confusing me with David Duke for some reason.

Anyway, as I said, it’s a social construct, which changed over time, and is not a factor in the development of human society which has never been based on “race”(at least not how you want to define it). Just because it’s a social construct doesn’t mean it doesn’t have real consequences. Race has been defined and re-defined in innumerable ways in order to divide peoples and to get exploited people to identify with their exploiters instead of uniting against them.

Your movement will continue to fail, as it has for the past 50 or so years. Racism will continue to exist so long as capitalism exists, but I predict that it will exist in a certain liberal fashion. That is to say that overt expressions of racism such as those from the likes of you will be shunned while not-so overt forms, or at least racism with some public disavowal of racism will be utilized by the mainstream media. Anything to keep the bankrupt system going.

Posted by Thorn on May 16, 2011, 05:36 PM | #

I didn’t concede anything. I presented the facts, you rejected them. Period end of story.

Tata.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 05:42 PM | #

I think you are confused Thorn. I present facts, you presented a pathetic Amren article full of idiotic fallacies. You guys can’t even get your own definition of race straight.

You also can’t answer any of my most basic questions about your little theories, and your vision for society. You can’t even define who’s really white if I were to show you an array of photos. In other words, you fail.

But here’s another nail in the coffin: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

“DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.”

Race is not the basis for the development of human society(as it is a relatively new term anyway). Humans have organized themselves into gens, clans, tribes, tribal confederations, all the way up to the modern nation state. But they have never organized themselves based on some kind of genetic marker. And they never will.

Posted by Thorn on May 16, 2011, 05:45 PM | #

Race, ethnicity, tribe, genetic cluster, whatever…...

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 05:51 PM | #

Oh now it’s just whatever? No wonder your writer would confuse Danes and Bantus with “races”. Oh I don’t blame him too much, after all many nationalities referred to themselves as races. Race was even used to refer to certain family bloodlines as well. The point is, human society has never organized itself on the basis of some phantom genetic markers which may have no other significance other than the fact that they tend to appear in groups from a certain geographical area.

Production and exchange however, have been shown to be the basis of human society and development. Mankind since its beginning seeks to survive, and enters into certain relations with other humans in order to enhance the chances of survival. These relations have always cut across what you would call “racial” lines throughout history.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 16, 2011, 06:23 PM | #

Arslan - just because the borders around a concept or a biological entity are somewhat fuzzy does not make them any less real. It’s actually very difficult to produce an entirely robust definition of a species. I presume you do not think taxonomy and phylogenetics are bunk and that species are ‘social constructs’.

A more obvious example for you as you do seem very simple-minded would be notion of height. Of course it’s a somewhat relative concept but describe a real phenomenon. Or do you think medical midgets and medical giants are ‘social constructs’ too?

Read this for a fuller discussion on the absurdities and the folly of relativistic thinking see
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Guarding-the-boundaries-3979

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 16, 2011, 06:36 PM | #

AA how about Geo-genetic clines - that a sophisticated enough term? Perhaps ecoclines instead? Do you really think your silly 6th form word-play can magic out of existence that the are Sub-Saharan and Euro-phenotypes, or that this biological reality has consequences? Next you will be telling use that inclusive-fitness theory is a social construct, yes?

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 16, 2011, 07:00 PM | #

Forgive my typos above I was typing rather too quickly.

Posted by Ivan on May 16, 2011, 08:39 PM | #

Arslan Amirkhan,

I have few questions for you. If you do not wish, for whatever reason, to answer any particular question from my list truthfully, please don’t lie to me - just skip the question you do not feel comfortable with - that’s perfectly all right with me. You might have answered some of them already in your previous comments, if so, a brief summary will do. The list of questions is rather large, so concise answers are preferable.

1. How would you characterize the influence exerted by the jews in the news and entertainment media, banking, and the government of the United States? Is it dominant, significant, insignificant, just right, etc?

2. Do you believe that jews are pushing race-mixing, homosexuality, feminism, degeneracy, distortion of the History of the WWII in countries like United States, Canada, and Europe in general? If yes, why do you think they are doing it?

3. How truthful, in your opinion, Hollywood movies about Hitler, and the Nazis in general, are?

4. Why are so many Holocaust museums in the United States? Do you think they are relevant on American soil?

5. Do you believe that Osama bin Laden masterminded and executed 9-11 attacks with his boys? If not, who did, and to what ends?

6. What is your country of birth, and what is your country of residence now?

7. What is your ethnicity?

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 11:07 PM | #

Oh so now it’s clines(yes, a more definable term anyway), not race. You’re all grasping at straws. Imagine that, standing on the corner saying “I’M PROUD OF MY CLINE!!!!” Seriously though, you COULD decide to draw the line there, but at the end of the day you’re just choosing an arbitrary boundary(though one more definite) and basing your ideology on something that has virtually no bearing on society.

Next you use height as an analogy. Height is very real, and it is obvious. Does it make sense to organize society on height? Should people of a particular height, regardless of where they live, band together as a height group? What would this accomplish?

Then there’s this: “Do you really think your silly 6th form word-play can magic out of existence that the are Sub-Saharan and Euro-phenotypes, or that this biological reality has consequences?”

Holy crap, there are different Sub-Saharan and European phenotypes?!! Clearly, sub-Saharan and European people look different. However, the genetic elements which cause this are insignificant. We are talking about physical attributes here.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 16, 2011, 11:19 PM | #

Ivan, I find your questions overly paranoid and loaded, so I will answer the ones which merit answering. For the rest, I’ll let you assume that I’m a Jew, or non-white, or whatever, because I realize that is a hobby of many in your movement.

1. Question asserts that Jews are a monolithic group working for their own ends, like a hive mind. Ergo the question is flawed. Sure many people in media in the US are Jews, but your question assumes that they have some ulterior motive other than money, the same motive of any non-Jew in the industry in the US or abroad.

2. Again this question assumes to much and is loaded. It assumes that all these things are linked with degeneracy(which is always bad but your definition probably differs), and that Jews are “pushing” them, again as a hive mind. If you were to ask me about the distortion of WWII history I would agree that it is happening, but only in the sense that European countries are trying to blame it on totalitarianism, equating Nazi Germany with the USSR, and claiming the latter started the war jointly with the former.

“Race-mixing” has occurred naturally throughout history and will continue to do so. Do a DNA test and you’ll see what I mean. Feminism, before being co-opted by identity politics and Madison avenue in the 1970s was about equality for women. Your view of feminism and its reality are likely to be very different. Homosexuality occurs naturally within populations, has been around since the dawn of mankind, and is not going away. Again, your question ends with “why are they doing it”, which assumes that all these things occur because of Jews who are acting purposely. This is absurd. If it were true, there would have to be some place where they plan these activities. Go there and take photos.

I am well aware of how the movement thinks on these issues. Find a few Jews among a group of people involved in X, and X becomes a “Jewish-led” movement. Can’t find a Jew among the leadership, find one among their wives or husbands, and so on.

3. Some movies about Hitler and or the Nazis are extremely accurate, others involve Nazi-zombies. Can you tell the difference?

4. How many Holocaust museums do you think there are in the US? Does a unique historical event not deserve at least one museum? Do you complain about the US museum of Communism? Do you complain about the Katyn memorial in the US? I doubt it.

5. Osama bin Laden probably had something to do with 9-11.

I don’t think my birthplace and ethnicity are very relevant, and to allow you to focus on these matters would make it easier for you to ignore the points I am making. If you want to actually discuss any of these new issues you brought up, by all means do so. Suffice to say that I am white, and not Jewish. Take what you will from that.

Posted by Mr Voight on May 16, 2011, 11:46 PM | #

The central issue is whether or not the costs of a multiethnic society outweigh the benefits.

Everything else is an obfuscation.

Posted by Captainchaos on May 17, 2011, 01:19 AM | #

Arslan,

Your flight into what can only be described as petulant sarcasm is not indicative of confidence in your own position. In responding to me, now, please do refrain from that.

You are taking what is largely an American concept, namely “white”, and trying to apply it to Europe.

“White” people are, as we both use the term, those native to Europe, and those that trace their ancestry back to Europe. Neither you, nor I, are referring to negroes when we speak of “white” people. Likewise, when we speak of the physical constitution of “Arslan” we do not mean to include the clothes he happens to be wearing today as opposed to yesterday; and even if we did choose to so define what physically constitutes “Arslan” as including his clothing that would not obviate the fact that “Arslan” also has a stomach, a brain, a heart, and so on - these latter cannot be defined out of existence, I hope you will understand. So too, if the definition of “white” were expanded to your heart’s content this would in no way - by no verbal alchemy - transform Danes into Syrians.

We here do not exhort a panmixing of all the genetically and culturally distinguishable European peoples but council cooperation on the basis of the common interest they have in achieving the congeniality and prosperity which flows from ethnic homogeneity and of course their very survival. Do you understand that?

Migration is a normal part of history. It does not matter whether you think it is “right” or “wrong”, it happens.

So too war, famine, plague, enslavement, genocide. By your reasoning none of these should be resisted. But wait…it just so happens that they are resisted in, yes, “normal” times. Just as we would expect people to act if they had an interest in securing the continuity of life. Why would the European peoples wish for their children and grandchildren to be dispossessed? That is just it, they don’t, even as you hope for them to be.

As long as we live in a capitalist world, their will be reasons for migration simply because with capitalism, for a few nations to enjoy a high standard of living, a lot more others must have a much lower one by comparison.

Why is it intrinsic to “capitalism” that cheap human labor should be preferred over innovations in mechanized labor thus securing a high standard of living for those who benefit from the latter and rendering “exploitation” of the former superfluous? Are you still so certain we “need” all these dusky “immigrants”? Think carefully before answering.

Mankind since its beginning seeks to survive, and enters into certain relations with other humans in order to enhance the chances of survival. These relations have always cut across what you would call “racial” lines throughout history.

Then whence tribalism, in which social relation Man has lived for most of his history? Just what social arrangement for Man on a global scale are you advocating but to abjure tribalism and thus renounce what has been Man’s way for most of his past? Wouldn’t it be more coherent, consistent with your wistful 19th century socialism, to say that with the plenty ushered in with industrialization, a better - that is, non-tribal - way can be had for all sans a cut-throat struggle for existence?

Posted by Grimoire on May 17, 2011, 01:27 AM | #

Excellent point Mr. Voight. Keep it simple; how about….we want foreigners out of our society, our government and our hair in both the general and specific sense….
Hows that AA? Precise enough for you? How about we don’t give a shit what you think?
About anything.

Posted by Captainchaos on May 17, 2011, 01:38 AM | #

All eyes on Arslan’s response to me, Gmoire. Let’s see what he’s made of.

Posted by Ivan on May 17, 2011, 02:23 AM | #

Soviet physicist Arkady Migdal used to say to his students: Before you start digging in a pile of manure you’ll be well advised to estimate your chances to find a diamond there. Even though Migdal was jewish, I follow his wise advice - before reading a book I want to know who wrote the book and what’s the author’s agenda. It’s a time saver.

Thank you for your answers, Tim Wise… oh, I am sorry, I mean Arslan Amirkhan. You saved me the trouble of sifting through the manure, you have produced so generously, in a futile attempt to find something worth reading in there.

Posted by Captainchaos on May 17, 2011, 02:42 AM | #

Tim Wise… oh, I am sorry, I mean Arslan Amirkhan.

Whoever he may be, his own position, at least on the face of it as espoused by him, lacks internal consistency, to put it mildly. And always, lurking in the shadows, as if afraid of the noon sun, the anthropologically risible myth of the noble savage who mixed indiscriminately with all peoples from the far-flung corners of the earth. Yes, this must be why the various races of continental origin are readily visibly distinguishable from one another despite the fact that mixing between them self-evidently obliterates their respective unique looks in the mixed offspring. No wonder these “men” (I do not take it for granted that their alleged masculinity is not merely socially constructed) must unerringly resort to recommending the curtailment of their opponents ability to speak freely. Why? They’ve got nada.

Posted by Ivan on May 17, 2011, 02:54 AM | #

Hey, Captainchaos, I liked that comment of yours few days back where you have found Ivan guilty of attempted robbery of a liquor store and hanged him for that.

Sweet justice, as GW would put it.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 17, 2011, 03:54 AM | #

Ok I see Ivan(I answered most of your questions) has basically opted for the route of paranoia(thinking I’m Tim Wise) and cannot support his position, so I will limit my response to Captain Chaos, who at least attempted to make some arguments.

“White” people are, as we both use the term, those native to Europe, and those that trace their ancestry back to Europe.”

But Europeans typically don’t see themselves this way. They see themselves as Germans, English, French, and so on. As we go back in history, we see them define themselves along other lines. If we go all the way back to Classical Greece, we see that the Greeks saw all non-Greeks as “barbarians”, and even the Macedonians were considered half-barbarians by many resentful Greeks. And of course the Greeks despised the Persians, who were Indo-European despite being located in Asia(after all, those who we call Europeans migrated into Europe from the step).

” Neither you, nor I, are referring to negroes when we speak of “white” people.”

Obviously. But when we speak of “negroes” are we speaking of black Americans, who have 20% or higher European admixture? Or are we speaking of actual Africans? Likewise if someone said let’s find a German and I bring you an American of German descent and claim he is German, I wouldn’t be entirely honest would I?

” Likewise, when we speak of the physical constitution of “Arslan” we do not mean to include the clothes he happens to be wearing today as opposed to yesterday; and even if we did choose to so define what physically constitutes “Arslan” as including his clothing that would not obviate the fact that “Arslan” also has a stomach, a brain, a heart, and so on - these latter cannot be defined out of existence, I hope you will understand. So too, if the definition of “white” were expanded to your heart’s content this would in no way - by no verbal alchemy - transform Danes into Syrians.”

But you would not be able to transform Danes into Poles either. And neither Danes nor Syrians are considered a “race”.

“We here do not exhort a panmixing of all the genetically and culturally distinguishable European peoples but council cooperation on the basis of the common interest they have in achieving the congeniality and prosperity which flows from ethnic homogeneity and of course their very survival. Do you understand that?”

First of all there is no reason to believe that European nationalities have a common interest, and in a capitalist mode of production, everyone is competing with each other. Nationalists of various European nations(well any nations really) typically succumb to romanticist views of their own history(revisions really), whereby their nation heroes are the villains of their historic rivals.

But let’s imagine for the sake of argument that somehow all the nationalist parties in Europe win in their respective nations and expel their non-European immigrants(which begs the question as to what they do with European immigrants, as they typically aren’t too happy about these in large numbers). So Europe becomes a happy family of all European peoples? Well then again you have capitalism, you have competition, and you have richer nations and poorer nations. Of course your worldview excludes social and historic causes for poverty and failure, so pretty soon people start to notice that Northern European countries are prosperous while Eastern European countries aren’t(in fact right now, Russia has a level of corruption on par with several African nations).

Naturally the rich European nations will demand the right to dictate policy to the rest of this European Union of “race”, and they will justify this by their own position. How will the poverty be explained in the East? Well of course with racial theories of inferiority, by saying Slavs and Eastern Europeans have “the wrong culture”, and so on. Of course some will try to defend themselves by blaming Communism, but then the people from the rich nations can simply ask why Communism took root in among Slavs while being defeated in the West? Clearly another inherent failure.

And this will happen not necessarily because anybody wants it to happen, but because it will have to. There needs to be some kind of justification for inequality under capitalism(or any previous mode of production), so it will be found whether you have non-Europeans in your midst or not.

In fact everything I have said here has happened at one time or another, for example with the eugenics movement in the US in the late 19th early 20th century, in Victorian England, and even in Europe today Germans express a feeling of frustration that they are subsidizing new EU member states who can’t pull their own weight. I can see where this anger is coming from, as Eastern European countries scramble to be let into the EU, get in, celebrate, and then flock to the nearest EU country to serve as cheap labor. What right do you have to tell those nationalists that they shouldn’t care when the immigrants are “white”?

In short, when everyone is “white”, nobody is “white”.

“So too war, famine, plague, enslavement, genocide. By your reasoning none of these should be resisted. But wait…it just so happens that they are resisted in, yes, “normal” times. Just as we would expect people to act if they had an interest in securing the continuity of life. Why would the European peoples wish for their children and grandchildren to be dispossessed? That is just it, they don’t, even as you hope for them to be.”

How are European people being dispossessed? Are European countries no longer run by Europeans? And I ask you to note that I never said that migration is inherently positive. If millions of people can only contemplate a decent life by moving halfway across the world, something is clearly wrong. Perhaps they wouldn’t have to do that if the mostly European G20 nations and their organizations such as the IMF weren’t giving and enforcing bad policies in developing nations for the last 20 years or so.

“Why is it intrinsic to “capitalism” that cheap human labor should be preferred over innovations in mechanized labor thus securing a high standard of living for those who benefit from the latter and rendering “exploitation” of the former superfluous? Are you still so certain we “need” all these dusky “immigrants”? Think carefully before answering.”

Don’t worry, I don’t need to ponder this one very long at all. The source of surplus value is human labor. A machine can only produce so much value before it wears down to the point where it will no longer work. Of course I could repair it or replace some parts but I’m only buying a little time. That is why investment in machines and technology is called ‘constant capital’. Wage labor constitutes variable capital. The worker gets fatigued but he can rest and come back in the next day ready for work. When times are tough, I can fire some workers and make the remainder work harder or faster. The workers wages in the labor market are based on the price of commodities necessary to sustain the worker and keep them coming in the next day, so that opens up all kinds of opportunities for exploitation. For example, the more productive society becomes, the more that is produced, the lower the prices for those individual commodities and thus the wages can be lower.

Now without getting too far into crisis theory, the reason why we don’t replace so much of our manual labor with machines is because 1. machines can’t be exploited, and they tend to be very expensive investments as well, and 2. if we make production too efficient we end up driving down the prices of commodities and then you get over production because capital can no longer find profitable investment. By the way, what do you think would happen if Europe were to restrict its markets, including the labor market, to only Europe or countries with European majorities?

So in short you have a system which needs cheap labor, “dusky” or otherwise. If you exclude non-Europeans from this work, your system will inevitably rely on those Europeans whose nations are lower on the developmental ladder(yes, you’d probably blame Communism for this, but then you’d be subscribing to an environmental explanation, and why should you extend to Europeans a courtesy you deny to non-Europeans?).

“Then whence tribalism, in which social relation Man has lived for most of his history?”

Tribe is different from what you would call race. Tribes of people who we would now probably group as nationalities competed against one another. Also you have to realize that none of this happened just because someone willed it to be so. Nobody said one day, “hey guys, we’re all a group of families who have known each other for some time, why not organize into a tribe!” No, this formation was the result of material and economic factors. They formed these relations because they had to.

That being said, I recommend studying the history of nomadic Steppe peoples, primarily Indo-Iranians(like Aryans), Turkic, and Mongolic. For virtually their entire history, peoples of the steppe had to group into tribal confederations(of which “the Mongols” were only one) which transcended ethnic and even language barriers. This is why for example the people we know as the “Mongol-Tatars” of the 12th-14th century were in fact mostly Turkic and not Mongol. They are often incorrect depicted with pronounced Mongoloid features when in fact many of these Turks did not appear so.

” Just what social arrangement for Man on a global scale are you advocating but to abjure tribalism and thus renounce what has been Man’s way for most of his past? Wouldn’t it be more coherent, consistent with your wistful 19th century socialism, to say that with the plenty ushered in with industrialization, a better - that is, non-tribal - way can be had for all sans a cut-throat struggle for existence?”

Alright, if you’re going to advocate supposedly traditional ideas do not attack socialism on the grounds of being from the 19th century. Socialist thought grew in direct proportion to the development of capitalism. Your question was actually somewhat dealt with by Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. When speaking of past state organizations and class relations, he pointed out that they arose out of necessity, because for all that time the surplus mankind could produce was relatively small. During the thousands of years of “primitive communism”, mankind could not produce much of a surplus at all, and thus there was no class distinction(and no gender oppression) because everybody had to spend all their time gathering or hunting food. And of course most of the time these extended family units, clans, and tribes could not succeed at producing a surplus, hence cannibalism, human sacrifice, infanticide, and so on. Put short, for most of human history we have struggled to produce in abundance and generally just scraped by.

Now thanks to the development of capitalism, means of production and the institutions necessary to produce what we need in abundance exist. We have everything we need to clothe, house, and feed the world, as well as develop birth control and create social welfare systems which negate the necessity for large families(note that wherever you look, industrialization and urbanization typically reduces fertility and family size) We have all these means right now, and we have had them for some time. The problem is the internal contradiction within capitalism whereby abundance eventually becomes the harbinger of crisis. That is why during past crises, huge stocks of food and other goods were actually destroyed. These days we usually don’t get to that point because we try to control production ahead of time, for example subsidizing farmers to grow different crops. Yet we can still see some of this going on today when you look at abandoned houses and lots. There are plenty of homeless people, but the value of the home can no longer turn a profit for the owner. The house’s use value cannot be realized because its exchange value is not high enough.

As capitalism is a global system, and it has made the world far more interdependent, so it must be dealt with on a global scale. The neo-liberals are right when they say globalization is inevitable. But what are not inevitable are the terms on which globalization will proceed. It can proceed on the terms of the global capitalists in a handful of nations(and their lackeys in developing nations), or it can proceed on the terms of the working people of the world; the producers.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 17, 2011, 04:21 AM | #

Ok CC, my previous post may seem a bit TL/DR but since you asked the questions and actually made an attempt to debate I would be most appreciative if you address them, unlike others here who either don’t answer my questions or don’t like my answers to theirs.

In this separate post I wanted to address this:

“And always, lurking in the shadows, as if afraid of the noon sun, the anthropologically risible myth of the noble savage who mixed indiscriminately with all peoples from the far-flung corners of the earth.”

The myth of the “noble savage” is a myth which arises from a belief in races, particularly one which divides the world into superior and inferior races. It is a curious phenomenon that as certain nationalities attain more power and dominance, they start to form romantic views of people they have displaced and sometimes killed in large numbers. Interestingly enough, they typically do this AFTER they have killed off the “savages” in large numbers and subjugated them. Perhaps its a cathartic thing to deal with some sense of guilt.

But one thing you must remember about “savages” is that first of all, “civilized” peoples can be just as capable of atrocities, sometimes even more so. Secondly, Europeans were once savages at different times and places, while “non-whites” were leading the world in civilization. Case in point, China. But just as the noble cavalier’s near 2000 year reign ended when he could easily be shot off his horse by some drilled commoner with a musket, so to did historical developments lead to the destruction of some civilizations and the rise of others.

I suggest if you ever get the chance, find the book Bad Samaritans by Ha-Joon Chang, and at least read the chapter entitled Lazy Japanese and Thieving Germans. The chapter is named after common ideas held by members of advanced capitalist nations at times when the latter nations were less developed. Today only an idiot would question Japan’s work ethic, but from the mid-19th century even up to the 20s, some visitors to Japan remarked that they were lazy, over emotional, over individualistic, didn’t appreciate time. The author is Korean, and he remarks that there used to be a term in business known as “Korean time”, meaning that it was expected that business contacts might show up for a meeting up to two hours late. Now the term has been forgotten since Korea became a major economic player. Germans were also once seen as lazy and undisciplined prior to the industrialization and unification of their country. Today of course, German and Japanese are synonymous with efficiency, hard work, and discipline.

Why the change? Well the truth is that when a country is underdeveloped, a lot of these negative behaviors actually do exist, but they exist for a concrete reason. When you work with outdated traditional machines for a limited market, there is no point in maximizing efficiency and production. When your income is very low and there is no source of credit, you live for today and don’t plan for the future or try to invest in some kind of business. When you have no social safety net or pension, you need to have children to look after you when you are old.

Hell, look at Max Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic for example. In a sense, Protestantism was conducive to capitalism primarily because it allowed Christians to partake of finance, a crucial element in capitalism. In this way Protestant nations did have an advantage over Catholic nations. But we can see how Catholic nations adapted and managed to succeed nonetheless. Incidentally radical nationalism was also a barrier to capitalist advancement. Think where Germany or Italy would be today if they still consisted of smaller states.

Obviously in the developing world there must be cultural changes, and yes, people need to take a long look at their traditions and decide if they are truly so valuable. But if these cultural changes are not met with economic development, they will ultimately fail. That’s why today you can see a lot of nationalist and patriotic propaganda from the regime in Russia, for example, yet corruption and emigration are still high. People can not eat flags and patriotism.

So economics must have priority. The reason is that things like corruption, not planning for the future, etc. lead to a sort of collective action problem(see The Prisoner’s Dilemma) where if one person decides to become all idealistic all the sudden, others will probably take advantage of him. Even if they don’t, there is always a strong likelihood that this will happen- so nobody does it. Take police corruption in Eastern Europe. A LOT of problems in these countries could easily be dealt with if police only did their job. The problem is doing your job as a policeman will at worst get you killed, at best leave you dirt poor. And this will happen because those policemen in your unit who are corrupt are not about to let one ruin their racket.

“Yes, this must be why the various races of continental origin are readily visibly distinguishable from one another despite the fact that mixing between them self-evidently obliterates their respective unique looks in the mixed offspring.”

Not necessarily. If I traveled from Nairobi to Berlin I would obviously note the racial differences but I would see no clear boundary other than the fact that people get progressive lighter and more European looking as I go north. The world is full of peoples who are non-European but possess European features. They are sometimes indistinguishable from Europeans, or more “European”-looking than native Europeans. Eurasia is full of such people.

But ok, we get the idea that PEOPLE LOOK DIFFERENT!! How should this be the basis of society? These looks have little bearing on the health of any society. Norwegians have the highest standard of living not because they have a particular Nordic look, but because they wisely control their economy and spend their tax money on things which are useful for society as opposed to say, the US, which has plenty of Nordic and European-looking people yet prefers to spend money on wasteful military projects and adventures.

I also understand that aesthetically, you probably prefer the European look to non-European ones. Fine, nobody is stopping you from marrying a “white” woman and having white kids. But I should also point out that Europeans also vary greatly in looks, and when you speak about destroying unique features some might find it a tragedy if, for example, Russian or Ukrainian people lost their unique looks to the Germanic Western peoples.

“No wonder these “men” (I do not take it for granted that their alleged masculinity is not merely socially constructed) must unerringly resort to recommending the curtailment of their opponents ability to speak freely. Why? They’ve got nada.”

Who is restricting your speech here?

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 17, 2011, 05:19 AM | #

Short version for those who don’t like reading and hate complicating things with pesky facts.

Yes, we get that people LOOK different, and people in Europe look different from people in say, Africa. Yes, we get that two Norwegians will have “white” Norwegian kids, and so on. If that is what is important to you, then marry someone who has those characteristics. Nobody is stopping you. Well ok, perhaps you are stopping yourself, as women tend not to be attracted to self-righteous, constantly angry, malcontents who bitch about everything that pisses them off on TV, but at least society is not stopping you from finding your valkyrie princess.

Now while people look different and the traits which cause these differences are genetic, this does not mean they explain why one group with one collection of said genes is successful and another group with a different set of appearance genes is living at a lower level of economic development.

Basically what you are saying is that X people have a collection of genes that make them look thus, and their whole history and present situation is because of those genes which allow us to categorize them into a group. Now to use a bad analogy racialists love, namely dog breeding(it’s a bad analogy because dogs are specially bred on purpose for a specific aim), take the Dalmatian. It has a certain temperament and behavior that is the result of selective breeding. It also has genes which give it a particular appearance, most notably its’ black spots. However, the spots have f-all to do with why it behaves the way it does. And though Dalmations are specially bred to look and act a certain way, you cannot predict the behavior of any one Dalmation based solely on this. The conditions in which the dog was raised and is currently kept will have a profound influence on its behavior.

So there you go, the simple version, provided direct from World Jewish Conspiracy HQ Overnight Services.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 05:59 AM | #

AA, Timmy Wise or whoever

Please address my question on species. Are biological species real or just a ‘social construct’? If biological species are real, how so as the concept of a species is by your ‘own’ thinking simply too vague?

I made the point about height to show how silly your line of thought is which seems nothing more than: relative concept = social construct.

Now you say, being as neutral in my language as possible, ethnic phenotypic traits are irrelevant to the health of a society.

OK you know John Rawls - the ultra-liberal political philosopher - he has this thought experiment about if one were not to know you place is society (i.e. you could be very poor, average etc.) just how would you set-up your society being a ‘veil of ignorance’ as to you place within it. Very simple idea.

Now let’s try this idea with a twist - the society will be ethnically homogenous - which one would you prefer - 99.9% white or 99.9% black society. ANY rational person will say the white society please.

Let’s make it even more simple for you. Before birth you are offered the choice: you can have one of two possible lifes - be an average Norwegian and live in Norway or be the average Haitian and live in Haiti. ANY rational person will say “Norway please!”.

If you say anything other than ‘Norway’ your a disingenuous white liberal - or a more simply a lying piece of shit.

Posted by Leon Haller on May 17, 2011, 06:01 AM | #

Arslan,

I don’t read longwinded diatribes by leftists, so perhaps you answered this already. While my take on race is less about biology than modal group behavior understood socially and politically, how can a race denier like yourself possibly account for the consistent demonstrations of Negroid criminality that we observe in the most variegated places around the world, without concluding that biology plays a (substantial) causal role? Why is it that no matter where blacks go they immediately become the group with the highest crime rates, with greater black population percentages translating into ever higher criminality? This can be found in places with past histories of white racial oppression (as if that actually matters, but I’ll let that slide for the moment), like the US and Brazil; or in places where blacks have always been the majority (Africa); or in places blacks have ruled as freemen for centuries (Haiti); or in places which have no history of black presence, and only acquired such in recent decades (London, Paris)?

Note that it would be striking if all interracial differences in ability and behavior had no specific genetic component. Humans are evolved creatures, after all.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 06:07 AM | #

Just reading back on the comments- oh dear lot of talk about the big H

AA/Timmy Wise may I suggest you read “The Holocaust Industry” by Norman Finkelstein (he’s a Jewish political scientist in case you’re interested) and you might be shocked at just how much BS has and still surrounds that event. Go on challenge your preconceptions for once.

Posted by Arslan Amirkhan on May 17, 2011, 06:23 AM | #

Ok first of all, I am certainly not Tim Wise, nor am I Jewish or non-white. If you prefer I’ll start posting under the name Whitey McWhitington. But again, kudos to you for actually making arguments.

AA, Timmy Wise or whoever

“Please address my question on species. Are biological species real or just a ‘social construct’? If biological species are real, how so as the concept of a species is by your ‘own’ thinking simply too vague?”

What you would call human races are not different species, so the point is moot.

“I made the point about height to show how silly your line of thought is which seems nothing more than: relative concept = social construct.”

I would hate to come off sounding like Ayn Rand but social construct = social construct. Social constructs aren’t inherently bad, they just have bad consequences some times. Other times they can have positive effects as well. For example, has not the identity of “German” as opposed to Bavarian, Saxon, Prussian, etc. been a positive thing for Germans? Oh of course some will still disagree but overall Germany has been far more successful as a unified federation rather than as various smaller states.

Even Marxists in the USSR were forced to draw lines and delineate nationalities for the purpose of providing self-determination to the peoples of the empire. At least they based their criteria on certain objective historical factors, but even then this had some drawbacks, and sometimes the lines were somewhat arbitrary. This was especially true in Central Asia where Turks and “Tajiks”(Persians) lived for centuries without a sense of separation among them. Thanks to the USSR the Tajiks got their own nation, but now the name Tajik is associated precisely with people from that nation.

Anyway, social constructs serve certain purposes, and we have to ask ourselves how useful or how helpful they are from time to time.

“Now you say, being as neutral in my language as possible, ethnic phenotypic traits are irrelevant to the health of a society.”

Yes.

“Now let’s try this idea with a twist - the society will be ethnically homogenous - which one would you prefer - 99.9% white or 99.9% black society. ANY rational person will say the white society please.”

This begs a lot of questions. First of all we are obviously dealing with hypothetical societies, so what are the modes of production and the levels of development? I would probably not choose a society that is 99.9% anything based on national or “racial” characteristics.

“Let’s make it even more simple for you. Before birth you are offered the choice: you can have one of two possible lifes - be an average Norwegian and live in Norway or be the average Haitian and live in Haiti. ANY rational person will say “Norway please!

If you say anything other than ‘Norway’ your a disingenuous white liberal - or a more simply a lying piece of shit.”

Ok here’s my twist: WHY would the person really choose Norway? Would it be because of Norway’s economy and level of development, or simply because the people are white?(good question since our chooser could be another race right?)

We can both see that most of Norway is white and most of Haiti is undeniably black. But these have nothing to do with why Norway is so successful and Haiti isn’t. For example, let’s add another twist. You can choose Norway or Baghdad, but in the 9th-10th century, during the reign of the Abbasid Caliphate. Or Norway or Byzantium, Classical Greece or Norway. Norway or China, again say around the 10th century. Obviously for common people life sucked pretty much all the time wherever you lived, but the bottom line is that Norway was not always the best place to live in the world. How it became that way is linked to a long process of historical and economic development.

In other words, Norway is not so great simply because it has mostly white people. In fact, folks like you complain about the rising tide of non-European immigrants in countries like Norway, yet Scandinavian countries did not always have the highest standards of living(that is to say surpassing the US) until relatively recently. So some idiot could come along and propose that the living standards were actually IMPROVED by those non-European immigrants, but this of course would be post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Let’s run another experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim

That is Carlos Slim, now arguably the richest man in the world. His heritage is Lebanese, probably some European in there, and of course maybe some of the native blood. He could probably pass for white though(ditto another billionaire Recep Tayyip Erdogan, PM of Turkey) . So, explain how his “race” is responsible for his success. You could do the same for “white” billionaires such as Gates, Buffet, Carnegie, etc.

Oh. and note that I did not “lie” on your little test, probably because I’m not at all “liberal”.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 06:34 AM | #

Incidentally radical nationalism was also a barrier to capitalist advancement. Think where Germany or Italy would be today if they still consisted of smaller states.

So AA another question: why are small homogeneous nations like Norway and Denmark generally the highest placed on any index of human welfare/happiness?

Do you think they need say a million or so Africans to help their economic fortunes - would they be happier places for more ethnic heterogeneity?

Look political scientists and sociologists are starting to realize that you can either have ‘diversity’ (along with declines in trust, social solidarity, increased crime, and more relative inequality) or you can have a less diverse homogeneous society (with greater trust, more social solidarity, more prosperity, less crime, and greater relative equality).

AA as a leftist which to you most value? Diversity or Equality? I mean AA do you think Norway is a ‘good’ society for Mr and Mrs Average to live within? Or do you perhaps prefer say the ‘wonderfully’ diverse Brazil?

Posted by Dasein on May 17, 2011, 06:44 AM | #

“Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic “racial” groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within “racial” groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.”

“analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation”!!

6% of variation being between populations does not mean that 6% of their genes are different.

And what matters is the accumulation of differences in alllele frequencies over many sites. This is why classification is possible using random sets of alleles (not just highly informative markers) and why there can be substantial phenotypic differences in complex traits.

If clines didn’t exist, and interbreeding were not possible, they would be separate species, not subspecies (races).

Arslan’s arguments are based on straw men and slippery slopes.

http://wiki.majorityrights.com/race

http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 06:45 AM | #

Ok I decided to use a handle that better reflects my ethnicity, and in doing so, I’m sure you will now embrace me as your racial(or was it national, or cline-al?) brother.

First off, Leon. My “long diatribes” were in response to Captain Chaos’ seemingly sincere questions. But I think you should start reading “long” things by leftists because then you might see what they are really saying. More on that later.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps some day, science will find some kind of gene which happens to cluster along with those genes which make one appear “black”, or white, or whatever. But thus far, it hasn’t been found, so we have to take into account various material conditions in which people live, because these tend to have a bigger impact on people’s lives.

Yes I know you all hate the “environmental”, “Boasian” explanations, but you use them all the time and probably don’t realize it. First, my example- intelligence probably is somewhat hereditary on an individual level(INDIVIDUAL, GOT THAT?), but we all understand if someone inherits good genes but lives in poverty all his or her life, they cannot possibly reach their full potential. Now the typical capitalist explanation, regardless of race or nationality, is “you’re poor because you’re less intelligent.” A variant of this explanation was often used throughout the 18th-19th century by the English bourgeoisie to describe their proletariat- OF THE SAME NATIONALITY.

Now can you explain why former socialist nations in Eastern Europe, many of which are still largely ethnically homogeneous, have had such a spike in crime? Oh I know, it’s because of the socialist system which collapsed 20 years ago. But you can’t use that argument. That’s environmental, that’s Boasian. Any way you slice I’ll use eugenic arguments to whittle you down to two statements: Either Eastern Europeans are inherently inferior people, or the standard you apply to non-Europeans just doesn’t apply to other Europeans for some unknown reason. So don’t even try to go that route.

I sincerely hope that wasn’t too long. I thought since folks like you always complain about getting shouted down as “racists” and “Nazis” without any debate, you might appreciate me taking the time to address as many of your concerns and questions as possible.

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 06:48 AM | #

Mr. Lister:

“Just reading back on the comments- oh dear lot of talk about the big H

Please try to pay attention. The only time I mentioned the Holocaust in this thread is when someone else brought it up. This hardly qualifies as “a lot of talk”.

I am familiar with Norman Finkelstein and I am also aware of attempts to exploit the Holocaust for some kind of political or even monetary gain. At no point does Finkelstein suggest that the Holocaust did not occur, if that’s what you’re getting at.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 06:58 AM | #

AA on the biological species concept you’re avoiding the question. I am not saying that human biodiversity is about species. My point is rather more subtle. YOUR claim is that ‘race’ has no meaning as a biological term - it is too vague etc. So my question is why not apply this to species? There are at least 30 differing species definitions - note none of which is completely robust. So if something as basic as species is a ‘fuzzy’ concept (do you agree) is it any wonder a precise definition of ‘race’ is not forthcoming or easy to articulate in everyday language?

So you do agree species are more than “social constructs” yes? So why should more fine-grained delineations not exist (sub-species et al.), and why would it not be harder to precisely define a sub-species than a species? Are sub-species merely a ‘social construct’ without a biological reality also?

And Norway versus Haiti - you are the one taking about condition under modern capitalism so what went on in the pre-capitalism 10th century is not very important to our discussion is it? And is merely your assertion that the ethnic make up of Norway versus Haiti has nothing whatsoever do to with the success or not of those societies. I’d be pretty amazed if that were the case in fact - I think the very opposite is true. I mean name any successful modern ‘Black’ society. Please because they don’t exist on this planet.

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 07:01 AM | #

“So AA another question: why are small homogeneous nations like Norway and Denmark generally the highest placed on any index of human welfare/happiness?”

Because of their history, and wise investments in social welfare. As I said before, their high standards of living were not always the case. When I gave examples of say Norway in the 10th century, they were pretty much 100% homogeneous, yet the most advanced areas of the world were the multi-ethnic Byzantine Empire, China, and the Abbasid Caliphate. Also after WWII the US with its mixed population had the highest standard of living, even after the immigration reform of 1965(many racialists don’t even really understand what this affected). Of course the US also then continually increased its military budget, got stuck in numerous foreign wars, had a lot of money in inefficient fixed capital which hurt when Japan and Germany started competing, and then started a policy of free trade and neo-liberal economics.

“Do you think they need say a million or so Africans to help their economic fortunes - would they be happier places for more ethnic heterogeneity?”

Well again, if the mere presence of certain people determines living standard, then we can look at when Norway became #1, reasonably conclude that the number of immigrants has increased some time just before that, and conclude that it must have come out on top because of non-European immigrants.

Of course that would be incredibly stupid. Just as illogical saying that Norwegians have that standard of living simply because they are Norwegian.

“Look political scientists and sociologists are starting to realize that you can either have ‘diversity’ (along with declines in trust, social solidarity, increased crime, and more relative inequality) or you can have a less diverse homogeneous society (with greater trust, more social solidarity, more prosperity, less crime, and greater relative equality).”

First of all, name these sociologists. Second, the question of diversity and immigration is just another example of contradictions within capitalism. Capitalism created the nation state, and the idea of race(along with nationality, with the two sometimes used interchangeably) has often been used to justify disparities that are naturally occurring in capitalism(in fact they must exist, otherwise you have no capitalism). Capitalism has a demand for cheap labor, and states also need to maintain order, hence they must preach “diversity” for the sake of maintaining that order. This is why conservative, nationalist, and racialist politics are never just stamped out entirely, and even if they seem to be, they always just take on more veiled forms or dog whistle language like “welfare queens”.

“AA as a leftist which to you most value? Diversity or Equality? I mean AA do you think Norway is a ‘good’ society for Mr and Mrs Average to live within? Or do you perhaps prefer say the ‘wonderfully’ diverse Brazil?”“

Of all? Equality, as in a classless society where everyone starts with the same opportunity. Brazil is less developed than Norway for a number of reasons, one of which is that they were suckered into free trade neo-liberal policies which set them back from otherwise positive growth rates in the 60’s and 70’s. This happened in several Latin American countries, including neighboring Argentina which is still 70% white.

So bottom line is: Norway is not great simply because they are Norwegian, and Haiti is not poor because they are black. Even with your genetic markers and what-not(which have never been the basis for a human society), none of these things can explain why one country is rich while another is poor.

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 07:11 AM | #

“AA on the biological species concept you’re avoiding the question. I am not saying that human biodiversity is about species. My point is rather more subtle. YOUR claim is that ‘race’ has no meaning as a biological term - it is too vague etc. So my question is why not apply this to species? There are at least 30 differing species definitions - note none of which is completely robust. So if something as basic as species is a ‘fuzzy’ concept (do you agree) is it any wonder a precise definition of ‘race’ is not forthcoming or easy to articulate in everyday language?

I’m not sure what you are getting at exactly, but the reason why we can’t have your “white race” is because first of all this social construct hasn’t even been around all that long, it isn’t really recognized by most people(and never was), and the definition changed all the time. I can understand how species can be a malleable term, but it is not as malleable as “race”, which could mean anything from a certain family bloodline to humanity as a whole.

The bottom line is this- you really need DNA tests to determine someone’s “race” according to your criteria, if you want to say it’s based on DNA. I can show you photographs all day of people of European and non-European descent and watch you guess incorrect as to who is European and who is not. And that’s without getting into the question of Jews, which some people on this blog apparently see as non-European no matter their admixture.

“And Norway versus Haiti - you are the one taking about condition under modern capitalism so what went on in the pre-capitalism 10th century is not very important to our discussion is it?”

It is if your claim is that race is what creates a better economy or culture.

“And is merely your assertion that the ethnic make up of Norway versus Haiti has nothing whatsoever do to with the success or not of those societies. I’d be pretty amazed if that were the case in fact - I think the very opposite is true. I mean name any successful modern ‘Black’ society. Please because they don’t exist on this planet.”

Modern, successful “black” societies might exist today were it not for imperialism, proxy wars, free trade policies/neo-liberal economics, and decades of “aid” which actually did more harm than it helped. I suggest you track down a book called The Road to Hell by Michael Maren. It mostly details the modern history of Somalia and how a nation which once exported food to other nations was pushed onto the road to its anarchic state today by self-serving, incompetent “aid”

If you keep up with the news, recently there has been some talk of changing EU travel rules anticipating a flood of immigrants from North Africa, specifically Libya. Gee, WHY OH WHY would there be refugees flooding in Libya? Once again, Europeans fuck up an African nation but now they are going to whine about immigrants from that same nation.

So therein lies the solution to your immigration “problem”. Actually HELP Africa by fighting the IMF and World Bank, speaking out against neo-liberal economics, and explain to people how thoughtless “aid” can actually cause huge problems.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 07:14 AM | #

AA or whoever

I notice you have also avoided the diversity versus equality trade-off - a very real finding in political science/sociological analysis. I could give you references etc., but I think I’d be wasting my time as you are one of those whom your disingenuous Marxist ideology is in fact a form of religion. It can never be falsified and no evidence can ever refute it in your so-called mind.

And if you have read Finkelstein you should now he DOES discuss how certain lobby groups have played fast and loose with ‘numbers’. I have never implied that a large number of people were not killed by the actions of the Nazi regime, and among that number were Jews but we don’t have a political and money shakedown for Gypsy/Roma victims do we?. I wonder why that is -it’s a mysterious world we live in at times.

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 07:15 AM | #

@CaptainChaos

Sorry my reply to your initial response is getting buried in comments but I’m actually trying to answer as many people’s questions as possible. It’s up there.

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 07:26 AM | #

“I notice you have also avoided the diversity versus equality trade-off - a very real finding in political science/sociological analysis.”

Um..no. Please show the poli-sci sociological analysis that shows this. Diversity is just a word. It can be positive or it can be negative. A homogeneous population divided by fanatical devotion to two different religions or sects can be a disaster(see Thirty Years War). A diverse population devoted to one religion can be incredibly successful, such as the early Islamic caliphates or the Ottoman Empire. The “Mongols” had both religious and ethnic diversity, and nobody can argue that they were not successful.

” I could give you references etc., but I think I’d be wasting my time as you are one of those whom your disingenuous Marxist ideology is in fact a form of religion. It can never be falsified and no evidence can ever refute it in your so-called mind.”

Marxism is not a religion and it(though you should specify what) can easily be falsified. For example, if we see a capitalist country go back to a real feudal system, historical materialism is falsified. If something can be shown to be made from something other than matter, materialism is falsified. Don’t bring Popper into this unless you want me to shine his flawed theories onto your claims.

“And if you have read Finkelstein you should now he DOES discuss how certain lobby groups have played fast and loose with ‘numbers’. I have never implied that a large number of people were not killed by the actions of the Nazi regime, and among that number were Jews but we don’t have a political and money shakedown for Gypsy/Roma victims do we?. I wonder why that is -it’s a mysterious world we live in at times.”

Please cite Finkelstein’s passage on this if you can. I happen to know that the book is available online for free, I believe on one of your racialist resources no less.

Please note two things:

1. It was another poster that brought up the Holocaust. As far as I remember I haven’t said anything about it. Nor have I implied that a belief in race automatically leads to the Holocaust, as this assertion is false. Even genocides of the past which had some racial justification usually included religious aspects, as well as a general superiority of one’s civilization, not so much because of an alleged superiority of their blood.

2. Gypsies don’t have much political clout mainly because unlike Jews, a large portion of Gypsies have for a long time chosen isolation for the sake of preserving their heritage and traditions. Hmmm….so racial preservation and homogeneity DON’T automatically lead to success!

Posted by anon on May 17, 2011, 07:30 AM | #

Just as illogical saying that Norwegians have that standard of living simply because they are Norwegian.

Because we would not want to credit any people with succeeding due to its nature. Nor even credit it with being itself. It’s “history”.

First of all, name these sociologists.

Robert Putnam, to name the most accessible.

Modern, successful “black” societies might exist today

What can we say. Your History is hard. Life isn’t devoted to the welfare of the blacks. Most races muddle through. Blacks just muddy.

how a nation which once exported food to other nations was pushed onto the road to its anarchic state today by self-serving, incompetent “aid”

So if Europe is damned for her colonies, and damned for her aid, the only right option were to leave Africa quite alone, and they us—congratulations, you just enlisted to our opinion.

Gee, WHY OH WHY would there be refugees flooding in Libya?

An oppressive, selfish, and wasteful regime in Libya, could it be?

If we argue with leftists we tread water forever.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 07:36 AM | #

AA or whoever

Re- Biological species and social constructs. You are quite thick aren’t you? OK as simple as I can be:

YOU- Race is a very vague concept isn’t it, so it’s not really a biological category at all - it’s a social construct of ‘racists’.

ME - OK that’s interesting. One of the most fundamental biological categories is that of species - but as a scientific idea species is very fuzzy with no single robust catch-all definition. Hence

(1) would we be OK in following your logic and say: biological species = too fuzzy a concept, therefore species = false social construct?

(2) If not i.e. species are real but definitions are very tricky, then if the basic concept (species) is difficult why wouldn’t a derived category say sub-species ALSO be very tricky to define in everyday language? So does that imply sub-species don’t exist - is it all too vague and hence a ‘social construct’?

YOU - I don’t understand.

ME - simply logic difficult for you then?

On the diversity versus social solidarity evidence start with David Goodhart, or Robert D. Putnam for introductory purposes.

Posted by anon on May 17, 2011, 07:36 AM | #

Actually HELP Africa by fighting the IMF and World Bank,

Which would be aid without scare-quotes, yes? You tell us what to do. You know best what is best for every race, or historically-determined-biological-linguistic-affiliation-group.

No, there has been no study showing a causal link between being black and criminality.

Whew! Fantastic. Now I *can* walk by P***** View Apartments at 1AM because some leftist douchebag has never seen a study - and how would he ‘ave, safely cosseted in his meticulously pro-kaffir propasphere? - linking blacks and their favorite recreation after “dank”.

Posted by Dasein on May 17, 2011, 07:41 AM | #

I mean name any successful modern ‘Black’ society. Please because they don’t exist on this planet.

I’ve heard that the advanced civilisation of black Egypt used their space program to colonise the dark side of the moon.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 07:42 AM | #

* simple not simply

Re Finkelstein on ‘survivor numbers’

I have the UK 2nd edition - manipulation of numbers is discussed in the chapter “The Double Shakedown”, looking quickly on page 125 of my edition, for example.

Posted by anon on May 17, 2011, 07:47 AM | #

Hmmm….so racial preservation and homogeneity DON’T automatically lead to success!

You thought you were scoring a point there, but who said it does? We’re all literate men here. We know that gypsies and Jews have had widely variant histories. Gypsies never had a state of their own. Blah blah blah.

Treading water. Arguing with the left is to exist on a flywheel in which their venom counterpoises our good sense.

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 07:50 AM | #

“Because we would not want to credit any people with succeeding due to its nature. Nor even credit it with being itself. It’s “history”.”

Right, because there is no reason to suggest otherwise. Can you even explain the “nature” of a Norwegian? While the Byzantine empire was for a time the richest in the region, Scandinavians were basically a race of pirates. Did something just change in terms of their nature?

“Robert Putnam, to name the most accessible.”

Putnam doesn’t seem to argue in favor of ethnic separation, he just points out some negative effects of diversity, which of course are also related to how people see each other in terms of ethnicity, race, et al.

Also I wonder if his studies took into account certain economic factors which took place around the 1960s and particularly after 1970 which had profound effects on family life for all ethnicities in the US.

“What can we say. Your History is hard. Life isn’t devoted to the welfare of the blacks. Most races muddle through. Blacks just muddy.”

Eastern Europeans, particularly Russians, Ukrainians, and Moldovans don’t seem to be muddling through. Are they genetically inferior?

“So if Europe is damned for her colonies, and damned for her aid, the only right option were to leave Africa quite alone, and they us—congratulations, you just enlisted to our opinion.”

But “you” didn’t leave Africa alone did you? “You” wanted their resources and cheap labor, and European nations built their prosperity on it. This fact is not subject to debate.

“An oppressive, selfish, and wasteful regime in Libya, could it be?”

Ah see, you have liberal values after all. Funny that Western European powers had been trading and investing in that regime for quite some time up to the uprising, which curiously started after two allies in Tunisia and Egypt were lost, and which has as one of its leaders an army officer with ties to the CIA.

If we argue with leftists we tread water forever.

“Which would be aid without scare-quotes, yes? You tell us what to do. You know best what is best for every race, or historically-determined-biological-linguistic-affiliation-group.”

Simple; oppose capitalism realize your class interests.

“Whew! Fantastic. Now I *can* walk by P***** View Apartments at 1AM because some leftist douchebag has never seen a study - and how would he ‘ave, safely cosseted in his meticulously pro-kaffir propasphere? - linking blacks and their favorite recreation after “dank”.

So the folks at p**** view apartments do bad things because they are black? Show us the proof.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 07:51 AM | #

Daesin - Ok I will give you that but you have to be honest say those Black supermen on the moon also came down and ‘gave’ Plato and Aristotle all ‘their’ ideas. And gave Mozart and Bach ‘their’ music too. And they really authored all those metaphysical sonnets by Donne and all those so-called Shakespeare plays too.

Remember “Diversity is strength” as one is witness to the rape of your wife and your own murder. What are the stats on inter-racial violent crime from the US again?

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 07:58 AM | #

“(1) would we be OK in following your logic and say: biological species = too fuzzy a concept, therefore species = false social construct?

ME - simply logic difficult for you then?”

Race is clearly a whole lot “fuzzier” than species. The bottom line is that you have to adopt arbitrary definitions and they would not form the basis for a superior society.

“On the diversity versus social solidarity evidence start with David Goodhart, or Robert D. Putnam for introductory purposes.”

That’s nice but do they take into account economic and social influences which cause people to identify themselves on this or that line? Polish and English come from what you would call the same “race”, and you might find the DNA evidence you say is significant to put them in one category. But this did not please UK citizens when Poles arrived in large numbers. I’m sure Dr. Putnam wouldn’t find anything surprising about this, as the Poles were of a different cultural and linguistic background, not to mention they were being put into competition with British workers on some levels. But according to you, this shouldn’t count as diversity because they are the same “race” and so they shouldn’t have this lack of social solidarity you speak of.

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 08:07 AM | #

“Re Finkelstein on ‘survivor numbers’

I have the UK 2nd edition - manipulation of numbers is discussed in the chapter “The Double Shakedown”, looking quickly on page 125 of my edition, for example.”

Does any of this negate the fact that somewhere between 4.8 and just over 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust, with a higher number of non-Jews?

Also maybe you could put in a word acknowledging that I did not bring up the Holocaust? You seem to be avoiding that for some inexplicable reason.

“Posted by anon on May 17, 2011, 11:47 AM | #

Gee, WHY NOT? They preserved their bloodlines and traditions! The most powerful economy in the world today should be some Republic of Roma or whatever. Not the ethnically diverse European Union, not multi-ethnic non-European China, or the multi-ethnic US.

“Daesin - Ok I will give you that but you have to be honest say those Black supermen on the moon also came down and ‘gave’ Plato and Aristotle all ‘their’ ideas. And gave Mozart and Bach ‘their’ music too. And they really authored all those metaphysical sonnets by Donne and all those so-called Shakespeare plays too.”

Who brought up Afrocentricism, a long ago discredited theory which has been criticized from every part of the political spectrum?

“Remember “Diversity is strength” as one is witness to the rape of your wife and your own murder. “

Right, because only people of other races or ethnicities murder and rape you. Being raped by a member of your own “race” is an act of solidarity!!

“What are the stats on inter-racial violent crime from the US again?”

Funny you should mention that. Did you ever wonder why you use inter-racial crime states? Because since blacks are a minority, it only stands to reason that they are going to encounter whites more often than whites encounter them. Also, take a look at what happens to these stats when you control for income and population density.

The quickest way to get robbed, raped, or killed? Believe you can identify a dangerous person based on their appearance. Apparently you don’t listen when victims say things like “He seemed so nice!”

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 08:12 AM | #

Little Mr/Miss Marxist

Does thinking about the logical flaws in your “race is in everyday language an ill-defined concept, hence MUST be a false ‘social construct’” hurt your tiny mind? Come on tell why the idea sub-species can be vague but real but ‘race’ must ipso facto be false as it’s too vague?

Goodness me on ‘race’ might it be all bit dialectical dear boy - that it is both a real biological category which is overlaid with socio-cultural meaning (some false, maybe some true?).

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 08:19 AM | #

I am going to have to step out for a moment soon, so I wanted to put a sort of “scorecard” here because I think we are losing site of a few things. Personally I was hoping Captainchaos would come back on because he at least seems to actually address my arguments and asks provocative questions.

This is what I would like you to consider if you don’t mind.

1. Thus far, none of you have been able to prove that Norway has the highest standard of living because Norwegians are white and have a collection of genes giving them a Nordic appearance. Neither has anyone proven the opposite in the case of Haiti.

2. I am noticing that the Holocaust is being brought up continually though I did not bring it up, and this has not been acknowledged. I would ask that you save your own time and mine by sticking to the issues, and noting that I never brought up the Holocaust which is really irrelevant to this issue.

3. Now I see we’re bringing up Afrocentricism, a discredited which I never personally believed in the slightest, nor mentioned.

Those latter two points give me the impression that you are arguing against some sort of strawman “leftist” who is a liberal, shouting slogans like “diversity is our strength”. Have you seen me suggest that? In fact I even said it would be stupid to look at the increase in non-European immigration in Norway prior to their breaking #1 and declaring that proof of the aforementioned meaningless slogan. If someone tells me “diversity is our strength” I’m probably first going to ask what kind of diversity. Diversity of class certainly doesn’t help. And “OUR” strength? Whose strength? This could be said to be an almost nationalistic concept, as in “we’re all in this together!” Well we are not. The working person, regardless of “race”, is my natural ally, and the capitalist, regardless of his or her “race”, is my enemy. I didn’t choose this, this is the system.

Just so you don’t make any more mistakes about what I am saying:

1. I don’t think there is anything wrong with pride in your culture, so long as you are realistic about it and you realize that “white” is not a culture or nationality.

2. Not everyone who argues against racism does it in the right way; sometimes they end up causing more problems than they solve. This is especially true about white upper-class liberals.

3. I’m not calling for censorship of people like you. I’m trying to engage in a rational debate here and I’m not just dismissing your whole argument by calling you racist and making all these moral judgments. Racism in general is something inherent in the system, like all other forms of non-class-based privilege, and while I obviously have some thoughts on the morality of White Nationalism as an ideology, I also regard it as just one particular by-product of alienation with the system.

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 08:25 AM | #

“Little Mr/Miss Marxist

False social construct? Dear me, it’s not “false” in the sense that it certainly exists. But again, you need a DNA test to figure out race. Like I said, anyone can show you countless photographs and watch you mistake non-European people as “white” all day.

So you want to draw a line somewhere in the genetic code and say the fuzziness ends here. Ok, why should we base our society on that? Imagine we have an engineer working in your company, and everyone takes him for “white”. Then we do some DNA test and we find out that he can be traced back to Asia. A TURK! So do we deport him? Do we go over all his work and check it for mistakes?

I accept that genetics does seem to find that people with certain physical characteristics tend to show genetic material which can be traced back to a geographic area, with mixture occurring all along the borders. But what then?

INTERVIEWER: “According to this DNA test, your ancestors were from Europe! You must be a competent person! “

INTERVIEWEE: “Ne govorim englezski!”

INTERVIEWER: Crap.

See? Your genetic descendants don’t really help that much do they?

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 08:34 AM | #

Yes cultural/linguistic homogeneity is also part of the good society - even large internal movements of populations can have very significant negative consequences if badly managed or are too large. And yes in the EU with profound asymmetrical economies total unrestricted freedom of movement is a insane policy.

I know of course that one must statistically control for income level etc., in social statistics (everyone on this forum probably knows that) but I think you’ll find even controlling for that certain ethnic groups are over-represented in the crime figures.

On the big H - ok you didn’t bring it up great and discussing numbers is vulgar and innocent people being killed is not good, no matter what the ideology behind it is, yes? I mean we could discuss the mass-murder of the USSR and the fact that as an ideology Marxism is metaphorically dripping in blood, but where does that get us?

And it’s actually Dr. not Mr. too you.

Dr. Graham Lister (Ph.D in biology in case you wondered)

Posted by Mr Voight on May 17, 2011, 08:37 AM | #

Modern, successful “black” societies might exist today were it not for…

While the Byzantine empire was for a time the richest in the region, Scandinavians were basically a race of pirates.

We can both see that most of Norway is white and most of Haiti is undeniably black. But these have nothing to do with why Norway is so successful and Haiti isn’t. For example, let’s add another twist. You can choose Norway or Baghdad, but in the 9th-10th century, during the reign of the Abbasid Caliphate.

Putnam doesn’t seem to argue in favor of ethnic separation, he just points out some negative effects of diversity, which of course are also related to how people see each other in terms of ethnicity, race, et al.

But according to you, this shouldn’t count as diversity because they are the same “race” and so they shouldn’t have this lack of social solidarity you speak of.

Strawmen, romanticised history, and a serious case of denial.

Argue in the now. Argue within the realms of reality. Stop deliberately misinterpreting people to suit your argument. Stop trying to be ‘clever’ and know when sarcasm and irony are appropriate and when they make you look like an arse.

You started somewhat OK but you’ve totally run out of gas. You resemble a 50 year old undergraduate right now. Try harder or GTFO.

100

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 08:45 AM | #

Wow your Marxist friends will hate on you if you dare mention that to them.

So if physical phenotypic traits can vary geographically can other phenotypic traits also vary and cluster differentially in different geographical populations- you know you are the expert so please inform us all. Thanks.

You know like the alleles for sickle-cell anaemia.

And as a final thought as a Marxist-materialist perhaps can you say what a non-physical phenotypic trait would be or is? Your not really a secret dualist are you…shame on you another idea your Marxists buddies will not approve of.

101

Posted by anon on May 17, 2011, 08:48 AM | #

1. Thus far, none of you have been able to prove that Norway has the highest standard of living because Norwegians are white and have a collection of genes giving them a Nordic appearance.

Because we’re all bored of this sort of logical fallacy posing as argument. In my country, Mennonites (that is, genetically uniform “Low” Germans) have made themselves a bedrock of society without which the blacks and creoles - not the mestizos & the Maya - would be utterly lost. I have never seen a group of Haitians pulling this off in Scandinavia, and I suggest we not hold our breath ‘til that glorious day of vindication of the unimportance of genes.

Also, I believe you have been here before—that guy married to an Asian with half-caste children.

Ah see, you have liberal values after all.

Sure. That’s why I like small countries. Huge liberal democracies invite multiracial rot and economic collapse. Their only hope is totalitarianism. Small democracies get by on plebiscite and cottage industry.

102

Posted by Guessedworker on May 17, 2011, 08:49 AM | #

Arslan,

Do the native peoples of the continent of Europe exist as genetically identifiable groups?

In answering this don’t fall back on the fuzzy argument. Clining does not invalidate clustering. Just answer yes or no. And when you have answered that, please turn your attention to these questions:

Do you agree that all peoples have a right to life and land, free, for example, of Jewish tribal and religious strivings and, if they so wish, of the trespasses of political internationalism and leftist utopianism?

Do you agree that all peoples possess a natural, shared interest in their own continuity?

Do you agree that the collective continuity is the highest common good?

Do you agree that all peoples possess the right to defend themselves from colonisation ... that there can be no “racism” or any other form of moral inadmissability in the act of self-defence?

Thanks.

103

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 08:54 AM | #

Sorry about my typos I really do type too quickly.

104

Posted by anon on May 17, 2011, 08:56 AM | #

Putnam doesn’t seem to argue in favor of ethnic separation, he just points out some negative effects of diversity,

Which is what you asked for. You are engaged in what is known to logic as “diallelus”. Waste of my time.

105

Posted by Thorn on May 17, 2011, 09:06 AM | #

Note: In the following I use the term “RACISM” in the negative sence of its meaning.

IMO, Arslan provides us a textbook example of a “racist” and anti-white bigot. What I mean by that is this: Given the expectation that racial bigotry and prejudice is unacceptable in a polite modern society, then Arslan fails miserably in that account.

The obvious truth is the white race (save a few nazi types) has complied with the “anti-racist” program. Whites have renounced “racism”. Furthermore, they’ve been complying with that high minded principle since the end of WWII. The problem is IT"S ONLY WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLYING WITH THAT PRINCIPLE AND IT IS RESULTING IN OUR EXTINCTION!!! THEIR IS NO RECIPROCITY FOR OUR GOOD WILL!!! Instead, ALL other races are taking advantage of our childlike foolishness for the purpose of advancing their own EGI.

Many of us see the folly in continuing down this suicidal path and are staring to reverse course. At this point, that is where “racists”/anti-white bigots like Asrlan step in. You see, he wants us to continue down that suicidal path.

Why?

Because, like Noel Ignatiev, he hates the white-race. That’s why he practices “racism”/racial bigotry in its most awful, hateful, and dangerous form. That form being INTRA-racism, i.e., racism and bigotry directed at one’s own race. History is riddled with such monsters who practiced INRA-racism in the extreme. For instance, did Hitler not practice INTRA-racism (at least in a broad sence of the term)? Did he not dehumanize the Slavs? Did he not try to genocide the Jews? (I know many here would regard it heresy to say Jews are white but I beleive most of them are.) Another recent example of INTRA-racism happened within the Negroid race. In Rwanda the Hutus tried to genocide the Tutsis. And of course let’s not forget Pol Pot’s killing fields in Cambodia (lovely!), or USSR’s persecution of fellow whites, etc etc…...

Conclusion: As white-preservationists, I think it is imperative we work to stamp out ALL “racism” and racial bigotry. Especially the “racism” and anti-white bigotry that is being directed at the white-race.

Question for Arslan (a/ka lil’ Timmy): Will you repent of your evil ways and join our movement to stamp out ALL “racism” and racial bigotry? Even if it is being directed at whites? Will ya lil’ Timmy? Do you have it in ya lil’ Timmy?

106

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 09:09 AM | #

But “you” didn’t leave Africa alone did you? “You” wanted their resources and cheap labor, and European nations built their prosperity on it. This fact is not subject to debate.

Did Norway have along history of colonies in Africa? - think I missed that day at school.

107

Posted by Leon Haller on May 17, 2011, 09:11 AM | #

Here is what I wrote:

Arslan,

Note that it would be striking if all interracial differences in ability and behavior had no specific genetic component. Humans are evolved creatures, after all.

Here is how Arslan replied:

No, there has been no study showing a causal link between being black and criminality. Those that have attempted to do so have been easily refuted, mainly because they typically fail to control for things like income and population density. You might be interested to find a study that was done a few years ago showing that in the US, a true “model minority” is immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa. Most people think that “Asians” were the “model minority” but anyone, including “Asians” can tell you that there are some serious criminal elements in certain Asian communities in the US.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps some day, science will find some kind of gene which happens to cluster along with those genes which make one appear “black”, or white, or whatever. But thus far, it hasn’t been found, so we have to take into account various material conditions in which people live, because these tend to have a bigger impact on people’s lives.

Yes I know you all hate the “environmental”, “Boasian” explanations, but you use them all the time and probably don’t realize it. First, my example- intelligence probably is somewhat hereditary on an individual level(INDIVIDUAL, GOT THAT?), but we all understand if someone inherits good genes but lives in poverty all his or her life, they cannot possibly reach their full potential. Now the typical capitalist explanation, regardless of race or nationality, is “you’re poor because you’re less intelligent.” A variant of this explanation was often used throughout the 18th-19th century by the English bourgeoisie to describe their proletariat- OF THE SAME NATIONALITY.

Now can you explain why former socialist nations in Eastern Europe, many of which are still largely ethnically homogeneous, have had such a spike in crime? Oh I know, it’s because of the socialist system which collapsed 20 years ago. But you can’t use that argument. That’s environmental, that’s Boasian. Any way you slice I’ll use eugenic arguments to whittle you down to two statements: Either Eastern Europeans are inherently inferior people, or the standard you apply to non-Europeans just doesn’t apply to other Europeans for some unknown reason. So don’t even try to go that route.

Three responses to Arslan:

First, on a personal note, I do read many “long-winded” tomes by leftists, but they have names like Bertrand Russell, Georg Simmel, Simon Schama, John Rawls, Jonathan Israel, Eric Hobsbawm, Scott Lash, etc etc. I read significant scholars, that is, not polemicists (don’t take that personally; I understand the efforts you are making here, albeit in a lost cause).

Second, you did not remotely answer my question (newly underlined above). Give me something to work with here, concisely stated.

Third, juxtaposing these two responses as I have done is a useful way to see the inadequacies of the leftist mind in action. Evasion, obfuscation, ‘straw men’, outright falsehoods - it’s all there. This is a textbook example of poor reasoning. Study it analytically.

Care to try again, Arslan?

(Hint on method: reduce your ideas to their essential claims, and then list them numerically.)

(Hint on substance: you must either deny that blacks have higher criminal propensities than whites, or you must account for the interracial discrepancy in crime stats with environmental explanations. What might those be, how do they operate, and what is your proof?)

If you work with me, Arslan, I will teach you something of how to reason (ie, once I have clear answers to work with, I’l refute them). Doing so may then help you to see how you go wrong in thinking about race, as well as where.

108

Posted by anon on May 17, 2011, 09:12 AM | #

In the leftist anti-world, we move not through peoples possessing genes and tendencies, but probabilities generated by capitalist calculation and disembodied “linguistic groups”. No one has really succeeded; no one really failed. They have abolished blame, admirable enough, but with it all natural hierarchy in their ghostly anti-world where blacks could succeed “if”, and whites have succeeded “only because”.

Feel that water tickling the soles of your feet, white man.

109

Posted by anon on May 17, 2011, 09:20 AM | #

I just now saw a tabby cat catch a lizard with its paws. The lizard is now digesting inside the cat. “If” the lizard had had the aid of less unkind (kind = Ger. reflex of gens) members of the predator species, it might have survived. The cat “only succeeded” because it has claws and fangs and great physical purchase on the lizard, but that has nothing to do with its genes. Diversity is strength ... except when white humanoid organisms exercise natural advantages.

110

Posted by Leon Haller on May 17, 2011, 09:38 AM | #

The reason to broach black criminality in the context of racial discussions, especially where the biological reality of race and its social effects is denied (only scientific illiterates deny race as a valid biological construct; how, eg, can DNA tests distinguish white from black blood to a 99% or greater accuracy?), is not to ‘hate on’ blacks, but because it is so easy to isolate race as the (likely, if not yet scientifically proven) causal factor behind the undeniable correlation between black race and criminality.

It is empirically possible to imagine some environmental or historical source(s) for widely observed black criminality, but it is not plausible to designate such either the best explanation, or the simplest one fitting the facts. If everywhere I travel I’m told I stink, which is more plausible: that others have faulty noses, or that each venue I visit has been so physically arranged as to make it seem that I have body odor, or that my BO is a ‘social construct’, or that I cannot have BO because my sweat glands have not been proven to be more malodorous than the norm - or that I should bathe more often?

111

Posted by Leon Haller on May 17, 2011, 09:39 AM | #

Clever.

112

Posted by Ivan on May 17, 2011, 09:49 AM | #

Mr. Whitey McWhitington III aka Arslan Amirkhan aka Tim Wise reminded me of Seinfeld episode where Handsome Cab riders Mr. and Mrs. Ross, overwhelmed by the gas coming from the horse, asked Kramer: What do you feed this animal?

113

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 10:08 AM | #

Let’s be fair to Mr. Whitey McWhitington III, he may be young, idealist (in his own mind) and naive (classic liberal/Marxian that hasn’t been mugged by reality yet).

Or the might be an old and bitter hack academic that has been working on the history of Norwegian colonialism in Africa, without much progress, for the last few years.

Or even producing a new theory of “metaphysical phenotypic evolution” for all those non-physical traits.

114

Posted by anon on May 17, 2011, 11:01 AM | #

“An initial step in overcoming passivity is to stop trying to “prove” your beliefs to the crowd, because that in itself is populism and a passive means of accomplishing your goal; instead, what you must do is thrust out before them a vision of the order you desire, and say with all of the virile certainty this phrase carries in such situations, “This is what I will, and my preference is immune to your criticism; it is irrefutable.” When you do this, you’ve crossed the line between having to cajole, threaten, plead and bribe your way to victory, which is a passive means, to creating something new to which others can adhere if they still have the courage and foresight. This avoids the disease of a modern time, and indeed the extreme forms of this disease, such as Judaism, liberalism and evangelical Christianity. It also guarantees you a shot at defeating causes while others are still slashing at effects.” —Vijay Prozak

115

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 11:54 AM | #

Well now we have a textwall to climb, so I will answer the most pertinent arguments.

Thus far, all of you have failed to explain how Haiti’s poverty and Norway’s success rests on their respective phenotypes.

You can cry and scream all you want but you have not provided any proof of this.

“Strawmen, romanticised history, and a serious case of denial.”

Bullshit. History is on my site.

“Argue in the now. Argue within the realms of reality.”

Oh I see, argue metaphysically and ignore history. Brilliant idea.

From Guessedworker:

“Do the native peoples of the continent of Europe exist as genetically identifiable groups?”

Probably, and thus they don’t constitute some kind of pan-European “race”.

“Do you agree that all peoples have a right to life and land, free, for example, of Jewish tribal and religious strivings and, if they so wish, of the trespasses of political internationalism and leftist utopianism?”

Nobody has a “right” to anything really.

“Do you agree that all peoples possess a natural, shared interest in their own continuity?”

Where do you want to draw the line at what constitutes one “people”? Then why do you want to draw it there?

“Do you agree that the collective continuity is the highest common good?”

No. I would say a high standard of living and as much personal freedom as possible would be ideal, though I care little for ideals. I will not see the dawn of modern Communist society, and you won’t see your dreaded “end of the white race”(which will likely never happen).

“Do you agree that all peoples possess the right to defend themselves from colonisation ... that there can be no “racism” or any other form of moral inadmissability in the act of self-defence?”

Yes, but you are not being colonized by immigrants. They did not force open your borders and start settling the way Europeans did.

From Thorn:

“IMO, Arslan provides us a textbook example of a “racist” and anti-white bigot.”

This is a typical idiotic argument that WNs pull out when they can’t argue. You don’t like our white race idea, so you must hate white people!!! Nonsense. I am “white”, if I’m in the US, I realize that I benefit from being “white”. But there are also negative effects of this privilege, and I have to put up with those as well.

“The obvious truth is the white race (save a few nazi types) has complied with the “anti-racist” program. Whites have renounced “racism”. Furthermore, they’ve been complying with that high minded principle since the end of WWII. The problem is IT"S ONLY WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLYING WITH THAT PRINCIPLE AND IT IS RESULTING IN OUR EXTINCTION!!! THEIR IS NO RECIPROCITY FOR OUR GOOD WILL!!! Instead, ALL other races are taking advantage of our childlike foolishness for the purpose of advancing their own EGI. “

“White” people, meaning mainly those in the US and Canada, have renounced overt racism. But studies show that racial discrimination still exists.

“Many of us see the folly in continuing down this suicidal path and are staring to reverse course. At this point, that is where “racists”/anti-white bigots like Asrlan step in. You see, he wants us to continue down that suicidal path.”

Suicidal path? What the hell are you talking about? And why do you think we have some common bond just because we have DNA which gives us similar physical characteristics?

“Because, like Noel Ignatiev, he hates the white-race.”

Again, the idiot’s explanation. Noel Ignatiev actually identifies himself as white, and does not believe that it is truly a biological entity for the simple reason that many European immigrant populations which came to the US were not considered “white” until they adopted the mannerisms and habits of the WASP majority.

” That’s why he practices “racism”/racial bigotry in its most awful, hateful, and dangerous form. That form being INTRA-racism, i.e., racism and bigotry directed at one’s own race. History is riddled with such monsters who practiced INRA-racism in the extreme. For instance, did Hitler not practice INTRA-racism (at least in a broad sence of the term)? Did he not dehumanize the Slavs? Did he not try to genocide the Jews? (I know many here would regard it heresy to say Jews are white but I beleive most of them are.) Another recent example of INTRA-racism happened within the Negroid race. In Rwanda the Hutus tried to genocide the Tutsis. And of course let’s not forget Pol Pot’s killing fields in Cambodia (lovely!), or USSR’s persecution of fellow whites, etc etc…...”

All of this assumes that these populations and these actions all were based on “race”. If race were really a valid concept, Hitler would not have killed all those “whites”.

“Conclusion: As white-preservationists, I think it is imperative we work to stamp out ALL “racism” and racial bigotry. Especially the “racism” and anti-white bigotry that is being directed at the white-race.”

There is no “white” race, there is no “white culture”, there are only European cultures and nationalities, all of which borrow here and there from non-European cultures, particularly on the border areas of Europe.

“Question for Arslan (a/ka lil’ Timmy): Will you repent of your evil ways and join our movement to stamp out ALL “racism” and racial bigotry? Even if it is being directed at whites? Will ya lil’ Timmy? Do you have it in ya lil’ Timmy?”

You can’t “stomp” out racism until you stomp out the system upon which it is predicated.

From Leon:

“Second, you did not remotely answer my question (newly underlined above). Give me something to work with here, concisely stated.

Care to try again, Arslan?

(Hint on method: reduce your ideas to their essential claims, and then list them numerically.)

Actually I did answer your claim. I said if you control the crime statistics for population density and poverty, you will see that they become relatively equal. Also you can find that prior to about 1964, 2/3 of the US prison population was white. Some time after that, this ratio reversed. What happened?

Lastly, if you want to talk about correlations and not causality, then you need to explain the criminality and corruption in modern day Russia, which as I have stated before rivals several African nations.

You want to prove a causal link between black folks and crime? Find a gene or genetic indicator which causes criminal behavior and clusters primarily in people who have the same genetic code that makes them “black”. It’s not hard.

Lastly, Dr. Lister:

“let’s be fair to Mr. Whitey McWhitington III, he may be young, idealist (in his own mind) and naive (classic liberal/Marxian that hasn’t been mugged by reality yet”

I am neither liberal, nor idealist(idealism is the opposite of Marxist materialism). Nor am I naive. In fact I have been robbed at gunpoint, in a nice high income white neighborhood, by two white kids. But I’m sure you’ll find some Boasian, environmental/social reason to explain their crime.

116

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 12:12 PM | #

I also notice that nobody addressed the situation of what would happen in your all white or pan-European society. How will you explain inequality which will naturally occur when you don’t have “other races” to blame? Naturally you will do what mostly white populations did in the past. You will claim that certain groups of different nationalities or even groups within the same nationality are inherently inferior.

I also noticed nobody managed to explain how the world’s richest man could be a Lebanese man.

117

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 12:30 PM | #

I should at least acknowledge the positive of this blog. So far only one person has accused me of being a Jew, and an intellectual Tim Wise no less. Usually they just accuse you of being some random Jew.

118

Posted by Guessedworker on May 17, 2011, 01:21 PM | #

Arslan,

Probably, and thus they don’t constitute some kind of pan-European “race”.

Why not? Groups share distinctive genes. It is the distinction which matters. Google “gene map Europe”. You won’t find Rwanda next to Belgium, or Zambia next to Sweden. Clines do not disprove clusters. Mountain ranges do not cease to exist because their foothills cline to the fertile plains. “European” has as much taxonomic value as any other racial categorisation. Mix a European with an African and “European” is destroyed.

I think you are probably just a liar.

Nobody has a “right” to anything really.

You are wrong. Rights are contingent, including the right to life. But contingency does not negate righthood. Without the right to life there can be no recognition of property of any kind, nor of any other consideration.

Again, I don’t think you are answering honestly.

Where do you want to draw the line at what constitutes one “people”? Then why do you want to draw it there?

Peoples are ethnically and racially constituted. There are no lines to draw by authority. The people draw the lines. Have you not read any of the research into self-assignment into racial categories? It is a flawless process.

But I think you do know this. Don’t be dishonest.

No. I would say a high standard of living and as much personal freedom as possible would be ideal, though I care little for ideals. I will not see the dawn of modern Communist society, and you won’t see your dreaded “end of the white race”(which will likely never happen).

Wrong again. Your highest interest is not a high human interest. Without life’s continuity there is nothing. The effective destruction of a people, which is what is happening to us in the West today, does not make “individuals” free. It makes them live in cold hate. It makes them ready to kill.

Haven’t you even learned that?

Yes, but you are not being colonized by immigrants. They did not force open your borders

The doors and windows of our house, and the wallets therein, have been opened for the colonisers by the political class, by Jews, by financial and corporate interests, and by leftist utopians. For our part, our protests have been ignored, spat upon, rendered morally illegitimate and, finally, illegal in may of our lands. We have been told to “celebrate” our own colonisation. We have been told it is “our strength”. We have been told we do not exist. We have been told we have no choice, even, but “metissage”.

That is why this is a genocide. You my friend, are a supporter of genocide. You are a hater. That is why you cannot be honest here. You cannot show us what is really in your heart. But here’s a clue:

... and start settling the way Europeans did.

First, on what moral basis is the dispossession of my child mandated by what “Europeans did”?

Second, what Europeans? You mean we exist now you want to blame us for something? And are you blaming the people of Europe - the ordinary people? Or are you blaming the ruling class? Because only a psychopath would hate a people for what its rulers do, right? Are you a psychopath, Arslan? And before you try to argue that the ruling class acted in our interest, they are essentially the same financial and business class, including the Jewish component, which is attacking us today. The target has changed. We are their victim now. So why are fighting us instead of them? What is your justification?

You see, Aslan, I think you just don’t understand us at all. You don’t understand that as nationalists we believe in life. It isn’t an ideal. It’s physical. It isn’t extreme or “far right”. It’s normal, natural, healthy, moral. The ultimate freedom is the freedom of a people to live sovereign in its own land, pursuing its own destiny by its own hand. Beside that, your tendentious crap liberty does not exist. It has no ontological basis. It is not in Nature. Nobody wants it and nobody can ever have it. You are politically pointless.

119

Posted by Thorn on May 17, 2011, 01:28 PM | #

The one thing we know for sure about our commie apparatchik friend, Arselan, is he is very selective when it comes to his condemnation of racial discrimination an bigotry - so typical of the Left.

The truth is the Left’s most powerful weapons are predicated on the false concepts such as: “only white people can be “racists”, or, white people can’t be racist against other white people because it dosen’t match the dictionary’s precise definition of racist; or, “whites unfairly benefit from “white skin privilege”. This of course is the kind of slick lies the anti-white Left builds their sick twisted ideological foundation upon. Notice how quick he is to call that what threatens his perverted belief system idiotic. If they can NOT get away with calling their opposition a racist, they instead call them idiotic or mentally ill. BTW, didn’t they use those same tactics in the USSR? Just sayin’.

Anyway, Arselan, thanks for the FREE mini diversity training course. It was a real hoot.

120

Posted by Silver on May 17, 2011, 01:40 PM | #

The central issue is whether or not the costs of a multiethnic society outweigh the benefits.

Everything else is an obfuscation.

Of course the costs outweigh the benefits, and by a wide margin.

However difficult hardcore nationalists find it to accept, a splash of diversity here and there doesn’t really hurt and can be reasonably considered to liven the place up a little (particularly if the differences are enough to be noticeable but not so different as to be offensive).

But arguing for the benefits of mass diversity (measured in millions of people) is just voodoo sociology, plain and simple.

The case for preservation rests on appreciating the ways in which homogeneity is valuable and benefits you; if you value it, it’s only natural to seek to preserve it, or recover it in cases where it is being undone.

Let’s be fair to Mr. Whitey McWhitington III, he may be young, idealist (in his own mind) and naive (classic liberal/Marxian that hasn’t been mugged by reality yet).

Actually, I understand he used to go by “J.P. Slovyanksi’ and post at Alex Linder’s neo-nazi VNN. At some point he did a 180 and now he’s a raging communist. So he’s certainly quite familiar with the “white right.”

Funny thing is, I tend to agree with most of his take on the negative effects of capitalism and nationalism. I just disagree with the solutions. Communism isn’t the solution to capitalism; pro-people political parties and an income redistribution mechanism are all that’s required to correct for capitalism’s defects. Since we currently have both, and they’re in no obvious danger of going away, I regard capitalism as contained. The solution to the problems caused by human differences isn’t nationalism, which has the deplorable habit of spreading hatred and pitting against one another people who have no good reason to hate each other or anything worthwhile to gain from any ensuing conflict. I believe the solution to the problem caused by human differences is what I’ve crudely termed “enlightened groupism.” In practise it entails understanding and appreciating the group one belongs to and coming to value and desire a life lived around members of it and, very importantly, helping people of other groups come to a similar understanding of their own groups and a desire to amicably part ways with those unlike themselves. (Richard McCulloch’s “Racial Compact” goes into more detail about this attitude, although much more could—and will need to be—said about it. The Racial Compact is quite tame, but McCulloch has very strong racial feelings and it’s fair to say he’s spent a great deal of his life in a “state of hate” with respect to other races. Yet despite that, anyone trying to expound upon a philosophy of enlightened (racial) groupism would have to cover a lot of the same ground as McCulloch, and at this point in time (ie things being what they are) past moral transgressions should be regarded as forgivable.)

121

Posted by Grimoire on May 17, 2011, 01:40 PM | #

Tell me why Arsian

you cannot use the quote button for the appropriate text?

is it because your mind is filled with all consuming despair? A Terrifying Abyss of Limitless Ghibbering?

Even the italics button would present a hope for redemption….

please stop the textual mindrape

122

Posted by Grimoire on May 17, 2011, 02:07 PM | #

Look at it symbolically Arsian; you are the Rats, we are the Owls. Verbose Rats came up with an idea “imagine a perfect world, a world without hate, a world without war.” Failing to mention the preliminaries, a world filled with Rats. a world of sociopathic envy, disorder, purposeless degradation and decay.

It’s just nature Arsian, nothing to do whatsoever with farcical mandates from Marx.

123

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 02:09 PM | #

Hey I’m still waiting on how precisely Norway got rich from colonies in Africa.

What a dishonest sadsack this creep Timmy Wise is.

124

Posted by Grimoire on May 17, 2011, 02:25 PM | #

it just happens…..

We celebrate life, ours, our peoples. As we would yours, if you were out of our face. We welcome history which puts before us a chance to cease being economic cattle herded from birth to grave….and be who we are, and take what is rightly ours. History gives only one chance… over a extended period of time.

We welcome it.

125

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 03:01 PM | #

“Why not? Groups share distinctive genes.”

We all share distinctive genes. Why draw the line where you put it?

” It is the distinction which matters. “

According to whom?

“Google “gene map Europe”. You won’t find Rwanda next to Belgium, or Zambia next to Sweden. Clines do not disprove clusters. Mountain ranges do not cease to exist because their foothills cline to the fertile plains.”

No, but why should the closer Russians, Spaniards, or Poles have any more right to other European nations?

” “European” has as much taxonomic value as any other racial categorisation. Mix a European with an African and “European” is destroyed.”

By your logic is not “African” also destroyed? And when have Europeans as a group identified themselves simply as thus? When have Africans just called themselves Africans?

I think you are probably just a liar.

Nobody has a “right” to anything really.

Again, I don’t think you are answering honestly.

Where do you want to draw the line at what constitutes one “people”? Then why do you want to draw it there?

Peoples are ethnically and racially constituted. There are no lines to draw. Have you not read any of the research into self-assignment into racial categories? It is a flawless process.

But I think you do know this. Don’t be dishonest.

Haven’t you even learned that?

Yes, but you are not being colonized by immigrants. They did not force open your borders and come in with their armies. Your governments invited them in, your capitalists got rich off their labor, and you benefited in a number of indirect ways. Also, why are you limiting this to non-European immigrants?

“The doors and windows of our house, and the wallets therein, have been opened for the colonisers by the political class, by Jews, by financial and corporate interests, and by leftist utopians. “

So the political class isn’t “white”? So Jews aren’t European despite having lived their for well over a thousand years(after all, most European peoples today are not indigenous to that region)? Your Europeans aren’t heads of these corporations?

If you start to realize that there is a huge gap between you and your “natural betters” in the private and state sector despite all your precious genetic solidarity, maybe you’ll learn a valuable lesson about economics and human society.

“For our part, our protests have been ignored, spat upon, rendered morally illegitimate and, finally, illegal in may of our lands. We have been told to “celebrate” our own colonisation. We have been told it is “our strength”. We have been told we do not exist. We have been told we have no choice, even, but “metissage”.”

Ok this is getting hilarious. I’m imaging images of Europeans being marched out of their neighborhoods by armed Turks on military vehicles. I’m imagining Europeans being shot down against a wall for being European. Please stop appropriating images from the struggles of colonized people for your sob story, it’s just as pathetic as a white guy wearing dreadlocks and “dabbling” in Hinduism as a hobby.

Also I thought you and your nationalist political parties(which are sometimes white, sometimes nationalist) were winning? Are you winning or on your last gasp? Please decide.

“That is why this is a genocide. You my friend, are a supporter of genocide. You are a hater. That is why you cannot be honest here. You cannot show us what is really in your heart. But here’s a clue:”

Man, this has to be the NICEST genocide in all of human history! The “victims” have the most wealth in their own countries, completely control their political systems, and are part of one of the biggest economic powers on Earth(talking about the EU as a whole here). Keep a lid on this, otherwise other groups might start trying to genocide themselves as well.

“First, on what moral basis is the dispossession of my child mandated by what “Europeans did”?”

How was your child(I’m assuming he or she already exists) “dispossessed”? Has he or she been denied schooling? Has he or she been denied voting rights? Has he or she been arranged into a marriage with a non-European? Explain.

“Second, what Europeans? You mean we exist now you want to blame us for something? And are you blaming the people of Europe - the ordinary people? Or are you blaming the ruling class?”

The ruling class is guilty for imperialism. But when ordinary people stand on the side of imperialism, they deserve to reap not only the benefits but also the costs, which usually come later.

“Because only a psychopath would hate a people for what its rulers do, right? Are you a psychopath, Arslan?”

Are YOU John DeNugent?

“And before you try to argue that the ruling class acted in our interest, they are essentially the same financial and business class, including the Jewish component, which is attacking us today. “

The “Jewish” component doesn’t matter. A capitalist is a capitalist be he European or Chinese. The rules of finance and capitalism don’t change just because you are a Jew. You don’t get a slightly higher earnings per share if you are a Jew.

” The target has changed. We are their victim now. So why are fighting us instead of them? What is your justification?”

You were always “their”(as in the ruling class’s) victim. But as they brought the whole globe together and stood it in contradiction with them, so to must the world act in concert to overthrow them and bring about a solution to the contradictions and problems of life on earth without private profit motive getting in the way.

“You see, Aslan, I think you just don’t understand us at all. You don’t understand that as nationalists we believe in life.”

Hold on now, it’s nationalists? Wait I thought it’s racial? Is it national or racial? And where do you draw the line at national then, seeing that modern nation states have not existed throughout all human history?

” It isn’t an ideal. It’s physical. It isn’t extreme or “far right”. It’s normal, natural, healthy, moral.”

It isn’t physical. Yes, the DNA we share in common is physical but there is no automatic common interest between you and me on that basis alone. DIDN’T YOU JUST SAY THAT YOU ARE THE VICTIM OF YOUR RULING CLASS? Do these people not share your DNA? Why don’t you read what the homogeneous society of industrial Britain was like in the Victorian era, and tell me about racial and genetic solidarity. We are talking about the overworking of women and children(including rampant prostitution and sexual exploitation) of the SAME NATIONALITY until observers said they “looked like some other race.”

“The ultimate freedom is the freedom of a people to live sovereign in its own land, pursuing its own destiny by its own hand. “

And in that land will you let people marry who they want? Will you even let them have romantic relations with whom they want? And will migration by other Europeans be forbidden?

” It is not in Nature.”

Appeal to nature. Fail.

” Nobody wants it and nobody can ever have it. You are politically pointless.”

Nobody wants liberty. Interesting.

126

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 03:22 PM | #

The one thing we know for sure about our commie apparatchik friend, Arselan, is he is very selective when it comes to his condemnation of racial discrimination an bigotry - so typical of the Left.

How so?

he truth is the Left’s most powerful weapons are predicated on the false concepts such as: “only white people can be “racists”, or, white people can’t be racist against other white people because it dosen’t match the dictionary’s precise definition of racist; or, “whites unfairly benefit from “white skin privilege”. This of course is the kind of slick lies the anti-white Left builds their sick twisted ideological foundation upon.

Have I said “only white people can be racist”? Nope. This is the kind of distorted crap that first year college students say when they first learn that they should start thinking about race. Your comment about “white people can’t be racist against other white people is a bit strange”. I mean maybe ethnic chauvinism or xenophobia is a little more accurate but who cares? This has been partially my point the whole time: the definition of white, and identifier rarely used in Europe, has changed over time. When new groups like Irish, Polaks, Czechs, and Italians first arrived on the scene, they were not “white”. In fact in England there was some question as to whether the Irish were truly human. Indeed the English once captured and sold Irish boys and girls as slaves in the West Indies.

White privilege means certain social benefits one gets in a society where “white” is an identifier and the dominant group. Some of the perks are meaningless and actually hurt “white” people. Some are more serious. Obviously how much one benefits from “white” privilege depends on your class. If you are lower working class, it’s not going to be much benefit.

“Notice how quick he is to call that what threatens his perverted belief system idiotic. If they can NOT get away with calling their opposition a racist, they instead call them idiotic or mentally ill. BTW, didn’t they use those same tactics in the USSR? Just sayin’.”

No, not really.

Posted by Silver on May 17, 2011, 05:40 PM | #
Of course the costs outweigh the benefits, and by a wide margin.

Proof?

Let’s be fair to Mr. Whitey McWhitington III, he may be young, idealist (in his own mind) and naive (classic liberal/Marxian that hasn’t been mugged by reality yet).

Actually, I understand he used to go by “J.P. Slovyanksi’ and post at Alex Linder’s neo-nazi VNN. At some point he did a 180 and now he’s a raging communist. So he’s certainly quite familiar with the “white right.”

I always find these online movement legends quite interesting. I am wondering who “Thomas Sankara” was(he was mentioned earlier), and also if Tim Wise ever actually showed up on here.

Funny thing is, I tend to agree with most of his take on the negative effects of capitalism and nationalism. I just disagree with the solutions. Communism isn’t the solution to capitalism; pro-people political parties and an income redistribution mechanism are all that’s required to correct for capitalism’s defects. Since we currently have both, and they’re in no obvious danger of going away, I regard capitalism as contained.

Interesting indeed but when someone says that “Communism is the solution” we have to understand that this isn’t just some idea that Marx pulled out of his ass to deal with the contradictions of capitalism as he saw them. That was more along the lines of the famous utopian socialists, most notably Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen. Marx based his theories directly on an observation of capitalism.

What his shows us is that capitalism can’t be “contained” any more than feudalism could have contained it. Keynesian economics certainly have merit and have proven their worth in building prosperous societies, but what have we been watching for the past 30 years but the ruling class seizing back its power(more so after the fall of the USSR), breaking the fetters which bound it, and using privatization and deregulation to consolidate and create a new Gilded Age?

If you slap fetters on them again, they will merely break them another 30 years down the road.

Posted by Grimoire on May 17, 2011, 06:07 PM | #

Look at it symbolically Arsian; you are the Rats, we are the Owls.

Not really. It’s your movement that has been slinking in the darkness of failure for more than 50 years now. It’s your movement that can’t decide whether it is nationalist, or racialist, pan-European geographically, pan-Aryan, or whatever.

Verbose Rats came up with an idea “imagine a perfect world, a world without hate, a world without war.” Failing to mention the preliminaries, a world filled with Rats. a world of sociopathic envy, disorder, purposeless degradation and decay.

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 06:09 PM | #

Hey I’m still waiting on how precisely Norway got rich from colonies in Africa.

Right after you explain the link between being Norwegian and having the top country in terms of standards of living, why Norway was not always this way, especially when it was 100% ethnically homogeneous as opposed to recently when it achieved that position, and why the cradle of European civilization was Greece as opposed to Scandinavia- and then somehow Norwegians transformed.

An explanation on why corruption and crime levels in some Eastern European countries are on par with African countries would also be nice. Remember…no Boasian theories, environmental, or historical explanations.

Posted by Grimoire on May 17, 2011, 06:25 PM | #

or

it just happens…..

We celebrate life, ours, our peoples. As we would yours, if you were out of our face. We welcome history which puts before us a chance to cease being economic cattle herded from birth to grave….and be who we are, and take what is rightly ours. History gives only one chance… over a extended period of time.

Yet I am “of your race”. Why don’t you embrace me, O brother?! Who exactly is in your race anyway? And what is “rightly” yours? If it is Europe, then do you acknowledge the “right” of native peoples to take what is “rightfully” theirs in the US, Canada, Australia, and South Africa? I mean I’m not really of that opinion and think it is rather ridiculous but you brought it up.

127

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 04:27 PM | #

Alright I’ve been watching this thread pretty closely and I hate to do this as I never got to see the response from Captainchaos nor have I had a chance to see where Silver develops the discussion, but I need to get back to my tireless work of undermining the white race.

I’ve got to do some editing on a new Hollywood blockbuster with an interracial pairing, then I need to shoot some commercials where a white male is portrayed as an idiot while a black salesman is portrayed as savvy and desirable to the inept white guy’s girlfriend. Then after that I need to relocate Guessedworker’s entire neighborhood of white people into another one of our concentration camps for white people, so we can settle some Somalis there. After that I have to sift through some hundreds of thousands of votes by white people for conservative anti-immigration candidates and drop them in the shredder. I have to blackmail a couple of white CEOs into moving their operations to Malaysia, and get back in time to break the ground on a dozen new Holocaust museums(they are actually in the same city, all with their own McDonalds). I have some work on the street to do, I need to use my handgun to force white adolescents to buy and listen to rap music. Then it’s off to the abortion clinic for some white baby abortin’!

As you can see, working for the World Wide Conspiracy to Destroy the White Race(tm) is not an easy life. And being white, after about 30 years of this you have to retire by killing yourself because you’re white. I’m thinking of riding a shopping cart into traffic.

So maybe I’ll see you guys again some time. Most of you at least were civil and actually showed an effort to debate as opposed to the usual “I’m online fighting the Jooz” role-playing that typifies most of your movement. I’m not trying to say that just because you can’t define a “white” race it doesn’t mean you can’t appreciate your own culture or European culture as a whole. I’m just saying have a realistic view of it, don’t base your whole identity and worldview on a metaphysical, romanticized view of said culture, and realize that mankind’s history is not a history of races or even nations but of classes and material conditions related to our survival.

What we have is a series of global crises, and future crises, all related to a crucial contradiction between social production and private appropriation. You who claim to be the bearers of European culture, take a look at European history with its bloody violence and atrocities which continue to this day and ask yourself do we really need more of this, on an even BIGGER scale? Does this situation serve anyone? Clearly it doesn’t.

Adieu for now.

128

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 17, 2011, 04:33 PM | #

Alright I know I said I was leaving for the time being but I need to clarify something in my last paragraph before some people explode with rage. When I refer to “European history with its bloody violence and atrocities” I was referring to the violence between Europeans, which has often been as bad if not often worse than that against non-European groups. I was not by any means trying to suggest some idiotic argument that “Europeans are like, SOOOOO violent!”

Again, adieu for now.

129

Posted by Silver on May 17, 2011, 04:57 PM | #

I always find these online movement legends quite interesting.

You’re just being dishonest now. The writing is the same; the arguments are the same; the subtle concern for eastern Europeans is the same (you being Polish); and so too is the periodic assault on racialist blogs. We know you have an interest central Asia, so the selection of the moniker “Arlsan Amirkhan” comes as no surprise. You’re not really fooling anybody.

I must admit to being impressed by your patience with this crowd. I suspect you despise them (well, not all of them, just most of them) even more than I do, only I have the unfortunate habit of allowing my rancor to get the better of me. Yet… can we really say they’re wrong? And if wrong, as wrong as you would have it? That is, there’s nothing to this idea that “race matters” (in all sorts of ways), nothing at all? To repeat, I don’t think you’re wrong to criticize their excesses, but in doing so you totally throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Try this amended “Norway question”: even if we assume that one day in the future all races will exhibit equal outcomes (across the entire span of human outcomes, ie there’s still rich and poor, some individuals more crime prone, some less etc), right now, at this point in time, where are you going to move, somewhere 80% white (or white-ish) or somewhere 80% black/blackish? If you’re honest about choosing the white area then yourself acknowledge that race matters at least a little bit, even to you. Why then the pretense that it doesn’t matter at all? Is it really anything more than the fear that, gosh, if everybody thought that way things could quickly get out of hand?

130

Posted by Guessedworker on May 17, 2011, 06:00 PM | #

We all share distinctive genes. Why draw the line where you put it?

Weak. The fact that Jews share genes with baboons, trees and yeast and so do Africans does not make Jews and Africans the same.

According to whom?

Try reading the EGI pdf - link on the side-bar.

No, but why should the closer Russians, Spaniards, or Poles have any more right to other European nations?

What Russians, Spanish or Poles? The people? Are they claiming other nations?

By your logic is not “African” also destroyed?

No, because African miscegenation in diaspore does not cost the Africans back home any loss of genetic interests. All the loss is to the host population in Europe.

And when have Europeans as a group identified themselves simply as thus? When have Africans just called themselves Africans?

The taxonomy is relevant in North America.

So the political class isn’t “white”? So Jews aren’t European despite having lived their for well over a thousand years(after all, most European peoples today are not indigenous to that region)? Your Europeans aren’t heads of these corporations?

The political class are traitorous. The European-descended heads of corporations also. Jews have not yet demonstrated a capacity to live in peace beside a European people.

If you start to realize that there is a huge gap between you and your “natural betters” in the private and state sector despite all your precious genetic solidarity, maybe you’ll learn a valuable lesson about economics and human society.

I am probably one of these “natural betters”, my friend. Your childishly Jewish Marxist class analysis is a prison for your heart. I pity you.

But when ordinary people stand on the side of imperialism, they deserve to reap not only the benefits but also the costs, which usually come later.

The ordinary people are not guilty of anything, you idiot.

Are YOU John DeNugent?

No. And if you are not a psychopath bent only on hating, you will not blame the mass of people for their rulers’ work.

The “Jewish” component doesn’t matter.

You are a “Marxist” only because of the Jewish culture of critique in pursuit of eternal hegemony over the earth.

A capitalist is a capitalist be he European or Chinese. The rules of finance and capitalism don’t change just because you are a Jew. You don’t get a slightly higher earnings per share if you are a Jew.

Capitalism is fine and works well within the normal bounds of EGI. It is internationalism and the breaking of those bounds which poison capitalism for the people.

Try to understand, economics is not really important. Material possession is not a high value, and its equal distribution less so. Life, Nature, continuity, sovereignty, truth and love are important.

You were always “their” (as in the ruling class’s) victim. But as they brought the whole globe together and stood it in contradiction with them, so too must the world act in concert to overthrow them and bring about a solution to the contradictions and problems of life on earth without private profit motive getting in the way.

Private profit and motive per se is not in the way of life, though, is it? And life is the highest value, the ultimate human interest. Can you resolve this problem for your ideology?

Hold on now, it’s nationalists? Wait I thought it’s racial? Is it national or racial? And where do you draw the line at national then, seeing that modern nation states have not existed throughout all human history?

It’s both. We defend ourselves as ourselves.

It isn’t physical. Yes, the DNA we share in common is physical but there is no automatic common interest between you and me on that basis alone.

There is. Its name is self-love. Its characteristic is unity. Its expression is through ethnocentrism and ethnic genetic interest.

DIDN’T YOU JUST SAY THAT YOU ARE THE VICTIM OF YOUR RULING CLASS? Do these people not share your DNA? Why don’t you read what the homogeneous society of industrial Britain was like in the Victorian era, and tell me about racial and genetic solidarity.

I am English. I don’t need to read about the 19th century. My family lived in it, my grandparents were born at the end of it. What do you want to know?

We are talking about the overworking of women and children (including rampant prostitution and sexual exploitation) of the SAME NATIONALITY until observers said they “looked like some other race.”

England was not only the dark satanic mills, and nor were those mills places of terrible evil. In the country at large all the moral beauty, character, pride and creativity of our people persisted as ever. Our life flowed on. Your Marxist sketch is weird and ridiculous, and is predicated on a narrow and pathological analysis.

And in that land will you let people marry who they want? Will you even let them have romantic relations with whom they want? And will migration by other Europeans be forbidden?

Wierd question. But yes. Yes. Yes. Would there be foreign populations in my land. No.

Appeal to nature. Fail.

Fail to you too. The unfettered will is not a possibility in Nature. Therefore the politics of the unfettered will are false.

Nobody wants liberty. Interesting.

Individualism is a feature of the human and, especially, the European, sociobiology. Within its natural range its effects are evolutionarily adaptive. Abstracted beyond that range, however, it is another story. You cannot produce an abstracted liberty without maladaptive consequences. Your liberty is not true. Ours, however, cannot be false.

131

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 17, 2011, 06:02 PM | #

Whitey McWhitington III nothing you write makes me ‘rage with anger’ you just come across as either dishonest and/or ignorant.

I mean the desire to maintain our homelands as ethnically, culturally and linguistically homogeneous (or near-homogeneous) communities, free from the insanity of ultra-liberalism (and those that promote it) and free from hostile groups that would aim to undermine our communities, is only ‘radical’ in the context of the present ideological climate we all presently live under.

What’s so bad about human biodiversity and human cultural diversity that liberals wish to destroy the very basis for that diversity (distinct populations) - why must we accept this one-way ‘multiculturalism’ for Euros only but not for anyone else - I don’t see China importing millions of Africans?

Africa for the Africans and Europe for the Europeans thank you very much.

132

Posted by Grimoire on May 17, 2011, 06:14 PM | #

This Arsian geezer - all the virtues one hates and none of the vices one admires.

133

Posted by danielj on May 17, 2011, 07:33 PM | #

I should at least acknowledge the positive of this blog. So far only one person has accused me of being a Jew, and an intellectual Tim Wise no less.

Are you trying to be funny?

Please tell me you don’t believe Tim Wise is an intellectual.

134

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 18, 2011, 04:18 AM | #

Ok I see Guessed Worker has degenerated into his usual emotional appeals and whining about Jews. Because Silver was so nice to come back, I’ll answer your question directly:

Try this amended “Norway question”: even if we assume that one day in the future all races will exhibit equal outcomes (across the entire span of human outcomes, ie there’s still rich and poor, some individuals more crime prone, some less etc), right now, at this point in time, where are you going to move, somewhere 80% white (or white-ish) or somewhere 80% black/blackish? If you’re honest about choosing the white area then yourself acknowledge that race matters at least a little bit, even to you. Why then the pretense that it doesn’t matter at all? Is it really anything more than the fear that, gosh, if everybody thought that way things could quickly get out of hand?

If I could live anywhere in the world, it would be Istanbul. In your scenario, where everything has equal outcomes, there can be advantages and disadvantages of being part of the 20% minority. If the country is all white, at least people look like you and you fit it. If the country is black, you stand out and people notice you because you are exotic.

And since Mr. Lister posed this valid question, I will answer it too.

What’s so bad about human biodiversity and human cultural diversity that liberals wish to destroy the very basis for that diversity (distinct populations) - why must we accept this one-way ‘multiculturalism’ for Euros only but not for anyone else - I don’t see China importing millions of Africans?

Africa for the Africans and Europe for the Europeans thank you very much.

Did you ever attempt to look around the world and find other examples of racism, discrimination, and xenophobia in non-European countries? If you did, you would discover that pretty much anywhere a poorer country borders a richer one, even if it is only slightly better, people will try to immigrate there.

Europe is not “importing” immigrants. It’s not like the place orders or something. I’m not sure what the actual immigration laws are, but the government isn’t asking for these people and the people are not invading the country via force of arms. I should also point out yet again, that arguments you make here have been made by Western Europeans against Eastern Europeans.

Now, why doesn’t China “import” Africans? Well let’s answer two questions:

1. Does China have now or has it had a labor shortage in recent history? 2. Does China have a birthrate crisis which will make it difficult to support its social welfare and social security system?

Now on your slogan at the end, “Africans” are not one people, neither are Europeans. So basically you support multiculturalism. Also since you think biology and DNA are so important, it might interest you to know that sub-Saharan Africans are incredibly diverse on a genetic level, though they may look similar to you. So what is more important; unity based on genes, or looks?

Alright it’s been fun. Till next time.

135

Posted by Guessedworker on May 18, 2011, 05:28 AM | #

Arslan,

Shame to see you going so soon. I was going to drag your imported Jewish mentality into the light. Are you sure I can’t tempt you to stay?

136

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 18, 2011, 05:59 AM | #

Honestly Guessedworker, every time you go on one of your emotional rants I’m half expecting you to break out in a Disney musical number, running through the English plains and backed up by singing mice and birds.

Then you just say the most bizarre things some times. Economics isn’t important? Economics, that is to say production including the production of our means of subsistence, is the basis of human life and civilization. Every human society which reproduces itself performs labor, produces a surplus, and then distributes the surplus. Write a letter to any media outlet in the world and tell them economics isn’t really important. Why are the most important organizations in the world the IMF, World Bank, WTO, G20, etc. if economics aren’t so important?

You call your politicians and corporate businessmen traitors. Why are they traitors then? I have an answer, you don’t. And why aren’t Jewish businessmen who exploit Jewish workers not traitors to them? Again, I can prove class, I can prove its working throughout history. You can’t prove your racial theory in history because there is no evidence in history of great “races” as you define them competing on that grounds. Even the nations you speak of and their respective national identities evolved over time.

I asked you how your child is being dispossessed and how you had lost the right to carry on your genes and of course you couldn’t answer. You make it seem like you are a Kurd who gets attacked by police for singing in his own native language on the street, or a Palestinian whose house got bull-dozed. But when someone asks you to actually explain how terrible your plight is, you can’t answer. When someone points out that English people run your country and are behind these policies, all you can do is say that they are traitors and then start counting Jews.

You can’t even decide if you are for Europeans or just English. What about the Scottish, should they have the right to keep you out of England? How about Northern Ireland? All foreign populations out, right?

Then I noticed you couldn’t even answer for the brutality which English businessmen subjected English workers to for a couple centuries, though they were not only their own “race” but their own nationality. All you could do was respond with that Disney BS about the plains and the trees and the forests. Here’s a historical tip for you- working people for many decades didn’t get to enjoy those trees and forests. This is basic history and nobody is stopping you from finding this information. I’m sure Manchester might have more than one museum with plenty of photographs. Of course you’ll probably just call the information “Jewish” and be done with it.

And probably the funniest thing you have said, that Jews haven’t managed to live in peace with Europeans. Ah yes, who could forget the MANY Euro-Jewish wars throughout the last thousand years. And every time of course, the Jews were the aggressors, ruining things for the singing and dancing Europeans.

In short, you live in fantasy land. With a couple exceptions, every other poster but you has made an honest effort to engage in a debate, form arguments, and have some kind of dialog. You on the other hand degenerate into this Sophistry and throw in words like “culture of critique” like it means something. It might also interest you to know that Marxism is based primarily on German philosophy, as well as that of classical Greece, on which Marx was an expert. Marx likely knew more about European culture than you.

So no, you cannot temp me back with your poetic whining. I will return, when the red moon appears, the stars align, and at that appointed time I shall be summoned.

137

Posted by Leon Haller on May 18, 2011, 07:11 AM | #

Sorry for the re-post (except at very bottom), but I do think it useful actually to have the comments and responses juxtaposed. We can more easily see how the leftist relentlessly evades answering difficult questions (for race deniers), and throws up irrelevant information as smokescreens to prevent uncareful readers from realizing that the question was not addressed.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Here is what I wrote:

Arslan,

Note that it would be striking if all interracial differences in ability and behavior had no specific genetic component. Humans are evolved creatures, after all.

Here is how Arslan replied:

Three responses to Arslan:

Second, you did not remotely answer my question (newly underlined above). Give me something to work with here, concisely stated.

Care to try again, Arslan?

(Hint on method: reduce your ideas to their essential claims, and then list them numerically.)

———————————————————————————————————————————————

The reason to broach black criminality in the context of racial discussions, especially where the biological reality of race and its social effects is denied (only scientific illiterates deny race as a valid biological construct; how, eg, can DNA tests distinguish white from black blood to a 99% or greater accuracy?), is not to ‘hate on’ blacks, but because it is so easy to isolate race as the (likely, if not yet scientifically proven) causal factor behind the undeniable correlation between black race and criminality.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

From Arslan:

Actually I did answer your claim. I said if you control the crime statistics for population density and poverty, you will see that they become relatively equal.

[LH: empirically false, on several grounds]

Also you can find that prior to about 1964, 2/3 of the US prison population was white. Some time after that, this ratio reversed. What happened?

[LH: not sure if true, but if so, unsurprising: prior to 1964 US population was 90% white]

[LH: not true at all viz the African comparison, but note one must always make allowances for particular historical circumstance - eg, China was poor under Mao not because Chinese people are economic incompetents - as witness the outsized commercial success of the Overseas Chinese - but because communism is economically dysfunctional; Russia has a lot of crime compared to Norway because its culture and moral structure were severely attenuated by atheistic communism; the point is that whites can display high levels of law abidingness, if conditions are right, whereas blacks, under the same conditions invariably display high levels of criminality]

[LH: Yes, it is, especially as the Left in the US routinely blacklists or shuts down any research into the genetics of criminality]

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

I commend others for taking the time to deconstruct Arslan’s lengthy comments. I tried, but my patience for poor reasoning is just not what it used to be.

138

Posted by anon on May 18, 2011, 07:45 AM | #

So we just spent all yesterday arguing with a dude who argues in favor of the kaffir down the road. That’s all I take from his vociferous trundling. Norwegians are successful not because they are white. Haitians are unsuccessful not because they are black. And the cat is successful not because it has claws and is bigger than the lizard. It’s all “history” - as though genes exist apart from history - and “if” this and that had been “otherwise”, why, those kaffirs might just be living high in Norway, and square pegs leaping into round holes.

Aight. English capitalists mistreated English & Irishmen. Terrible stories there. How this means the English - all of them - have been rightfully dispossessed of the very earth beneath they and their ancestors’ feet, I fail to understand. For that is all “Arslan” is saying, through all the question-begging and dodging and pettifogging: You are through and nothing you say is right. Jews? Nonsense; it’s the same capital-labor dynamic as outlined by Marx, Engels, and E.P. Thompson. Nix the kapos and you shall be delivered.

Blah blah blah. “I am ever and always right. You are deluded paranoiacs. I am verbose, I win!” Reminds me of that punk PF.

I don’t believe for a second it was Slovjanski; he did go communist, but not anti-racist, and would argue the biopolitical virtues of the Soviet bloc (zero immigration, healthy birthrate, etc).

139

Posted by anon on May 18, 2011, 07:55 AM | #

How is it that an evolutionary scientist can live his whole academic life studying the genes and history of members of a single genus yet never find himself speaking of either in isolation. Answer: the magic word evolution. Not so the turbulent Marxist eager to sweep away sub- (or is it super??) economic considerations.

Who cares. Nigger + gun + revenge ideology = death of civilization. Nigger + family + handouts + Norway = death of Norway.

140

Posted by W on May 18, 2011, 08:09 AM | #

Chinese people are economic incompetents - as witness the outsized commercial success of the Overseas Chinese - but because communism is economically dysfunctional;

Incorrect. The Republic of China could barely even control its own territories after 1911. You clearly don’t know anything about Chinese history. China was once one of the most advanced civilizations in history, even before Europeans as well. But a number of historical events and developments left it open to continuous invasions by Steppe peoples(last of which were the Manchus) and then colonialism.

Russia has a lot of crime compared to Norway because its culture and moral structure were severely attenuated by atheistic communism; t

Sorry, you are not allowed to use this argument. It’s been twenty years since the fall of Communism, most Russians describe themselves as Orthodox, and the Church is supported by the government. You are attempting to use historical material reasons to explain their criminality. Do you suddenly believe this is relevant now, or does it only apply to “white people”? Also you know little of Russian history if you think this kind of corruption today is something new. It existed long before the revolution.

The point is that whites can display high levels of law abidingness, if conditions are right, whereas blacks, under the same conditions invariably display high levels of criminality]

No proof of this has been provided.

Reading people like you talk about “bad reasoning” is just hilarious. For example when you try to explain why the ratio of white to black prisoners changed so radically just after 1964, as though the white population dropped so heavily and the black population rose sharply. Come on.

I just love watching folks like you play the role of some wise old man teaching common sense or whatever. All your answers are over-simplistic and you display your severe ignorance of history with every sentence.

141

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 18, 2011, 08:15 AM | #

“Norwegians are successful not because they are white. Haitians are unsuccessful not because they are black.”

Holy crap, he’s starting to learn something! Even if he did use that ridiculous analogy of a cat and a lizard(HINT: Lizards and cats differ greatly from one another. Do Norwegians use their white skin and blonde hair to create such a great economy?).

But your equation doesn’t really work out. You see, when Norway what 100% Norwegian, it wasn’t the top of the ladder. In fact further back in history it was barely worth mentioned were it not for the vikings causing problems in the 9th-11th centuries. But around the time Norway became #1, it had a growing population of non-European immigrants. So if I use Idiot Logic, the logic of the white nationalist movement, I can conclude that the presence of those immigrants pushed Norway to #1. See what I did there.

Now play nice and remember, no economic, historical, or environmental reasons to excuse Russia’s crime and corruption. You are not Boasians.

142

Posted by Thorn on May 18, 2011, 08:35 AM | #

I think the radical increase of black prisoners after 1964 correlates most closely with the rise of the availability of illicit drugs in America. Combine drugs with blacks’ notorious propensity for violent behavior and is it any wonder why the prisons are bursting at the seems with blacks?

The only thing that makes me wonder is why there isn’t even more black criminals. I say that given the appalling level abuse they endure at the hands of their own families whilst growing up. Anyone with firsthand experience living and or working around blacks fully understands what I mean.

143

Posted by Leon Haller on May 18, 2011, 11:05 AM | #

W (Arslan?),

It is laughable, no, embarrassing, for you even to challenge me, based on the stupidity and historical ignorance YOU display (while bizarrely accusing me of same), but here goes. I may have to do this sequentially, in different boxes.

1. Here is what I actually wrote (responding to Arslan’s poor reasoning, though I’m not going to copy the original):

And W’s reply:

W: Incorrect. The Republic of China could barely even control its own territories after 1911. You clearly don’t know anything about Chinese history. China was once one of the most advanced civilizations in history, even before Europeans as well. But a number of historical events and developments left it open to continuous invasions by Steppe peoples(last of which were the Manchus) and then colonialism.

This paragraph could only have been written by someone young and dumb, who clearly doesn’t know anything about Chinese history, unlike me - but worse, whose entire “argument”, if such it can be called, is a complete non sequitur as it relates to what I actually said.

[nb, MR regulars: it is always easier to argue with someone highly intelligent, even if he disagrees with you, than to spar with idiots - but especially, with sophomoric idiots, ie, those with a bit of knowledge, but obviously lacking in awareness and understanding of the wider contexts real intellectuals take for granted.]

W, what exactly are you arguing with? What is “incorrect”? Is it your contention that China was poor under Mao (especially relative to its present economic performance) not because of the inherent economic dysfunctionality of communism, but as a kind of holdover from ... uh, what, exactly? “invasions by steppe peoples” (Mongols, Manchus)?

I said nothing about classical Chinese civilization. I am aware of China’s having been economically superior to Europe during the Middle Ages, and about its falling behind beginning in the early modern period, and then especially after the turn of the 19th century (cf. Pomeranz, The Great Divergence Princeton Univ Press - this is from memory). I am generally familiar with Chinese history in the 20th century, with Sun Yat-Sen and his nationalist revolution, the period of warlordism, and the disproportionate control of ports (but not too much more than that, incidentally; I suspect W has a secondary school level of historical knowledge of China, at very best - but is too generally historiographically untutored even to realize it) by Europeans. Europeans did not, unfortunately, penetrate very far into China, so excessive attribution by modern leftists of the variable of (European) “colonialism” as the cause of China’s 20th century backwardness is misplaced.

NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE POINT OF MY COMMENT, blockhead!

I was obviously making an observation about attending to “particular historical circumstance”, which Arslan fails to do repeatedly in this thread. I mentioned China as an example of a country with a superior population whose economic performance was long sub-par based on what one could expect given the intelligence and, yes, undeniable historical achievements of the Chinese. I then provided an answer to China’s intense poverty in the twentieth century, at least postwar. It was due not to Chinese cognitive inferiority (as is the case with African failure), but to the inherent economic irrationality of communism (and the still greater lunacy, combined with totalitarian dictatorship, of Mao).

W’s response to this is a series of non sequiturs.

144

Posted by Leon Haller on May 18, 2011, 11:39 AM | #

continuing ...

2. Here is what I actually wrote (responding to Arslan’s poor reasoning, though I’m not going to copy the original):

And W’s reply:

Russia has a lot of crime compared to Norway because its culture and moral structure were severely attenuated by atheistic communism; t

Again I was responding to Arslan’s prior comments, which W/Arslan does not provide (as context).

Where o where to begin?

First, twenty years is hardly sufficient time to morally revive a degenerated society - and especially the one in question, given the unique situation there today (every historical situation is unique, as Carl Schmitt sagely noted long ago - but, if I may appropriate Orwell, some are more unique than others). Communism was uniquely evil, unparalleled in the ferocity and totality of its attack on traditional moral strictures and structures.

Solzhenitsyn (heard of him, peon?) once opined that it would take Russia as long to recover from Bolshevism as the Bolsheviks had controlled Russia. Russia has not begun its recovery, in part because the society has not remotely been ‘re-traditionalized’.

However, you compared Russia to Norway, and asked why the one has more crime than the other, given that they are both white (though to be accurate, they are not precisely racially the same; I do not know whether Slavs are everywhere more criminal than Nordics, as blacks are than whites, but I was not discussing this issue, either). I never said that non-genetic factors do not influence social outcomes, or that there are only genetic determinants of outcomes. This is another of your “straw men”, and hence example of bad reasoning skills.

I merely observed that blacks commit crimes at rates so much and consistently higher than whites that there is undoubtedly a genetic factor explaining that differential.

I suspect I know much more about Russian history than you do. I made no comment about the history of Russian crime or corruption - though such assertions would not be relevant anyway to my argument about blacks. The real question for your alleged counter-example of Russia is not how Russian whites behave in Russia, but whether Russians everywhere behave criminally, as blacks do. (Are you intelligent enough to see that? I don’t think so.) Do they? No, they do not. Americans or Canadians of Russian ethnic heritage do not commit crimes at anything approaching the rate of blacks anywhere.

145

Posted by Leon Haller on May 18, 2011, 11:53 AM | #

continuing ...

3. Here is what I actually wrote (responding to Arslan’s poor reasoning, though I’m not going to copy the original):

And W’s reply:

The point is that whites can display high levels of law abidingness, if conditions are right, whereas blacks, under the same conditions invariably display high levels of criminality]

No proof of this has been provided.

Proof? What proof do I need, other than what I originally offered, way higher up in this thread? Whites do display law abidingness everywhere across the Earth. In every area of heavy white settlement, whites are far more peaceful and law abiding than blacks living among them. This is common knowledge; I’m not going to cite anything here. Look at National Institute of Justice stats for the US. Read that excellent monograph based on those stats, The Color of Crime. Look at the explosion of violent crime unleashed as soon as the white man stupidly, voluntarily relinquished power in South Africa. SA had been more law abiding during apartheid, but that was only because a tight political and police grip prevented the latent criminality of the Negroid population from being able to ‘express’ itself.

Conversely, wherever blacks are located, there are high rates of criminality. Again, what proof do I need? Get an FBI report on the 20 most per capita crime-ridden cities in America. Every one has a large black population. Look at the most law abiding communities. All are heavily majority white (and very low to nonexistent black).

146

Posted by Guessedworker on May 18, 2011, 12:33 PM | #

Arslan,

Can you point me to one of my emotional rants? Thanks.

Economics, that is to say production including the production of our means of subsistence, is the basis of human life and civilization.

We are not Homo economicus. We are not one-fifth Homo economicus. Before issues of economy arise there are other issues - life issues - of far, far greater import to the human being. If a people’s existence is under attack, what does it matter how the economy is modelled?

It’s a question of having true values, Arslan. Economism reduces Man to to the status of a petty consumer and wage-slave. It is anti-human, and does not contain the possibility of freedom. For that, it would have to accommodate our full and true nature, but it doesn’t.

Karl Marx was a Jew and had a Jewish mind, and saw such a reduction as mete. As a follower of his, you are not provided with the opportunity to look at the whole portrait. You are given some details from the cut of the clothes and the bulge beneath the breast pocket where the wallet nestles. But you don’t see the character of the sitter or the eye and hand of the painter.

Such narrowness has grave costs for those Marxism demonises and for Marxist himself. If this conversation proceeds, we will doubtless probe those costs.

Why are the most important organizations in the world the IMF, World Bank, WTO, G20, etc. if economics aren’t so important?

Why are the most important things to human life - nature, family, brotherhood, kin, nation - problematic in your Weltanschauung?

You call your politicians and corporate businessmen traitors. Why are they traitors then? I have an answer, you don’t.

Of course we have an answer. They are traitors because they advance interests contrary to, and harmful to, the interests of their own people.

And why aren’t Jewish businessmen who exploit Jewish workers not traitors to them?

Wage exploitation is not race treachery. It’s just exploitation. If a Jewish businessman - a Madoff, say - advances interests contrary to, or harmful to, the interests of Jews he is a traitor.

Again, I can prove class, I can prove its working throughout history. You can’t prove your racial theory in history because there is no evidence in history of great “races” as you define them competing on that grounds. Even the nations you speak of and their respective national identities evolved over time.

Your proof is self-proving because the parameters are selected within such narrow confines. The higher proof of the unity of the people exists in the success of the fascisms at creating unity in the years before military defeat. Fascism cohered all interests within the state, and it worked amazingly well.

I have no idea what you mean by “no evidence in history of great “races”.” The major divergences in human bio-diversity did not occur in a Munich bierkeller circa 1924.

Assuming you are honest, and not merely a liar for ideology as Marxists so often are, you seem to have a huge hang-up about the existence of human difference. You can easily resolve that by educating yourself in gene-speak and following the research that is going on all the time in population genetics.

I asked you how your child is being dispossessed and how you had lost the right to carry on your genes and of course you couldn’t answer.

I can answer all your questions. Down the years I have debated hundreds and perhaps thousands of opponents, Arslan. There is nothing you can say to me that I have not heard and answered before, and nowhere you can score a coup. All debates with leftists consist in (i) overcoming the weight of vile assumptions about nationalism they have internalised, and (ii) demonstrating the superiority of nationalist truths. It is always such, and talking to you is no different.

My child is an English girl who is losing her ancestral land to the Third World. The government office for statistics, the ONS, predicts that on present trends the cross-over to minority status will come some time after 2062. But physical, demographic dispossession is not the whole of it. We have already been deprived of our freedoms of association and speech. We have been deprived of representation. We are being forced all the time, as I am sure you realise, into debt. We “owe” 4.8 trillion Sterling because of the government practise of borrowing digitally-created “money” from the international bond and gilts markets. The life that I and my father and grandfather knew at her age, which was an English life in England, is already long-gone. We are in an age of European genocide, and that is her age.

So don’t tell me that she isn’t being dispossessed or that I cannot explain that.

Now, you make a strange point about “the right to carry on your genes”. Our crisis is not a question of withdrawn genetic right as such, but of the practical consequences of a deliberate, long-run policy. It is the guarantee of our ethnic survival which subsists in territory which has been withdrawn. Once a people loses its land and its resources, it is pitched into an absolute decline.

You make it seem like you are a Kurd who gets attacked by police for singing in his own native language on the street, or a Palestinian whose house got bull-dozed.

The difference between the attempt to create Homo sovieticus and Homo americanus is in the sophistication of the method, not in the end result.

But when someone asks you to actually explain how terrible your plight is, you can’t answer. When someone points out that English people run your country and are behind these policies, all you can do is say that they are traitors and then start counting Jews.

You made that up. All of it. Don’t make things up when you are dealing with me. You are being held to a higher standard.

You can’t even decide if you are for Europeans or just English. What about the Scottish, should they have the right to keep you out of England? How about Northern Ireland? All foreign populations out, right?

Our neighbours are not race-replacing us, but are victims of the same replacement.

Then I noticed you couldn’t even answer for the brutality which English businessmen subjected English workers to for a couple centuries, though they were not only their own “race” but their own nationality

Because it isn’t true. The failure of economic Marxism flows in no small part from the non-reality of the plight of the working man in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But then, Marxism was always a sport for the educated but self-estranged.

In the real world of those times, the existence of mechanisms for incremental change, of working-class self-help, and of middle-class compassion were sufficient unto the day. The people did not rise up to throw off the shackles of class oppression because they found the revolutionary analysis to be completely wrong and uninteresting.

All you could do was respond with that Disney BS about the plains and the trees and the forests

What I wrote was:

“England was not only the dark satanic mills, and nor were those mills places of terrible evil. In the country at large all the moral beauty, character, pride and creativity of our people persisted as ever. Our life flowed on. Your Marxist sketch is weird and ridiculous, and is predicated on a narrow and pathological analysis.”

... so please be respect my words in future.

Here’s a historical tip for you- working people for many decades didn’t get to enjoy those trees and forests. This is basic history and nobody is stopping you from finding this information. I’m sure Manchester might have more than one museum with plenty of photographs. Of course you’ll probably just call the information “Jewish” and be done with it.

Wakes Week: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakes_week

And probably the funniest thing you have said, that Jews haven’t managed to live in peace with Europeans. Ah yes, who could forget the MANY Euro-Jewish wars throughout the last thousand years. And every time of course, the Jews were the aggressors, ruining things for the singing and dancing Europeans.

Do you like David Duke, Arslan? Well, at least tell me if the evidence he presents in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYBsDwjezQI&feature=player_embedded

.. is true. Then we can start to talk about the JQ from a basis in fact. Right?

With a couple exceptions, every other poster but you has made an honest effort to engage in a debate, form arguments, and have some kind of dialog. You on the other hand degenerate into this Sophistry and throw in words like “culture of critique” like it means something.

“A culture of critique” is what it is, gently put. I wouldn’t want to offend your tender sensibilities with a more ennervating description of the Jewish engagement with their European host. Ivan here will do perform that service, if required. He will likely employ words like “relentless”, “war”, and “supremacy”.

You are right about one thing. I am not interested in “some kind of dialogue” with you. I am interested in destroying your Weltanshauung.

It might also interest you to know that Marxism is based primarily on German philosophy, as well as that of classical Greece, on which Marx was an expert. Marx likely knew more about European culture than you.

Yes, yes, Marx wrote, “We are all Hobbes’ children.” But the Jewish mind of Karl Marx saw an obstruction to the unfettered will in the naturally-arising social gradations of European society. We now know from various “experiments” that no such will and no such obstruction exist. We know, for example, that murdering the educated and the middle-class did not “free” the lower orders of Cambodian society. Because, of course, there was no oppression. Human societies are complex, organic forms and the introduction of critique, divisiveness, and destruction enslaves everyone whom it does not kill.

You would assume that no sane person who “knew about European culture” would desire the destruction of it. And would be true of Europeans.

147

Posted by Whitey McWhitington on May 18, 2011, 12:35 PM | #

First, twenty years is hardly sufficient time to morally revive a degenerated society - and especially the one in question, given the unique situation there today (every historical situation is unique, as Carl Schmitt sagely noted long ago - but, if I may appropriate Orwell, some are more unique than others).

Sorry, you are not allowed to use this environmental, Boasian excuse. Are you foolish enough to say that 200 years of colonization and neo-colonialism don’t explain Africa’s plight, but 70 years of socialism which actually industrialized the ex-Russian empire DOES have an effect.

Communism was uniquely evil, unparalleled in the ferocity and totality of its attack on traditional moral strictures and structures.

Idiocy. Ask some average Russian people about morality in the USSR vs. post USSR. Do some research and find out what life was like for most Russians prior to the revolution.

Solzhenitsyn (heard of him, peon?) once opined that it would take Russia as long to recover from Bolshevism as the Bolsheviks had controlled Russia. Russia has not begun its recovery, in part because the society has not remotely been ‘re-traditionalized’.

Ever hear the Solzhenitsyn was not a sociologist, nor an economist, nor a historian? In fact a real anti-Communist historian, Richard Pipes, said that Solzhenitsyn had a poor, superficial view of Russian history, and was so foolish as to disagree that there was censorship and repression under the Tsar.

“Re-traditionalize” Russia? Are you so incredibly ignorant on Russian history that you have no idea what “traditional” life in pre-revolutionary Russia was like? Do you realize that Russia was a major empire while most of its population lived in near-medieval conditions? Whose fault was that? Socialism brought Russia out of feudalism and into the 20th century in ten years.

Your comments on Russia are so blatantly ignorant that they barely even warrant response. But I am generous.

However, you compared Russia to Norway, and asked why the one has more crime than the other, given that they are both white (though to be accurate, they are not precisely racially the same; I do not know whether Slavs are everywhere more criminal than Nordics, as blacks are than whites, but I was not discussing this issue, either). I never said that non-genetic factors do not influence social outcomes, or that there are only genetic determinants of outcomes. This is another of your “straw men”, and hence example of bad reasoning skills.

What is clear is that you tend to blame non-white crime on genetics while you make up the most idiotic excuses for white crime. And in fact despite some problems, some Eastern European countries(Slavic ones) HAVE made progress in comparison to Russia. You could try to argue that they were socialist for less time, but what difference does 25 years really make?

I merely observed that blacks commit crimes at rates so much and consistently higher than whites that there is undoubtedly a genetic factor explaining that differential.

Without citing anything so far but The Color of Crime, the stats of which have been refuted by this board’s favorite Tim Wise. You have been unable to explain why these stats close with one another when one controls for population density and poverty.

I suspect I know much more about Russian history than you do. I made no comment about the history of Russian crime or corruption - though such assertions would not be relevant anyway to my argument about blacks.

THANK you for admitting that. But they are very relevant.

The real question for your alleged counter-example of Russia is not how Russian whites behave in Russia, but whether Russians everywhere behave criminally, as blacks do.

Russia does not have such a large diaspora compared to other groups. They have not migrated so much probably because most of the time they were migrating to other areas of the Soviet Union, such as the Caucasus and Central Asia. That being said, Russians(often used as a catch-all for all Former Soviet immigrants) have formed a serious criminal element in every country where they have settled in large numbers in the past 20 years. In some European countries they are despised and treated with suspicion.

Now, I have been hanging around here long after I promised to leave you be and grant you your self-determination. And I know that Guessedworker has enough to worry about with those Race Patrols constantly searching for white English people to round up for slave labor details. So I will say this about Norway.

Let us look at two possible methods of determining why they are so successful:

1. Examine Norway’s economic history, industrialization, economic policies, state involvement in the private sector, and what not. Typically states which spend a great deal of their budget on social welfare programs and take an active interest in their population’s health and education are at the top of the list.

2. Conclude that they are successful because they are white.

In the case of Africa, even if we ignore their history of imperialist exploitation, even during the neo-colonial era and all those proxy wars, most African nations enjoyed slow but steady positive economic growth. Beginning in the 80s, they, like the rest of the developing world, suddenly became confronted with neo-liberal ideas, and these policies were often forced on them via the IMF. Since that time they have had negative growth and standards of living have fallen. IMF “recommendations” generally entail:

1. Free trade, no tariff barriers, no subsidies for home industry. Not only does this crush local industry which cannot compete with multi-nationals, most developing nations are agricultural, and leading nations have not lowered their tariff walls to agricultural products(or they heavily subsidize them, as EU nations do). Developing national governments also need tax revenue, and the easiest way to collect it is via tariffs. So they lose that revenue.

2. Minimize government spending, charge school fees, give tax breaks to multi-nationals: I think the results of this are self-explanatory.

3. Make the central bank independent and have it focus primarily on fighting inflation: Inflation is bad but you can find many developing nations in the 50s, 60s, and 70s which had high inflation but positive economic growth and rising standards of living. Brazil is one example(they took the poison pill of the IMF and look what happened, ditto to 70% white Argentina, which was doing even better).

4. Open up financial markets: This leaves a country open to speculators and “hot money”. You can see what happened with that from the Latin American and Asian Crises. This also affected Russia as well.

I’m not going to mention IMF policies on intellectual property because they don’t really factor into this now, but what you see is that the IMF and leading countries have been forcing(yes, forcing) policies on the developing world which have been proven to be disastrous, plus they are the precise opposite of those polices which were used by the leading economic powers of today(US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, China, Korea, Finland, etc.)

These policies have serious impact and they clearly have more influence than phantom genes which you can only speculate about due to endless correlations.

148

Posted by Gudmund on May 18, 2011, 01:08 PM | #

responding to Arslan’s poor reasoning
>Leon Haller

I warned people here. This guy’s m.o. is dragging people into long-winded dialectics. Arguing with him is a waste of time, his arguments are positively riddled with logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies. And he will never, ever concede a point. Might as well save your time and effort, he’s a joke.

149

Posted by Leon Haller on May 18, 2011, 01:17 PM | #

lastly ...

Here is what Arslan originally wrote:

Also you can find that prior to about 1964, 2/3 of the US prison population was white. Some time after that, this ratio reversed. What happened?

and how I responded:

[LH: not sure if true, but if so, unsurprising: prior to 1964 US population was 90% white]

And here is the idiot W:

i]Reading people like you talk about “bad reasoning” is just hilarious. For example when you try to explain why the ratio of white to black prisoners changed so radically just after 1964, as though the white population dropped so heavily and the black population rose sharply. Come on.

Well, well… you are really stupid, W ... I mean shamefully dumb ...

First, I was not writing a treatise here, trying to account for every last variable in changing crime patterns, and all in their proper proportions.

Second, I did not stipulate to the fact presented. I’m not sure that 2/3 of the US prison population pre-1964 was white. In fact, I’m skeptical. For example, even today, the Census classifies many nonwhites (eg, a considerable number of Latinos, and not just Cameron Diaz!, Arabs, Gypsies, even some mixed-race persons) as white! That is a fact, if you recall the ethnic classification scheme on the latest Census.

But the Census does keep getting more nuanced, esp wrt Hispanics. My strong suspicion is that 1964 prison population stats were primitive in their ‘ethnic awareness’; that is, that they used only the crudest of classifications. Asians were ‘Chinamen’, Native Americans ‘Indians’, blacks ‘blacks’ - and everybody else was ‘white’. I suspect that prison population stats were less accurate in racial classifications than Census ones.

So, in 1960 the US was 90% ‘white’, according to the Census. The real white population would have been somewhat less. I bet that the alleged 2/3 stat for the white percentage of the nation’s convicts was substantially overstated. There is some evidence for this in popular literature accounts (I’ve read a lot of classic crime and noir fiction of the 20s-60s) of “dark and swarthy” villains, not to mention what we know today about the higher rates of criminality (as compared to whites) of Latinos, Arabs and of course the Roma/Sinti, a people whose whole way of life is based on theft.

But even if the 2/3 stat is correct, if the US is 90% white, and the prison population is only 67% white, and the vast bulk of the rest of the population is black (8-9% was the number back then), then that must mean that blacks are heavily overrepresented in prison. Was that due to racism, as leftists try to argue, or greater black criminality? Well, based on what we all experience and watch out for in our daily urban American lives, only an idiot would suggest racism.

As to why the interracial prison disparity has markedly grown since the 60s, I will tell you.

1. The white median age has gone up (crime is a young men’s activity, mostly) more than blacks and much more than Hispanics.

2. Whites have gotten characterologically weaker, and concomitantly more pacific (this in most wealthy places, not only America; England in the 18th century was far more violent than England in the 20th, until it began importing diversity in a big way over the past three decades). Even when I was a kid in the 70s there were a lot more fights in white schools, such as I attended, than my friends with kids tell me there are today. I know for a fact that whites were still more violent (not evil, not criminal as blacks are, but more prone to fighting, more honorable, tougher) in the 40s and 50s. I have known older white men who spent time in their youths in prison. But they were not in there back then for the kinds of horrendous, amoral actions blacks routinely commit today. They were in for things like assaulting (arrogant) cops, running numbers games, moonshining, vendettas and revenge actions - not rape, muggings or assaults on innocent and helpless people.

I suspect that someone like W is not only arrogant and dumb, as we see from his comments, but also cowardly and weak, and thus probably has no clue as to the kind of (white) society I’m referring to. It once existed all over the US, even in laid-back California, but now, if even existent, is largely confined to rural areas, esp the South and Appalachia.

3. I suspect part of the feminization of white men is ideological, part cultural upbringing, but part also rational fear of landing in our racially integrated, minority dominated prisons, to risk being gang-raped by Negroids who turn faggot behind bars. I have thought of this myself, in various ‘iffy’ situations. There have been a number of times where I ‘cooled down’ only because I didn’t want to end up in jail or prison (also, didn’t want to risk getting sued by some dirtbag with his Jewish civil rights attorney, and then having a multicultural ‘jury of my peers’ award my hard-earned assets to some minority) with a bunch of savage blacks. Had I known that at worst I’d be spending time in the Big House with the 1950s versions of some of my dad’s friends who’d been there then, I would have done a few things differently myself, believe me.

4. But the real change accounting for the (alleged) post-1964 black/white prison disparity has to do with minorities themselves. Essentially, in the US we’ve had a slow-mo situation akin to the ‘fast forward’ situation in South Africa that I mentioned above. 1964 is an interesting year for Arslan to choose, as that was the year of the Civil Rights Act - the year that began the “Second Reconstruction”, that began Negro liberation, than began modern racial integration, that - coincidentally? - began the modern crime explosion (violent crime in the US increased by 298% between 1965 and 1980, and would be at even higher than 1980 levels today but for the “three strikes” movement that swept American states in the 80s and 90s; that is, the criminal propensity of the population is as great as ever today, but we have more dirtbags behind bars than ever before).

Basically, before ‘civil rights’, Miranda, gun control etc - the whole asshole leftist agenda - blacks were “kept in their place”, and they knew it. Their innate criminal propensities did not have the kind of outlets suddenly provided them by the weakening of white establishment will to (racial) power. Also, the dysgenic and morality enervating welfare state was only getting into full swing by ‘64. Blacks always had much higher crime rates than whites, and much, much greater innate criminal propensities (my whole original argument, remember). But before the 60s, the black church was a stronger institution in black communities; there was greater fear of law enforcement; crime was not as culturally accepted among blacks; drugs were less available, etc.

But whatever environmental changes were put into place post-1964 enabling blacks to ‘actualize’ better their innate criminal propensities, my original argument simply pertained to those propensities’ existence, which is the best explanation for why blacks behave as they do everywhere they are found. Arslan did not refute this, and the idiot “W” doesn’t even understand what disagreement was even about.

Enough. Arguing with leftists is boring and unproductive.

150

Posted by Silver on May 18, 2011, 01:44 PM | #

I don’t believe for a second it was Slovjanski; he did go communist, but not anti-racist, and would argue the biopolitical virtues of the Soviet bloc (zero immigration, healthy birthrate, etc).

I think you may have him confused with that “von Hoffmeister” fellow. No, this guy is Slovjanski all right. That line about “the singing and dancing Europeans.” Rofl. That’s a pure Slovjanski comeback.

Arslan,

Honestly Guessedworker, every time you go on one of your emotional rants I’m half expecting you to break out in a Disney musical number, running through the English plains and backed up by singing mice and birds.

I wouldn’t call him emotional. He’s a stern and contemplative genetic reductionist, but occasionally despair drives him to poesy and he’ll spare you the details and just go for the throat.

Then you just say the most bizarre things some times. Economics isn’t important? Economics, that is to say production including the production of our means of subsistence, is the basis of human life and civilization. Every human society which reproduces itself performs labor, produces a surplus, and then distributes the surplus. Write a letter to any media outlet in the world and tell them economics isn’t really important. Why are the most important organizations in the world the IMF, World Bank, WTO, G20, etc. if economics aren’t so important? ,

Obviously he means it’s not the be-all-and-end-all of human existence. I agree. (Though it’s very close, I’ll grant.) Thing is, you get so many of these racialist types who cease caring about anything else beside whiteness. You’re aware of their erstwhile flagship publication, Instauration. They’d actually have letters expressing exactly that sentiment. “Oh, if I could only travel back 3000 years. Yes, I wouldn’t have the creature-comforts I enjoy today. But, oh my, what I wouldn’t give just to revel in that splendid sea of nordic whiteness. Joy, joy, joy.” I mean, sheesh, how do you even respond to that? Yeah, okay, let’s all just fall on our swords because obviously our very presence here on planet earth threatens the existence of the sacred White Race. Then they wonder why no one talks to them.

Nevertheless, distasteful as one might find them, the bastards have a point. And getting you to even address it (let alone acknowledge it) is an exercise in purest frustration.

If I could live anywhere in the world, it would be Istanbul.

Ah, Istanbul. I guess that explains “Arslan” then (meaning “lion” in Turkish). You know, I’ve walked the streets of Istanbul with Turkish friends from Macedonia in the wee hours of the morning without the slightest care in the world. Fear of crime? Forget about it. But would I have been able to do so if the place was 50% black (and worse, under PC lockdown, which prevents the citizenry from solving the problems a heavy nigger presence invariably causes)? Would you still want to live there?

In your scenario, where everything has equal outcomes, there can be advantages and disadvantages of being part of the 20% minority. If the country is all white, at least people look like you and you fit it. If the country is black, you stand out and people notice you because you are exotic.

My scenario wasn’t “where everything has equal outcomes.” My scenario was about today when “everything” most certainly does not have equal outcomes. You’ve completely evaded answering the question I posed. Well, you needn’t bother, since we all know what the answer is.

The real question I’m interested in seeing answered is what prevents you from acknowledging the reality you know in both your head and your heart is true? It’s not just you. I demand the same answer from the whole army of loonie leftards presently wrecking havoc across the western world. I mean, come on, it should be long past obvious that they don’t advocate positions that run contra “HBD” because they believe HBD is false; they do it because they know HBD is true. (Not necessarily rank and file leftards, who are very often ignorant of the facts of HBD, but the leftard brains trust who’ve devoted their lives to imagining a world in which the facts of reality don’t matter.) But why? Even if one allows for why they first started, why do they keep it up?

Haller,

[nb, MR regulars: it is always easier to argue with someone highly intelligent, even if he disagrees with you, than to spar with idiots - but especially, with sophomoric idiots, ie, those with a bit of knowledge, but obviously lacking in awareness and understanding of the wider contexts real intellectuals take for granted.]

I suppose you have the right to say that, but your side is hopping with squawking, screeching sciolists who think that they because they know a few factoids about race they know everything there is to know about life.

151

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 18, 2011, 03:07 PM | #

Ok so now Haller has decided to use popular literature from the 1920s and 30s as a source of criminal ethnicity from that era. And I have bad reasoning skills, ok. And people’s definitions of race were different? NO SH#%! THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING THE WHOLE TIME!

I will continue my discussion with the intelligent debater on this thread.

Ah, Istanbul. I guess that explains “Arslan” then (meaning “lion” in Turkish). You know, I’ve walked the streets of Istanbul with Turkish friends from Macedonia in the wee hours of the morning without the slightest care in the world. Fear of crime? Forget about it. But would I have been able to do so if the place was 50% black (and worse, under PC lockdown, which prevents the citizenry from solving the problems a heavy nigger presence invariably causes)? Would you still want to live there?

Actually there are some places in Istanbul where I’ve been warned not to go, such as Dolapdere, but that is beside the point.

I don’t choose a place to live based solely on the presence or lack of black folks.

My scenario wasn’t “where everything has equal outcomes.” My scenario was about today when “everything” most certainly does not have equal outcomes. You’ve completely evaded answering the question I posed. Well, you needn’t bother, since we all know what the answer is.

But then we have a problem, because yes, I would probably choose the place that is mostly white, but not because it is white but because that place is likely to be Finland or something. I would not choose many parts of Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, or Moldova which are just as white(if not whiter), because the conditions are bad.

The whole point I was trying to make is that I choose a place to live based first on my ability to live there(which is why I am not in Istanbul or Ankara), then on a host of other factors in that place. One of the major reasons why I don’t relocate to Africa despite the fact that I easily could is simply because I don’t really have a serious interest to live in Africa. Contrary to what many think on here, I am not one of these ivory tower liberals who loves to show how “multi-cultural” they are by dabbling in the Third World. I find this patronizing and stupid, such as when these people go to Africa or India and then get upset because they see people shopping and talking on cell phones. I imagine them screaming, “HEY!! STOP LISTENING TO YOUR I-PODS AND START MEDITATING OR DOING A TRADITIONAL DANCE OR SOMETHING!! I’M A WESTERNER REJECTING CONSUMERISM AND I’M TRYING TO HAVE A SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE HERE!!” In other words, those who wish for people in the Third World to remain backward and in poverty so as to fulfill their “noble savage” fantasies and of course so they can take photos of themselves handing out food or goods to children which may not even need them.

152

Posted by Leon Haller on May 18, 2011, 03:29 PM | #

Yes, I think I’m about done with blogging, here or anywhere. It’s been fun, but to what end? I do it for a bit of intellectual stimulation of a more visceral sort (my colleagues at work are not intellectuals) ... I’m always looking for new and better ideas in all this ... it’s a bit addictive ...

But really, the serious man does not blog. Sorry, but it’s true. A serious, dedicated WN would be doing at least one of three things: real intellectual work (published as books, journal articles, learned magazine pieces); propaganda in wide outlets, like radio or newspapers (so blogging not here among the comrades, but in places like the Telegraph where new persons could be reached - I consider that outreach, not blogging); and political and movement organizing.

I’m going to pursue the first. I’ve been accepted into a couple of doctoral programs, and so am transitioning from a two decade business career to a new life of scholarship. I need to lay aside this light blog stuff, and really focus on acquiring the base of knowledge to write my main life’s work, my treatise (among other projected works) integrating WN (really, scientific race and biological findings) with Anglo-American conservatism, and Catholic natural law theory. I think that is the correct theoretical underpinning for the defense of Western civilization.

Politics guided by history, informed by science, and interrogated by ethics.

responding to Arslan’s poor reasoning
>Leon Haller

I warned people here. This guy’s m.o. is dragging people into long-winded dialectics. Arguing with him is a waste of time, his arguments are positively riddled with logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies. And he will never, ever concede a point. Might as well save your time and effort, he’s a joke. (Gudmund)

Gudmund,

You are wise.

But how much of all this is not a waste of time?

153

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 18, 2011, 04:56 PM | #

Good grief this idiot is defending the record of the USSR (perhaps the most cruel and murderous regime in history) on human welfare and ethical conduct? Typical of the willfully disingenuous Marxist idiots I’m sure we have all come across. I even once had one deny the scientific method and evolution by natural selection because I had pointed out that Hamilton’s Rule and inclusive-fitness theory obviously demonstrates why people are more concerned about the welfare of their own children and relatives over and above strangers children.

The fanatical refusal to acknowledge any biological component in human behaviour is of course a very old trope in Marxian rhetorical discussion of these issues. Of course inclusive-fitness theory is linked to why ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies such as Norway and Japan have generally a series of traits such as: higher levels of social trust/solidarity, lower crime, better educational outcomes, more prosperity and and less relative inequality. Why? Well it’s at least in part to do with the fact that people all feel part of the same in-group. Basically everyone looks and behaves and sounds like everyone else in those societies hence people are generally prepared to invest more in the common good. Norway is in many ways an example of the ‘good’ society.

Now here is an interesting finding for Mr Marx, the same political science analysis can be done on a state by state basis in the USA. Guess what the same findings as I outlined above. With increased diversity social-cultural ‘goods’ decline, social-cultural ‘bads’ like crime increase. OK so why isn’t there a contemporary successful (relatively homogeneous) black society? Well here is went the next set of biological factors come in, such as both the range of and average cognitive abilities of different human populations/ethnic groups. The type of cultural formulation possible is shaped by such biological traits. Homogeneity certainly improves the odds but it’s not the whole story.

Just as an aside, this false distinction between culture and biology on the far left is bizarre. We can only have culture because of the type of biological organisms we are.

OK back to the main thrust of what I was discussing. Now we have to look upon the empirical record of human history – sub-Saharan Africa considerably lags behind. OK so Mr Marx likes to talk about the terrible time Africa had under European rule and this is why Africa lags behind today. Of course there is some truth in this in so far as colonialism has had some negative impacts (on that topic, I’m still waiting to hear about the history of Norway’s colonies in Africa!). But what about the longer historical-cultural record? When Plato was thinking about metaphorical caves what was going on in sub-Saharan Africa – anything comparable? Don’t think so. No nasty European oppressor can account for this difference. Or what about a 1000+ plus years. Thomas Aquinas is thinking deep thoughts about God etc., what of genuine note, culturally or intellectually, has occurred in sub-Saharan Africa during this period. Very little. Putting a bone through one’s nose and cannibalism just does not really mean a great deal in the wider human story. Or look at the Aboriginal Australians over the same historical period – isolation from the rest of the world (certainly Europeans) and very little or nothing of genuine cultural excellence or note. That does not mean that they are bad people, or that I hate them in anyway, but they are significantly and in important ways different from Europeans.

On a global scale Europeans are a tiny minority. Do we not have the right to live and hopefully flourish without being destroyed first culturally then to physically disappear? Obviously the dishonest and mendacious Mr Marx has no feeling for the glory and beauty of Europeans and our cultural, artistic, musical, intellectual etc., heritage. I’m sure he agrees with the idea that “the white race is the cancer of human history” and we are uniquely evil. I do not. Furthermore it is likely that high Western culture is, in no small part, the product of the European populations distinctive genetic endowments and cannot in all probability survive in a majority non-European society.

154

Posted by a sensible observer on May 18, 2011, 05:13 PM | #

This Arslan character is a chimpanzee flinging shit and you’re all arguing with him as if he were sensible human being. It’s pathetic. When you’re finished responding to Arslan’s bullshit do you walk down to the local bustop and engage schizophrenic hobos in conversation? How stupid and dishonest does he need to prove himself to be before you’ll realize that he is nothing but a waste of time?

155

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 18, 2011, 05:40 PM | #

Yes you are right, it is somewhat pointless as to have a dialogue one must be honest and respect facts (such as inclusive-fitness theory), but I like to think of myself as being more honest and decent than the average Marxian dullard. So I gave him the chance to prove he was mistaken rather than an intellectually dishonest and totally mendacious ideologue. Guess what we found out that he is like 99.9% of such people in being totally dishonest and seething with nothing but hatred towards their own societies/cultures (assuming he is actually white and not a Jew or non-European ethnic).

156

Posted by Grimoire on May 18, 2011, 06:15 PM | #

Well Graham, he did begin to format his arguments legibly…that itself is something.

Anyhoo….

But then we have a problem, because yes, I would probably choose the place that is mostly white, but not because it is white but because that place is likely to be Finland or something. I would not choose many parts of Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, or Moldova which are just as white(if not whiter), because the conditions are bad.
Arsian

So you choose not to live in those societies whose culture has been decimated by your type of thinking….leftist reductionism, and live in societies grounded in what we propose be preserved in all European societies…....interesting.

One of the major reasons why I don’t relocate to Africa despite the fact that I easily could is simply because I don’t really have a serious interest to live in Africa.
Arsian

People complain you are a leftist android with no grasp of reality…......imagine!

In other words, those who wish for people in the Third World to remain backward and in poverty so as to fulfill their “noble savage” fantasies and of course so they can take photos of themselves handing out food or goods to children which may not even need them.
Arsian

The above comment, the newfound legibility, suggests a nobility of spirit. However,, why come here handing out Marxist bromides, to people who neither want or need them? Are you not fufilling “noble savage” fantasies…..out of medication and this is a cry for help?

157

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 19, 2011, 12:03 AM | #

You know I find it pretty funny that you guys like calling your opponents insane, idiots, illogical, yet your movement is basically opposed by the vast majority of the scientific community whether it is sociology, biology, genetics, history, or whatever. And the only defense you can come up with when this is pointed out to you is a “politically correct” or in the case of Guessed Worker “Jewish” conspiracy against you. In your own forums you rule as kings, but outside in academia you are either non-existent or on the fringes, and so it will remain.

Thus far all that has been given to “prove” genetic links to criminality among blacks amounts to correlations, with the implication that this must point to causation due to genes. Thus far, science has not discovered this gene or genes which cause this. Logically, we cannot state in the positive that they do not exist, but they have not yet been found. What we do know is that regardless of race, poverty leads to crime, population density leads to crime, unemployment and underemployment leads to crime, treatment as second-class citizens leads to crime, and massive changes in a community or economic situation lead to crime. All of these things are indisputable. For example, Kurds(your Indo-European brothers) are treated much in the same way that blacks in America are treated. Police profile them, they get hit harder when there’s high unemployment, they live in ghettos in some places, and since the crisis there have sometimes been periods of daily riots in big Kurdish cities like Diyarbakir.

So what does this mean for you? Well if we play Devil’s advocate and acknowledge that since everything about the human genetic code is unknown there at least could be some kind of genetic cause, we still should look at the most obvious factors which are known to be linked with increased crime in any country among any population. Until you find that gene or those genes, gentlemen, logic demands we consider the most glaring factors first. On an individual level, there is some good evidence that genetics may affect our behavior or talent, but environmental factors have a bigger impact.

Now you can continue your circle-jerk about how logical and reasonable you are(while the rest of the world and scientific community laughs at the thought) in peace.

158

Posted by Ivan on May 19, 2011, 12:53 AM | #

Tim Wise/Arslan/Whitey McWhitington III,

I have forgotten to express my sincere appreciation for changing your camouflage.

Could you do me a personal favor? When the time comes to change it again, please don’t pick a Muslim sounding name any more.

159

Posted by Grimoire on May 19, 2011, 12:57 AM | #

Arsian:
You know I find it pretty funny that you ....blah blah blah….. on the fringes, and so it will remain.

Ok, first paragraph contains no substance…so we will overlook it.

Thus far all that has been given to “prove” genetic links to criminality among blacks amounts to correlations, with the implication that this must point to causation due to genes. yakyakyakyakyakyak…..............yakyakyakyak Police profile them, they get hit harder when there’s high unemployment, they live in ghettos in some places, and since the crisis there have sometimes been periods of daily riots in big Kurdish cities like Diyarbakir.

The second paragraph is one fallacy after another… no wonder you are insulted. Correlations and dependance is exactly how statistical relationships are observed, it is hard data. The statement ‘ all that has been give to prove - - is correlations’, is complete idiocy.
Then you go on to ‘what we do know is that poverty leads to crime’ - how? - correlations…except if you would spend a moment thinking, unless you don’t do that, it too hard…it’s simple to see rich people commit a large degree of crime also. So, with a moments thought, this line goes in the trash bin. And yet you say this is indisputable. Do you see why you are considered an idiot an people here detest you?
That last line about Kurds is irrelevant and doesn’t support any of your statements. The Kurdish difficulties are obviously a matrix of problems and not proof of anything that could possibly be derived from whatever you are saying, even in the most charitable observation.

Arsian: So what does this mean for you? Well if we play Devil’s advocate…....... Until you find that gene or those genes, gentlemen, logic demands we consider the most glaring factors first. On an individual level, there is some good evidence that genetics may affect our behavior or talent, but environmental factors have a bigger impact.

Okay, the third paragraph is unrelieved imbecility…..you don’t think about what you are saying at all do you? Lets grant your statement environmental factors have a great impact. That still doesn’t prove anything you say, whatsoever. We have always said - we are not responsible for the environmental factors for turks or 3rd world McWhitingtons - THIS IS THE LOCUS OF OUR GRIEVANCE -let them take responsibility for their own environmental factors….in their environment, not ours. You only have to think for one moment to see this, but you see nothing. Environmental factors does not entitle anyone to fuck up our enviroment, which we have worked for millennia to develop.
Now tie in your last sentence and your main thesis is nothing but a torrent of idiocy.

Now your last paragraph contains the same amount of thought as your first three. Regardless of your argument, these gentleman are correct you are an idiot throwing your own feces about.

Now if you want to disprove an argument, you will have to formulate one first, hooting like a chimpanzee won’t do. I havn’t been able to follow your first extra long rants, because you’ve only started to properly format your text in a way that is readable.

But if you have a shred of intelligence left, you have to see that no matter what your arguments intend to say…these gentleman are correct that you are a incoherent ideologue who has gone brain dead ....

160

Posted by Ivan on May 19, 2011, 01:12 AM | #

Grimoire,

It’s a bit surprising that, with your high German intelligence, you haven’t recognized in Whitey McWhitington III your brother in arms. And why do you keep calling him Arslan? You are behind the curve, bubba - the chameleon has changed his color. Are you color-blind?

Gute Nacht, Grimoire. Erinnern Sie sich bitte, dass ich Sie mag.

161

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 19, 2011, 01:39 AM | #

Ok, first paragraph contains no substance…so we will overlook it.

Yes, the fact that the majority of the scientific and academic community, in every sphere, rejects your theories, contains no substance. Your words not mine. And yes, like fundamentalist creationists, you overlook it.

The second paragraph is one fallacy after another… no wonder you are insulted. Correlations and dependance is exactly how statistical relationships are observed, it is hard data. The statement ‘ all that has been give to prove - - is correlations’, is complete idiocy.

What kind of moron talks about logical fallacies and then makes one of the biggest, easiest fallacies to spot- which is the idea that correlation equals causation. Read moron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Then you go on to ‘what we do know is that poverty leads to crime’ - how? - correlations…except if you would spend a moment thinking, unless you don’t do that, it too hard…it’s simple to see rich people commit a large degree of crime also. So, with a moments thought, this line goes in the trash bin.

Poverty is a contributing factor to crime. It can be observed and measured and we can also view what happens when communities that didn’t have poverty suddenly become impoverished, such as in the former Soviet Union, Michigan, and such.

That last line about Kurds is irrelevant and doesn’t support any of your statements. The Kurdish difficulties are obviously a matrix of problems and not proof of anything that could possibly be derived from whatever you are saying, even in the most charitable observation.

When it’s about blacks, it’s simple, when it’s about anyone else it’s suddenly complicated and we need to consider all these factors. Interesting.

Okay, the third paragraph is unrelieved imbecility…..you don’t think about what you are saying at all do you? Lets grant your statement environmental factors have a great impact. That still doesn’t prove anything you say, whatsoever.

You can spit and cry and whine all you want, but environmental factors do more to influence behavior than some phantom gene you are chasing.

We have always said - we are not responsible for the environmental factors for turks or 3rd world McWhitingtons - THIS IS THE LOCUS OF OUR GRIEVANCE -let them take responsibility for their own environmental factors….in their environment, not ours.

Yeah but if you’re American white folks brought the black man there and profited from uncompensated labor, so now you have to figure things out together. And as I have stated before, the rich countries have not left Africa alone either.

Now your last paragraph contains the same amount of thought as your first three. Regardless of your argument, these gentleman are correct you are an idiot throwing your own feces about.

I like how you keep throwing these insults around because the fact is that people like you get laughed out of any sociology, history, or biology 101 class when you preach your idiotic theories. Your frustration knowing that your side can’t pass peer review is what causes you to act this way in your insular little world.

I havn’t been able to follow your first extra long rants, because you’ve only started to properly format your text in a way that is readable.

My text is extremely readable. Very sorry about your reading disability but then again, you probably have inferior genes or something.

But if you have a shred of intelligence left, you have to see that no matter what your arguments intend to say…these gentleman are correct that you are a incoherent ideologue who has gone brain dead ....

And yet if we had this debate at any university in the world, the academics would be laughing at you and challenging your claims. That just burns you up, doesn’t it.

Now go on with your chimp comments and what-not.

162

Posted by Still here? on May 19, 2011, 01:43 AM | #

What we do know is that regardless of race, poverty leads to crime, population density leads to crime, unemployment and underemployment leads to crime, treatment as second-class citizens leads to crime, and massive changes in a community or economic situation lead to crime.

In the USA, poor whites(who are looked down upon and ridiculed much more than blacks in the USA) are significantly less likely to commit violent crime than poor or working class blacks. And what of the interracial rape statistics? What is the explanation for a crime where there is no financial benefit?

For example, Kurds(your Indo-European brothers)

FFS grow up. I think you’re trying to convince yourself more than you’re trying to convince us.

163

Posted by Still here? on May 19, 2011, 01:48 AM | #

And yet if we had this debate at any university in the world, the academics would be laughing at you and challenging your claims.

Not at all. Theres been a lot of uncomfortable(for you) peer reviewed studies coming out in recent years whether it be in the fields of evolutionary psychology, sociology or genetics. Musta been a while since you were last there.

164

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 19, 2011, 01:55 AM | #

In the USA, poor whites(who are looked down upon and ridiculed much more than blacks in the USA) are significantly less likely to commit violent crime than poor or working class blacks.

Poor whites, where exactly? Black Americans still tend to live in urban and inner city areas whereas the poorest whites in America typically live in rural conditions.

And what of the interracial rape statistics? What is the explanation for a crime where there is no financial benefit?

First of all what all of you fail to realize, and what your buddy Jared Taylor failed at as well, was that most crime is intra-racial. This is a well-established fact in criminology. Here are some stats just as an example:

“In fact, the NCVS data show that 73 percent of white violent crime victims were attacked by whites, and 80 percent of black victims were targeted by blacks. This pattern is even clearer in the category of murder.

According to a 1997 government report, 94 percent of black murder victims, as well as 85 percent of white murder victims, were slain by members of their own race. Thus, the larger reality, that danger comes mainly from one’s own race, is utterly ignored by Taylor, who for reasons of his own is interested only in interracial crime.”

Rape is also a crime which not only occurs mostly within the same group but victims also tend to know their rapist. That means while you’re sleeping sound knowing that your daughter is out on a date with a nice clean-cut white boy, she might be getting her shirt pulled over her head and raped and she never had a chance because she assumed she could trust a white guy to be law-abiding. Good parenting there.

Now, why oh why would blacks rape more white women than white men rape black women(seeing that most rapists of white women are white themselves)? Hmmmm…...HMMMMM…...What could the answer POSSIBLY BE?! Could it have something to do with the fact that blacks are a minority with a much smaller population compared to whites? Could it be that this hypothetical black rapist is FAR more likely to encounter a white victim?

Oh no, it just couldn’t be that, because they just want the white wimmins right? Well if any of you actually did some real research instead of quoting the same tired old pamphlets from 13, 14, or even 20-30 years ago, you would know that rape is a crime based on control and humiliation, and that most rapists can’t even tell you what their victims looked like.

But ignore all that for the time being. The fact is that it is well established that most crime is overwhelmingly intra-racial. So if crime is a reason to avoid people, you should maybe wall yourself off from other whites.

165

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 19, 2011, 01:56 AM | #

Not at all. Theres been a lot of uncomfortable(for you) peer reviewed studies coming out in recent years whether it be in the fields of evolutionary psychology, sociology or genetics. Musta been a while since you were last there.

Ok, so where are they?

166

Posted by Grimoire on May 19, 2011, 02:11 AM | #

@Still here: this Arsend is a fucking idiot . I like how he posits the university as his supporting his claims and style of argument.

Oh well, until GW comes to his senses and starts booting these morons off we shall have to ignore them.

167

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 19, 2011, 02:43 AM | #

An idiot huh? Ok, let’s take a look at crime trends in the US.

http://www.crimetrends.com/id6.html

That’s a steady fall over 2000-2009, despite the economic crisis.

Let’s look at property crime going back to 1986.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Propertycrime-us.svg

Again, falling crime rates.

Now what else has been happening in that same time? Oh right, that crap people like you are always screaming about- declining white population, lower white fertility, rising non-white population(mostly Latino). HOLY CRAP!! CORRELATION!! Maybe Mexican immigrants, even undocumented immigrants, MAKE CRIME LOWER!!! See what happens when we use your logic?

But let’s continue the breaking of your little heart.

Murder rates:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders

Look where countries like Poland and Ukraine are.

Let’s look at this graph: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=699

The above is a report from 2000. As you would probably guess, the top country is a tiny African country. But then it is followed by a Latin American country, then South Africa, and right after Guatemala we have lily-white Russia(and it was “whiter” in 2000 as many Central Asian immigrants have come in since then). We have Poland and Lithuania in there as well.

By your logic crime rates like this ought to have African countries in virtually every top slot, and after that countries with significant black populations, with exceptions here and there of course. But instead we see many countries which are almost entirely white, such as Lithuania, in the top ranks. T

his is why we must conclude that there is some other factor other than race that contributes to crime, or at least one which has a far greater, more obvious impact. And what factor do these nations all have in common? Poverty, among other problems. That, is precisely why a correlation with poverty can be causative.

To take the same idea on a different scale, people like you typically use arguments like “you wouldn’t walk through the ghetto at night” and such. But would you walk through an upper-middle class neighborhood with a significant black population? When you see a black man in a business suit in the up-scale part of town do you suddenly get on guard? Of course you don’t, because even though you believe blacks are more likely to be criminals you know damned well that it isn’t going to be the software programmer, lawyer, or engineer that is going to assault you. Even with all your prejudices, you know deep down that income does account for a lot.

168

Posted by Whitey McWhitington III on May 19, 2011, 03:02 AM | #

I wonder if we can find any interesting correlations between White Nationalism and perverts and criminals, as perverts do seem to be overrepresented at the top levels of WN organizations. This has quite a history.

1. Leader of the 1920s-30s Klan raped and murdered a girl.

2. Frank Collin(yeah I know he was Jewish; nobody cares): child molester.

3. Kevin Alfred Strom: pedophile

4. Edgar Steele: adulterer, womanizer

5. David Lane: Pedophile, pervert. Luckily became so after he was locked up. If you don’t believe me look up KD Rebel and also listen to what he said on the phone to the Prussian Blue girls.

5. Joe Fields

6. That NA unit leader in Massachusetts who forced a 14 year old girl to perform fellatio on him(eerily similar to a scene in William Pierce’s Hunter) back around 2006-7.

7. William Pierce, for writing Turner Diaries and Hunter which seem to contain an usually higher amount of interracial(black on blonde) sex and sexual relationships than one would expect from white supremacist literature.

Feel free to add to this list. I can’t count them all.

I also find it funny that countries which WNs think are more “racially aware” and are far more white have higher crime rates than some non-white countries. I’m talking about Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, etc.

Hard to explain huh?

169

Posted by Grimoire on May 19, 2011, 03:31 AM | #

Maybe Mexican immigrants, even undocumented immigrants, MAKE CRIME LOWER!!! See what happens when we use your logic?

This guy is priceless. I visualize putting duct tape over his mouth…yet still

‘mmemememmmmehmanenmennanm’

until he uses all the oxygen in the room and expires.

Thank you A. We’ve all been refreshed and challenged by your unique points of view. And we’re glad you’ve put aside some special time to abase yourself in public. We are very sorry to hear about your mental illnesses, and can only hope it’s nothing trivial. Anyway, try giving your mind a rest now, it obviously needs it.

170

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 19, 2011, 03:37 AM | #

Oh no, it just couldn’t be that, because they just want the white wimmins right?

If you re-read your comments, this, by your own logic is the obvious outcome. It’s predatory.

Wealthy blacks low crime, live in the suburbs. Poor blacks, high crime, reside in the city. Poor whites live in the country. Rich whites live outside the city. If what you say is correct, how is it a “black rapist (most probably from the ghetto) is FAR more likely to encounter a white victim?”

73 percent of white violent crime victims were attacked by whites

Even if it’s accepted that Taylor is grinding an ax of his own making, still separation of whites from blacks significantly lowers the white victimization rate, no?

171

Posted by Leon Haller on May 19, 2011, 05:34 AM | #

Why did I waste my time on this guy? Haller (and a few others) suckered!

But what I said above about the decline in white prison populations is worth considering.

172

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 19, 2011, 05:41 AM | #

I notice Whitey you ignored my argument over the longer historical-cultural record of sub-Saharan Africa or Australian aborginals (why because you Marxist agitprop does not run that far?).

You also ignored my diversity versus social goods evidence as; one it applies intra-nationally on a state basis to the USA and secondly it cannot be explained away by simple-minded ‘class’ based explanations. After all Norway, Japan and Minnesota et al. all have socio-economic stratification so your favoured monocausal explanatory variable cannot to all the work for you. There must be other factors at work yes?

And finally have you read the analytical Marxists - agree with their attempts at a ‘non-bullshit’ Marxism? Shame the results are so nugatory.

173

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 19, 2011, 05:47 AM | #

Whitey another pathetic trick you use constantly ask for pointers for evidence. See your questions over Finkelstein and over Goodhart and Putnam and then totally ignore them. It’s so obvious you’re disingenuously trolling.

174

Posted by Dasein on May 19, 2011, 06:10 AM | #

The fact is that it is well established that most crime is overwhelmingly intra-racial. So if crime is a reason to avoid people, you should maybe wall yourself off from other whites.

It should be obvious to everyone that this guy is a waste of time.

175

Posted by Silver on May 19, 2011, 06:53 AM | #

Whitey,

Why should environmentalism be the default assumption?

It’s just as reasonable to assume that genetic factors play a role.

And of course if you do more than just assume, and actually take steps to investigate reality, you’ll quickly realize that the idea that genetic factors play a role is many times sounder than the idea that they don’t.

Look where countries like Poland and Ukraine are.

Let’s look at this graph: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=699

Yes, I’ve made this point a number of times. And if you go back to parts of 19th century America you’ll find towns with homicide rates exceeding the worst of today’s Brazil (and that’s not including deaths by Indian raids). The mere fact of a white population is no guarantee of order. But so what? A preference for one’s own (or those most similar) rests on a great deal more than the crime rate prevalent at any one point in time.

As for Russia, Lithuania et al, a possible explanation is that it could very well be that eastern Europeans are just plain inferior. I mean, let’s just put that out there: why not? Just because frenzied supremacists would like to emblazon the skies with that message doesn’t mean that rest of should shy away from addressing the possibility. In any case, it’s not the fact of “inferiority” that really matters, it’s what people think it means; and in this respect, I couldn’t differ more from the average supremacist. I just don’t care about superiority/inferiority. I don’t really care that (on average, of course) I’m “better” than an African or that a Jap is “better” than me or that a blue-eyed blond-haired “white devil” is, erm, whiter than me. Supremacists care deeply about that stuff; I don’t. However important group averages are to the kind of society that will result, on an individual level it’s all massively outweighed by the fact of having a life to live and to strive to improve, and the existence of other humans with whom you share important similarities and with whom doing it all alongside is itself a joy.

176

Posted by Thorn on May 19, 2011, 07:49 AM | #

Hat tip to Robert Lindsey

RACE DOES NOT EXIST

[IMG]http://robertlindsay.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/picture-2.png[/IMG]

Nigerians or Africans (no such thing) in light blue. Europeans or Caucasians (no such thing) in green and red. Asians (no such thing) in purple and blue. The nonexistent entities called Africans, Asians and Europeans are demonstrated in this chart. These constructs do not exist, nor do they differ from each other. That they seem to be plotting quite distinctly on this chart is simply an optical illusion. If you disagree, you are a racist scum and hopefully soon we will even be able to arrest you.
.
.
.
.
//////As you can see from this chart made by some racist mad scientist, race is clearly a social construct. His research violated the new Law of Political Correctness, and agents are shutting down his lab as I write this.

Race is clearly a social construct. But it’s a social construct with some powerful attributes. There have been wild and violent wars and battles between various social constructs around the world. These are termed social construct conflicts, social construct wars and social construct violence. The old terms ethnic conflict, ethnic warfare and ethnic violence are no longer acceptable and use of them is de facto evidence of racism. Use of those terms is considered such strong evidence of racism that it is even admissible in a court of Race Law.

Occasionally US cities erupt with what are called social construct riots, in which various social constructs try to destroy and burn down their cities for unknown reasons. Research into these riots has been banned because the social constructs involved were undefinable and do not even in fact exist. Recently there was the Rodney King Social Construct Riot. Before that, there were the Watts Social Construct Riots of 1965 and other famous Social Construct Riots in Detroit, Newark and other places.These riots can be violent. Sometimes persons of one social construct will even attack persons of another social construct during these riots. How they know how or even why to attack someone of another construct is unknown, because there is no way to determine anyone’s particular construct, since the whole concept is all imaginary anyway.

177

Posted by PM on May 19, 2011, 07:55 AM | #

The reason that the word ‘race’ seems fuzzy is that the concept is so natural and so pervasive that the word has been used over and over in different (but in some ways similair) contexts. One could make the same argument about the word ‘family’ which could mean only parents and children, could include cousins, aunts and uncles, or beyond this to second or third cousins, or to a whole tribe. All these are ‘family’ and in different cultures or eras some would focus more on the nuclear variety, some on the extended variety. Are we then going to say that the concept of family is so ill-defined, and that the boundaries can be drawn in so many places that it is a meaningless concept and does not exist? Is it really rational for adult-child relations to be governed by something as atavistic and worthless a concept as shared genes?

178

Posted by Whitey McWhitington V on May 19, 2011, 08:06 AM | #

After all Norway, Japan and Minnesota et al. all have socio-economic stratification so your favoured monocausal explanatory variable cannot to all the work for you. There must be other factors at work yes?

First off yes, there are a lot of factors. For example they do all have socio-economic stratification(after all, this is going to happen in any class based society), but compare their wealth distribution to that of the US or Third World countries. Actually the wealth distribution in the US has become so polarized that some recent reports are comparing it to several African countries. Pretty much any time you go to all but the most desperate countries, one thing that stands out is that no matter how poor the place is, there’s usually a capital or major city where you can find extravagant wealth. There are palaces, resorts, high class hotels where the foreigners hang out, upscale restaruants and of course plenty of Mercedes and Bentleys. What you are looking at when you see that is the wealth of the country, which was produced by the working people, appropriated by their ruling class.

This has special significance for the US because since 1970, when productivity went up immensely, real wages became stagnant. Basically the stockholders and CEO decided to take a bigger cut. Granted, this had been happening since the late 40s but because real wages were still rising so did the standards of living and thus few worried. Also after 1970 you had the rise of consumer credit to compensate for those smaller wages(not to mention when the rich are putting more money in the bank the bank has to do something with it). As we have all seen, that didn’t work out too well. Anyway, it’s going off topic and I apologize.

The point is that yes, many factors are at work, which is why it is even more foolish to say that Norwegians are successful because they are white(since they weren’t so impressive a few hundred years ago), or Africans are poor because they are black(again, read that book The Road to Hell by Michael Maren, it shows how even “bleeding-heart liberals” are motivated by condescending stereotypes of Africa and end up doing more harm than good).

@Silver

You seem to be the most honest one on here. If you just like living with people you see as your own kind, I can’t really say much about that. But then again such attitudes inevitably lead to sympathy for the people of your own kind who exploit you. The black or Mexican worker(if you’re American) in your workplace puts up with the same exploitation at the hands of a white man. Obviously throughout the world, especially in the Balkans, Israel/Palestine, Ireland, etc. there are many problems that need to be settled. But we ought to be settling them rationally, face to face, without the multi-national parasitic businessmen(no, not who you think it is, GW) forcing us into competition and wars with one another.
Other than that, that’s about as much as I can say if you decide you want to live amidst certain people. As I alluded to earlier, one reason I don’t live in Africa is the same reason why I don’t live in any number of European countries.

What gets ridiculous is these other people on one hand playing the victim and saying “oh, we just want to preserve our culture, that’s all”, and then in the same breath throwing out all kinds of ridiculous theories about inferiority, dubious “science”, conspiracy theories about Jews, and all that nonsense. What I can’t stand the most is those who say “this is just about heritage and love, it has nothing to do with hate,” then in private it’s nothing but “nigger, nigger, nigger.”

179

Posted by Whitey McWhitington V on May 19, 2011, 08:10 AM | #

Actually PM you are correct, the definition of family has changed radically throughout human history, and pretty much the whole time different forms of families existed simultaneously. It will likely change in the future as well. This is one reason to call BS on those conservatives who wax on and on about getting back to the “traditional family”. Typically whatever family they envision is hardly traditional and is usually a composite of several different norms in different eras.

For the same reason, we should try to base our society on some rapidly changing, difficult to define, impossible to even start to define without DNA testing, definition of “race”.

180

Posted by Thorn on May 19, 2011, 09:14 AM | #

This is one reason to call BS on those conservatives who wax on and on about getting back to the “traditional family”. Typically whatever family they envision is hardly traditional and is usually a composite of several different norms in different eras.

Commie radicals are always looking at life in general—and the ideal family structure in particular—back asswards. The fact of the matter is conservatives aren’t aspiring to “getting back” to a traditional family such as the Cleavers. No, conservatives have always aspired to become like the Cleavers. We’ve always held them up as the ideal, the exemplar. See the difference?

On the other hand, commies define the family as anything they see fit. The more bizarre the family structure, the more they celebrate it. For example: Heather has Two Mommies.

It’s all quite Gramscian. Truly sick and twisted.

For all her faults, Ayn Rand had it right about the commies: They are driven by envy. They hate the good for being good.

181

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 19, 2011, 09:31 AM | #

Non-white British population reaches 9.1 MILLION

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/18/non-white-british-population-ons?intcmp=239

Who can possible deny the FACTS of destruction of Europeans?

182

Posted by Thorn on May 19, 2011, 09:41 AM | #

Attention my fellow Americans! Read this:

Today the Senate Democrats will force a cloture vote on Ninth Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu, President Obama’s most radical judicial nominee and the man whom Obama would dearly like to make the first Asian-American Supreme Court justice. Liu’s left-wing agenda and outrageously activist view of the law makes this showdown a classic test of the bipartisan “extraordinary circumstances” standard for when judicial nominees can be filibustered. The standard originated in the 2005 Gang of 14 agreement.

Liu is a 40 year old Berkeley law professor whose vocal and unabashed championing of judicial activism has made him a star on the legal left. Liu “envisions the judiciary … as a culturally situated interpreter of social meaning” and believes judges should create constitutional rights to “distributive justice,” including welfare rights to “education or housing or medical care.”

Liu has expressed left-wing views on virtually every hot-button issue likely to come before him on the bench, including the view that Americans are obligated to pay reparations for slavery, an obligation he would likely read into the Constitution. Liu is too far to the left for even Rahm Emanuel, who advised the President against making this nomination.

Call your Senator.

Tell him to oppose cloture on Goodwin Liu.

http://www.capwiz.com/humanevents/callalert/index.tt?alertid=47247501&type=CO

183

Posted by Sam Davidson on May 19, 2011, 09:45 AM | #

MajorityRights is a joke for so many reasons.

Now, why oh why would blacks rape more white women than white men rape black women(seeing that most rapists of white women are white themselves)? Hmmmm…...HMMMMM…...What could the answer POSSIBLY BE?! Could it have something to do with the fact that blacks are a minority with a much smaller population compared to whites? Could it be that this hypothetical black rapist is FAR more likely to encounter a white victim?

Haha, so I guess blacks encounter whites 37,460 times more than other blacks in the United States?

“In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”

But ignore all that for the time being. The fact is that it is well established that most crime is overwhelmingly intra-racial.

Yes, let’s ignore the tremendous kettle logic of having just claimed that interracial rate is slanted against whites because “they’re more common” while admitting in the next line that most crime is intra-racial.

Again, falling crime rates.

Now what else has been happening in that same time? Oh right, that crap people like you are always screaming about- declining white population, lower white fertility, rising non-white population(mostly Latino). HOLY CRAP!! CORRELATION!! Maybe Mexican immigrants, even undocumented immigrants, MAKE CRIME LOWER!!! See what happens when we use your logic?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg

To be honest, I don’t really care about convincing you because you’re obviously a dissimulating person with no regard for the truth. But unfortunately, because MajorityRights allows this filth to be published one must answer it from time to time. Thanks, GuessedWorker.

184

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 19, 2011, 11:45 AM | #

It’s the total hypocrisy and double-think of these people ‘marxism is scientific socialism etc.’ yet they fanatically deny ANY role for biological factors in human societies, that really pisses me off. And of course biology is obviously prior to culture, except for these fools and fanatics, along with their liberal ideological cousins. Instead they dirt on science and intellectual honesty while thinking their murderous ideology is ‘progressive’. Wow some strong ‘materialism’ there…I don’t bloodly well think so.

Whiteyfool why nothing culturally or intellectually signficant from the sub-Saharan or Auzzie aboriginal populations - you know before Euroman fucked it all for them with our ‘racism’. Just where is the black Plato please? That’s a very simple question you are avoiding.

Oh but OK cognitive differences don’t exist between differing populations…right OK what other myths are you peddling today?

And why not try reading “Main Currents of Marxism” by Leszek Kolakowski - perhaps the ultimate in the critical history and analysis of the foundations of this utterly bankrupt quasi-theology. It’s one of the most important books on political theory of the 20th century - go on I dare you.

Oh ok sorry forgot ‘we’ are the uneducated ones right?

185

Posted by PM on May 19, 2011, 12:33 PM | #

I can’t see why so many people object to ‘Whitey’s’ presence here. Everyone is free to ignore him, but I for one find it interesting to hear his views set out and our objections answered. While he may have been evasive on a few points, if we are being honest it is not as easy as we would want it to be to prove the ‘obviousness’ of race to someone who has marshaled his arguments and does not want to see it. For this reason such arguments seem very worthwhile to me—as a way of seeing what works and what doesn’t. Most of the left-wing people I know are anti-racist by default or peer pressure, so what I have read in this thread has been useful to me, if not to anyone else.

Whitey (I wish you would change that stupid name now), I have for a while pondered whether it was the case that a society that seeks to abolish the concept of race will eventually abolish the concept of family, and for the same reasons. It seems to me that with the last sentence of your answer above you acknowledge the link between the two concepts. Can I ask you, would you agree that, with what you have said above, it is meaningless to talk about people having a ‘right’ to family life, particularly as you have stated above that you do not believe people have a ‘right to anything’? Who specifically do you believe has primary rights over/responsibility for a new-born child? The natural mother alone, both parents, or the state/society? If you see a higher standard of living and freedom as the highest natural goods, and do not believe the idea of the family or continuity is meaningful, is there any reason not to take a new-born infant from its family if the child can have a higher standard of living elsewhere—other than the parent’s dumb, sentimental whining for an infant that happens to share genes and phenotypes (it will after all share genes with whatever care-giver you choose, it’s just a case of where you happen to draw the boundaries)?

There would of course be a loss of freedom on the part of the ‘parents’ losing the child, but this has to be measured against the increase in freedom that the child will experience by having a materially better-off upbringing, as well as not being bound by the duties and responsibilties common in that semi-feudal institution of ‘family.’

186

Posted by Jimmy Marr on May 19, 2011, 12:36 PM | #

Lars VonTrier makes some amazing statements regarding his affinity for the “Nazi aesthetic” starting at about 35:00 in this video interview.

187

Posted by Andrew Yeoman on May 19, 2011, 12:53 PM | #

Good talk about power. Horrible talk about uniforms and wielding weapons, that is a good idea for a movie, The Warriors comes to mind, but a very counterproductive idea on the street.

188

Posted by Dasein on May 19, 2011, 02:51 PM | #

Sam,

That statistic for differences in inter-racial rape is amazing- I remember being rather shocked when I first read it. One thing that’s perhap strange about it, though, is that whites in that case should include Hispanics. At least that is what I understoof from the Color of Crime report: Hispanics are classified as Hispanic when victims, as White when perpetrators. Do you know what the rate was in other years?

One thing that also used to perplex me is why, given that there are probably over 100,000 whites affected directly and indirectly every year by negro sexual assaults, more people aren’t speaking out about it or becoming explicitly racialist. Now I just think that Pierce was right about the overwhelming majority of people being lemmings. (That’s why for Lee’s party to succeed, he’ll depend more on positive or neutral press coverage than any grassroots campaigning.) Given this apparent lack of racial awakening from direct experience with crime, what chances do you think the awareness campaign that you have often written about have? I don’t spend much energy trying to persuade family or friends now. It’s almost always a waste of time and just causes tension. I only care about that small percent of our people who are independent thinkers and idealistic enough to be concerned about these things. They’re not easy to find, though. Maybe some of them will be caught by your net.

189

Posted by Dasein on May 19, 2011, 02:54 PM | #

Being a ‘lemming’ isn’t necessarily a bad thing, though. Without them, you couldn’t build a stable society.

190

Posted by Silver on May 19, 2011, 03:00 PM | #

Whitey,

You seem to be the most honest one on here. If you just like living with people you see as your own kind, I can’t really say much about that. But then again such attitudes inevitably lead to sympathy for the people of your own kind who exploit you. The black or Mexican worker(if you’re American) in your workplace puts up with the same exploitation at the hands of a white man.

Although I’m not a communist (despite most of my family being rather proud communists), I tend to take a mild leftwing view of economics. Being a “racial particularist” (more so than a “racist”) doesn’t prevent me from seeing through rightwing economic bullshit*, just as it never prevented racial particularists of yore.

(* I’m thinking here things like, “Oh, no, musn’t raise taxes on the rich. They’ll never invest another dime if you do that!” or “If $10MM is the going rate for CEOs then that’s the going rate. No way in hell is he taking that job for any less; he’ll just sit home and play Tetris all day if he can’t get his $10MM.” Or “Gasp, welfare is going to bankrupt the economy, cut it right now!”)

What you seem to have in mind is “the market mechanism = exploitation.” Well, if that’s the case, then yes, I guess I will “sympathize” with those “exploiting” me.

Obviously throughout the world, especially in the Balkans, Israel/Palestine, Ireland, etc. there are many problems that need to be settled. But we ought to be settling them rationally, face to face, without the multi-national parasitic businessmen(no, not who you think it is, GW) forcing us into competition and wars with one another.

Since you brought them up, it seems to me that racialism could help those places named go a long way towards patching up their differences by helping them appreciate the important qualities they have in common. Essentially, racialism helps them say, “Okay, we’ve certainly got our differences, and they continue to be a source of conflict between us. But, you know, compared to the rest of the world out there, we’re actually rather alike. And in this changing global environment of mass movements of people, perhaps we should focus on what we do share in common, because that we may we might better resist the forces reshaping societies across the world to the detriment of the established population.”

Other than that, that’s about as much as I can say if you decide you want to live amidst certain people. As I alluded to earlier, one reason I don’t live in Africa is the same reason why I don’t live in any number of European countries.

Actually, I didn’t ask you what countries you preferred to live in. I didn’t specify it, but I thought it was obvious from the way I posed the question that I was asking you which part of the same city you’d opt to move to: the overwhelmingly black area or the overwhelmingly white area? (Assume “area” means something like, say, four square miles—an area small enough to qualify as an “area”, but large enough that one could quite easily do 90% of one’s living within its confines.)

What gets ridiculous is these other people on one hand playing the victim and saying “oh, we just want to preserve our culture, that’s all”, and then in the same breath throwing out all kinds of ridiculous theories about inferiority, dubious “science”, conspiracy theories about Jews, and all that nonsense. What I can’t stand the most is those who say “this is just about heritage and love, it has nothing to do with hate,” then in private it’s nothing but “nigger, nigger, nigger.”

The heart of this complaint is that these people are “more racist” than they are letting on. Fair enough. That seems to annoy a lot of people. My response, however, is to say so what? I’m much more concerned about what people intend to do rather than what they feel.

Regarding inferiority/superiority, I see two types of superior/inferior. Firstly, there’s the “on paper” variety. We can look objectively at a group’s accomplishments. We can measure their IQs. We can cite indices of prosperity and crime etc. And some groups come out looking a lot better than others. And because it’s quite reasonable to assume that genetic factors are partly responsible for the disparities we can up with designations like “superior” and “inferior.” That’s pretty dry, intellectual sort of stuff. On the other hand, there’s superiority/inferiority that’s felt “in the bones.” It’s commonly assumed that the former leads to the latter, but I contest that assertion.

I’m not an American. I grew up a classic southern european dago in an Australia that was not shy about letting you know it. It didn’t seem to matter much back then. I figured that if it really mattered to them these kids wouldn’t be over at my house every day. And truth be told, like most of the wogs I knew, I harbored a secret feeling of superiority to them. Today, having poured over all their (the “racists’”) stats and considered all their arguments (economic, cultural, aesthetic) I still feel much the same way—and this despite the fact that there’s “no good reason” to feel as I do.

What’s more, even in cases where I do have “good (intellectual) reasons” to feel superior—say, to a nigger—I’m not really interested in feeling it. The feeling’s there, but it’s a long way off being central. And more importantly than that, my message to the nigger would be that just because I feel superior to you doesn’t mean that I believe or expect you should feel inferior to me (or to anyone). I’d encourage him to develop a worldview that allows him to feel superior. Obviously he’s not going to base that worldview on economic performance or civility, but the beauty of it is that isn’t required. Really, it’s more than enough to have a sense of self-appreciation and self-preference; to just “be.” What anyone else thinks of you is all rather beside the point. (Now, what people do as a result of the differences—or the differences in quality—they perceive is another issue entirely.)

191

Posted by Dasein on May 19, 2011, 03:02 PM | #

PM,

The race denial arguments are not convincing. The clinal variation argument is a slippery slope. The ‘nail in the coffin’ statement is riddled with errors. Appealing to AAA or some professor who’s been debunked in the Race FAQs linked to above doesn’t cut it. Rosenberg’s 2005 paper, which I doubt he has read, addresses the clinal variation argument. And it’s a red herring anyhow. Mass immigration does not results in clinal variation within the host country. If there was clinal variation within the immigrants being brought in, and if the numbers were sufficiently small, we would not face the existential threat that we do now. The existence of race is irrelevant for EGI.

192

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 19, 2011, 03:17 PM | #

Any stable community of any size has to have, and, statistically will have a good proportion of sheeple - unfortunately Euros seem very prone to highly damaging memes* (like the new religion of the West - suicidal PC).

Those crime stats are frightening beyond belief - but it you feel worried by them your an ‘evil racist’.

*memes are only a metaphor for ideas/ideology; the idea of memes has little conceptual or scientific value but it sounds more hip and fun

193

Posted by Supposed Laborer on May 19, 2011, 04:08 PM | #

Since the haterz are degenerating into discussions of interracial rape(and only interracial because other was they have to face up to the fact that the vast majority of white women are raped by other white men, which is somehow better for some reason), I’ll reply to Silver and PM.

I want to reply to your message in detail, PM, but I don’t have much time so I wanted to just clarify a few points in response to Silver for now. Thanks for your understanding.

What you seem to have in mind is “the market mechanism = exploitation.” Well, if that’s the case, then yes, I guess I will “sympathize” with those “exploiting” me.

Exploitation in the Marxist sense has unfortunately lost its meaning(the Frankfurt School gets most of the blame for that I think). Exploitation refers to the surplus value the owner of the means of production(whatever they may be) gets above and beyond the value you contribute or produce in whatever way. This has nothing to do with the employer’s greed or personality, it’s just the system. He can’t pay you the full value otherwise there is no profit and the whole system falls apart.

Since you brought them up, it seems to me that racialism could help those places named go a long way towards patching up their differences by helping them appreciate the important qualities they have in common. Essentially, racialism helps them say, “Okay, we’ve certainly got our differences, and they continue to be a source of conflict between us. But, you know, compared to the rest of the world out there, we’re actually rather alike. And in this changing global environment of mass movements of people, perhaps we should focus on what we do share in common, because that we may we might better resist the forces reshaping societies across the world to the detriment of the established population.”

If we can do that within Europe, why not the rest of the world, since there are some global issues that are going to seriously screw all of us if we don’t figure out a solution? Earlier on in this circus I pointed out that when everyone is white, nobody is white, which basically means that once you wall off say, Europe, due to the inequalities between those nations there will still be conflict. Suddenly it will be decided that some Europeans are inferior and others superior, and the whole thing degenerates into infighting.

Actually, I didn’t ask you what countries you preferred to live in. I didn’t specify it, but I thought it was obvious from the way I posed the question that I was asking you which part of the same city you’d opt to move to: the overwhelmingly black area or the overwhelmingly white area? (Assume “area” means something like, say, four square miles—an area small enough to qualify as an “area”, but large enough that one could quite easily do 90% of one’s living within its confines.)

The thing is that I would consider the area to live in based on the general quality of it, regardless of the population. And even then there’s an even bigger problem. I grew up in a couple of areas which could reasonably be called ghettos. I also spent some time in an area of town which was diverse and yet incredibly safe by comparison. Obviously I think we would all prefer to live in the high income part of a town, just because it is cleaner and nicer and usually safer- but I have spent time with people in those neighborhoods and I can’t stand the atmosphere.

The heart of this complaint is that these people are “more racist” than they are letting on. Fair enough. That seems to annoy a lot of people. My response, however, is to say so what? I’m much more concerned about what people intend to do rather than what they feel.

I’m just saying it’s one of these “don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining” things. These people want to convince the rest of society that it’s about love, when it’s clearly not.

I’m not an American. I grew up a classic southern european dago in an Australia that was not shy about letting you know it. It didn’t seem to matter much back then. I figured that if it really mattered to them these kids wouldn’t be over at my house every day. And truth be told, like most of the wogs I knew, I harbored a secret feeling of superiority to them. Today, having poured over all their (the “racists’”) stats and considered all their arguments (economic, cultural, aesthetic) I still feel much the same way—and this despite the fact that there’s “no good reason” to feel as I do.

Ah, you know the 1924 Immigration act in the States that these folks all love practically devastated immigration from Southern Europe. What’s funnier about them is that it didn’t restrict immigration from Latin America or Africa.

194

Posted by Guessedworker on May 19, 2011, 05:57 PM | #

Arslan,

You did not reply to my comment at May 18, 2011, 04:33 PM. I know you have a lot to do, and I’m not that anxious to debate you. Never mind. I have had my fill of made-up nonsense. You are a fraud, as you always were. For example, here you write:

He can’t pay you the full value otherwise there is no profit and the whole system falls apart.

But there is not one value. There are infinite values. That is what a market consists in. Finding the differential is how we find our living - even the differential between the best value we can obtain for our labour and the value we place on the things we need to sustain our lives.

Then there’s this:

Earlier on in this circus I pointed out that when everyone is white, nobody is white, which basically means that once you wall off say, Europe ...

No, no, no! You cannot speak of Europe as “white”. Europe is not America. Europe is the ancient hearth of European Man, and Europeans consist of the European ethnies or nations. We are kin, we are blood, we are sons of the soil, and these things unite and divide us, and matter to us all very much. We love them.

Show some respect for that love.

Suddenly it will be decided that some Europeans are inferior and others superior, and the whole thing degenerates into infighting.

You just made that up. Try to comprehend. Peoples do not fight or seek to fight. Elites do. Peoples seek the securing and increase of their genetic interests.

Got that now? I wouldn’t want you to leave my house without at least taking one truth away with you. That’s a good one, and will serve you well in your new life as an honest man.

Obviously I think we would all prefer to live in the high income part of a town, just because it is cleaner and nicer and usually safer- but I have spent time with people in those neighborhoods and I can’t stand the atmosphere.

One of the things which people who are not children do is to negotiate with reality. Adults tend to comprehend that their personal experiences and tastes are not more important that Life and Nature, than the interests and will of the people, and so on. I suspect that your revolutionary ardour consists largely in the childish incomprehension of that.

I have the lowest opinion of leftists. I have never met an English leftist who was not a narcissist, and many have personality disorders that compel them to seek approval from authority. I commend you to spend as little time as possible in the company of such specimens. It is clearly doing you no good at all.

These people want to convince the rest of society that it’s about love, when it’s clearly not.

Here’s the bomb. You post at Mo Dees’ - I know you do, I’ve seen whining Slavjansky entries on the threads.

Now, Mo is a Jew. Jews are the most “racialist” people on the planet (check out that Duke video, please). So you are operating a curious double standard there. Why? Because, obviously, you’re only really interested in acting racistically against Europeans. That’s what you get from Mo’s. That’s what you get from your entire “Marxist” construction. You are the very racist you wish to paint us as.

Look in the mirror. Grow up. Blame yourself for the contents of your life, not others. Leave us alone to get on with the important task of saving our people from racist attack. We have the right.

Remember: never, never project your own hostilities onto us.

195

Posted by Silver on May 19, 2011, 06:24 PM | #

Whitey,

Exploitation in the Marxist sense has unfortunately lost its meaning(the Frankfurt School gets most of the blame for that I think). Exploitation refers to the surplus value the owner of the means of production(whatever they may be) gets above and beyond the value you contribute or produce in whatever way. This has nothing to do with the employer’s greed or personality, it’s just the system. He can’t pay you the full value otherwise there is no profit and the whole system falls apart.

I know what exploitation means in Marxism. I just disagree that it is exploitation. Or that if it is it’s something horrible enough to worry about.

Bottom line is I’m convinced that markets work better. There’s just no question people will do more when they see more in it for themselves. And I think the average person is better off being subjected to a little “market discipline” than having all his basic needs provided for him. That doesn’t mean you let him starve in the street like a stray dog, or weep for joy like a libertardian at the sight of mansions sitting atop garbage dumps. There are all sorts of ways we can take care of each other that stop short of full-blown communism. This isn’t going to convince you, I’m sure, but I wonder if that isn’t because deep down it’s something more than mere economics that motivates you—like maybe your version of the Nazi’s “One Big Idea” that is going to set everything right and make this earthly existence of ours all of a sudden worth living. (I mean, for me it already is worth living, but for them it’s not; and it’s that supreme disgust with the way world presently is that motivates them).

Earlier on in this circus I pointed out that when everyone is white, nobody is white, which basically means that once you wall off say, Europe, due to the inequalities between those nations there will still be conflict. Suddenly it will be decided that some Europeans are inferior and others superior, and the whole thing degenerates into infighting.

That assumes that nothing is ever learned from history. I’m not sure about that. To assume endless conflict is to assume the nationalists’ narrative. These people read group conflict into everything, and then magnify it a thousand times beyond its actual significance. But looked what happened after WWII. Today we live in a time when conflict between, say, Germany and France is all but unimaginable; who in, say, 1925 would have thought that would ever be the case? That’s not to say that this will never, ever change; it’s to point out that positive changes are a real possibility.

The thing is that I would consider the area to live in based on the general quality of it, regardless of the population. And even then there’s an even bigger problem. I grew up in a couple of areas which could reasonably be called ghettos. I also spent some time in an area of town which was diverse and yet incredibly safe by comparison. Obviously I think we would all prefer to live in the high income part of a town, just because it is cleaner and nicer and usually safer- but I have spent time with people in those neighborhoods and I can’t stand the atmosphere.

Anything but to cede the point, eh? You know, I really don’t mind the poorer parts of town so much—provided they’re populated people I have something racially (and hence culturally) in common with. In fact, these days, with the incredible loony leftardism that has gripped the minds of the mid-upper-middle I actually prefer the working class neighborhoods. Sure, they’re a bit grimier, the people not as sharp or polished, you’re more likely to get jumped while minding your own business etc, but there’s still something more “real” about the people. In contrast, I can barely hide my contempt for the nigger-loving, green-haired lesbian set (and other assorted loony fucksticks) that tend to congregate in and (shit, I have to admit it, actually help comprise) the nicer parts of town.

Ah, you know the 1924 Immigration act in the States that these folks all love practically devastated immigration from Southern Europe. What’s funnier about them is that it didn’t restrict immigration from Latin America or Africa.

Geez, what a way to put it: it “devastated” southern european immigration, as though southern european immigration is just something that America had to have, alas the cruel nativists intervened and unnaturally thwarted it. Look, I’m not a “historian” when it comes to thrashing out what happened when and why etc etc ad nauseam. I’m focused on the here and now and how to move forward from it. Whatever the reasoning or, if you believe it, the trickery that resulted in the present situation, the point it does a poor job of serving human ends and we need to change course; all those of us who feel that way should join forces to effect that change.

Btw, in case you’ve misunderstood me, I’m no “WN.” It’s obvious to that there’s a difference between northern and southern Europe. My affections are reserved for the latter. That may not mean much in Europe, but in the diaspora my own life has provided me all the evidence I need that the similarities between us are easily great enough for genuine fellow-feeling to flourish.

196

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 19, 2011, 06:47 PM | #

Ah, you know the 1924 Immigration act in the States that these folks all love practically devastated immigration from Southern Europe.

So whitey’s a med and a papist no doubt. It explains everything. Let my people in you fucking haters. LOL.

197

Posted by Graham_Lister on May 19, 2011, 06:51 PM | #

GW - Re English Leftists

I totally agree. I’m from working-class Labour voting, Trade Union members background and as a naive undergraduate at my university read some Marx etc., joined the university Labour party and in doing so got to interact with some extreme SWP Trots etc., for the first time in my life. And there was two types: the well-intentioned but totally naive ‘save the whale’ types and the second type (the vast majority) of hate-filled, utterly mendacious, sociopathic nutters (very few of whom are in any way ‘working class’).

As I was reading for a biology degree my understanding of concepts such as Hamilton’s Rule and inclusive-fitness theory developed. In conversation with one of these SWP slimeballs I pointed out that human nature may be plastic but not infinitely so and cited Hamilton’s Rule. What I got was nothing but barely controlled rage and bullshit in reply. The person even told me about a critique of Hamilton’s Rule which demonstrated its falsity. So trying to be fair-minded I went and had a look at this book. It was by a 3rd rate philosopher that denied natural selection on so-called ‘logical’ grounds. Total and utter garbage.

So the combination of actually encountering these ideas made horrible flesh, my growing knowledge of biology, and actually reading Roger Scruton for the first time was the catalyst for my transition away from such youthful folly.

198

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 19, 2011, 06:54 PM | #

who in, say, 1925 would have thought that would ever be the case?

Stoddard (for ultimate reasons) and the French (for proximate reasons)who wished to lend Weimar lots of money.

199

Posted by Jimmy Marr on May 19, 2011, 07:22 PM | #

A punctual pound of flesh.

200

Posted by Guessedworker on May 19, 2011, 08:12 PM | #

Graham,

You were lucky to be studying the sciences. My daughter is currently studying in the humanities in the super-diversity of a London uni. She has come home with stories of some truly wacky behaviour among the staff ... and of negro males (students) hammering on girls’ doors in halls late at night, and getting very pushy. We have seriously contemplated pulling her out.

I tried to mail you earlier today using the address you enter on the comment window. It can back. If you would contact me through the contact button under the header I’d be grateful.

201

Posted by Ivan on May 19, 2011, 11:53 PM | #

A punctual pound of flesh. - Jimmy Marr

These cowards always end up crawling back to the jew on their knees and apologizing. Same story with Marlon Brando, same with Mel Gibson, same with Reverend Billy Graham, Rick Sanchez and on and on and on. Only Charlie Sheen withstood the pressure put on him by the bastards so far. But the fucking jews won’t let him go, they are absolutely determined to break his spirit and totally destroy, not only his career, but his life altogether.

This sadistic urge to keep beating the man who is already on the ground is one the most appalling of many disgusting jewish character traits.

202

Posted by Dasein on May 20, 2011, 02:13 AM | #

GW,

I don’t think Dees is a jew (despite what his middle name, Seligman, suggests). But he is a sick puppy. And the SPLC is crawling with jews (Potok, Beirich) and supported by them financially.

203

Posted by Captainchaos on May 20, 2011, 03:10 AM | #

MajorityRights is a joke for so many reasons.

Perhaps this would change if MR were to adopt a new comment policy every week such as The Occidental Observer does.

204

Posted by Guessedworker on May 20, 2011, 04:31 AM | #

We’ll never do that, CC. I am being advised by others to tighten up on the language, though.

205

Posted by Selous Scout on May 20, 2011, 06:34 PM | #

I mean come on. Black biker leather? Helmets? American football pads? Seriously?

Young European Nationalists, especially those in Italy and France, often wear leather jackets and motorcycle/Vespa helmets and carry baseball bats, for use in their regular street skirmishes with commies and antifa.

It’s a short step from leather jackets and baseball bats, to uniforms/armour and real weapons.

Fighting in the streets. This something that tough-talking WN pussies in Anglophone countries have not yet encountered.

206

Posted by PM on May 20, 2011, 06:51 PM | #

Wouldn’t the wearing of such gear (in Britain, anyway) effectively be a political uniform and as such be illegal under the 1936 Public Order Act anyway (which came into being precisely to arrest the growth of such a Fascist style street militia in the UK)?

207

Posted by Hesper on May 20, 2011, 08:49 PM | #

“Posted by a sensible observer on May 18, 2011, 09:13 PM | #

God bless you.

So essentially we’ve had dozens upon dozens of dull and impertinent diatribes from a Turkish engineering professional living in America, endeavouring to subvert innate notions of race and community and obliquely insulting us, out of a fear that being who he is - not European - he won’t be considered White by average Americans. Understood.

Arslan dearie, ‘Indo-European’ whatever it once was, is merely the term for a hypothetical linguistic family, it is not now - if it ever truly was - the name of a concrete lineage. Kurds are Near Eastern Moslems and I wish them well in their native country as I do their fellow Near Eastern Moslems the Turks, one of the foremost Asiatic nations, albeit the differences in policy and interest between Europe and Turkey (esp. territory in the Balkans and the lingerers from Turkish occpuation) will demand a reckoning in time.

208

Posted by Ivan on May 21, 2011, 11:14 AM | #

So essentially we’ve had dozens upon dozens of dull and impertinent diatribes from a Turkish engineering professional living in America, endeavouring to subvert innate notions of race and community and obliquely insulting us, out of a fear that being who he is - not European - he won’t be considered White by average Americans. Understood. - Hesper

Hesper,

You are not a very bright person, are you? Whitey McWhitington III is not Turkish, he is not Muslim, and his name is not Arslan. He is a jew, just like Whitey Tim Wise IV is. I am sorry to say, but if you can’t figure it out yourself, you are plain stupid man.

209

Posted by anon on May 21, 2011, 08:36 PM | #

Arslan dearie, ‘Indo-European’ whatever it once was, is merely the term for a hypothetical linguistic family, it is not now - if it ever truly was - the name of a concrete lineage.

If it had not been a “concrete lineage”, that is to say a race, you would not be here writing in a language evolved from their own. Have enough respect for those who came before you to not question their very existence. Certain members of another “concrete lineage” are doing this to us while we yet live. Official doubt regarding the “Indo-Europeans”, that is to say the Aryans, is an academic facet of the Jewish narrative, itself a reaction to Nazi rhetoric. We West Europeans may not be direct blood descendants of that race, but our ancestors were colonized by them or their culture, which has been with us for millennia—longer than “Our Savior” by far.

210

Posted by Hesper on May 21, 2011, 08:42 PM | #

“You are not a very bright person, are you? Whitey McWhitington III is not Turkish…”

That’s an altogether discourteous and unwarranted condemnation Ivan Pasha my friend. You’re seemingly an ill-bred Oriental. Never mind, this is not the place for personal quarrels to flame up.

On reflection that Arslan is truly a Hebrew impostor is not implausible but frankly it’s not my wont to see every barbarian subverter as really a Jew behind a mask, however frequent such treacherous disguises are. In my experience various non-European Caucasoids, especially those living amongst the ‘dissolute infidels’ in the Germanic extra-European colonies (Canada, Australia, etc), like Turks, Arabs particularly those from the Lebanon, Iranians, your kind and even Hindus, are very insolent in beating us down with the blunt tools of the modern Leviathan (tools which we made for the wrong reasons then even worse we surrendered them to natural enemies) while at the same time pretending immunity from those tools being used on them. Judaeo-modernity is a universal evil but our fates are not twined with yours: Europe needs a total reawakening - preferably constituted by fertile and vigorous medievalist Teutonic holy warrios with northern Slavs in support but I’m patient to hear alternative schemes - not to be hectored into more universalist campaigns. I disapprove of certain specific policies, but Bonaparte (why o why didn’t he attack the Ottomans by land rather than the Russians? After Ulm and Austerlitz Alexander was no real threat) and Adolf (too many mistakes to mention) were in many respects the greatest hope for unity and progress (real progress of the social, moral, spiritual and racial sort not machines, rights and trade rubbish) since Augustus and Charlemagne who, coupled with Constantine and Justinian to a lesser degree, were the true Fathers of Europe.
If I were a prince of the current Russians I would abandon the entire Caucasus and the land beyond the Urals. I know that the mineral wealth and the treasure of the land’s forestry bar this from ever being done voluntarily but I think it would be best for the purity and health of the ethnic Russians not to say the whole continent. Moscow has become a swamp of Asiatics from as far as Anatolia to the borders of Sinkiang: this isn’t the effect of greatness, it’s confusion and decay. Moreover the Circassians, and other peoples, are deserving of their freedom. Understand Ivan Pasha that I’m not unjust like the Hebrew merchants, that I have mercy for the deserving.

211

Posted by Ivan on May 21, 2011, 09:25 PM | #

If I were a prince of the current Russians I would abandon the entire Caucasus and the land beyond the Urals.- Hesper

Hesper,

Thank God that you are not a prince of the current Russians! I still maintain that you are not a very bright person, but you are certainly not a plain stupid man. So I apologize for my unjust outburst against you.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn - an unwitting accomplice to the jews in de-Stalinization process, a useful idiot - also maintained that Russia should let the Chechens go free after the First Chechen War, when Chechens wrestled de-facto independence from Russia during the chaotic years of second takeover of Russia by the parasites that became known in history as Perestroika. The poor sap didn’t understand that if Russians were to let Chechnya to secede from the Federation, it would become, like Georgia did, an exceptionally valuable springboard for an assault on the Russian statehood by the jew-controlled West to finish Russia off once and for all.

The useful idiot admitted later his poor judgment. The big mouth was naive politically like a child.

Like Daghestan poet Rasul Gamzatov once said with that unique wit flavor of his: Avars didn’t join Russia freely, and they will not leave Russia on their own will.

212

Posted by anon on May 21, 2011, 09:28 PM | #

Europe needs a total reawakening - preferably constituted by fertile and vigorous medievalist Teutonic holy warrios with northern Slavs in support but I’m patient to hear alternative schemes - not to be hectored into more universalist campaigns.

Salvation of the dagoes.

213

Posted by Hesper on May 21, 2011, 09:36 PM | #

“If it had not been a “concrete lineage”, that is to say a race, you would not be here writing in a language evolved from their own. Have enough respect for those who came before you to not question their very existence. Certain members of another “concrete lineage” are doing this to us while we yet live. Official doubt regarding the “Indo-Europeans”, that is to say the Aryans, is an academic facet of the Jewish narrative, itself a reaction to Nazi rhetoric.”

What you write is true. I do not doubt in the least the existence and importance of the Indo-European race, its conquests and diffusion. However, Anon, what I accuse and suspect is the essential tendency in ‘Aryan’ hypotheses (the word itself is native to the Hindu and Persian scriptures and traditions) to divert too much attention from what is received and native to what is supposed and alien. The Aryan race is a fact, but that the platypus is an egg-laying mammal is also a fact. I don’t need ‘facts’ (in the narrow, scientific and analytical sense) to tell me what is in itself evident as true, beautiful and producing good consequences as opposed to bad. In short, my fear is that a large part of the Indo-European fascination is simply a racial right-wing innovation of Orientalism: that Vedic theology, Avestan liturgies and their practices (mostly irrecoverable other than by surmise) are more interesting than what we know and remember as our own. It has it’s value for historical and philosophical education of the upper class, and as a faint generic mythology for the lower class, but if Paleolithic Aryans can’t keep full control of a small peninsula called Europe how the hell can they expect to transform Iran and India into anything other than what they are and will likely always be? The dusty, humid climate is physically and spiritually demoralising to Northern races, as one sees operating in Australia or California. Spain, Italy and Greece are feasible, and necessary for reasons of strategy, ancestry, comfort and pride, but the Indus, the Persian Gulf or Afghanistan? Not in a million years.

As to your “Our Saviour” innuendo, the world’s alphabets (Western form derived from the Phoenician, Eastern from the Arabic) are both entirely Semitic productions. So I wouldn’t be here writing intelligibly in these letters if it was not for the Semites. Am I indebted to them? No. The Chinese gave us the wheelbarrow, and we gave them the motor car.

214

Posted by anon on May 21, 2011, 11:19 PM | #

In short, my fear is that a large part of the Indo-European fascination is simply a racial right-wing innovation of Orientalism: that Vedic theology, Avestan liturgies and their practices (mostly irrecoverable other than by surmise) are more interesting than what we know and remember as our own.

Well, I would not put anything above Hesiod, for example, but even Hesiod is as foreign to you and I as the Gathas or Rig Veda. I don’t believe anyone is overestimating either corpus; nonetheless, Avestan liturgy and ritual, and some derived cultural practices extant in modern Hinduism, are living examples of how this race lived, of what they believed. We of the West have a fetish for fire-pits, barbecues, and the hearth in winter; the word focus was the “focal” point of the Roman home, as the Vestal fire of the entire city; all of which harks unto the fire-altar of Ahura Mazda and and burnt offerings to Agni. People still maintain both rites in India and Iran. None of this is “irrecoverable”; the first translation of the Avesta alone, by Anquetil-Duperron, appeared in 1771, and F.A. Rosen’s Latin Rig Veda in 1830. In fact Vedism and Zoroastrianism are not only two of the most abundantly attested faiths, but also two of the oldest, and the Rig Veda certainly the oldest religious text in the whole world. We’re not dealing with airy-fairy Nazi fetishry here, though of course, these are not our faiths and it were foolish to pretend so.

I don’t need ‘facts’ (in the narrow, scientific and analytical sense) to tell me what is in itself evident as true, beautiful and producing good consequences as opposed to bad.

You are arguing, then, the utility of remoter historical culture to our lives. That is fine. I often came to that wall myself in my study of these cultures; the obsolescence and uselessness of it all. I finally gave up and built a little kunda for offerings.

It has it’s value for historical and philosophical education of the upper class, and as a faint generic mythology for the lower class, but if Paleolithic Aryans can’t keep full control of a small peninsula called Europe how the hell can they expect to transform Iran and India into anything other than what they are and will likely always be?

Insofar as the ancient Battle-Axe / Corded Ware culture was the precursor of Germanic culture, as Tiktaalik was of the salamander, let’s say, then at least the Copper Age Aryans did establish a rule over Europe that has endured in various forms to the present day, if the German economy may be interpreted as the capitalistic expression of racial ability.

But all this is beside the point, which is merely that the Aryans were a folk, and the world we inhabit is largely one synthesized from their culture, native European, and Semitic culture.

The dusty, humid climate is physically and spiritually demoralising to Northern races,

I don’t know. You are probably right. I mostly live in Belize and often do not wish to work because it is so bloody humid. But the dusty climate of northwest Iran gave us Zarathustra and one of the noblest faiths of mankind’s early history. Globalism is a hundred times as demoralizing as the humidity index.

but the Indus, the Persian Gulf or Afghanistan? Not in a million years.

Well, this grotesque, post-European political entity we call the United States is presently at work bringing Afghanistan - one of the last two nations on Earth home to “unreconstructed” Old Aryans - into its fold, if that means anything. I do not aver that A-stan is anything to us biopolitically. However, even Guessedworker acknowledges that the Taliban, “despite their many unlovely aspects”, are fighting the good fight, and you had better believe they do so for folk and land, not Islam only. Their folk is Aryan and their land, you ought to know, was of old called “Ariana”. I think that’s fucking outrageously beautiful and it means more to me than German Spukgeschichten and English Pancake Day. Here we are on this side of the planet, the extreme western outpost of a culture brought to the world by an ancient race, and there they are, primitive we say, backward, the shorter eastern branch of the race, using the small arms of empire to fight us back in their native mountains—the mountains known to the Vedic Aryans, to Zarathustra, to Alexander the Macedonian who was not too far removed from them historically and brought them to heel for a time. It is in my view as monumental as Teuton and Slav annihilating each other out on the steppe, staining the chernozem of our origins with their blood.

the world’s alphabets (Western form derived from the Phoenician, Eastern from the Arabic) are both entirely Semitic productions. So I wouldn’t be here writing intelligibly in these letters if it was not for the Semites. Am I indebted to them?

Of course we are. No sense denying that. Even the nordicist’s beloved runes are clearly derived from the Phoenician. Trade / commerce - something Guessedworker misses entirely - has preserved these things for us, and given us symbols to flash at each other in the black night of modern mass culture. Neither is there sense in wishing we had never advanced beyond the level of the Homeric warriors wary of ????????? ????????.

The Chinese gave us the wheelbarrow, and we gave them the motor car.

And before either exchange, the Tocharians gave the Chinese the wheel itself. Unfortunately for this neat little tit-for-tat, archaeology has unearthed possible Greek wheelbarrows from BC, which I leave you to discover.

I like your style, anyway, and understand your point. They are not living cultures and we ought not to pretend or go too far in historical idealism.

215

Posted by anon on May 21, 2011, 11:42 PM | #

In my experience various non-European Caucasoids, especially those living amongst the ‘dissolute infidels’ in the Germanic extra-European colonies (Canada, Australia, etc), like Turks, Arabs particularly those from the Lebanon, Iranians, your kind and even Hindus, are very insolent in beating us down with the blunt tools of the modern Leviathan

Silver’s best mates, there. Where would be we without kebab and the falafel wrap! “Ohne Ausländer nur Eisbein mit Sauerkraut. Danke, danke Fremder.”

216

Posted by Grimoire on May 22, 2011, 02:11 PM | #

Schweinebraten mit Rotkohl und Klößen…..Schmeckt aber wirklich super. Das Fleisch ist ganz zart.

217

Posted by Keith on May 25, 2011, 06:35 PM | #

Is this the launch site for the new nationalist comic book? Because it certainly reads like one. Even if this is satire, you all need to borrow a little common sense from somewhere; because many of you have this same outlook deep down, and people can see it. This is why so few of you are taken seriously.

218

Posted by Jon on June 06, 2011, 01:54 AM | #

@Arslan Amirkhan
@Thorn

Another important difference:

The fact that non-white people are lactose intolerant is due to a genetic deficiency. Primary lactose intolerance is due to lactase deficiency which is a genetic problem. Lactase is the enzyme responsible for the digestion of lactose which is a compound sugar found in breast milk and cow milk. Primary lactose intolerance doesn’t actually occur until after age 2 when the body starts to make less lactase.

Did Lactose Tolerance Trigger the Indo-European Expansion?
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4325

The advantage driving those Indo-European expansions was biological – a high frequency of the European lactose-tolerance

Yoghurt and the Indo-Europeans
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4361

Next entry: So how can a globalist ever plead innocent?

Previous entry: Probability Theory and Survival of the White Race

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

Kai Murros on the European Revolution!

Comments:

Post a Comment:

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Links