|
|
Life in a backwaterAnne and I got into my 1963 Humber Super Snipe this morning and motored down to the seaside for brunch. We took sandwiches with us and got takeaway coffee from a cafe close to our destination. When we got there, the park had a few people wandering around but the picnic shelter where we sat down was uninhabited. So we sat there in perfect peace and quiet and had our brunch looking out to sea across Moreton Bay. And there were no “minorities” to trouble us.
The English used to “motor” down to salubrious places once too but from what I hear these days, all that they now do is crawl along in traffic jams. I encountered no traffic jams or holdups at all and we drove through some quite nice green countryside on the way—so if any English person had been with us it would have seemed to them like a trip back in time. We did stop at a liquor barn on the way to pick up some choice Tokay. The liquer Tokay that Australian vintners produce is lightyears ahead of the rough red that Hungarian vintners make out of the same grape. Australian liquer Muscat is remarkably good too—so, if you are a drinker of fortified wines, scrap the Port and go for Australian Muscats and Tokays. It will be a definite step up. Tomorrow is the first anniversary of Anne and I meeting so we are going to celebrate by going to the smorgasbord at the Hilton. The Brisbane Hilton does an impeccable smorgasbord with lots of seafood —of which Australians are usually very fond. They seem to do the best Sydney rock oysters in town —large and succulent. If you have never eaten raw Sydney rock oysters, you haven’t lived. I know of no other oyster remotely as good. It is so nice not to live in a “vibrant” place. Posted by jonjayray on Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 10:23 PM in Comments:2
Posted by jonjayray on September 01, 2006, 12:42 AM | # “your wish is the extermination of all Jews’ What an extraordinary interpretation of my words. When I mentioned minorities, I had in mind minority crime—and it is no secret where that comes from—certainly not Jews 3
Posted by jonjayray on September 01, 2006, 12:44 AM | # At the risk of sounding absurd, I might mention that two of my favourite people here in Brisbane are in fact Jewish 4
Posted by melba peachtoast on September 01, 2006, 12:51 AM | # “two of my favourite people here in Brisbane are in fact Jewish” Melba is szchocked, zschocked to hear zis! Who wooda thunk it? jjr fraternizing with tribesters? what next can we expect, pigs playing rugby? 6
Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 01, 2006, 01:14 AM | # Whatever gave JJR the idea I said I thought he wished to exterminate all Jews? JJR i said that a bigot is one who would wish for this. I did not call you a bigot, did I? 7
Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 01, 2006, 01:18 AM | # Minorities, minority crime, whats the difference? I know what you had in mind. Maybe you did not read my lenghty letter but rather skipped through speed reading. Pay attention. 8
Posted by Daedalus on September 01, 2006, 01:20 AM | # Does anyone here advocating murdering Jews? If not, why have you raised the matter? 9
Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 01, 2006, 01:26 AM | # “Two of your favorite people here in Brisbane are in fact Jewish”. So…... 10
Posted by On Holliday on September 01, 2006, 05:52 AM | # “Anne and I got into my 1963 Humber Super Snipe this morning and motored down to the seaside for brunch. We took sandwiches with us and got takeaway coffee from a cafe close to our destination…We did stop at a liquor barn on the way to pick up some choice Tokay. The liquer Tokay that Australian vintners produce is lightyears ahead of the rough red that Hungarian vintners make out of the same grape. Australian liquer Muscat is remarkably good too—so, if you are a drinker of fortified wines, scrap the Port and go for Australian Muscats and Tokays. It will be a definite step up… The Brisbane Hilton does an impeccable smorgasbord with lots of seafood —of which Australians are usually very fond. They seem to do the best Sydney rock oysters in town —large and succulent. If you have never eaten raw Sydney rock oysters, you haven’t lived. I know of no other oyster remotely as good.” What - no anecdotes about using the bathroom by the seaside and the quality of the restrooms? That complaint aside, thank you JJR for another informative and relevant post, and thank you, GW, for making this possible. With race and culture threatened on an international scale, it is good to know that raw Sydney rock oysters are fine eating. Indeed, that fact in and of itself may make the difference between victory and defeat. It are posts like this which swell my heart with great optimism that conservatism is the answer to all our problems. Let us all fortify ourselves with oysters and wine, and join Saint George Bush of Right-Wing in his valiant fight against the dragons of evil Leftism. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2006, 09:49 AM | # John, these occasional personal vignettes on everyday life in Australia—what it’s like going to church there, attending concerts, strolling through shopping streets and malls, having oysters with one’s sweetheart or picnicking at the seaside, what it was like growing up there, what the weather is like—are charming, informative, delightful. They contribute to the site, helping in a way to complete it in the sense that they deal with and reflect the varied interests all of us have. The best web-sites, like the best print magazines, include this sort of “interlude” as semi-regular fare: exposure to the world’s many less-directly-political dimensions through the lens of a mind sharing that site’s or magazine’s general political outlook (which, as regards this site, your entry’s last sentence shows you share at least in a general way). Thank you for posting these occasional relaxing, enjoyable vignettes. I hope you keep them coming. 12
Posted by On Holliday on September 01, 2006, 10:19 AM | # “Thank you for posting these occasional relaxing, enjoyable vignettes. I hope you keep them coming.” Actually, I *agree* with Fred here, but from the opposite perspective. I see these posts as a negative; therefore, I want to see more of them here. My previous comment was *not* meant to be a reproach to anyone associated with this blog; rather, in was directed to the leadership. The more JJR spams the blog with ludicrous nonsense, and the more it opens the site to mockery, the greater the delegitimization of the really destructive memes propagated here. So, bring it on, JJR, more such posts! 13
Posted by On Holliday on September 01, 2006, 10:21 AM | # Correction - I meant Readership, *not* Leadership. It is important that the readership not blithely pass over this post and the thread, but study it in detail, absorb it, and, indeed, consider it - as Fred suggests - as an important part of the blog. 14
Posted by john ray on September 01, 2006, 10:55 AM | # “That complaint aside, thank you JJR for another informative and relevant post, and thank you, GW, for making this possible. With race and culture threatened on an international scale, it is good to know that raw Sydney rock oysters are fine eating. Indeed, that fact in and of itself may make the difference between victory and defeat. It are posts like this which swell my heart with great optimism that conservatism is the answer to all our problems. Let us all fortify ourselves with oysters and wine, and join Saint George Bush of Right-Wing in his valiant fight against the dragons of evil Leftism. “
I think the Holiday man has absorbed my advice about the importance of a sense of humour 15
Posted by john ray on September 01, 2006, 10:56 AM | # Fred I’ll buy you a Tokay if ever we meet Best 16
Posted by On Holliday on September 01, 2006, 11:00 AM | # “I think the Holiday man has absorbed my advice about the importance of a sense of humour” John, I don’t expect you to understand my strategy, and, actually, I do not want you to. Just, please, produce many more posts like this one. I agree with Fred, these posts are very good. More please! 17
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 01, 2006, 01:01 PM | # Arrogant,supercillious,self-centered,and vindivtive-what more can one ask for from an"academic”? No other comment,except that Fred S.usually is the voice of reason in this ongoing internicine war.Cheers! BTW-I love good oysters,and think that the Indian River[Florida] oysters,while not as large,are just as tasty,and the Aussie reds are killer.Semper Fi! 18
Posted by On Holliday on September 01, 2006, 02:02 PM | # Actually, Nick, we need more comments from you as well. The combination of JJR’s posts and your comments, together, would have the impact that I think necessary for the readership. More, please. 19
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 01, 2006, 04:08 PM | # I stumbled upon a world map representing projected population density change chromatically. Australia was one of the few countries represented wholly in cream, the color for +/- 0. Must be nice. 21
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 01, 2006, 04:13 PM | #
Ah, but didn’t you know? When we say “we want to live apart from jews,” what we really mean is, “we want to exterminate jews.” They know this through telepathy… 22
Posted by Andrew on September 01, 2006, 04:32 PM | # Did you get the pictures of the Russian cardboard crapers JJR. 23
Posted by karlmagnus on September 01, 2006, 05:11 PM | # JJR, if you think Tokay’s rough you haven’t been drinking the real stuff. You need to drink Tokaji Aszu of a good quality; that’s the smooth gold colored one. Karlmagnus was also Emperor of part of Hungary; one has one’s obligations! 24
Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 01, 2006, 06:32 PM | # Daedalus: No one in here is advocating extermination of the Jews. Here is the problem….......: 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 01, 2006, 07:29 PM | # Svy, thanks for asking. I’ve been so busy lately, I haven’t been able to keep up with all the comment threads, let alone post comments, but I hope to get back to a normal pace though I don’t know when. In the meantime I’m keeping up as I can, in a fragmentary way. John Ray, thanks for that kind offer, and if we ever do meet I’d love to try some Tokay—sounds excellent! On Holliday, as you know I respect you exceedingly and consider you an invaluable ally, and am glad you’ve been able to devote so much time to contributing to MR.com’s threads, and am heartily grateful for the opportunity to learn so much from you. But (forgive me) there’s something about your seeming insistence on sort of “toeing the party line” that could use a little lightening up (maybe I’m wrong ... if so, I apologize). Can’t you sense that this thing we’re up against is so enormous, none of us is capable by himself of seeing it in its entirety, so that to mount an assault on it will need the differing opinions of many brains and the differing views of many pairs of eyes? Put all those differing opinions and views together and you’ll glimpse the whole and see how to approach it to begin toppling it. The whole won’t be encompassed by the views and opinions of any one individual or small group of individuals among us. In this multifaceted war, comrades of ours are fighting on many fronts. John Ray is manning one of those fronts. He’s manning it extremely ably, just as you are manning another. 26
Posted by Calvin on September 01, 2006, 10:06 PM | # John, Hungarian Tokaj is one of the great wines of the world. It is not a fortified wine. The sweetness of Tokaj is the result of botrytis cinerea or “noble rot”. I’m a big fan of Aussie muscats but Hungarian Tokaj is a unique product. There is nothing in Australia to rival it. 27
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 02, 2006, 01:51 AM | # Fred-your above post just shows how valuable you are to this site-sanity admist ultra-egos.Welcome back! 28
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 05:35 AM | # Fred, in my new attitude toward Majority Rights, I heartily encourage *more* posts by John Ray, particularly of this sort, and of the “Han Contributions…” sort. No need to tell me of the great benefits of JJR. More John Ray posts, please. I would also like GW to consider making Nick Tamiroff a regular blogger here. I am *not* being sarcastic; I say that with all sincerity. The combination of Dr. Ray and Mr. Tamiroff would accomplish all I would hope for here. 29
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 06:21 AM | # “But (forgive me) there’s something about your seeming insistence on sort of “toeing the party line” that could use a little lightening up (maybe I’m wrong ... if so, I apologize).” Not true, Fred. You’ll have noticed that On Holliday and I violently disagree on countless issues, thus ipso facto and by logic there cannot possibly be any “party line” for John Ray to tow. We both assail John Ray in our intemperate manner due to his flagrant dishonesty, not because we disagree with him on a monolithic ideological basis. Naturally, I have already explained this point ad nauseam, and I am beginning to suspect that the fact I am STILL explaining it suggests that my counterparts do not really wish to have their inquiries answered with the truth, but, rather, would prefer to blindly dismiss our irrefutable accusations against John Ray and the damning implications these have for Majority Rights. 30
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 06:28 AM | # Steve, sometimes the patient is not worth saving. More JJR posts, please. 31
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 06:30 AM | # PS - in addition to the countless examples of Ray’s duplicity I’ve already detailed on previous threads, I would just like to highlight, in a single sentence, the very essence of a dissimulator; the shorter to wit: “I am a libertarian; I am ‘satisfied’ with Australia’s political class”. Better think about that. 33
Posted by AD on September 02, 2006, 07:27 AM | # With race and culture threatened on an international scale, it is good to know that raw Sydney rock oysters are fine eating. -On Holliday There are more important things in Sydney than the rock oysters…..last weekend Andrew Fraser addressed the Sydney Forum….for a sample video(amateur) click here. 34
Posted by Abe Foxman, Friend of Humanity on September 02, 2006, 08:47 AM | # Thanks for your fascinating insights into your highly enviable lifestyle, JJR. I wish I could take time out from my hectic schedule and visit ‘Down Under’ but you know how busy I am fighting the ever-imminent danger that jealous white Americans will rise up and slaughter their masters! Good to see that in Australia our people still have the State on their side in suppressing such hateful manifestations as Pauline Hanson and Friedrich Toben, and that they have sophisticated, cosmopolitan shabbos goyim such as your good self to pour cold water on the so-called threat we pose to their so-called civilisation. You are truly Righteous Among the Gentiles, screwing up that hate site with your smoke and mirrors. We also appreciate your hard work in ‘dissing’ the shvartzes. As you know, for a long time we worked a great racket with the niggaz, using them as a hammer to smash gentile race consciousness: ‘Aren’t you ashamed of what you did to your black brothers? Only the Jews spoke up for their rights- we understand what it is to be oppressed by Christians’ and all that poloney. Trouble is, Mr Son-of-Ham started to feel his druthers and won’t do as we say any more, so keep up the good work of denigrating him. It would be too much chutzpah already if we came out and said what we *really* thought of the ‘African-American’, at least not till we’ve got the Mexican mulattoes on our team. Sometimes when Edgar Bronfman and I are chug-a-lugging a Manishevitz or two after a hard day’s work extracting reparations, we say: ‘You know, those Aussies knew how to deal with their natives. Pity the Tasmanian colonists never made aliyah to Palestine!’ Mazel tov, JJR my friend and see you soon- but don’t stick a shrimp on the barbie, I still keep kosher! 35
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 09:15 AM | # “Do better, Holliday, do better.” The thing is, Steve, is that JJR is actually the least of the problems at this blog. If his posting has a salutory effect on the attitude of the readership, then, JJR, keep ‘em coming. Think of it as cowpox innoculating against smallpox, or, by avoiding the small yapping dog next door you avoid the slathering unchained pitbull another house down. Keep ‘em coming, JJR, keep ‘em coming. 36
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 09:44 AM | # Amusing point about the “shvartzes” by Abe. Of course, JJR’s tactic is to deploy semi-regular abuse against Africans as a means to distract his readership from his real intentions. So long as I slag off the blacks, thinks John Ray, my stupid followers (loser white yobbos, them all) will forgive me when I agitate for their replacement with “polite Indians”. Obviously, John Ray’s supporters are naive in the extreme, so this kind of low-grade propaganda might easily work on them. Naturally, that’s where people who actually have some degree of intellectual competence (such as my humble self, and, of course, On Holliday) come in - to set JJR’s amen corner straight, and to show them how much contempt he truly has for them. 37
Posted by John Raygun on September 02, 2006, 10:00 AM | # “...and to show them how much contempt he truly has for them.” This isn’t JJR’s blog, is it? If a dog bites you, is it the dog or the owner you blame? 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 02, 2006, 10:24 AM | # Thank you, Nick. And thank you, GW, for running an effective, balanced blog, devoted to difficult subject matter, in these extremely difficult times. Congratulations on the fine job you’re doing! 39
Posted by Ron Jay on September 02, 2006, 10:27 AM | # A very good point, JohnnyRayGun, and one that I shall have difficulty answering without reference to a breakfast anecdote. 40
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 10:28 AM | # All you guys are too hard on Dr. Ray, who is a respected academic and solid conservative, who just happens to have opinions a little different from the mainstream here. One must not be too close-minded; we need more JJR posts. For example, what about this: “Tomorrow is the first anniversary of Anne and I meeting so we are going to celebrate by going to the smorgasbord at the Hilton. The Brisbane Hilton does an impeccable smorgasbord with lots of seafood..” Well - what happened? I would like to see - and I am being sincere, not sarcastic - an in-depth post about this, including descriptions of the seafood, and, perhaps, pictures of the oysters. With all the very serious posts and comments threads elsewhere on this blog - and the casual reader is encouraged to check out, in detail, the 600+ ongoing thread “The evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among Nordics” - sometimes a bit of lighter material is needed. More, John, more. 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 02, 2006, 10:29 AM | # Thanks also to you, On Holliday, and you, Steve Edwards, for your invaluable participation, truly irreplaceable. This blog badly needs both of you. (I won’t comment on this subject any more, in this thread—I’ve expressed my view.) 42
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 10:31 AM | # “Thank you, Nick. And thank you, GW, for running an effective, balanced blog, devoted to difficult subject matter, in these extremely difficult times. Congratulations on the fine job you’re doing!” I agree with Fred. Stay the course, and keep JJR. And let us have no more deletions of fine material such as “Han Contributions.” If John Ray wishes to promote the idea here that Chinese immigration to Australia is good, certainly, the readership needs to see this. 43
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 10:33 AM | # Broadly speaking, I agree with Fred, although I think GW’s graphic design skills are sadly lacking. Instead of having that rather ugly and irrelevant map of Europe in the top-left corner, perhaps our kind host would consider a portrait of our latter-day Pope Urban II, Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski all rolled into one; the great and noble defender of western civilisation, George W Bush? 44
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 10:35 AM | # “This blog badly needs both of you.” I can’t speak for Steve, but the blog has made its opinion quite clear with respect to my participation. I’ll remain an interested observer, with an keen eye to promoting the work of John Ray, as well as the commenting of Nick Tamiroff, both of which, I believe - again sincerely - is the direction the blog needs to go in as to influence the readership in the proper, suitable direction. 45
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 10:36 AM | # “irrelevant map of Europe “ I agree with Steve that the map in question is irrelevant to the blog, albeit, perhaps, for different reasons. 46
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 10:38 AM | # Yes, I must agree with On Holliday, broadly speaking. My dissent is limited to implementation, rather than first principles - if JJR was the ONLY blogger, and Nick the ONLY registered commenter, it is undeniable that this blog would be immeasurably improved yet still. 47
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 10:40 AM | # “I agree with Steve that the map in question is irrelevant to the blog, albeit, perhaps, for different reasons.” No, I’d think we will both agree that a map of British India would be most relevant, and for the same reasons. 48
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 10:40 AM | # Not to delegitimise the achievements of that wise, patriotic and prudent statesman, George W Bush, of course. 49
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 10:45 AM | # “No, I’d think we will both agree that a map of British India would be most relevant, and for the same reasons.” I have another map in mind, but that’s a subject for another time. I’d like to say though that the blog has, in my opinion, changed in unfortunate ways from the time I first joined as an active blogger. Note that JJR was a member *before* me, so I do not refer to him. But you know, it is not my blog. I respect the right of the blog owner to run it as he sees fit, as long as my right to express dissent is also respected. There’s more, but not here. 50
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 10:48 AM | # “Not to delegitimise the achievements of that wise, patriotic and prudent statesman, George W Bush, of course.” I’d be curious how the active bloggers here would actually rank Bush. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being best. And, what do the bloggers here think Bush’s strengths and weaknesses are? 51
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 10:49 AM | # I could not agree more - GW can and should run this blog however he likes. I personally think there could be some improvements - perhaps the recruitment of Tim Wise, or Professor Ferdinand Von Prondzynski - but I’ll leave it up to the brains trust. 52
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 10:51 AM | # One. He is a constitution-wrecking tyrant; an open borders fanatic; and an economic vandal. As for his weaknesses? I’ll have to think about that. 53
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 10:59 AM | # Steve, I agree with your assessment of Bush. But what about others here - the current crop of bloggers? 54
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 11:06 AM | # You mean the ones who put his picture on their masthead, or others you haven’t mentioned? 55
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 11:10 AM | # Steve, I mean all the people listed under “The Writers.” Starting with John Ray and then the others - what do you think of Bush, and why? Would you vote for Bush? For the Americans, *have* you voted for Bush? Do you regret it? 56
Posted by Matra on September 02, 2006, 11:35 AM | #
I give him 1 out of 10. From open borders to using the courts to end segregation in California prisons (not enough whites being raped for his liking?) he’s been on the wrong side of just about every single race issue. Even on the rare occasion I’ve agreed with Bush (eg., rejecting Kyoto) he’s blown it by not providing an intelligent explanation for his actions thus making it more difficult for those of us on the same side to defend the position. Then there’s the catastrophic war in Iraq. Also he’s been sounding like a Marxist of late with his talk of ideological struggles and being on the right side of history:
I believe much of the pro-Bush sentiment is just a reaction from ordinary people who don’t follow politics too closely to leftists and their often hysterical attacks on him. 57
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 02, 2006, 12:29 PM | # Mantra-good post.As a lifelong Republican{Goldwater/Reagan discipline],I can only give him at best a"3”. His acquiesence to the Rag-heads,kissing their ass five times a day[as they pray to Mecca]really pisses me off,as does his insistance on amnesty for turd-worlders who bring nothing but disease,crime,untold costs to the rest of us,and the ultimate dissolution of our Republic.We have been an English speaking nation for over 225 years-why do I have to “press 1for English”? To OH and other self-styled intellects-I will continue to comment here,as long as GW allows me;I really appreciate this blog,but deprecate the Hissy-fits amongst viable members 58
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 02, 2006, 12:56 PM | # JJR-that is one clean 1963 Humber-but the sun-shade appears “after-market”;as I recall,they didn’t have an AC option-the taxis that used them inthe 60’s mostly had added- on AC-but then,thats why they had vent-wing windows.Continue to enjoy your life,and"non youceri carborundom”.Cheers 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 02, 2006, 01:05 PM | # Though the question about Bush was addressed to the bloggers, may I follow Nick’s lead and give my two cents? I rank The Chimp as the worst president in U.S. history, a ranking I assume goes without saying in the opinions of many MR.com bloggers and fans. (I rank Slick as the second worst, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt tying for third worst.) The Chimp should be impeached and removed from office, then put on trial for three capital offenses: 1) war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq; 2) colluding in the genocide of the traditional U.S. population by means of forced race-replacement immigration; and 3) high treason in connection with his policy of forced race-replacement immigration and various others of his dealings with the nation of Mexico, dealings in which vital U.S. national interersts were betrayed. In 2000 and 2004 I voted for the Constitution Party candidate (Howard Phillips in 2000, and at the moment I can’t recall the name of the complete unknown who ran in ‘04, whose name I had to write in, as it wasn’t officially on the ballot in my state). During Gore’s post-election challenge following the 2000 vote I of course hoped for confirmation of The Chimp as the winner—though I hadn’t been able to bring myself to vote for him, I saw him as by far the lesser of the two evils. I could not have imagined in my worst nightmares he’d turn out as bad as he has. No one could. It was just something no one was prepared for, no one had thought of in his wildest dreams. As for what The Chimp has done right: nothing he hasn’t been coerced kicking and screaming into doing. He tried his best to give us crappy Supreme Court appointments but failed and finally had to let two decent ones get by, absolutely forced by political circumstances, with no other way out. His tax cut was a paltry piece of insignificant nothingness, an insult to the struggling middle class. Compared with his policy of forced racial replacement of the traditional American population with Mexicans and non-whites of every description, his numerous other crimes pale into insignificance: that’s his gravest crime, it goes without saying. I am now become a one-issue voter and that issue is, of course, forced race-replacement. You oppose forced race-replacement, you get my vote; you support it, you don’t. Period. Full stop. All other issues are secondary and can be sorted out in due course. This one is primary. 60
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 02, 2006, 01:30 PM | # Holy-Shit Fred-You nailed it this time,and with far less invective than I-Iwas trying to tone down my verbiage to placate others on the site,but you put the shit in a nut-shell. You speak for me and mine-fuck the Liberals,Neocons,One-worlders,Marxists,Azatlan followers,and wimpy politicians.GET FUCKING REAL 61
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 02, 2006, 01:56 PM | # Allowing the Mexican army to stage armed border raids at the rate of twice a month without invoking a declaration of war. The list of horrors is endless. 62
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 02, 2006, 02:11 PM | # Fred,I have E-mailed every candidate running for office ,asking for their position on illegal immigration.Their answers will soley determine my vote.If they did not reply,their box will be blank.The people must speak!This country belongs to us;not a bunch of bureaucrats appointed by political dynastys who mainly should be in prison.Check out the shit in Britian-100,000+ yearly Emmigrants—They are bailing out,and giving their country to Rag-heads and Niggers . The policies/politics of the governing white populations completely elude me-can’t we learn anything from Rhodesia/S.Africa? Or,is George Soros going to dictate our lives? If I could type better,I would challange others on this site to transfers of bullshit.as seems to be dominating the scene lately.Cheers & Semper Fi! 63
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 02, 2006, 03:45 PM | #
Nick, here’s where I stand: as of some months ago I consider myself strictly a one-issue voter. One-issue voter means one-issue voter: only one issue among the candidate’s positions gets taken into account. I don’t consider their views on the national debt, free trade, tariffs, income taxes, abortion, child pornography, burning the American flag, communism, capitalism, the Bill of Rights, the death penalty, violent street crime, or anything else whatsoever. What that means for me is if you’re against forced race-replacment and you also happen to be Geoffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe, Baby Doc Duvalier, Hillary, Bill, Joe Slovo, Leon Trotsky, Chairman Mao, “Prof.” Noël Ignatiev, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Caligula, Ivan the Terrible, Fidel Castro, Dr. Joseph Mengele, Hannibal Lecter, Mohammed Atta, or the devil, no matter—you still get my vote gladly and my warmest appreciation for the job you’re doing, no questions asked, and if you’re for forced race-replacement and you also happen to be George Washington, Gen. Patton, Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jefferson Davis, Jesus Christ, the Pope, or God, you don’t get my vote no matter what the other issues may be. I’ll vote for Geoffrey Dahmer over God if the one opposes and the other favors forced race-replacement, no questions asked and without a moment’s hesitation. I don’t care who the person is. If he opposes forced race-replacement he’s got my vote. Period. Full stop. No questions. End of story. 64
Posted by Alex Zeka on September 02, 2006, 04:13 PM | # Bush? One out of ten (can I go lower?). He has destabilised the world by getting America involved in an utterly needless war in the Middle East. He has prevented America from taking one of the most effective routes for preventing terrorism - keeping ‘em out. His crack-brained race socialism has ensured that elderly grannies are whisked whilst Arab terrorists happily board the planes. Indeed, he passed a law to stop race profiling by airlines just a few months before 9/11. Just to compound it all, he has increased spending at a rate that would’ve made LBJ blush. In short, he has been the very model of an anarcho-tyrant: failing to fulfill gov’t's most basic functions whilst straddling decent Americans with taxes, illegals, regulations, debt and the Medicare Bankruptcy Act. And yes, his face should appear on this site, in a sort of enemies section. Just below Ayn Rand, but above Lenin sounds about right. 65
Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 02, 2006, 05:32 PM | # Fred Scrooby: I share your determination to vote on one issue only, but this might be more difficult than meets the eye. Lets say that other than Senators Tancredo and Paul no one else is representing a view opposite race-replacement. 66
Posted by Anon on September 02, 2006, 05:52 PM | # The great thing about one-issue voting and race replacement is how effective it is at filtering out the crap. For some strange reason non-whites, marxists, libs, dense women, homos, morons, and other undesirable people never seem to be opposed to race replacement. One of life’s little mysteries, I suppose. Fred Scrooby said:
I second this as well, Mr. Scrooby. On Holliday’s recent contributions have been invaluable and I sincerely hope he continues to share such gems as the Alon Ziv and Free Market/Conservatism threads. His voice is unique and his input irreplacable. 67
Posted by Anon on September 02, 2006, 05:56 PM | # I mention recent contributions because I still need to go back and peruse his past postings. I do not expect any disappointment. 68
Posted by Rnl on September 02, 2006, 06:10 PM | # Fred Scrooby wrote: [Bush] should be impeached and removed from office, then put on trial for three capital offenses: 1) war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq; ... We should be careful about this label. The term “war crimes” shouldn’t be used as if such crimes had some objective content which could be dispassionately adjudicated in a court of law. “War crimes” are biased political charges, as I’m sure most of us here understand. These political charges are normally used to further delegitimize an enemy whom you’ve already defeated. They can also be used to justify ahead of time a war that you want to wage for other reasons. They’re rarely applied to victors. The show trial of Slobodan Milosevic is a recent case in point. We can all agree that deliberately bombing an orphanage is a war crime, in the obvious sense that it is a crime that occurred during a war, but it will only become a punishable crime if the crime’s perpetrators lose the war. Curtis LeMay noted, after the fire-bombing of Tokyo, that the Japanese would certainly try him as a war criminal if they won the war. Since they didn’t, he never became a war criminal. If we speak of “war crimes” in a loose sense—i.e. crimes that occurred during a war—such crimes are an indispensable part of most wars, especially modern wars, which is one of the many reasons why wars should be avoided except in extraordinary circumstances. It is therefore a mistake to accuse George Bush of “war crimes,” however much we may dislike him. The only serious question is whether the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified or not. I don’t see how anyone can reasonably object to the first war. It was inevitable in any case. No great power can allow itself to be attacked without retaliating. If Mother Teresa had been President on 9/11, she would have waged war against Afghanistan just as quickly as George Bush did and would have committed about the same number of “war crimes.” (Both Jared Taylor and William Pierce supported the invasion of Afghanistan.) The invasion of Iraq is an entirely different matter—a war nominally directed against the threat of Islamic terror but fought against a regime which did not support Islamic terror and which, as Tariq Assiz pointed out, routinely imprisoned Muslim fundamentalists. In terms of the invasion’s announced objectives, it would have been better if Bush had invaded the Bahamas or fired missiles at the moon. A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated. On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be “a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism”. Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that “public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible.” Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. (John Pilger, _New Statesman_ December 12, 2002) Conceived in Israel: If we leave aside the thousands of dead and maimed that Bush’s neocon adventure in Iraq has needlessly cost, its greatest sin is the public confusion it has caused in the West. Because the bloody centerpiece of the war on Islamic terrorism is an entirely unjustified assault against a secular nation that did not support Muslim terrorists, it has become more difficult to convince apolitical non-racialists that Islam is a threat to the West, as it most certainly is. A police crack-down on youth crime that targeted inoffensive senior citizens would similarly undermine its announced purpose. 69
Posted by On Holliday on September 02, 2006, 06:17 PM | # “I mention recent contributions because I still need to go back and peruse his past postings. I do not expect any disappointment. “ All of these, except the penultimate one by Matt, are mine: I did a lot more here, but I had my links removed from the “The Writers” area. You could probably find some in the search function. You may also “google” “Citizen Sailer” and “Up Close and Proximate” 70
Posted by Daedalus on September 02, 2006, 07:04 PM | # The worst president in American history was LBJ: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Immigration Act of 1965. Iraq is nothing really compared to Vietnam. That’s in addition to the “Great Society.” Harry Truman and Ulysses S. Grant round out the top three. 71
Posted by Daedalus on September 02, 2006, 07:09 PM | # The only positive thing I can say about George W. Bush was that he refused to address the NAACP for several years. He finally did recently, and now I have nothing positive to say about him. 72
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 02, 2006, 09:03 PM | #
He didn’t stock the Supreme Court with radical liberals. 73
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 03, 2006, 02:44 AM | # Funny how an innocent reminisence by the oft-times deprecated JJR can elicit such a number of comments,and go completely off subject-to the advantage of all,I might add.I have found his similar type postings have usually led to an"open forum"type discussion,such as now,which adds a touch of reality to the P iled H igher & D eeper banter and ego-bolstering commentary.More power to him{JJR},if he has found a comfort zone;most of us are still looking.Cheers! 74
Posted by Al ross on September 03, 2006, 03:04 AM | # On Holliday is correct in his assessment of matters here. An infusion of on-topic intellectual rigour from the likes of wintermute, Geoff Beck and Friedrich Braun would be most welcome. The posts of Daedalus have helped in that aim. 75
Posted by Jeugenics on September 03, 2006, 03:17 AM | # wintermute, Geoff Beck and Friedrich Braun They, along with Holliday belong here; if we must toss JJR into the volcano to make amends, then let it be done. 76
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 03, 2006, 03:56 AM | # Yeah,right-A sacrifice to your gods,so that the rains will come,and prosperity will continue to fatten your egos.Why don’t several of you just get together one day and have a “circle-jerk"over JJR’s picture.Just think of the mutual admiration you would achieve,not to mention seeing the size of the others ego[???].This is one of the most open,unbiased[in general],intellect-laden sites on the web-and should remain accessible to all who choose to post,without personal interdictions by self-proclaimed “superiors” Semper Fi! 77
Posted by Al Ross on September 03, 2006, 05:03 AM | # Nick, if your blog was called whitemarinerights.blogspot.com and you devoted your oft-displayed learning and erudition to promoting the outlandish notion that the US Marine Corps was better served when it was all-White, what would be your response to some arrogant mischief-maker posting constantly about the inadvisability of a racially exclusive White defence contingent. 78
Posted by Daedalus on September 03, 2006, 05:21 AM | #
True. This is only because of the conservative rebellion over the Miers nomination though. If Dubya had a free hand, Gonzalez would also be on the Supreme Court, which would be even worse than O’Connor and Rehnquist. I expect more of the same from Roberts and Alito. The only reason they were nominated is because they are so pro-business. That was the litmus test they had to pass. The Supreme Court will continue to soft peddle social issues while tilting in a pro-business direction. This has been the GOP strategy for decades now. In fact, 7 of 9 justices on the Supreme Court have been appointed by Republicans. That was the case even before O’Connor stepped down and Rehnquist died; which makes 9 of the last 11 appointments. Souter was appointed by Bush I. Stevens was a Ford appointment. It takes 5 to overturn Roe v. Wade or Bakke. What have conservatives delivered for their supporters? They got Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the criminalization of sodomy and Grutter in which O’Connor found a “compelling” state interest in “diversity” through divination of worthless sociological studies (much the same happened in Brown, Earl Warren had been appointed by Eisenhower). The GOP is not a legitimate alternative to the status quo. It is merely the rear guard of the ruling class, and always has been. “We promise to go a little slower.” That’s all “conservatism” has ever amounted to. It makes me sick to watch these people whine about the “fight for the soul” of the GOP; the party of the robber barons. It was Nixon who saddled us with affirmative action in the first place. It was his administration that established racial quotas in the Philadelphia Plan - and he had the temerity to campaign against quotas in 1972, when he could have done away with them at the flick of a pen. In every election since then, conservatives have opposed affirmative action. Saint Ronnie had eight years to do away with it and squatted. He did take the time to legalize millions of illegal aliens. Bush the Elder had four years, did absolutely nothing, and made things even worse with the Civil Rights Act of 1991. During the 1980s, conservatives opposed the MLK holiday. Now, Cinco de Mayo is celebrated in the White House. The destruction of conservatism should be our first political order of business. Conservatism has done more to hold us down and sap away our strength for the past fifty years than anything else by giving whites a pseudo outlet for their discontent. These vampires are our worst enemies. They exist in some form in almost every Western country. Nothing will change until they are discredited once and for all. 79
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 05:27 AM | # “Conservatism has done more to hold us down and sap away our strength for the past fifty years than anything else by giving whites a pseudo outlet for their discontent. These vampires are our worst enemies. They exist in some form in almost every Western country. Nothing will change until they are discredited once and for all.” This may be the single most “hit-the-nail-on-the-head” comment I have ever read on this blog, and I totally agree. “Conservatism” *is* one of our enemies, as it has been an “easy” dead-end to fool frustrated whites with. 80
Posted by Alex Zeka on September 03, 2006, 05:48 AM | # “Conservatism has done more to hold us down and sap away our strength for the past fifty years than anything else by giving whites a pseudo outlet for their discontent. These vampires are our worst enemies. They exist in some form in almost every Western country. Nothing will change until they are discredited once and for all.” So, what would you have in it’s place? Would your movement oppose affirmative action, unlimited immigration and other attacks on our right to our homeland? Would it oppose sky-high income taxes, universally free healthcare, u/e benefits for able-bodied beggars and other from the productive, moral, virtuous classes to the depraved classes? Would your movement believe that the police should concentrate on violent, aggressing criminals, rather than being a busybody, looking after the feelings of various minorities and cracking down on citizens defending themselves? Would you support using the military strictly to defend our own interests and liberties, rather than being at the beck and call of the UN, the EU, various third-world dissidents, etc, etc? If the answer to those questions is yes, then materially we agree on everything. Indeed that is precisely what I and many others understand conservatism to be. However, we are apparently all stuck in a dead-end because of the way we choose to call ourselves. Get back to the essentials - preserving our nations - and stop worrying about labels. 81
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 03, 2006, 06:12 AM | # Well Al,I only have personal experience going for me;not a wealth of academic “knowledge"and indoctrination.Blacks and Muslims do not belong in ANY White controlled system,as their first allegiance is to their breathern,not our Republic.Recall the Muslim FBI agent who REFUSED to tap a Muslims phone “because Muslims don’t listen to other Muslims”[he got a wrist-slap,and is still employed].WHEN SOMEONE IS SHOT IN PLAIN DAY IN A BLACK NEIGHBORHOOD WITH 50 PEOPLE WITNESSING IT-NOBODY SAW SHIT-and yet they complain the police are not taking care of them.Now,we’re hiring Hispanic Border Gards who have side businesses ferrying illegals thru checkpoints,while White Border Patrol Agents are being prosecuted,and sued by an illegal drug runner for shooting him in the ass as he ran.{780#of pot].Bottom line Al;Blacks,Muslims,Mestizos,and the other assorted peoples on this planet do NOT think as Whites-I learned this first-hand in Nam-we never had a Black in Force Recon at that time,and for good reason-not worth a shit under stress.Take your shots-I’m real and have “been there, done that” Semper Fi! 82
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 06:17 AM | # No, labels are important. That’s why some fellows who are barely “conservatives” hide behind that label to make themselves more palatable to what Derbyshire describes as the racial cowards, while, others recognize that “conservatism” - with all its reactionary and defensive implications - will never serve as a rallying point for the sort of resistance needed. “Would your movement oppose affirmative action, unlimited immigration and other attacks on our right to our homeland?” Would your “movement” (sic) *support* (note how the “conservatives” define their “movement” by mostly telling us what they oppose, not what they support. Typical) racial separation, repatriation, and ethnostates? Why would there be need to debate “affirmative action” if we oppose a multiracial state? Or do you refer to gender preferences? What about “limited” immigration? Do you support nice “skilled” immigrants? “Would it oppose sky-high income taxes, ..” Money, money, money - that is really first for you guys, isn’t it? “universally free healthcare, u/e benefits for able-bodied beggars and other from the productive, moral, virtuous classes to the depraved classes?” Right-o. Highly educated white IT workers in Silicon Valley are all “depraved” and “able-bodied beggars.” Maybe your childish “go-go-free market” propaganda tripe is true in the UK, but not in the USA. Via outsourcing, H1b, affirmative action, and ethnic nepotism, it is the white man who is getting the short end of the economic stick. Health care - one could argue that the current US system is sufficient - instead, there should be a funded eugenics program to increase the reproduction of the most intelligent, regardless of how well they exploit the “free market.” “Would your movement believe that the police should concentrate on violent, aggressing criminals, rather than being a busybody, looking after the feelings of various minorities and cracking down on citizens defending themselves?” Hmm..would your “movement” make sure there are NO minorities present to be offended in the first place? “Would you support using the military strictly to defend our own interests and liberties, rather than being at the beck and call of the UN, the EU, various third-world dissidents, etc, etc?” What are “our interests?” Helping conservative skilled immigrants come to our homelands? Conservatism IS the enemy. A good motto for a *real* movement. 83
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 06:20 AM | # “However, we are apparently all stuck in a dead-end because of the way we choose to call ourselves” Absolutely WRONG. There are fundamental differences here, not only in strategy and tactics, but in the entire worldview. Stop trying to force everything into the (yay! good!) rightists and (boo! hiss! bad!) leftists paradigm. If you want to eschew labels - *there* is the place to start. 84
Posted by AD on September 03, 2006, 06:55 AM | # Nick Tamiroff, You say you want an all white country. JJR doesn’t agree. He likes *diversity* and most of his posts are about the *big bad nazis*, ethnic cuisine or how great *high IQ*(and non-high IQ like Mexican) non-white immigration is. People like On Holliday want an all white country because it’s about our ethnic interests….not IQ. Yet you attack him as an *intellectual elitist* and support JJR, therefore supporting the browning of your nation….which pisses you off. It’s not consistent. 85
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 07:01 AM | # This is from the Steve Sailer column that Bo Sears critiqued on this blog: “..... cracking down on immigration and…the end of all ‘affirmative action’ programs … the repeal of all ‘hate crime’ laws and ‘Politically Correct’ policies and regulations … and the abolition of all multiculturalist curricula, ‘sensitivity training,’ and similar experiments in brainwashing in schools, universities, businesses, and government.” Of course, Sam’s thoughtful moderation will do him no good with the intellectual Establishment or even the “Righteous Right”. But Steve Sailer says “hear, hear” to this. “ Sound familiar? Sailer’s citizenism (which of course ignores that Francis called for whites to organize on a racial basis, and, anyway, Francis’ defeatist paleoconservatism is no dream come true either) seems to be indistinguishable from the Economic Man conservatism promoted by this blog. Race and culture are considered *only* insofar as they impact property rights and economics and the “free market” - no unskilled immigrants that cost society more than they contribute, but skilled immigrants are fine. Affirmative action and other PC attributes stand in the way of “economic efficiency” and the property rights of the Economic Men. Sailer also promotes a non-interventionist foreign policy. Conservatism, citizenism, aracial politics all. 86
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 03, 2006, 07:03 AM | # The Conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Phylis Schafly is a far cry from today’s “Conservative”.who seems more intent on stock options and political power.Principles and integrity were once the cornerstones of Conservatism,but sadly ,no more.Where do we remaining dinosaurs go now? Fred S.,Help-Holliday-no thanks!Cheers! 87
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 07:04 AM | # AD, that is why we need *more* JJR, *more* Nick, and *more* Alex. Time to expose the “conservatives.” As well as delegitimize the other nonsense on this blog. More, guys,more. 88
Posted by Daedalus on September 03, 2006, 07:04 AM | # The key to understanding why the last fifty years have been such a disaster lies in the behavior of white men. During the early twentieth century, white men in the South would not tolerate a Negro even so much as looking the wrong way at a white woman (as Emmett Till found out in 1955). During the 1960s and 1970s, the white male was pushed back from his central role in American life. There were many reasons for this: the rise of Jews into the American elite during fifties and sixties, grassroots pressure from disaffected blacks, the revulsion against racism drummed up against the Nazis in the Second World War, Cold War considerations about the impact of the treatment of racial minorities upon American foreign policy objectives, etc. All of these factors fueled the transformation of America from segregation to racial egalitarianism, but none of this ultimately explains why the status quo has persisted for so long. Neither Jews, women, or racial minorities (in other words, the modern Democratic Party) could have prevented the restoration of racialism in America had white men been unwilling to tolerate their diminished status. The reason for this is one word, conservatism. It’s the great pacifier that is utterly destroying us. The climax of the Civil Rights Movement came with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Selma, and Watts. During the late 1960s, blacks went on a rampage in riots all over the country. White men were distracted by Vietnam. There was a backlash against the Democratic Party for its support for civil rights reform. Southerners abandoned the Democratic Party, as did working class whites in many of the major cities (the so-called “Reagan Democrats”). Into this void came “conservatism.” The GOP self consciously made an effort to make itself the focal point of white male resentment, and white males rewarded the GOP by making it the majority party in the United States: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. The two exceptions were Carter and Clinton. In both cases, the Democrats could only get elected by running white Southern males and downplaying civil rights. Carter lost re-election and was propelled into office by Watergate. Clinton won only a plurality of the vote, ran as a “New Democrat,” and had the good fortune of Ross Perot and an extraordinary economic boom. Conservatism smothers any chance of a white racial reawakening by offering white men a feminized, demasculated, purely civic outlet for their frustrations. It is conservatism that has held white males in check for decades now, not only in America, but in many other countries. Why haven’t things changed? Because conservative elites deliberately keep race off the national agenda, but maintain the illusion that white men are still in control of their societies, and white men are willing to go along with this. As the party of business, the GOP also keep white men divided over class lines, marginalizing their influence in the process. In every election their message is the same: the liberals are ruining our culture and life should be a little easier for hardworking corporations constipated with wealth. After the Republicans are reelected, they immediately proceed to advance all the issues of interest to the business wing of the party. In 2001, it was the tax cut. In the last few years, it was bankruptcy reform, social security reform, and amnesty for illegal aliens. The social issues that get them elected are ignored; only to be trotted out in the next election as to why the Democrats absolutely have to be defeated. This is the racket that has kept us utterly paralyzed all these years. Look at Pat Buchanan. There you have a man who, truth be told, is with us in spirit, but even Buchanan is so afraid of violating conservative taboos that he is unwilling to speak openly about race, and without anyone willing to lead; anyone willing to openly call for the racial solidarity of white males, nothing changes. It was the precisely this racial solidarity of white males, denounced today as “white supremacy,” that led to our ascendency on this continent in the first place. It was the racial solidarity of white males that led to the overthrow of Reconstruction in the South. Feminized conservatives disavow racial solidarity, white males support conservatism as the only outlet for their frustrations; that is why we are losing our country today. Destroy conservatism and the logjam is broken once and for all. 89
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 07:07 AM | # Daedalus - I couldn’t have said it better myself. Bravo. But, to those for whom the purpose of life is “economic efficiency”, it will fall on deaf ears. 90
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 07:09 AM | # “Where do we remaining dinosaurs go now?” Guessedworker should make you a regular blogger here. Have you asked him? Why not? 91
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 07:13 AM | # “People like On Holliday want an all white country because it’s about our ethnic interests….not IQ. Yet you attack him as an *intellectual elitist* and support JJR, therefore supporting the browning of your nation….which pisses you off. It’s not consistent.” AD, it is called “reverse snobbery.” After having done absolutely nothing to fulfill their oath to protect America from “domestic enemies”, it pumps up guys like this to contrast their “down-to-earth, real man, did it all” persona to “effete supercillious academics.” That way, they can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning. After all, they are *real men.* Unless Negroes are rioting in the streets, and then…. 92
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 07:31 AM | # “effete supercillious academics” Of course, with his pro-immigration, look-how-smart-I-am-read-my-200-studies, I like oysters and wine persona, JJR himself is the stereotypical effete supercillious academic. Two reasons why he is not attacked as such by the chest-beaters: 1) JJR’s “thought” is so childish and simplistic that it doesn’t even *seem* like he was ever an academic. After all, if a retarded five year-old can make more effective arguments than you, your posts and comments would not intimidate the “me Tarzan” crowd. 2) More importantly, JJR doesn’t insist that the Tarzans actually *do* or *support* anything uncomfortable. He is one of their generation, the ones who lost it all. According to JJR, things are not so bad, just “vote conservative” and all will be well. The Tarzans just eat that all up. No reason to feel guilty for losing their world, just blame it on the “leftists” and cheer on Bush and Israel. That’s how the esteemed Dr. Ray gets away with being a preening, self-satisfied, I’m-so-brilliant academic. Got it? And that is why we need MORE JJR. 93
Posted by john ray on September 03, 2006, 07:43 AM | # “Naturally, I have already explained this point ad nauseam, and I am beginning to suspect that the fact I am STILL explaining it suggests that my counterparts do not really wish to have their inquiries answered with the truth, but, rather, would prefer to blindly dismiss our irrefutable accusations against John Ray and the damning implications these have for Majority Rights. “ I love it! 94
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 03, 2006, 07:44 AM | # AD-I support JJR in his right to post,without personal vindective-not necessarily his individual viewpoints.I like his choice of wines,his 1963 Humber,and his present life-style.Certain other aspects of his beliefs are anethma to me,but held in perspective.We all have the privledge of private moments,and sometimes we would like to share-WHAT’S THE BIG F**KING DEAL??? BTW-I ain’t going until GW banishes me-And I’m friggin bullet proof.Semper Fi! 95
Posted by john ray on September 03, 2006, 07:46 AM | # “Posted by Abe Foxman, Friend of Humanity “ A very amusing post 96
Posted by john ray on September 03, 2006, 07:49 AM | # “No, I’d think we will both agree that a map of British India would be most relevant, and for the same reasons. “ I like that idea 97
Posted by john ray on September 03, 2006, 07:51 AM | # “You mean the ones who put his picture on their masthead’ Pleased Steve reads my other blogs 98
Posted by Daedalus on September 03, 2006, 07:59 AM | #
Here is what Southerners were willing to say, before conservatism. Governor Ross Barnett of Mississippi in 1962.
Would Trent Lott, a conservative, ever say something like this? Would any conservative dare to nullify a federal court order and invite military coercion? When David Duke unapologetically ran as a white man for Governor in Louisiana he got the majority of the white vote with the entire national press against him (in spite of being a former Nazi and head of the KKK no less). In 2004, an election in which I voted, Alabama voters defeated a purely symbolic attempt to strike segregationist language out of our state constitution. Sure. The Deep South is not America, but in many parts of the country, whites would follow enthusiastically if only their leaders would stand up for their interests. There is no reason why a BNP style third party could not get started in the U.S., especially in the American South where whites are still more amenable to racialism than perhaps anywhere else in the world, certainly more so than in Europe. The Wallace presidential campaigns prove this is entirely feasible, probably even more so today now that the Western states are being overwhelmed by third world immigration. Such a third party could at the very least force the mainstream to accomodate our interests, as the threat posed by the Socialist Party fueled the New Deal in the 1930s. Everything began to go downhill the moment we were suckered into supporting conservatism. “Forget about race. Enjoy life in the suburbs. Lower your taxes. Sneak up on the liberals. Trust us.” This conservative message of cowardice, submission, and retreat has led down the road of one outrage after another. In hindsight, military occupation would have been the best thing to ever happen to us. It would have steeled our resolve to resist the destruction of our way of life, as was the case during the Revolution and Reconstruction. The humiliation of Reconstruction at the hands of the military is something white Southerners never forgot, and within ten years, we had redeemed our society. 99
Posted by john ray on September 03, 2006, 08:01 AM | # This is absolutely the best comment thread I have ever read. I have been laughing all the way through it. Who would have thought that a morning at the seaside would have generated such an outpouring? 100
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 08:21 AM | # “This is absolutely the best comment thread I have ever read. I have been laughing all the way through it. Who would have thought that a morning at the seaside would have generated such an outpouring?” I agree. That is why we need more such posts. John, when are you going to tell us about the oysters? 101
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 08:25 AM | # “Forget about race. Enjoy life in the suburbs. Lower your taxes. Sneak up on the liberals. Trust us.” In other words, the motto of “Majority Rights” More, please. 102
Posted by Daedalus on September 03, 2006, 09:30 AM | #
The racial solidarity of white men. The moment white men stand together, not as conservatives, but as white men, and demand the end of the abomination of racial integration is when everything wrong with this country changes. It has been done before. That’s how we buried Reconstruction.
You know, as a father, I spend more time thinking about what sort of society I am going to leave behind for my newborn son. That’s what matters to me more than anything else. I’m not a materialist, so the accumulation of personal wealth is not something I attach much importance to. If I had to choose between paying higher income taxes and reversing the racial degeneration of my country, I would happily do so (with bells on), and I come from a rather wealthy family. Universal healthcare is hardly something I get worked up about either. I take it you are of the view that there is something illegitimate, immoral even, about prohibiting pharmaceutical companies from ripping off elderly people by overcharging them for prescription drugs?
Crime as we know it was unknown in the Jim Crow South. Now, in 2006, there are about 15,000 black-on-white rapes every year. Keep in mind that in the entire history of Jim Crow America there were at most 3,400 or so lynchings, and the majority of these were justified.
Creating the U.N. and assuming “leadership of the free world” was one of the worst things we ever did. In the process, we created a giant stage for ourselves and threw the spotlight on our domestic racial policies. This was never a problem before we committed ourselves to internationalism in 1945. I don’t really care about the EU, Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc. The rehabilitation of racialism in North America is my top priority.
Then you are sorely mistaken. First, affirmative action is a legacy of the Nixon administration which supported the policy as a useful method for driving a wedge between blacks and working class white voters. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II could have ended affirmative action in the federal government by issuing an executive order, but none of them have done so. They have preserved affirmative action right down to the present because it is such a useful issue for them at the ballot box. Their court appointments have had several opportunities to abolish affirmative action, but have elected to maintain it. Second, conservatives have supported third world immigration for years now. Reagan gave a massive amnesty to illegal aliens. The Immigration Act of 1990 under Bush the Elder led to the massive expansion of immigration to the United States in the last sixteen years. The problem of illegal immigration is mostly attributable to conservative presidents. Aside from Carter and Clinton, this has developed on their watch, and they have had every opportunity to stop it but have refused to do so because it would infuriate the cheap labor lobby that finances their campaigns. The hispandering of George W. Bush is so well known that it need not be elaborated upon. Third, right now, at this very moment, the executive branch of the U.S. government is committed to the goal of “ending tyranny in the world.” How do conservatives stack up to Wilson and FDR? Wilson didn’t lead America into the Great War until Germany forced his hand. Even FDR was willing to tolerate the existence of “tyranny” in Eastern Europe and look the other way in Latin America with his “Good Neighbor Policy.” Truman fired MacArthur and negotiated an armistace with China and North Korea. Kennedy promised to guarantee the security of Cuba in the Cuban Missle Crisis. Carter embraced détente. Clinton pulled U.S. troops out of Somalia. Bush the Elder was a cheerleader for NAFTA and popularized the phrase “New World Order.” As for government playing the role of busybody, conservatives are responsible for the Patriot Act and the draconian “Department of Homeland Security” headed by Michael Chertoff. The most infamous act of snooping in recent memory was the Watergate scandal that led to the fall of Nixon.
It’s not a matter of labels. Conservatives REFUSE to discuss race, they have said for decades that race doesn’t matter, and they have inculcated the mythology that dysfunctional black behavior has been caused by the Great Society programs, as if the black middle class would exist today if it were not for government spending and racial preferences. How are conservatives going to solve any of our racial problems when they afraid to even so much as discuss them? 103
Posted by Alex Zeka on September 03, 2006, 10:47 AM | # Holliday, First of all affirmative action and minority empowerment laws can be not just pro-ethnics, but also pro-gay, pro-femininy, pro-druggie or whatever. Would you also oppose such policies? Secondly, you’re accusation that I care about nothing but money is undone by the fact that I also often comment about other concerns. Please explain to me why supporting lower taxes is caring about nothing but money, whilst supporting higher taxes (which could presumably pay for yet another batch of indolent low-lives) isn’t. I also find it amusing that you’re example for literally everything is the situation in California. Quite frankly, California can import the entire Third World for all I care; it’ll only mean less immigration pressure on the rest of us normal Westerners. Away from the Golden State, everywhere else in the West its the invading ethnics, aggressive Culture Warriors and trash bums who are the almost net sole beneficiares of our welfare states. The only reason decent people aren’t hurt by welfare in Califronia is, I suspect, that there aren’t any decent people left there. The rest of your rant seems to issue forth entirely from the depth of your imagination. Were have I ever advocated large-scale immigration of anyone, Conservative or hardworking or anything else? Please, do find a quote before accusing. Finally, you still haven’t answered my simple question. Why do you support u/e benefits and free universal healthcare for everywhere outside your Golden State? 104
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2006, 01:35 PM | #
Yes and for this alone, completely apart from his other grave crimes against this nation and race, The Chimp should be impeached, removed from office, and put on trial on a capital charge of treason. If this drive by The Chimp and the other usual suspects and traitors to get the U.S. to start celebrating Cinco de Mayo continues, whites should begin “counter-celebrating” the date of May 5th in solemn, sacred commemoration of its sole significance to patriots: on that date in 1865 the Confederate government under President Jefferson Davis held its final official cabinet meeting as it was fleeing the advancing U.S. Army. What the Confederacy stood for is not dead but asleep—or, not asleep but locked up, imprisoned, kept bound and gagged. In remembering May 5th, white patriots will not be mourning a thing vanished but solemnly reminding themselves with a deep sense of joy that what we can’t see abides and shall return and sweep away the present hellish nightmare. So, if push comes to shove between whites and The Chimp (and his zookeepers) over “celebration of Cinco de Mayo” we’ll start celebrating May 5th all right: they want it? They’ll get it. But it’ll be the real May 5th ... the only May 5th—and you’ll hear conversations like this: “Hey are you celebrating Cinco de Mayo this year?” “Cinco de Mayo? What’s that? Ohhhhhh ... May 5th, you mean? The anniversary of the Confederate government’s final official cabinet meeting under President Jefferson Davis? Of course I’m celebrating it, a date which is a sacred reminder to all white patriots that what seemed to come to an end in 1865 didn’t, and will never end, but is only slumbering—or rather, has been muzzled by the Yankee army of occupation, and will re-awaken as surely as the sun will rise! I celebrate that date every year! I will celebrate that date every year until the day I die!” “No, I mean Cinco de Mayo ... the Mexican May 5th!” “The Mexican May 5th? Sorry amigo, never heard of it. I’m white, by the way, not Aztec. Now, get back across the Rio Grande before you’re pushed back across, and take The Chimp, his entire family-plus-inlaws, and the whole New World Order crowd with you! We’ll do very nicely without any of them, thank you—better than ever, in fact!”
Amen! Amen! Amen! What wonderful, magnificent words! Earth-shaking, epoch-making, sublime words! The day will come when politicians here and in Europe, and wherever else there are communities of Europeans living, will speak golden words such as those again! About On Holliday’s continuing attacks on JJR and now Nick and Alex: he doesn’t seem to realize when he’s basically among friends—which I don’t get, because he’s an extremely intelligent guy, but there it is. I wish he’d lighten up and just take his turn posting his opinions along with everyone else, respect the right of others to speak their peace, and keep to a more civil tone toward those bloggers and thread-regulars who, though he apparently sees them as deadly enemies, are basically on the right side of things—not necessarily in identically the same way as he, but basically: they may not dot every i and cross every t the exact same way OH does, or I do or anyone else does for that matter, but they’re basically on the right side of things and are here hoping for answers through frank discussion unfettered by PC, and wishing to move our side forward, as all of us are. For the third or fourth time, OH, can’t you lighten up? These people are fundamentally with you. Yes I’ve been exasperated by certain of JJR’s opinions and I’ve replied to them quite sharply, but you don’t seem to ever let it drop, or admit what JJR has in common with this site’s underlying aims and move on, repecting his right to speak. Can’t you save the venom for the those who actually are our dyed-in-the-wool enemies, such as the likes of June Gordon, or that “Sam” from Oz, a hyper-radical leftist posing dishonestly as some sort of thoughtful, reflective, “fair-to-all-sides,” “open-minded,” “open-to-persuasion,” “as-yet-undecided” “moderate centrist” who commented here during Cronulla, or that guy “Simon,” also from Oz, with a radical homosexualist and ultra-leftist agenda, or that Robert Lindsay horror earlier on, and some others. Let those here who are basically allies speak, and then you speak, and the readership’ll decide for itself whose ideas it likes. It’s not as if when they speak who differ from you on this or that point it erases what you said from the readership’s mind, making your participation vain. It doesn’t. The readership remembers very clearly what you said, and makes up its mind. You appear to want to squelch differing points of view and sort of insist on narrow ideological purity according to your lights. I, who happen to agree with your views something like 98%, don’t want MR to be that kind of blog. How can you insist on such a thing when we’re all in a learning phase here? I’ve learned so much from this blog alone that at least half my formerly-held opinions have changed since MR.com’s birth, some drastically. I hold certain opinions now that are the one-hundred-and-eighty-degree opposites of ones I held just three or four months ago. Things keep falling more and more into place for me, as I’m sure they do for everyone grappling with the extremely difficult problems we discuss, and that’s thanks partly to being exposed to a variety of views. As 1300s Czech religious reformer John Huss said, let everyone speak his version of the truth and the real truth will emerge. 105
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 01:57 PM | # Alex, you brainiac, I already linked to a North Carolina VDARE letter writer in your imbecillic “inimical” post, concerning his status because of outsourcing. The problem is just not in California. The “free market” is grossly inefficient in matching willing workers with opportunities. 106
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 02:02 PM | # “These people are fundamentally with you. “ That is, excuse “my French” absolute bullshit. On another thread, your hero John Ray is openly approving of his son’s miscgenation. That’s “fundamentally with me?” Actually, more often than not, over the last six months or so, I find myself disagreeing more than I agree with much of the crap here. I thought the blog was about “free speech”, no? I thought that the reason why views that have nothing to do with so-called “majority rights” are tolered here because the blog values “free speech” (not for Braun, but that’s another matter). But, alas, if I dare to criticize the geniuses here, I am “wrong” and have to “cool it?” What hypocrisy. 107
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2006, 02:18 PM | # No, you don’t have to cool it. I was just trying to say why you ought to. It’s entirely up to you. By all means, keep doing it if you prefer. I would have hoped a guy as intelligent as you would see his way clear to stopping putting his little ego quirk, or his little interpersonal blind spot or whatever it is, above The Cause, and also to recognize when those talking to him are friends, not enemies. That’s all. But do what you like. 108
Posted by On Holliday on September 03, 2006, 02:34 PM | # Fred, you miss the point. You are not as dim as Tarzan are you? It is for the “Cause.” What makes you think I look at many of the posts here as being ideologically friendly? I mean, Svigor’s posts are, for example, I have no beef there. But, is the “Cause” being helped or hindered by the negative memes promoted here. If I thought the former, then you’d be right - a “personality quirk” (the standard MR explanation for real differences of opinion). But if I sincerely thought the latter - then how is it “personality?” Explain. 109
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2006, 06:00 PM | #
I can’t any better than I’ve done. You act as if others making their points somehow keeps you from making yours, or somehow undoes the ones you’ve made, erasing them from readers’ minds or something. It doesn’t. Readers absorb what you say and carefully consider it regardless of who else posts what, before or after. I’ve learned a tremendous amount from you. Lighten up. Others have a right to speak. You keep acting as if they don’t. It’s wrong to act that way. I can’t explain it any better. You act as if this whole thing, this whole resistance we’re trying to mount at this site, turns on your log entries and thread comments, so that all hope of success is immediately dashed if a single differing voice is permitted expression. Forgive me if I’m wrong. I won’t comment on this again in the present thread—you get the last word. 110
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2006, 06:06 PM | # I’m not saying you shouldn’t refute others. You should, as often as you feel is called for. But what you do isn’t just refute, you appear to want to forbid them to speak. That’s the wrong part. 111
Posted by Rnl on September 03, 2006, 06:34 PM | # Daedalus wrote: in the entire history of Jim Crow America there were at most 3,400 or so lynchings, and the majority of these were justified. It’s worth stressing the latter point. Images of lynched Blacks, presented without context, are now interpreted by almost everyone as evidence of White political repression. A lynched Black either became dangerous politically (i.e. he was an “uppity nigger” scornful of White supremacy) or he was falsely accused of some sexual offense against a White woman. White women in the South, so the story goes, were addicted to libeling inoffensive Blacks with false charges of rape, which had the effect of justifying segregation and encouraging further White repression. In fact, as you point out, the vast majority of lynched Blacks were certainly common criminals. They were lynched primarily _as_ criminals, not as political targets. And not only Blacks were lynched. About a third of the victims of lynching were White, and in at least one case the victim was White and the perpetrators Black. Lynching, though obviously wrong, was extra-legal communal justice. Blacks were lynched more often than Whites because, then as now, Blacks committed more crimes than Whites. Dwight Murphey wrote an illuminating book (_Lynching: History and Analysis) on this subject. National Vanguard Books probably still sells it. 112
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 03, 2006, 07:58 PM | #
Lynching came up in a January thread, in which I posted a link to this article listing the lynchings in the state of Iowa from 1834 to 1907. Of almost 60 lynchings, one victim was a Negro, one a Red Indian, and the rest were white. (One white man in 1860 was lynched for kidnapping free Negroes and selling them into slavery.) The article links to a second list: the near-lynchings in Iowa from 1878 to 1909. Of these, totalling some 50 near-lynchings, 18 were Negroes, the rest white. (Two Negroes were nearly lynched for “pushing a white woman off the sidewalk.”) 113
Posted by Daedalus on September 03, 2006, 09:08 PM | # Theodore Roosevelt blamed lynching on the dispostion of black men to rape white women. We had a discussion about this recently on The Phora. I reviewed case after case and almost every incident I looked at was caused by some provocation. The public lynching of Henry Smith in Paris, TX was brought on by his gruesome murder of a white child. 114
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 03, 2006, 10:05 PM | # Daedalus, a link to that thread would be appreciated. For sane people, it’s self-evident that whites are the sort least likely to go around lynching people (regardless of race) for kicks, seeing how we’re the world’s dogoodniks and moral crusaders; never mind the fact that humans in general don’t get their kicks lynching people for its own sake. (one wonders why, our lust for lynching suffering a victim-vacuum, we’ve not moved on to dog-lynching or cat-lynching or somesuch to gratify our sadistic murder-urge; perhaps our social engineers on the left should be taking credit) Common sense is rarely enough for anti-humanists. Of course, logic and evidence are rarely enough either… 115
Posted by Alex Zeka on September 04, 2006, 05:31 AM | # Okay, Holliday, but what makes you presume that I favour letting all these third worlders in? “The “free market” is grossly inefficient in matching willing workers with opportunities.” And socialism is very effective? Please, Holliday, life is grossly inefficient. You are expecting miracles from the free market, I only expect it to be better than the alternative. Now, America’s ‘take from the middle class, give to the poor’ system is not my ideal. Singapore’s system of entrepreneur-driven economics is pretty damned good, however. What is your ideal? Once I know, then we can compare efficiency. 116
Posted by On Holliday on September 04, 2006, 06:03 AM | # “But what you do isn’t just refute, you appear to want to forbid them to speak.” Incorrect. I merely have begun to see this blog as it really is, and will comment accordingly. More JJR posts, please. Alex, I harken back to no “ideal system.” I have nothing against as marketr economy per se, but one in which there is regulation so as to make sure that ethnic interests are first priority, and, as well, sufficient stability, and that all classes in the society have a stake in maintaining it. This latter point mirrors the development of monogamy in the west. A “free market” approach to mating would be polygamy, but, it doesn’t work out too well. Of course, we still have serial monogamists like John Ray, but, hey, that’s “conservatism.” 117
Posted by Daedalus on September 04, 2006, 06:08 AM | # On Holliday, A link here to some excerpts from Correlli Barnett’s The Collapse of British Power. Barnett explains in some detail how laissez-faire economics undermined the British Empire relative to America and Germany during the late nineteenth/early twentieth cnetury, ultimately setting the stage for the debacle the British found themselves in during the Second World War, in the aftermath of which they which they were reduced to a satellite of the United States.
118
Posted by On Holliday on September 04, 2006, 06:24 AM | # Daedalus Thank you for that information. I am, by the way, a no good Buchananite protectionist. 119
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 04, 2006, 10:53 AM | # Holiday-to sum up my take on Fred’‘s very polite accessment of you,I’ll just boil it down to two words-Pedantic and Vindictive.I do NOT find fault with your obvious capabilites,nor disagree with you on most issues,but think that vendettas are best accomplished in private.For someone who dislikes Ayn Rand so much,you act like one her primary characters in “The Fountainhead”.And,yes,I will continue to comment here,until told not to by GW.And my accused defense of JJR has NOTHING to do with his position on certain themes,as I also dislike seeing some one kicking a dog,or his wife.Cheap shots,like “serial monogamist"are just what you rail against{evidently you are exempt],but the rest of us must meet your standards.This is the self-annoited elitism I find repugnant.BTW,I am also a Buchananite.Cheers d 120
Posted by On Holliday on September 04, 2006, 11:04 AM | # “And,yes,I will continue to comment here,until told not to by GW” Not only do I support your right to comment here, I very strongly urge Guessedworker to make you a regular blogger here, posthaste. We need Nick blogging here. Who else agrees? 121
Posted by On Holliday on September 04, 2006, 11:06 AM | # Clarification: when I said “I am a Buchananite protectionist”, I meant *precisely* that - I agree with Buchanan’s protectionist stance. I am not a political Buchananite by any means. Just what we need - another “conservative.” 122
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 04, 2006, 11:27 AM | # Not only do I support your right to comment here, I very strongly urge Guessedworker to make you a regular blogger here, posthaste. We need Nick blogging here. Who else agrees? 123
Posted by Al Ross on September 04, 2006, 04:02 PM | # A splendid notion, OH.Nick’s blogging on MR would, I’m sure, provide the perfect stultifying complement to the whimsically multifarious contributions of the burbling Brisbaner. 124
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 04, 2006, 04:42 PM | #
Serial monogamist isn’t a cheap shot, it’s simply an accurate assessment. Serial monogamy is the mating pattern of much, if not most, of the west. 125
Posted by ben tillman on September 04, 2006, 05:31 PM | # “Lynching, though obviously wrong, was extra-legal communal justice.” Why is it wrong? http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/ut012.htm A trial confers no goodness on a penalty that would be otherwise thought wicked. If it is just to hang a man for wanton murder, then it is just whether he has been tried or not. ... The point of a trial is not to make hanging a man just; it is to make sure you have the right man. Its procedures, its formalities, its codes of conduct are intended — or at least used to be intended; I think the purpose has changed in the last few years — to see to it that, if an accused person has a defense, he has an opportunity to present it. 126
Posted by Rnl on September 05, 2006, 02:50 AM | # Daedalus wrote: Theodore Roosevelt blamed lynching on the disposition of black men to rape white women. One of these Black-on-White rapes had a significant afterlife: In what obviously served as a primal scene that would determine much of his subsequent character, Dixon describes his first contact with the Klan, while his family lived in Shelby, North Carolina. The widow of a Confederate soldier arrived at the Dixon home in tears, _claiming_ that an escaped black convict had raped her daughter. That night, the young Dixon awoke to the sound of horses galloping. Creeping to the doorway, he looked out to see the Klan hanging a black man and riddling the body with bullets. (Clare Eby, writing in the _African American Review_, Fall, 2001, emphasis added) The Dixon here is Thomas Dixon, Jr., whose novel _The Clansman_ formed the basis of Griffith’s _Birth of a Nation_ (1915). This rape and its aftermath thus played a crucial role in the origin of an American cultural monument. Dixon’s recollection would later be transformed into the near-rape of Flora Cameron and the extra-legal execution of her Black assailant, the central and most controversial events in the film. (The rape and subsequent suicide of a different character does occur in Dixon’s book, confirming the fears of the novel’s hero, who had predicted that “a black hand on a white woman’s throat” would be the inevitable consequence of Reconstruction.) About a third of the Black victims of lynching were accused of the rape or molestation of White women, so this formative episode in Dixon’s life and literary career was a representative Black-on-White crime. Such crimes happened (or were alleged to have happened) often enough that the threat posed to White women by Black rapists figured prominently in the South’s justification for its resistance to Reconstruction. Did this particular rape actually occur? Clare Eby clearly doubts that it did. It was merely a _claim_ on the part of a Confederate widow. She could have fabricated the story of her daughter’s rape, since, as all well-informed people know, White women in the South have a long history of accusing innocent Blacks of rape, unleashing terrible waves of mob violence as a result of their many fabrications. All of this is conclusively documented in _To Kill a Mockingbird_, an important historical record. The well-known truth that White women in the decades of lynching were prone to maliciously accuse Blacks of rape belongs to what Regina Belzer calls the propasphere—a system of false well-known truths circulating about and carrying anti-White political meanings. It is, for us, an illuminating propaspheric truth because it is so obviously untrue. If you just think about it for several seconds, you know that it must be false. No extensive research is required. All you need to do is think without anti-racialist preconceptions. Although women do occasionally fabricate rape allegations, the number of White women in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who would falsely claim that they had been raped (and hence contaminated, defiled, etc.) by a Black man must have been small. Such false accusations did occur—as in the Scottsboro case, where both of the alleged rape victims were prostitutes—but they must have been extremely rare. The likelihood that a Confederate widow would publicly announce her daughter’s humiliation, knowing that no rape had occurred, is even more remote. Propaspheric historians cannot document (and mock) the South’s “primitive” horror at defiling sexual contact between Blacks and Whites _and_ plausibly claim that White women would regularly manufacture tales of their own defilement. The former guarantees the unlikelihood of the latter. We can’t take a time-machine back into the past to investigate each of the alleged rapes that led to a lynching, but we do know what is plausible and what isn’t. And we also know that nothing in our current racial climate is inconsistent with the belief of Southern segregationists that many Black men, if given the opportunity, will rape White women. “A black hand on a white woman’s throat”: Birth of a Nation: 127
Posted by Rnl on September 05, 2006, 03:05 AM | # Thomas Dixon was, for the most part, a terrible writer. But his politics were intelligent, and even his fiercest critics acknowledge that his hatred for slavery was genuine. The following excerpt is from his _Clansman_ (1905), the most famous of his many novels. It’s both funny, in the way that anything flagrantly non-PC can be humorous today, and not too far from the truth, despite some obvious errors and exaggerations. *** Stoneman [a caricature of Thaddeus Stevens] lifted his head in amazement at the burst of passionate intensity with which the Southerner poured out his protest. “For a Russian to rule a Pole,” [Dr. Cameron] went on, “a Turk to rule a Greek, or an Austrian to dominate an Italian, is hard enough, but for a thick-lipped, flat-nosed, spindle shanked negro, exuding his nauseating animal odour, to shout in derision over the hearths and homes of white men and women is an atrocity too monstrous for belief. Our people are yet dazed by its horror. My God! when they realise its meaning, whose arm will be strong enough to hold them?” “I should think the South was sufficiently amused with resistance to authority,” interrupted Stoneman. “Even so. Yet there is a moral force at the bottom of every living race of men. The sense of right, the feeling of racial destiny—these are unconquered and unconquerable forces. Every man in South Carolina to-day is glad that slavery is dead. The war was not too great a price for us to pay for the lifting of its curse. And now to ask a Southerner to be the slave of a slave—“ “And yet, Doctor,” said Stoneman, coolly, “manhood suffrage is the one eternal thing fixed in the nature of Democracy. It is inevitable.” “At the price of racial life? Never!” said the Southerner, with fiery emphasis. “This Republic is great, not by reason of the amount of dirt we possess, the size of our census roll, or our voting register—we are great because of the genius of the race of pioneer white freemen who settled this continent, dared the might of kings, and made a wilderness the home of Freedom. Our future depends on the purity of this racial stock. The grant of the ballot to these millions of semi-savages and the riot of debauchery which has followed are crimes against human progress.” “Yet may we not train him?” asked Stoneman. “To a point, yes, and then sink to his level if you walk as his equal in physical contact with him. His race is not an infant; it is a degenerate—older than yours in time. At last we are face to face with the man whom slavery concealed with its rags. Suffrage is but the new paper cloak with which the Demagogue has sought to hide the issue. Can we assimilate the Negro? The very question is pollution. In Hayti no white man can own land. Black dukes and marquises drive over them and swear at them for getting under their wheels. Is civilisation a patent cloak with which law-tinkers can wrap an animal and make him a king?” “But the negro must be protected by the ballot,” protested the statesman. “The humblest man must have the opportunity to rise. The real issue is Democracy.” “The issue, sir, is Civilisation! Not whether a negro shall be protected, but whether Society is worth saving from barbarism.” “The statesman can educate,” put in the Commoner. The doctor cleared his throat with a quick little nervous cough he was in the habit of giving when deeply moved. “Education, sir, is the development of that which _is_. Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the Continent of Africa—rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear or arrow-head worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail! He lived as his fathers lived—stole his food, worked his wife, sold his children, ate his brother, content to drink, sing, dance, and sport as the ape! “And this creature, half-child, half-animal, the sport of impulse, whim and conceit, ‘pleased with a rattle, tickled with a straw,’ a being who, left to his will, roams at night and sleeps in the day, whose speech knows no word of love, whose passions, once aroused, are as the fury of the tiger—they have set this thing to rule over the Southern people—” The doctor sprang to his feet, his face livid, his eyes blazing with emotion. “Merciful God—it surpasses human belief!” He sank exhausted in his chair, and, extending his hand in an eloquent gesture, continued: “Surely, surely, sir, the people of the North are not mad? We can yet appeal to the conscience and the brain of our brethren of a common race?” Thomas Dixon, Jr., _The Clansman_ (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1970), pp. 290-293. 128
Posted by Rnl on September 05, 2006, 03:08 AM | # Someone (I’m not sure who) wrote: Why is [lynching] wrong? Because a strong suspicion of someone’s guilt is insufficient grounds for executing him. Strong suspicions of guilt can be mistaken. That’s why civilized societies have trials with rules of evidence. 129
Posted by Daedalus on September 05, 2006, 06:38 AM | # Lynching, A Positive Good In our *civilized society*, we have 15,000+ black-on-white rapes every year, and that is just rapes. Virtually all of these rapes are unprovoked wanton attacks by black men on white women. As I pointed out above, from the 1880s to the 1940s, there were approximately 3,400 lynchings, in response to all categories of black-on-white violent crime. I’m still planning to verify these numbers in a future research project. Lynchings were almost always a response to some sort of provocation. A Negro would commit a crime or would be accused of a crime (almost always a serious one) in a local newspaper. A mob would form and a lynching would follow. The Springfield riot (which led to the formation of the NAACP), for example, was caused by the brutal murder of a white man after he found a Negro intruder in his home standing over his daughter’s bed. The famous public lynching of Henry Smith in Paris, TX was caused by his brutal murder of a white child. The East St. Louis riot was caused by white resentment of a crime wave unleashed upon the city by recent black immigrants from the South. Did lynchings occur outside the law? Yes. Were innocent people lynched? Undoubtedly. Everyone agrees that is unfortunate. But this ignores two things: 1.) in most cases, there were white victims of Negro criminality, which the bleeding hearts either fashionably now ignore or question their motives, 2.) while extralegal justice can be fairly criticized, the maintenance of white supremacy in the American South deterred black-on-white violent crime in a way which our own integrated society has utterly failed to do so. My grandparents who lived through both eras can still clearly remember the days when 1 of every 3 black males were not being processed through some form of the judicial system. This was because blacks were taught from birth not to so much even look at a white woman. Far from being a stain on the honor of our ancestors, I would hold that instead of an evil, lynching was a good — a positive good, for both races. First, most importantly, millions of whites who otherwise would have been the victims of murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults were never attacked. Violent crime was simply not a problem in the Jim Crow South. Second, lynchings deterred would be black criminals from committing such crimes; sparing millions of them from being locked up in the justice system as they are today. Third, blacks and whites reaped huge economic benefits from lynching. A safer society was a more efficient one. White businesses and homeowners did not flock to the suburbs and incur the economic costs of doing so to escape Negro criminality. This is especially a problem today for young white couples who are unable to enroll their children in multiracial public schools. All the money that is wasted on private education, incarcerating blacks in prison, hiring extra security guards and police officers, the home security industry and so forth was not being taken out of the productive economy. Instead, this money went to create jobs which elevated the socioeconomic status of poor whites and blacks alike. Fourth, with the possibility of a career in crime closed to them by the willingness of whites to use extralegal violence to maintain their dignity and civilization, black males were not being torn away from their families and carted off to prison as they are today, and were around to work as breadwinners for their own wives and children. One of the first casualties of the decline of lynching was the black family. The heroic Senator Theodore Bilbo (D-MS) made the following prediction in 1946:
In some respects, Bilbo was off the mark: the willingness of whites to lynch blacks had been waning for decades, and became extremely rare after 1946 even without federal legislative remedy. Similarly, the race riots of the future would almost entirely white-on-black. Still, in his larger point, Bilbo was prophetic: black-on-white violent crime, and the costs of crime for both races, would explode in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement to levels previous generations of whites would have associated with barbarism. I haven’t run the numbers yet (I plan to do so in the future), but a “thousandfold” strikes me as a gross underestimate. 130
Posted by Daedalus on September 05, 2006, 06:45 AM | # Edit: almost entirely black-on-white. One more thing. During the early twentieth century, the NAACP would hang a flag outside its headquarters with the message on it “A Black Man Was Lynched Today” in the event of a lynching. A similar white organization or website should be created to keep track of black-on-white violent crime. “A White Woman Was Raped Today” would be an especially good slogan to use in a similar fashion. 131
Posted by Rnl on September 05, 2006, 12:23 PM | # You’ve probably read Carelton Putnam’s books. It’s striking how topical they remain forty years later. The statistics have become worse, but the pattern remains the same. Of course most of the segregations’ predictions came true. On the other hand, Bilbo and the rest turned out to be wrong in seeing something like an apocalypse on the horizon. The culture became degraded and the cities more violent, just as the segregationists had predicted, but Whites adapted themselves to decline. Escalating Black crime simply became part of the texture of modern life—an irritant no doubt, but rarely a source of outrage. Whites moved away from the irritant. They didn’t perceive it as intolerable. As I pointed out above, from the 1880s to the 1940s, there were approximately 3,400 lynchings, in response to all categories of black-on-white violent crime. That’s close to the figure Murphey cites in _Lynching—History and Analysis_: an “87-year total [from 1882-1968] of 4,742, of which 1,297 were white and 3,445 black.” And the numbers were in decline: “lynching ceased to be a major phenomenon by the turn of the century, and had pretty much come to an end by the mid-1930s” (p. 15). So in effect public concern about lynching, as expressed in popular culture (e.g. Fritz Lang’s film _Fury_ and Billie Holiday’s song “Strange Fruit”), increased as the phenomenon itself declined. 132
Posted by rustymason on September 06, 2006, 10:59 AM | # The first thing I would like to see, right after someone like On Holliday becomes president with a Daedalus as his VP/advisor, is to put JJR himself on public display in the stocks. We’ll paint him up as the clown he is for all to see, as a reminder of the bad ole days when we were under the control of the multicultural, White-genocide lunatics. I think I’d also like to have thinkers like Bo, Svy, and Wintermute in charge in the administration somewhere, but I have to think about where. I think that there are only a few posters here who truly get the big picture of how deadly serious our present situation is and how seriously and sternly it must be handled. Most posters on this blog now too readily identify with conservatism in general, an “ideology” (better described as a way of coping) which has gotten us nowhere. Conservatives always end up conserving what they initially rejected. Just look at the conservatives of today—they have adopted most of the radical liberal views of the 60’s. But that’s the nature of conservatism, isn’t it? Conservatives don’t stand for what’s right, just what is. They will try to work around what is repulsive or deadly, eventually absorbing it. No, Daed and OH are right: it’s time for real change. Conservatives and their evil twins, the liberals, must be shut up and put down, out of our misery. Racially aware Whites are looking for good, practical ideas. I’m no intellectual but I am smarter than the average Joe. Perhaps I’m misreading the majority of posters here, so sorry, but I don’t think most of you truly understand. If you do, you need to work on your presentation, cause I ain’t buying it, and if people like me ain’t buying it, you ain’t gonna get nowhere, no matter how many intellectuals you may persuade. 133
Posted by Daedalus on September 06, 2006, 11:26 AM | # The conservatives are worse than the liberals. They are a false opposition to the status quo. In almost every Western country, these parasites exist in some form or another. They are an indispensible element in maintaining the present system. Next entry: A little Neanderthal in all of us Previous entry: Britain can no longer educate all its young |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Daniel Mccumllam commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/22/12, 04:57 AM. (go) (view) Scewoweks commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 02:51 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Shamim commented in entry 'Dawkins sides with the race realists.' on 05/22/12, 02:24 AM. (go) (view) Facebook Application Developer commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/22/12, 01:14 AM. (go) (view) rags6 commented in entry 'Black serial-killers' on 05/22/12, 12:23 AM. (go) (view) abibemume commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/22/12, 12:06 AM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/21/12, 09:58 PM. (go) (view) alexaesjiong commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 09:53 PM. (go) (view) cocreneamenrYk commented in entry 'Time travel and a pol in the MultiCult' on 05/21/12, 09:51 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 09:12 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 08:46 PM. (go) (view) sweectexcagma commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 08:45 PM. (go) (view) Hinksmick commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 08:43 PM. (go) (view) pet sitting commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/21/12, 08:36 PM. (go) (view) aharlesjaj commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/21/12, 08:26 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/21/12, 08:25 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 08:02 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) InsetaTemwews commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 07:08 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:54 PM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/21/12, 06:37 PM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:29 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 05:48 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 05:23 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 04:41 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 04:19 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 03:33 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 03:08 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 02:25 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) BroowlorCliEf commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/21/12, 12:44 PM. (go) (view) trobojertunny commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/21/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) trobojertunny commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 12:29 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 01, 2006, 12:20 AM | #
http;//www.anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...Dear JJR:
Funny how you should mention the good feeling of enjoying quality time without minority disturbance(your words more or less)yet, you fail to see how this is triggered by zionism. You seem not to understand the difference between bigotry and patriotism. Bigotry is being outright anti-semitic(not to be confused with anti-zionism, they’re not the same) in other words your wish is the extermination of all Jews. I believe that is not the wish of “most” authors in here. I personally believe in the need for a state of Israel and its right to exist. This is all according to the Bible, however, what people all too often forget is that this land God gave to Israel not unconditionally, BUT, on the premise that it(Israel) keeps ITS commands. In having read the Bible extensively I believe I can come quite honestly to this conclusions: War of ‘67 good, recent war bad. I know this is overly simplistic but it matters not as a “morally high” state such as Israel will never admit to wrong doings especially ones of a collosal scale. BTW the USA might be thrown in the mix while we’re at it.
Here is when the patriotism part comes into play: As a race and a religion Jews over millenia kept a close knit community and an extremely low level of intermarriage, and if that was done it was primarily done by male Jews, female Jews would rather go unbread than intermarry or commit adultery. The former being much harder to achieve than the later. Now, being perennial immigrants(most other contries have strong ties to their homelands and it takes usually extraordinary circumstances for them to leave their homelands) Jews have no trouble immigrating even if they have their own state, indeed lots of Israelis have left Israel for better pastures, but their undying devotions is still to Israel not whatever country they may reside in. This is patriotism for the Jews, now, how can Americans not have the same undying devotion for their homeland? How is this different? It is in the fact that zionists teach the media the gov. and just about any other medium of communication you can think of, and they teach that whats good for the gander is not good for goose. This hipocrisy is what is the driving force against zionism. In other words, they(zionists) can have an exclusive Jewish homeland with no access to for Muslims and Christians, they are as a matter of fact second class citizens. That Israel is the most racist country in the planet might only be challenged by Japan, nonetheless it still is. Christian priests are regularly spat upon while the Muslims get the AR treatment. Yet everybody is so numb from non-sacrifice needed consumerism that I’m affraid we will become like the Ainu. Wake up people!!!!!!!!!!!!!