Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age

The book Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age (2008) has numerous academic contributors—most or all on the Left. Their collective angst stems from the wide popularization of several key developments from genetic research. First, racial differences are very important when it comes to how people are treated medically. Genetic differences affect response to medicines and other treatments. It is difficult to argue that we are all the same when there are medical treatments directed to persons of one race or another. Forensic science, prominent in television and movies, shows that race can be determined from a bit of DNA.

In a recent series of papers, population geneticists argue that the genome holds the key to medically and forensically significant biological differences among human racial and ethnic populations. Increasingly, genetic variation among human populations—races, ethnicities, nationalities—is an object of keen biomedical interest.

Second, there is a great deal of interest in genealogy. What really bothers race deniers is that Blacks have a high level of interest in “geographic ancestry”: the use of genes to determine not only their race, but also their tribal origins (even though there is no real difference between a race, a tribe, etc.). “Geographic ancestry”, “population group”, or “continent of ancestry”, are code words used by liberals to avoid the reality of race. They wish to protect Blacks from the stigma of racial differences; at the same time blacks are embracing genes to determine their racial background.

This book tries to address three primary ideas that do not sit well with the contributors: First,

[Race] reflects a marriage of the social and the biological, rather than something obviously given in the nature of things.

This is typical postmodern nonsense.

Second, they reiterate the hackneyed observation that

the great bulk of genetic variation occurs within conventionally recognized racial or continental groups, not between them.

This is meaningless to a population geneticist studying real and genetic differences between races.

Third, they attempt to resurrect the old repeated hoax that to believe in race is to believe in “discrete” racial markers or delineations. No one in the biological sciences holds any such view, and yet they keep repeating it as if that is what race is—a discrete marker that places a person neatly into a “large” racial classification.

This “straw man” argument is now the mainstay of the Left’s argument against race.

This message [concerning genetic variations] was nothing new—for decades, the finding that there is greater genetic variability ‘within groups’ than ‘between groups’ had generally been accepted as evidence that the human species is not divided into DISCRETE races. Geneticists publicly interpreted these results as disproving a biological race concept and voiced their hopes that such scientific findings might help deflate racism. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, most historians, social scientists, and race theorists followed suit, affording biology little status in theories of human difference. With the advent of the Human Genome Project, race scholar Paul Gilroy was even inspired to imagine a future in which race would become obsolete as attention shifted from the body politics of skin color, hair texture, and eye shape to the molecular-level biopolitics of the gene.

These statements, when read critically, summarize the Left’s position: science needs to be thrown under the bus whenever it conflicts with “our” egalitarian agenda. Contrary to these expectations and hopes, post-genomic science has revived the idea of racial categories as proxies for biological differences.

The following quotes from the book are interesting though often confusing. The main point is that genetics is causing a great deal of confusion for ideologues unwilling to look at the science.

[Koenig, Lee & Richardson] Turning to the question of research oversight, political scientist Jacqueline Stevens challenges science-funding agencies to confront the possibility that population genetic research may endanger the pursuit of racial equality and undermine public health research goals. Stevens argues that the National Institutes of Health, the largest funder of genomic research related to human health in the United States, must provide greater oversight of the use of race as a variable in scientific research.

[W]itness the reluctance of the American Society of Human Genetics to repudiate the folk ideas about heredity popularized by R. Herrnstein and C. Murray’s The Bell Curve….

[Jonathan Marks] These developments carry a significant danger of lending new respectability to controversial speculations about racial differences in such politically charged characteristics as IQ.

The first claim centers on the racial taxonomists, those who reify race and claim that human beings do, indeed, fall into a small number of largely discrete natural categories.

[John Dupre] These developments carry a significant danger of lending new respectability to controversial speculations about racial differences in such politically charged characteristics as IQ.

The topic can be approached by considering the apparently quite straightforward claim that there are genes for race. This may seem banal and obvious; physical characteristics such as skin color presumably have a genetic basis…. And whether it is a social or biological concept, there is no agreement as to how many races there are.

Second, and more importantly, although we should not (of course) unjustly discriminate against people on the grounds of difference, real differences can and do provide reasons for different treatment.

Contrary to some popular misunderstandings, there are no ‘genes for’ race in any of the various senses of the word ‘gene’…. The human species is an unusually genetically homogeneous one, and there are no important natural kinds distinguishable within it…. In its broadest and most common understanding, the concept of race remains little more than the reified residue of racism.

[S.K. Tate & D.B. Goldstein] It is also agreed, however, that individuals with the same geographic ancestry are more similar, on average, than individuals with different geographic ancestries.

[Jonathan Kahn] The patent process takes race as a social category and recodes it as “natural” by according it legal force as a component of a biotechnological invention. Law, thereby, is taking race out of culture and locating it in nature.

In the realm of genetics, where such systems address the human body, new biologically based categories can profoundly affect people’s identities, aspirations, and dignity. Genetic classification is powerful, but it is also dangerous because it involves biological categories that may be confused and conflated with race.

[Henry T. Greely] But by connecting race or ethnicity with genetics, one risks feeding racist views of genetic superiority and inferiority.

[Pamela Sankar] Use of race and ethnicity as variables in genetic research has expanded rapidly over the last decade. As a result, the perennial controversy over the use of race in research has expanded beyond the narrow confines of journal pages and academic conferences into news stories, documentaries, and museum exhibits.

Or perhaps, audience members reacted as they did because they were annoyed that a prominent scientist not only would use race in his research but would discuss it openly on their home turf, thus, apparently dismissing the fact (or ignorant of it—which would be worse is hard to say) that decades ago anthropology declared race a myth.

This is because to some extent both ancestry and genetic variation are geographically distributed…. Natural selection acted differentially on the random mutations that appeared, and, as a result, human populations began to differ genetically from one another, albeit in very minor ways.

[Jacqueline Stevens] The evidence from history, current large-scale medical studies, and clinical studies shows that race causes racism and racism causes adverse health outcomes.

In view of previous policies’ failures, it seems a good time to try new measures that will directly curtail unsupported official assertions of genetic etiologies for racial and ethnic differences, publications that recent data, logic, and history demonstrate harm more people than they help.

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 09:54 AM in Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity
Comments (168) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by antiracist on July 16, 2009, 03:23 PM | #

Race does exist only in our heads.

“Race” is mostly irrelevant.

The very phrase “racial nationalism” makes me puke.

It is ideology for losers, semi-intelligent middle class frustrated types, for some superficial pseudo-intellectuals (eg. Jared Taylor). People without any genuine ideas, without willingness or guts or even ability to think in any complex way about the complex problems facing the western world today and to propose some social and cultural solutions and discuss it with others. Clinging to simplistic pseudo-explanations like biological determinism is their way to avoid discusing important issues, their escapism. A stupid and at the same time extremely plebeian and egalitarian ideology. All “whiteys” are somehow superior race, by virtue of their allegedly superior chromosomes, regardless of any individual achievements. A nice consolation to all kinds of misfits, drunkards, mentally deficient: they can pretend to be superior for the sole reason of belonging to some “great race”. A dumbass worldview, unfit for any serious political struggle, beaten in advance, so to say.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 16, 2009, 04:23 PM | #

Is human kinship existing only “in our heads”? Are you genetically closer to a Pygmie than to your own child? Have you any idea how much “your” idea is actually a religious faith? Why is yours a religion of hatred of white skin?

Why? Because you have turned to this religion for a cure for your own ills. Mental diseases are sometimes curable. Personality flaws never are. You have a personality flaw which you will not address like a man but, instead, you seek to purify yourself through Jewish hate-politics. They tell you to project your own self-loathing onto your racial group, and you do it because you are weak and slavish. You have no existence of your own, no originality, no individuality, no thought, no life. Nothing.

And you are blind. You do not see how those Jews who gave you your thoughts did so to corrupt you and turn you against your own people. Being a traitor to white skin, they told you, is gooood ... you will feel gooood about yourself, at last. You will be better than those you condemn. You will be a superior being. You will be cured of your inner demons.

So a traitor you are, blind, blind weakling. Have you not noticed, puppet, that those Jews who directed you have an ethnic interest in debasing your people. Have you not noticed that the “people of colour”, whose race you comprehend so clearly when you want to, have an ethnic interest in revenging their own failings on whites? Have you not noticed that Mexicans speak of la reconquista, and are proud of the certainty of retaking California and, after it, the entire south-west? Have you not seen any of this racism, little blind rabbit?

No, you have not seen what you have been taught not to see. Instead of seeing, you speak your tawdry little-loser sentences. No comprehension whatsoever of genetics. No understanding of evolution. No clue as to how beautiful, creative and necessary for the future of the world is your own European people. No, traitor, you are a mess. Your personality is cracked. It’s no good, not serviceable. It won’t get better, not even when the last blond haired, blue-eyed girl is gone from the earth. Your self-loathing will never stop, your thirst for moral superiority will never be slaked because, actually, it has nothing to do with race or politics. Your seething future is the same as your angry past.

Go, and deal with your pain in some way that does not involve inflicting pain on others.

Posted by Q on July 16, 2009, 04:35 PM | #

the great bulk of genetic variation occurs within conventionally recognized racial or continental groups, not between them.

You’ve got to wonder whether these egalitarian ideologues really believe that crap or they acually know the truth about the biological difference between races but count on the chance their target audience will accept the half-truths or misinformation without further investigation. I think both cases apply. Anyway, Harold Stowe addresses the Lewontin Fallacy in this article over a AmRen:

The Genetics of RaceCommon sense is a better guide than liberal myths.

by Harold Stowe

Everyone has heard the fashionable view that race is not a valid biological concept but is, instead, a suspect sociological category. The implication is that racial distinctions are a form of superstition, that there is no justification for wanting to preserve races, and that replacement of one group by another represents no genetic loss. More specifically, it implies there is no reason for whites in Europe or America to resist displacement because we are, in effect, being replaced by ourselves.

This view is wrong on its face. Races breed true, generation after generation — Danes cannot produce a Bantu, and Bantus cannot produce a Dane — and racial differences are so substantial and consistent that two-year-old children notice them. Scientists recognize the biological differences between animal subspecies — eastern lowland and mountain gorillas, for examples — that are far more physically similar to each other than are members of different human races.

Clearly, the main motive for promoting a view so contrary to common sense is “anti-racism,” but there is one biological fact on which the race-deniers build their argument: This is the oft-cited observation by Richard C. Lewontin of Harvard that there is far more genetic variation within human racial groups (about 85 percent of the total) than between them (about 15 percent). This is true, and scientists were surprised when this fact first came to light. There have since been many outrageous misinterpretations of Prof. Lewontin’s findings, with some people even claiming that because there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, whites are genetically more similar to blacks than to other whites.

I will try to explain what the Lewontin findings mean, and how they should be understood. To do so, I will simplify some of the basic concepts of population genetics and use analogies to illustrate certain key points. Readers interested in the more technical aspects of the subject can consult the papers mentioned in this article, and an Internet search will uncover a vast and challenging literature. What follows, however, should be enough to clear the cobwebs.

The implication is that racial distinctions are a form of superstition and that there is no reason to preserve races.
First, what is “genetic variation?” Genes are made from DNA, which is made of four chemical elements called nucleotides (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine, abbreviated as A, C, G, T). These nucleotides are arranged in ordered combinations (e.g., ACGTCGATGATGCA) that make up DNA sequences. DNA is the code in which cells store the information about how to build the basic chemical components of the human (or any other) body. Through a complex chain of events, the information in these sequences is first “transcribed” into an intermediate form called RNA, and then “translated” into proteins, which are the building blocks of life. Some of the DNA sequences regulate transcription, and what subsequently happens to the RNA. Specific DNA sequences with specific functions are called genes, and the complete set of DNA sequences of an organism is called its genome.

A large portion of the human genome is said to be “non-functional,” in that the DNA sequences do not code for proteins nor do they seem to have any regulatory functions. Recent studies suggest that some sequences previously thought to be non-functional may be involved in regulation, but scientists are interested even in DNA sequences that are truly neutral and non-functional. This is because these sequences sometimes vary in interesting ways between individuals and groups, and population geneticists study them to learn about ancestral relationships. Thus, when I refer to genes and genetic variation, I am referring to all types of DNA sequences that can be the source of genetic variation. How do the sequences vary?

There are differences between individuals and between races and ethnic groups. Sometimes these differences have profound effects on function and physical form (phenotype) and sometimes they do not. Individuals differ in many ways — height, coloring, intelligence, personality — because of differences in their DNA sequences, though environment also affects these traits to varying degrees. Different information stored in the DNA produces these differences. In other words, variants of the same genes can produce different effects in different people.

There are further differences between people in the so-called neutral (non-functional) gene sequences, but these do not have physically apparent or visible effects. Siblings may be very similar to each other in all apparent ways, and are similar in those portions of DNA that code for detectable differences. At the same time, there may be considerable differences in their non-functional DNA, and these differences do not show up as apparent, or phenotypic differences. Genetic variations can have no effect or very profound effects, depending on which genes they affect. In some crucial sections of the genome, even the slightest variation can be very damaging. A few conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia and alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, result from tiny differences in gene sequences at certain key points.

A lot of DNA doesn’t seem to do anything.
There are a few genetic variations that are population-specific, which is to say that they are found in one population but are essentially absent in another (see the note at the end of this article), but most differences are in frequency: One variation of a gene is found more or less frequently in one group than in another. In some cases there are many variants of a gene sequence, in some cases, only two variants. For example, a single gene may have three variants. In population A, gene variants 1, 2, and 3 may have frequencies of 30 percent, 30 percent, and 40 percent (for a total of 100 percent), while in population B the same frequencies may be 20 percent, 60 percent, and 20 percent and in population C, 70 percent, 25 percent, and 5 percent.

People are often surprised to learn that most of the human genome does not have racial or ethnic patterns. Most genetic variation is “random,” which is to say that members of different population groups are equally likely to have different variants of most genes. This is particularly common in those parts of the genetic structure that appear to be non-functional, and do not seem to have an effect on the organism. The sum of all these genetic differences within the human species is the total genetic variation of humans.

This total genetic variation can therefore be divided into the differences in gene frequencies found between individuals from the same group, and the differences in gene frequencies found in different groups. The portion of the genetic variation in which there are random differences between individuals of the same race is larger than the portion that is patterned by race. As we saw above, the proportions are approximately 85 percent and 15 percent, which is to say that 85 percent of the genetic variation among people of the same race is equally random when compared to people of different races. For all this variation, therefore, there are no patterns that indicate whether someone is a Pygmy or an Eskimo or a European.

It is in this sense that Prof. Lewontin is correct: Within each racial group, there are more DNA sequence variants that are random than there are DNA sequence variants that show a racial pattern. It is therefore correct to say there is more genetic variation within races than between them. The anti-racists twist this fact to imply that individuals of different races are (or can be) more similar to people of other races than to people of their own race.

Our closest relative.
In fact, since there are no racial patterns to 85 percent of human genetic variation, that is theoretically possible. Purely random variation in these areas could conceivably make two individuals of different races more alike than two individuals of the same race. However, in the remaining 15 percent — the genetic variation where consistent racial differences are found — they would be as different from each other as any two typical members of the different races. Theoretically, a Chinese could be found who was indistinguishable from a Frenchmen in large parts of their DNA, but this would not make them particularly similar. This Chinese would not have the gene variants that contribute to producing light-colored eyes or hair, or Caucasian facial features, for example.

The following crude analogy does not capture the complex, real world of human genetic variation, but it does demonstrate the importance of small sets of structured data compared to a large body of random variation. Let us imagine a group of 100 boys and 100 girls, each with 100 marbles that can be any color. For the first 85 marbles, color differences are completely random for everyone. However, for the last 15 marbles, boys always have blue marbles and girls have pink. Boys and girls thus form two distinct groups based on 15 percent of the marbles; the other 85 percent of the marbles vary in color without regard to sex. This means there is more intra-group variability than inter-group variability, but this does not mean that the blue-for-boys and pink-for-girls pattern does not exist; it clearly does. Nor does it imply that any given boy is likely to have marbles that are more similar to those of a girl than to another boy. The opposite is likely to be true.

On the other hand, as in the case of the Chinese and the Frenchman, it is theoretically possible, by random chance, that a specific boy’s first 85 marbles will be so similar to a specific girl’s that this boy will have a total set of marbles more similar in color to that girl’s than to any other boy’s. Theoretically, a given boy and girl could have 85 marbles that were exactly the same color. Does this mean the two larger groups do not exist? No. There are still two groups clearly defined by the consistent differences in color of the last 15 marbles, while the first 85 are random. But if marble color is a criterion for putting children into groups, shouldn’t the boy and girl be classified together as members of a group? No, because their similarity is a result of pure chance. What is significant, and what makes the two groups meaningful is the pattern of difference in just 15 percent of the marbles.
A slightly more distant cousin…..

http://amren.com/ar/2006/07/index.html#cover

Posted by Mark I on July 16, 2009, 05:04 PM | #

@ Antiracist

Race does exist only in our heads.

Correction: Anti-racism exists only in the heads of slaves.

“Race” is mostly irrelevant.

Kumbaya. How’s South Africa doing, now that “race is mostly irrelevant”? How’s Rhodesia? India? The Middle East?

If it’s mostly irrelevant, then what are the relevant parts to you?

The very phrase “racial nationalism” makes me puke.

Good. I wish you many years of dispepsia to come.

It is ideology for losers, semi-intelligent middle class frustrated types,

This sounds like projection to me.

for some superficial pseudo-intellectuals (eg. Jared Taylor).

Jared Taylor is an obsequious philosemite. He has nothing to do with this site.

People without any genuine ideas, without willingness or guts or even ability to think in any complex way about the complex problems facing the western world today

And you anti-racists have no new ideas and your counsel is to just ignore race, i.e., discernible reality. Yours is not the scientific method. You are a slave.

Your solution is: Let the Turd Worlders infest our countries and steal our futures away. You are a coward.

Your solution is: Betray your own to benefit hostile invaders. You are a fool.

and to propose some social and cultural solutions and discuss it with others.

You are asinine. What do you think the point of this site is? We just don’t include any non-whites in our equation.

Clinging to simplistic pseudo-explanations like biological determinism is their way to avoid discusing important issues,

What better foundation is there than science? Your little rainbow religion? I’ll pass.

Btw, if not biological determinism, something based in ample fact, then what? “Culture”? I’ll bet you your last shekel you can’t even define culture for me.

their escapism.

Uhh, your worldview (Judeo-Marxism) is the most escapist of all ideologies. It has (-0-) basis in reality.

A stupid and at the same time extremely plebeian and egalitarian ideology.

Are you on drugs? You’re all over the place. “Plebeian” and “egalitarian”. This from a self-described anti-racist, an offshoot of Marxism. Pot-kettle-black.

And such harsh, elitist words from a self-righteously “compassionate” “anti-racist”. You show a lack of conviction, and an inability to avoid contradicting yourself.

Plebeian and egalitarian. And I suppose that Judeo-Marxist egalitarianism defines the brave Ubermensch? Don’t make me laugh, you little hippy lemming.

All “whiteys” are somehow superior race, by virtue of their allegedly superior chromosomes,

No, if Joe Schmoe is a douchebag, I call him on that regardless of race. Don’t presume to know how we act, you little guttersnipe.

regardless of any individual achievements.

Remarkable “individual achievements” show up in white societies in a higher proportion than in any other racial group across the world. Your precious browns and blacks are the ones who need help in the “individual achievements” department.

A nice consolation to all kinds of misfits, drunkards, mentally deficient:

Again, projection.

they can pretend to be superior for the sole reason of belonging to some “great race”.

Judging by the vitriol you spew at whites, I’d say you’re Jewish. Or a stupid Marxist shabez-goy.

A dumbass worldview, unfit for any serious political struggle, beaten in advance, so to say.

Oh look! Mr. “Let’s all be constructive” just created an entire post full of intellectually bankrupt folderol interspersed with venomous invective towards anyone who disagrees.

This lot of proles has no need for you, commissar. Run along.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 16, 2009, 05:43 PM | #

Jeez, I like Mark I’s contribution better than my own.

Posted by torgrim on July 16, 2009, 06:11 PM | #

Guessedworker said, “Jeez I like Mark I’s contribution better than my own.”

I must say, I really enjoy this Site!

Good on you Guessedworker and Mark I!

And yes, Anti-racist, you have been outed, you marxist spewing, little man. Run along, commissar!

Posted by Thunder on July 16, 2009, 06:31 PM | #

Well done GW and Mark. I have always wondered what motivates anti-racists. Understanding it as self-hatred makes sense. Actually togrim I would prefer that he hang around longer for some more dissection. He serves a useful purpose as a lab rat.

Posted by Q on July 16, 2009, 08:04 PM | #

When it comes to advancing the White Preservationist cause (if there even is one?), ripping “antiracist” apart has no more of a positive function than watching a cock-fight. Everyone here gets a thrill out of it (including myself), but no one else outside this small group of Knights at MR is watching. What just happened is: “antiracist” will dig his heels in, regroup, and come back and fight us on another day.

Posted by GenoType on July 16, 2009, 08:34 PM | #

Understanding it as self-hatred makes sense.

Calling it “self-hatred” may help you understand, but I can promise you that Mr. anti-racist doesn’t hate himself.

Posted by Q on July 16, 2009, 08:45 PM | #

Let me qualify my last post. I don’t view antirasist as any sort of real threat to us!

Posted by Q on July 16, 2009, 08:58 PM | #

but I can promise you that Mr. anti-racist doesn’t hate himself.

Right. He feeds his self esteem by siding with those that want to destroy us whites that want to preserve our race.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 16, 2009, 09:19 PM | #

A dumbass worldview, unfit for any serious political struggle, beaten in advance, so to say.

So why is it that you and your ilk dedicate so much real time and energy thinking about ways to suppress, and actually suppressing, racial nationalism, if indeed it is “unfit for any serious political struggle?” Nay, that it is, is why you do what you do. What I think you meant to say, were you bright enough, and intellectually honest enough, is that it is without intellectual merit, that it is fallacious vis-a-vis what is. Yet you are more honest than you perhaps care to let on - though you conflate veracity and political viability as described above - it is merely about struggle to crush one’s opponent, racial nationalism, with you. The vicious will to crush you see in us shall be found in your own mirror.

Posted by ben tillman on July 16, 2009, 10:35 PM | #

Clinging to simplistic pseudo-explanations like biological determinism is their way to avoid discusing important issues….

Are you alive? Do you mind if I kill you? If you answered “yes” to these questions, then you understand and implicitly agree with the propriety of our goal.

Posted by ben tillman on July 16, 2009, 10:41 PM | #

For that goal is nothing more than the continuation of our life.

Posted by antiracist on July 16, 2009, 10:46 PM | #

Well, these comments just show how narrow-minded you are.

The funniest and the most absurd accusation levelled against me by some posters here is that of being “a Marxist”. Whilst I am by no means Marxist, it is guys like you who are a sort of racial leftists/Marxists. You prove it by your plebeian egalitarianism/collectivism, whereby you deem all so-called “whites” to be in possession of some mysterious special qualities which elevate them above all other “races”. The fact that you would call Joe Schmoe a douchebag if he really is, doesn’t change your basic assumption that this Joe Schmoe must be naturally “superior” to all, let’s say blacks, simply because he has certain level of melanin on his skin.

I can understand attachment to religion, nation (not identical with “race”!), country, culture, language, but I am at a loss to understand someone’s obsession with the level of skin melanin, snivelling over the “survival” and expansion of certain shape of bodies (“race”), fear of miscegenation (a ridiculous concept) and similar trivia. Narrow-minded as you are, you automatically assume that my hostility towards racialism must stem from some feeling of “moral superiority”. But in fact my opposition to racialism is grounded in its utter stupidity. Even the great Julius Evola held materialist racialists in contempt (and rightfully so), whereas he developed some more spiritual notion of race. Thomas Fleming also rightfully characterized racialism and talk about survival of the white race as “childish twaddle”.

Biological/genetic determinism is as nonsensical as the old-fashioned environmental determinism. It is common knowledge that people favour their own kin over others, for example, their own children over others. There is no doubt about that and it has been known for millennia, long before modern researches of “sociobiologists” and similar pretentious natural scientists. But can the notion of kinship be extended, beyovd your own offspring and cousins, to the entire “race”, to all people of the same level of skin melanin as yours? Hardly. There are no proofs for that. Besides, if White solidarity were something so natural as you claim it is, there would be no need for “white nationalist” movements, in fact, racial problem wouldn’t even exist. But even on condition all of it were so “natural”, there is no guarantee people would automatically work for their own “genetic interests”. Because people have free will and can be quite whimsical, something that all kinds of determinisms try to deny and reduce human beings to machines, automata, which operate in accordance with predetermined programmes.

Identities are too complex things, derived from multiple historical influences, and cannot be reduced to criteria of “natural science”. To do so is misleading reductionism which misses the point.

I appreciate the turn that Alain de Benoist has taken, who, whilst not denying the existence of races, strongly criticises racial determinism in explaining history.

Someone slandered me here that I hate the white race and wish that people with blond hair disappear. I have no idea where this monstruous insinuation stems from, but that is simply not true.

Posted by antiracist on July 16, 2009, 11:02 PM | #

Just to add…

I am well aware of the existence of other racisms, like the black and the “Latino” one. And they are no less stupid than the white racism. But the fact remains that these racisms are copies of the white racism. “Whites” were the first ones to invent the concept (which doesn’t imply any justification for those other racisms on my part).

I don’t like at all bigots and hate-mongers like Ignatiev who want to “abolish the white race”. The very ridiculous concept of race should be done away with, which would eliminate other “races” as well.

Posted by ben tillman on July 16, 2009, 11:25 PM | #

Besides, if White solidarity were something so natural as you claim it is, there would be no need for “white nationalist” movements, in fact, racial problem wouldn’t even exist.

And if cellular solidarity were something so natural, there would be no need for medicines as disease wouldn’t exist.

But can the notion of kinship be extended, beyovd your own offspring and cousins, to the entire “race”, to all people of the same level of skin melanin as yours? Hardly. There are no proofs for that.

There’s a whole book of proofs for that, written by Frank Salter: “On Genetic Interests”.

I notice you evaded my prior questions. You know we’re right, don’t you?

Posted by Q on July 16, 2009, 11:27 PM | #

“Whites” were the first ones to invent the concept

Are you sure? According to the Bible (OT), I’m pretty sure it was the Jews that invented the concept of racism.

Posted by Lurker on July 16, 2009, 11:40 PM | #

You prove it by your plebeian egalitarianism/collectivism

OK, so you are a libertardian, glad we’ve cleared that up.

The fact that you would call Joe Schmoe a douchebag if he really is, doesn’t change your basic assumption that this Joe Schmoe must be naturally “superior” to all, let’s say blacks, simply because he has certain level of melanin on his skin.

You are the one introducing the concept of superiority, check this page again, no-one else mentioned it except you, hence a strawman argument. We just want to exist as a group, thats not much to ask really.

I can understand attachment to religion, nation (not identical with “race”!), country, culture, language

And how could the concepts of nation, country, culture & language first have come into being without race, tribe, clan etc underlying them? You can understand attachment to an abstract like a nation but not to people of shaed ethnicity? Bizarre, you’ve not come across the concept that the term nation is often applied to a people then? The term Zulu nation mean anything to you, Sioux nation ring any bells? No? Those are just nations, pure abstract political entities, anyone can be a Zulu, anyone can be a Sioux, OK?

Biological/genetic determinism is as nonsensical as the old-fashioned environmental determinism

Strawman alert! You are making this claim, not us. Are you actually going to claim that biology and genetics play no part in outcomes at all? You’ve outlined two extremist positions, most reasonable people would not advocate either of them. Though in fact our liberal/left pals do pretty much hold onto environmental determinism.

Posted by Thunder on July 17, 2009, 01:37 AM | #

GenoType

Calling it “self-hatred” may help you understand, but I can promise you that Mr. anti-racist doesn’t hate himself.

Attacking others for feelings they probaly harbour themselves does make sense to me. Like the Salem witch hunt phenomenon. It seems they lack the courage to be honest with themselves in the face today’s media/social barrage. But of course I speculate. Is your understanding based on more than speculation?

Posted by Dasein on July 17, 2009, 05:51 AM | #

I can understand attachment to religion, nation (not identical with “race”!), country, culture, language, but I am at a loss to understand someone’s obsession with the level of skin melanin, snivelling over the “survival” and expansion of certain shape of bodies (“race”), fear of miscegenation (a ridiculous concept) and similar trivia.

Racial differences are more than skin deep. You don’t know much, if anything, about genetics- you’ve made this obvious. If you want to understand what motivates and informs the people commenting here, you should read the 4 links under ‘Existential Issues’ at the top left of the page. Otherwise you’re wasting your own time and are merely exposing the dishonesty and ignorance that afflicts those of your ilk. Or you’re a troll.

Even the great Julius Evola held materialist racialists in contempt (and rightfully so), whereas he developed some more spiritual notion of race.

Evola didn’t understand genetics and heredity. Neither did Yockey. Doesn’t mean they weren’t great thinkers, but the fact is they did not know what they were talking about here.

Biological/genetic determinism is as nonsensical as the old-fashioned environmental determinism.

As Lurker said, this is a favourite straw man for antis (Monitor/Gorboduc for some reason also brings this one out over and over). Genetic predisposition, not genetic determinism.

But can the notion of kinship be extended, beyovd your own offspring and cousins, to the entire “race”, to all people of the same level of skin melanin as yours? Hardly. There are no proofs for that.

Again, read the links at the top left of the page. You’re the one obsessed with melanin.

Besides, if White solidarity were something so natural as you claim it is, there would be no need for “white nationalist” movements, in fact, racial problem wouldn’t even exist. But even on condition all of it were so “natural”, there is no guarantee people would automatically work for their own “genetic interests”.

Whites have not been given any choice about race-replacement. Their elites are doing it without a specific mandate. White flight tells us that Whites do in fact want to live in White communities. We want them to have the option to live in an ethnostate that defends their genetic interests (in simple terms you will understand- that keeps the neighbourhood White so they don’t feel the need to move out). Should they not have this choice? If you want to live in a mixed-race country, that’s your right. No one will try to stop you. I’m sure many would prefer that.

I appreciate the turn that Alain de Benoist has taken, who, whilst not denying the existence of races, strongly criticises racial determinism in explaining history.

Still a straw man, no matter who trots it out.

But the fact remains that these racisms are copies of the white racism.

Are you saying they learned this from Whites?

Posted by antiracist on July 17, 2009, 06:01 AM | #

@ Ben Tillman

Answer to which one of your questions did I evade? To your laughable and totally unrelated-to-this-topic question on whether “I am alive” and whether I would mind if you killed me?

Well, I am obviously alive and I don’t want to be killed by you. But how the hell is this related to the race issue, I fail to understand. I don’t live for the white race, belonging to a “race” is no part of my identity, nor do I care about it. And I met in my life plenty of people who don’t care about “race” and don’t self-identify as “whites” although their phenotype fits with what is usually described as “white”. I have met even nationalists (from Europe) who don’t ascribe any importance to race (nation and biological “race” are not the same thing). There is nothing natural or self-understood about racial solidarity. If there were something like that, so-called miscegenation would have never happened, “brown” people wouldn’t exist etc. Comparing humans to cells is also absurd, if not indicative of totalitarian tendencies some people in the “racialist” movement harbour. The classical western view of human beings insists on their uniqueness, personhood and free will, while modern totalitarian ideologies see any human as nothing, society (or totalitarian state, eg. Marxist) as everything. One cell is nothing, only the aggregate of cells matters. This totalitarian logic is also employed by one-worldist globalists, with the only difference that they posit the entire “human race” as an aggregate of cells, whereas racialists reduce it just to their construct of “white race”. No true difference, really.

————-

American racialism is fruit of specific historical circumstances which shaped the country of the USA, not of some biological self-evidence of “race”.

Besides, the supposed reliance of many of you on the results of “natural science” is also weird, because it is selective. When some geneticist with high academic credentials states that, based on his researches, race “doesn’t exist”, you start to hysterically scream: “pseudo-science”, “PC nonsense” etc, whilst when some geneticist says the opposite, you are suddenly so happy that “somebody has finally spoken the truth”. It is laughing stock. Either you accept the authority of natural science or not.

Concerning superiority: although on this website you often claim (but not even all of you) that you are “not supremacists”, the implicit supremacy is lurking behind many posts. For example, your obsession and superstitious reverence for IQ statistics which, as you claim, prove that whiteys are more smart than Africans, is a clear example of that.

As for Jews: the ethnic exclusivity (commanded by OT and Talmud) is something completely different than modern biological pseudo-“scientific” raci(ali)sm.

Biological determinism is not strawman argument. Great many racialists tend towards that reductionist view of human history and relationships, of the rise and fall of cultures and civilizations etc. If taken too literally, this view depresses the whole intricate history of the human kind to the level of imbecility and incredible narrow-mindedness.

Posted by Dasein on July 17, 2009, 06:11 AM | #

Thunder, the vilest anti I knew was motivated by the desire to appear to be a ‘good guy’. He also thought it would get him some mating action (though for him, not picking his nose and eating it might have been a better strategy- this guy was around 35). But the status reward probably does make it adaptive to adopt an anti stance, at least in certain environments (like college campuses). One thing I’ve noticed in the real world, though, is that non-Whites generally don’t like antis, and consider them to be degenerate scum. I think most non-Whites coming to the West are just normal people trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. There’s ambivalence towards being championed by homegrown degenerates. I thought this article from the Gypsy standoff in Northern Ireland was interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8153386.stm

Posted by antiracist on July 17, 2009, 06:21 AM | #

Evola didn’t understand genetics and heredity. Neither did Yockey. Doesn’t mean they weren’t great thinkers, but the fact is they did not know what they were talking about here.

Evola did understand the stupidity of the materialist obsession in explaining away all human relations in mechanical terms, which was in his time even more all-pervasive than it is today.

And, if relying on genetics had so great explanatory value, then a question may be - legitimately - put: which “genetics”? The field of genetics looks sometimes confused, with eminent geneticists making various statements, often contradicting each other.

“Arguments” of ethologists, sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists (three names for the more or less one and the same thing) don’t convince me much, because they intermingle the supposed “facts” they obtained through empirical observation with way too many preconceived, culturally inherited ideas and even fantasies, “just so” stories etc. It is often so in science that so-called “hard facts” mean little to nothing if not associated with some premises or preconceived ideas (since you like tags, I might end up being “accused” of postmodernism for stating this, but I don’t really care).

John Cleese, for example, believes everything can be explained away mechanically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

Posted by antiracist on July 17, 2009, 06:35 AM | #

Your insinuations concerning my persona being at so low level and irrelevant to this discussion (lacking real arguments, ad himinem attacks will do well, as some believe) and so unrelated to reality, I won’t even mind to comment upon them.

But there is something else I want to convey: I am deeply saddened and dismayed at the thought dictatorship in today’s Western world which bars racialists from presenting themselves before the wide public. It is a huge mistake. They should be allowed to talk about their ideas totally freely, to endlessly prate about the value of this or that trait of behaviour (fo example, eating coconut icecream after fish dinner) in evolutionary adaptation, to molest everyone with their IQ statistics and the inverse relation between brain and penis size (Rushton) and all other “intelligent” theories. In that way they would expose themselves to the complete ridicule and their total braindeadness would become manifest.

Posted by Steven E. Romer on July 17, 2009, 07:39 AM | #

Racism is the only political myth here. There is quite literally no such thing as racism. Every shred of evidence we have on the topic—even the KKK thinking blacks want to rape their white women—is based in fact. For example, 38,000 reported rapes of white women by black men in one year. ZERO rapes of black women by white men in the same year. Rapes are reported at approx 50% rate—a very under-reported crime (the women probably dont want anyone to think they are “racist” and so it may be even less…). Every thing that people have called “racism” has basis in fact, so it is not an “ism”. You might as well call it “realityism”.

RACISM IS A MYTH —a HUGE lie designed to destroy the white race by playing on our objectivity and sense of fairness and our propensity for guilt.

Posted by antiracist on July 17, 2009, 07:49 AM | #

Rape is rape, crime is crime, regardless of the skin colour (or some other racial traits - for those who insist that race is not just skin deep) of its perpetrator. It is the question of law and public order and not of “racial theories”. Everyone should be punished for their crime. Racialists who maintain that “blacks” are somehow more prone to rape due to their genetic make-up are in a way justifying rapists. By the racialist logic, someone could say: “For God’s sake, they are not guilty, it’s in their nature.”

Posted by danielj on July 17, 2009, 08:06 AM | #

“Race” is mostly irrelevant.

The very phrase “racial nationalism” makes me puke.

Sorry to offend your delicate fucking sensibilities there flower child.

“Race” in quotes even? Is that irrelevant too?

Clinging to simplistic pseudo-explanations like biological determinism is their way to avoid discusing important issues, their escapism. A stupid and at the same time extremely plebeian and egalitarian ideology. All “whiteys” are somehow superior race, by virtue of their allegedly superior chromosomes, regardless of any individual achievements.

So, by your logic we could count up the various achievements of the various individuals of the varied races and determine the superior one based on merit?

A nice consolation to all kinds of misfits, drunkards, mentally deficient: they can pretend to be superior for the sole reason of belonging to some “great race”. A dumbass worldview, unfit for any serious political struggle, beaten in advance, so to say.

Racial nationalism isn’t a serious worldview?

What are some serious ones then?

Posted by danielj on July 17, 2009, 08:09 AM | #

Rape is rape, crime is crime, regardless of the skin colour

Not in America where some animals are more equal than others.

It is the question of law and public order and not of “racial theories”.

What happens when the racial theory has a direct bearing upon law and public order?

Racialists who maintain that “blacks” are somehow more prone to rape due to their genetic make-up are in a way justifying rapists. By the racialist logic, someone could say: “For God’s sake, they are not guilty, it’s in their nature.”

Well, a sane and healthy person might consider adopting or promoting social policies under which Blacks would have additional controls in place to prevent such gruesome criminal activity. Only anti-racists are concerned with scapegoating their criminal behavior and blaming what is most likely a genetic proclivity to engage in criminal activity on Whitey and poverty whilst we in the realist camp are concerned more with serious discussion about how to fix the problem.

Posted by Dasein on July 17, 2009, 08:22 AM | #

By the racialist logic, someone could say: “For God’s sake, they are not guilty, it’s in their nature.”

And by that same logic many will excuse your feeble mind and try to teach you. Just because you’re not very bright doesn’t mean you have to be ignorant. Please read those 4 links.

Posted by Reader3 on July 17, 2009, 08:35 AM | #

As for Jews: the ethnic exclusivity (commanded by OT and Talmud) is something completely different than modern biological pseudo-“scientific” raci(ali)sm.

Hmmm… now that’s interesting. Would you happen to be a practitioner of this non-pseudo-scientific non-racialism yourself?

Posted by Q on July 17, 2009, 09:21 AM | #

I say antiracist should be made Queen (I surmise antiracist is a girl). When SHE takes the Throne, her first decree should be the abolishment of ALL laws that identify people on the basis of race. Simply declare: Race does not exist in America! No more affirmative action. No more set asides for minorities. No more hate crimes legislation! Resend the 1964 Civil Rights Act! Publicly demonize Je$$e Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Sotomayor for fomenting racism. ADL and SPLC should be disbanded on the basis of their perpetuation of racial discord. We can start there. Oh yeah, let’s see if she will send her aracial kids to the aracial Washington DC public school system—formerly known as a predominantly Negroid school system. Hows that for starters? And lets see if those that identify as “people of colour” will go along with your silly “race only exists in our heads” notion.

Posted by anonymous on July 17, 2009, 09:26 AM | #

Posted by Steven E. Romer on July 17, 2009, 11:39 AM | #

RACISM IS A MYTH—a HUGE lie designed to destroy the white race by playing on our objectivity and sense of fairness and our propensity for guilt.

Everything in life is designed to destroy the white race, even when the white man runs out of toilet paper in his bathroom its a conspiracy designed to destroy the white man, what a bunch of hilarious Jokers you are!!! and the best bit is you provide the laugh! The fact is you want to build the survival of the white race on the backs of everyone else for the simple reason you dont have what it takes in your genetics as you would argue to carry it through so the fact is and there is no other conclusion you can come to even if you wanted to that you have lost and no amount of so called intelligent prattle and smart remarks on majorityrights.com is going to change that fact. So if your not sat here laughing at yourselves as well as everyone else laughing at you then your sat here laughing at yourselves and everyone else laughint at you,LOOOOOOOOL.

Posted by Dasein on July 17, 2009, 09:51 AM | #

“Whites have not been given any choice about race-replacement. Their elites are doing it without a specific mandate. White flight tells us that Whites do in fact want to live in White communities. We want them to have the option to live in an ethnostate that defends their genetic interests (in simple terms you will understand- that keeps the neighbourhood White so they don’t feel the need to move out). Should they not have this choice? If you want to live in a mixed-race country, that’s your right. No one will try to stop you. I’m sure many would prefer that.”

Whites are little babies you have to hold there hand in the big wide world and guide them along and unless you do that they will not have been given any choice about the road they have took. The road they have tookl and the road they dream to take will be because they have not had any choice because no one has held there hands.

Posted by Loriver on July 17, 2009, 09:40 AM | #

[S.K. Tate & D.B. Goldstein] It is also agreed, however, that individuals with the same geographic ancestry are more similar, on average, than individuals with different geographic ancestries.

This is all we need. I would view statements like this as a good reason for racialists to stop referring to race (clusters) so much and refer instead to practical distinctions in the name of EGI. That is, to acknowledge that race is not really that important but what is important is simply the kinship relationships between an individual and various ethnic groups.

Provided that the frequency of inter-ethnic similarity is fairly low, like the Witherspoon et al paper has shown, then it seems entirely reasonable to assume that you are most similar to your own ethnic group, and then just refer to average differences like you find in the Fst tables. After all, the kind of test in that paper is not available to the public and probably never will be owing to the cost and difficulty.

The whole argument about whether race exists is something of a red herring if the EGI stance is what we are putting forward. The reason that Greeks and Russians, say, are acceptable to German- or British-Americans is primarily because they are now an inextricable part of the social in-group; not really because they are part of the same population cluster (how is this fact relevant to EGI, once differing Fst is accounted for?).

This is because to some extent both ancestry and genetic variation are geographically distributed…. Natural selection acted differentially on the random mutations that appeared, and, as a result, human populations began to differ genetically from one another, albeit in very minor ways

Drift is the main cause of differences, I believe. And how good it is to be able to confront this person with the fact that they must necessarily consider the kinship between a grandparent and grandchild to be very minor, if racial differences are very minor.

the great bulk of genetic variation occurs within conventionally recognized racial or continental groups, not between them.

Although there is plenty of other debunking of Lewontin’s fallacy out there, I reproduce Harpending’s proof that there is more variation within nuclear families than between them (from the appendix of a 2008 article by Frank Salter, in Mankind Quarterly):

The Apportionment of Variation Within and Among Families

If we choose an allele A at some locus that has frequency p in a randomly mixed population, and if we pick a single gene from this population from this locus, the probability that it is A is just p. The variance of this frequency is just the variance of a single Bernoulli trial, p(1-p) or pq if we let q=1-p.

If our population of genes is grouped in certain ways, we can partition this variance into within-group and between-group components. We are doing precisely what Lewontin (1972) and others have done, partitioning diversity (variance) into within- and between-group parts.

First consider diploid individuals in a random mating population. What is the variance of the frequency of A in diploid individuals? Since mating is random, diploids are simply random alleles taken two at a time. The variance of the frequency of A in samples of 2 is binomial, pq/2. This shows that half the variance is among diploid individuals.

Now consider the variance within an individual. Call the frequency in an individual p2. The variance of the frequency of A in a single gene chosen from an individual is p2(1-p2), and this figure averaged over all individuals is

Average(p2(1-p2))

= Average(p2 - p2^2)

= p - p^2 - Var(p2)

= pq - pq/2

= pq/2

since the average of the square of any random variable is the mean of that variable squared plus the variance of that variable.

This shows that half the variance of a gene frequency is within any individual member of a random mating population. We have partitioned the variance into between and within individual components as 1/2 within and 1/2 between.

Now consider couples chosen at random, that is with no assortative mating. Each couple has 4 copies of A at the locus. Each couple has a frequency of A: it can be 0, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 or 1. Call the frequency in a clump p4, and ask what is the variance of p4? It is just the variance of a binomial with n=4 or pq/4. We have established that one-fourth of the variance is among couples.

Now consider the variance within a couple. Pick one gene from a couple. The mean is still p and the variance is p4q4. The average value of p4(1 - p4) over all couples is the average of p4 - p4^2 which is p - p^2 - Var(p4), or (p - p^2 - p(1-p)/4) = pq(1 - 1/4) = (3/4)pq.

This shows that the variance within couples is 3/4 of the total and among couples 1/4 of the total. Another way of saying that 0.25 of the variance is among couples is that the coefficient of kinship of full siblings, offspring of a single couple, is 0.25.

We could continue with larger and larger sets. For example two random couples from a population contain 7/8 of the total diversity, while 1/8 of the diversity is among couples. This partitioning roughly corresponds to that among human races. What this means, for example, is that if humans were to disappear save a single race that would repopulate the earth, the diversity loss would be the same as the loss if two couples from a random mating population were to reconstitute a population.

...So, despite the fact that 75% of variation is within a nuclear family (a couple and their children), whereas only 25% of variation is between nuclear families, the family is almost universally regarded as a genetically substantial category, and individuals are regarded as having a reproductive interest in their close family. This proof makes a nonsense of the idea that greater variation within a population subdivision than between subdivisions signifies a challenge to the validity of classification into these categories or to the existence of EGI therein.

Posted by Dasein on July 17, 2009, 09:50 AM | #

I surmise antiracist is a girl

I think it’s ‘Sarah’. Same style and dull wit.

Posted by antiracist on July 17, 2009, 10:31 AM | #

No, I am not Jew.

Posted by antiracist on July 17, 2009, 10:46 AM | #

LOL…I see, not only “Jew”, but I also ended up being declared “girl”. How hilarious!

You disappointed me, I expected more intelligent discussion, not retarded name calling, using lowbrow Stromfront-style vocabulary (“anti….”) and ascribing wrong sex.

Tking into account their endless whining over the “sad fate of the white race”, most racialists look pretty girly. Thomas Fleming called racialists “emasculate”, not without good reason.

Thomas Fleming:

The problem, then, is not racial and ethnic preference or the desire to live in separate communities or even old-fashioned bigotry, which is a normal part of the human condition. The problem is the theoretical racial nationalism that flows out of the French Revolution. When I hear young “conservatives” prating about their race or nation, I have to remind myself they are young, marginalized, emasculate young males who will never grow into manhood. It is our greatest national tragedy. Nonetheless, as much as one might pity them-and I do–they have to be prevented from infecting our discourse.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2008/06/02/nationalism-patriotism-and-internationalism-i/

Posted by Darren on July 17, 2009, 10:52 AM | #

Everyone should be punished for their crime. Racialists who maintain that “blacks” are somehow more prone to rape due to their genetic make-up are in a way justifying rapists. By the racialist logic, someone could say: “For God’s sake, they are not guilty, it’s in their nature.”

This argument doesn’t even make sense - we point out racial differences in crime statistics as a justification for promoting free association of whites into their own communities. If the rate of occurrence of (rape, robbery, home invasion etc) is lower in a white community than it is in a black one, I think I’d prefer to live in the white community.

Evola did understand the stupidity of the materialist obsession in explaining away all human relations in mechanical terms, which was in his time even more all-pervasive than it is today.

Evola was smart in some areas but philosophically clueless. One cannot deny the fact that physics is real and manifests itself as phenomena instead of the philosophical hocus-pocus of Evola’s conception of intangible mystical ideas mistakenly labeled as metaphysics.

“Arguments” of ethologists, sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists (three names for the more or less one and the same thing) don’t convince me much, because they intermingle the supposed “facts"they obtained through empirical observation with way too many preconceived, culturally inherited ideas and even fantasies, “just so” stories etc.

You are conflating moral prescription (good, bad, etc.) with empirical observation (has more, has less, tends to, etc.).

You can claim that the empirical data is flawed based on method or you can claim that the empirical data cannot be used to support the moral prescriptions, however, the empirical data remains what it is: a product of observation and the method of said observation.

You are attacking the empirical observation on the basis of your moral rejection, i.e. what it might be used for, rather than just attacking the moral prescriptions themselves (which would come in the form of “if X is/isn’t true, then we should/shouldn’t we do Y”)

In that way they would expose themselves to the complete ridicule and their total braindeadness would become manifest.

Although not all evidence used by racialists is created equal (i.e. some of it is definitely problematic or debatable), you have yet to present a rigorous refutation of scientific racialism beyond your crude ad hominems and hysterics.

Posted by Darren on July 17, 2009, 10:55 AM | #

You’re confused. Racial nationalism does not flow out of the egalitarianism of the French Revolution. You are conflating racial nationalism, which promotes a national structure based on extended familial kinship, with civic nationalism, which promotes a national structure based on shared ethics and virtues and usually has an explicit denial of race.

Yaawwwn.

Posted by Q on July 17, 2009, 11:19 AM | #

How hilarious!

Hilarious is your set-up: “Race does exist only in our heads” followed by the punch-line: “Race” is mostly irrelevant. THAT"S ENTERTAINMENT!

Now go take a Pamprin and relax.

Posted by antiracist on July 17, 2009, 01:19 PM | #

You’re confused. Racial nationalism does not flow out of the egalitarianism of the French Revolution. You are conflating racial nationalism, which promotes a national structure based on extended familial kinship, with civic nationalism, which promotes a national structure based on shared ethics and virtues and usually has an explicit denial of race.

Yaawwwn.

I am confused? I was just quoting Fleming

Posted by Darren on July 17, 2009, 01:24 PM | #

Yes, you are confused.

Posted by Dasein on July 17, 2009, 01:56 PM | #

Although not all evidence used by racialists is created equal (i.e. some of it is definitely problematic or debatable)

Just curious, Darren, what do you consider to be examples of this? I think the higher black testosterone is one meme that isn’t well supported (n/a has done a good job discussing this).

Posted by danielj on July 17, 2009, 02:07 PM | #

I am confused? I was just quoting Fleming

Exactly why are you quoting Fleming who equates the complete development of manhood with absolute assent to his ridiculous brand of faileoconservatism?

Does Fleming have a working definition of manhood that doesn’t include Stoic resignation about the massive loss of genetic wealth we will suffer if we ascribe fully to his prescription of culturalism?

He is just an angry Southerner unable to rise above his bitter, bucolic, parochialism despite his impressive learning and bury the hatchet with us White Yankees. In fact, I think he might be enjoying a little bit of twisted schadenfreude at our expense.

Posted by Spirit of '76 on July 17, 2009, 02:21 PM | #

Dear antiracist,

I would not fret too much. Those that do not believe in race will soon be extinct as a category as you act contrary to simple biology, not to mention observable behavior. But, until you go to that Great Compost Heap in the Sky, please remember that you would have made your rant in pre-literate grunts and groans if not for the organized, future-looking activities of the hated White Man. I highly recommend you have more empty, childless sex; consume more of the recreational mind-altering substance of your choice; and pray to Obamessiah for deliverance from your sins of racist thought. After all, attacking race-realists is ipso facto acknowledgment of the very races you seek to deny.

Good luck!
The Spirit of ‘76
Descended of Pilgrims, Puritans and Huguenots… not African primitives.

Posted by Lurker on July 17, 2009, 03:01 PM | #

Dasein - if you mean South African Sarah, no it’s not her.

Antiracist is not stupid like her, she was a real piece of work, stupidity wise. Lets be fair, Antiracist has a sort of ideology of non-racism, at least there is some sort of consistency on display. Sarah couldnt hold a consistent line of thought within the same sentence let alone across more than one comment.

Posted by anonymous on July 17, 2009, 03:50 PM | #

Posted by antiracist on July 17, 2009, 10:35 AM | #

“But there is something else I want to convey: I am deeply saddened and dismayed at the thought dictatorship in today’s Western world which bars racialists from presenting themselves before the wide public. It is a huge mistake. They should be allowed to talk about their ideas totally freely, to endlessly prate about the value of this or that trait of behaviour (fo example, eating coconut icecream after fish dinner) in evolutionary adaptation, to molest everyone with their IQ statistics and the inverse relation between brain and penis size (Rushton) and all other “intelligent” theories. In that way they would expose themselves to the complete ridicule and their total braindeadness would become manifest.”

Excellent. I completely agree. Give them complete no bars held freedom to rant and rave until there hearts content, until there thirsts quenched, until there desire is no more, until every drop is spilt, until every word is spoken,until every excuse is broken, let them all have a taste let no soul go to waste, until all ends are met until every feeling is felt. They’ll still be nowhere as they are nowhere today. Except today they have an excuse for there defeat but lets see what they have tommorow. Today we are slaves they exclaim, we want to make a stand but we cant unless you meet out demand they cry, exclaim and command. They oh so want to do something like you oh so cant imagine and believe and but they oh so cant do that thing like you oh so cant imagine and believe because there oh so tied back in chains, the spell has been cast so lets untie these chains and let the spell be broken and with words unspoken lets see what they possess. There all talk.Its a vicious cycle the wheel keeps turning whilst there desire for everyone to become a victim of there game(the white mans game) keeps burning…..

No on has stopped you in the past, no one is stopping you now. No one has wanted you in the past why would they want you now?

Posted by Guessedworker on July 17, 2009, 03:57 PM | #

Anti-evil-white-hate-men,

First off, what is your ethnicity? Details, please. We have done you the service of assuming you are of European descent. If you are not, the game changes, of course. Please inform us.

Second, can’t you give yourself a moniker that has about it some normal qualities of human warmth and kindness, and doesn’t make you sound like a madman. “Antiracist” declaims very loudly to the world:

“Everybody look at me. I am fanatical. I have given my life over to an extremely unpleasant religious vocation, and I did it because, essentially, I am immature and suggestible enough to believe that, through it, I can display myself as a morally superior being.

“But the truth is that I am the kind of man who joined all persecutionist movements in the past. The kind who hunted witches. The kind who burned crosses. The kind who truly believed in the Reign of Terror, at Katyn and in the gulags. The kind who harbours every terrifying possibility, and whose unmistakable signature is the act of sadistically dehumanising that which he seeks to destroy, as today I dehumanise Europeans who desire their peoples to survive.

“Ultimately, of course, I am the kind of man who is entirely motivated by the moral sickness in my own soul. My efforts to cleanse myself by projecting this sickness onto others is more or less unconscious. So it’s not really my fault. I am just a pitiable wretch. I know it, really. If it were otherwise would I waste my time with this ideological junk?”

You see, blind little rabbit, the key to understanding life - how Nature works, what human nature is - does not lie in the Jewish junk you were exposed to at college. People like Tim Wise are only interested in making you their extended phenotype in the war of the Final Solution of the European Question. So they taught you white guilt. They taught you self-loathing. Then they taught you how to free yourself of it by exporting it onto others. They were, and are, vile liars. But let’s not pretend you were other than perfectly willingly to go along with their lies. We know you well. We know you were complicit.

Let’s see what use your complicity does for you here.

You think every nativist of European descent must be this hate-object, “an evil White Supremacist”. You do not know that racial nationalism in this time of mortal danger for Europe’s children is a politics of liberation, of hope, and of life. You commend death unto us and you consider yourself a moral man. You are not a moral man. You are a vile snake.

Understand - the highest human interest is continuity, in which Nature’s very purpose subsists. There is nothing comparable. Not equality, not freedom, not prosperity … nothing trumps life. For the first time in human history, an entire race of Man - we Europeans - is being expunged from its living spaces. This is a crime against humanity recognised in the 1948/51 Geneva Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of Genocide and in the September 2007 approval by the UN General Assembly of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This is all new. None of it, from the threat itself right throught to the racial activism, has happened before. Not the nationalism that flowed from 1789, not National Socialism, not Evola or de Benoist … nobody had produced a nationalist response to this present situation, for it has never been seen before. You are looking at a new movement of European men and women who demand life, and who strive to turn back all the forces of death, including your own sick little death-movement.

We, not you, are moral. We, not you, are right. Besides our politic, your little libbo-Marxism a-squawks for a “liberty” of weenie little individuals that would shatter an entire race of Man and consign it to history (what else can you expect from Jewish intellectualism?) Fortunately, it is irrelevant … a hobby for 120 IQ vanity cases who, actually, can’t quite process abstract thought.

I’ll leave it there for now. But do tell us your true ethnicity, there’s a good chap.

Posted by GenoType on July 17, 2009, 03:59 PM | #

Is your understanding based on more than speculation?

Yes. It’s based on close observation of similar individuals.

——-

Guessedworker and Mark I made a good start to handing the “anti-racist” princeling his ass. Some others, unfortunately, have done little but confirm his professor’s ad hoc thesis and patched-up storytelling.

The fact that you would call Joe Schmoe a douchebag if he really is, doesn’t change your basic assumption that this Joe Schmoe must be naturally “superior” to all, let’s say blacks, simply because he has certain level of melanin on his skin.

This statement should be addressed.

Posted by anonymous on July 17, 2009, 04:00 PM | #

SHOULD READ

Give them complete no bars held freedom to rant and rave in public

Posted by anonymous on July 17, 2009, 04:20 PM | #

Posted by Guessedworker on July 17, 2009, 07:57 PM | #

“We, not you, are moral. We, not you, are right”

If you are so right why are you in the situation you are in today? Take my asking you a question as a compliment as its me giving you a chance a chance that someone else might not give you to continue with your prattle (LOL) Why have you typed what you have typed in the past, why are you sat here typing what you are typing right now, and will type tommorow when you explain why you are right and why someone else is wrong and the day after (LOL) and next week and the week after, catch my drift Mr Intellectual??? Just a request Remember when you get round to the same time same day next week and the in a months time please type something original,different and exciting instead of the same old drivel… its not much for entertainment value LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!

Posted by GenoType on July 17, 2009, 05:00 PM | #

People like Tim Wise are only interested in making you their extended phenotype in the war of the Final Solution of the European Question. So they taught you white guilt. They taught you self-loathing. Then they taught you how to free yourself of it by exporting it onto others. They were, and are, vile liars. But let’s not pretend you were other than perfectly willingly to go along with their lies. We know you well. We know you were complicit.

Assuming a close degree of genetic similarity, the princeling’s willingly complicit behavior disconfirms the following premise:

The fact that you would call Joe Schmoe a douchebag if he really is, doesn’t change your basic assumption that this Joe Schmoe must be naturally “superior” to all, let’s say blacks, simply because he has certain level of melanin on his skin.

Little prince,

Take this to your prof:

You are beneath the lowest Negro.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2009, 05:05 PM | #

SHOULD READ

Give them complete no bars held freedom to rant and rave in public

The expression you are looking for, Miss, is “no holds barred” — so, your sentence would be, “Give them complete no-holds-barred freedom to rant and rave in public.”

(this commenter is of course that Moslem gal who always calls us “jokers” and taunts us for “never doing anything, just talking”)

Posted by GenoType on July 17, 2009, 05:06 PM | #

its not much for entertainment value LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!

Note the repeated lulz. This was written by the Little Prince’s girlfriend or bottom boy.

—————

GW,

Inconvenience this troll.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 17, 2009, 05:21 PM | #

The fact that you would call Joe Schmoe a douchebag if he really is, doesn’t change your basic assumption that this Joe Schmoe must be naturally “superior” to all, let’s say blacks, simply because he has certain level of melanin on his skin.

The person who would truckle before the liberal individualist dispensation of White racial dissolution by denouncing one of his kinsmen as a “douchebag” does not understand the value of kinship writ large and is hence one of the benighted. True, White Joe Schmoe may be quantifiably “inferior” to another individual of another race, yet he is one of our own, a part of our extended family, and therefore more important to us than the “superior” individual of an alien people. Besides, if individuals can be quantifiably designated as “superior” and “inferior” based upon objective measurement of traits, so too can races be, on average. So, the quantifiably “superior” race will produce fewer “douchebags”. Moreover, a milieu of genetic homogeneity - with each group member fulfilling his evolved role as compliment to an adaptive group strategy - which is the only context in which true civic congeniality can be had, will be more likely still to produce fewer “douchebags” amongst the “superior” races. Racial solidarity is adaptive for Joe Schmoe and Joseph Blueblood alike.

Posted by Loriver on July 17, 2009, 05:41 PM | #

The fact that you would call Joe Schmoe a douchebag if he really is, doesn’t change your basic assumption that this Joe Schmoe must be naturally “superior” to all, let’s say blacks, simply because he has certain level of melanin on his skin.

Racial superiority is or should be a side-issue. We are interested in kinship, genetic similarity due to shared descent.

Joe Schmoe may be inferior or superior to most sub-Saharan Africans, after all there is ample scope for individual variation in traits like intelligence, but if he is from a more closely related ethnic group to me than sub-Saharan Africans then this closer relatedness is something that I will respect and value, just as I would prefer and value my own brother above a more intelligent stranger who has objectively superior characteristics and is less of a douchebag.

Skin colour is, of course, merely a useful phenotypic guide from which ethnic/racial origin can be inferred to an extent. It is not important in itself, ethnic kinship is important to us.

And although I can’t speak for others here, personally I am not tied to the idea of the white race, rather I’m concerned with ethnic relationships on every scale and I don’t privilege any biological category. So I value some more closely related people who have white skin more than I do others who have equally white skin but come from other parts of Europe.

Posted by Cameron Diaz on July 17, 2009, 05:45 PM | #

Props to the MR commentariat for their effortless evisceration of “antiracist” and “anonymous.” Presumably they are the same tard, or perhaps 2 separate and discrete tards? It hardly matters:

For many tards before them came hither to struggle with the dragon of Genomic Science. They entered the MR Arena. They grappled with the commentariat. They too FAILED in their time.

Verily I say unto you: This procession of tards never endeth. They cometh and they goeth. They struggle and they LOSE.

Even unto the end of time…

Posted by Captainchaos on July 17, 2009, 06:01 PM | #

I don’t privilege any biological category. So I value some more closely related people who have white skin more than I do others who have equally white skin but come from other parts of Europe.

So do you accept or reject the concept of biological categories? Do you accept that Indo-Europeans constitute a biological category? Do you not then “privilege” (i.e., grant fellow in-groupers “a special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit”) the in-group of Indo-Europeans over out-group non-Indo-Europeans?

Posted by Thunder on July 17, 2009, 06:04 PM | #

GenoType

Is your understanding based on more than speculation?

Yes. It’s based on close observation of similar individuals.

Okay, you have me interested. I really want to know what you think motivates them. Why you are so certain? What do you think is going on in their heads?

I have wondered if some gang mentality and thrill of violence feeds into it, fighting for good. proving they aren’t racist…

Posted by Loriver on July 17, 2009, 06:47 PM | #

So do you accept or reject the concept of biological categories? Do you accept that Indo-Europeans constitute a biological category? Do you not then “privilege” (i.e., grant fellow in-groupers “a special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit”) the in-group of Indo-Europeans over out-group non-Indo-Europeans?

I accept biological categories like the negroid race, and the caucasian race, where race is a somewhat discrete cluster of populations. I accept the existence of a European race, albeit this is a less distinct cluster.

But I see no reason to base in-group and out-group distinctions on these clusters. It’s two different spheres that don’t need to come into contact. Clusters exist, but EGI is inherent in all manner of ethnic differences, and Fst differences go right down to very local levels. Clustering, i.e. race, is irrelevant to EGI so long as you know all of the Fst distances (which will fully reflect the enhanced similarity that clustering, race, signifies).

I consider my in-group to be all people of the British Isles. This a practical distinction, not a racial distinction as such. There are two factors, firstly ‘Do you know your distinct ancestry within a given category?’ and secondly ‘Is it practical to mobilise against a possible out-group, from whom you know yourself to be different, in the service of EGI?’ or alternatively put, ‘Would excluding this group lead to a net gain in EGI?’

In my case, I’m too unclear about my ancestry within Great Britain to be able to consider any group alien. And I would include the Irish in the in-group for reason b, since among other reasons they are heavily interbred with us. Of course, even if all my ancestry went back in Norfolk for 500 years, other mainland Britons would all pass for reason b anyway.

In America I think the white identity is most sound, if you look at those two considerations, although this is kind of incidental to the fact that Europeans are a biological race.

Regardless of these distinctions all European ethnic groups have an EGI interest in defending other Europeans because Europeans are exclusively threatened by significant race replacement from very distant populations.

That’s my perspective on race and ethnicity, which I find to be most compatible with EGI. It also deals with a lot of anti-racist insinuations.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2009, 07:57 PM | #

A propos of Loriver’s thing that “clusters are irrelevant to EGI,” and

”I see no reason to base in-group and out-group distinctions on these clusters. It’s two different spheres that don’t need to come into contact.” (—Loriver)

and

”In my case, I’m too unclear about my ancestry within Great Britain to be able to consider any group alien. And I would include the Irish in the in-group for reason b, since among other reasons they are heavily interbred with us.” (—Loriver)

What happens when the Sub-Saharans are heavily inbred with you, thanks to the efforts of the other side? Do you include them in the in-group too? You’ll have to, if it all depends solely on whom the whites of the moment are related to — that’s what the other side is counting on: forcing miscegenation on your group, then letting the group find itself before the fait accompli, letting it look in the mirror at its new mulatto self, tell itself it’s not so different from the Sub-Saharans after all, and deciding the whole idea of resistance had all been wrong, since it’s inbred with them so they’re now part of its race, the two EGIs are now intertwined.

No, sorry, the clusters aren’t “irrelevant.” And yes, there is a “reason to base in-group and out-group distinctions on these clusters.”

Posted by GenoType on July 17, 2009, 08:14 PM | #

Joe Schmoe may be inferior or superior to most sub-Saharan Africans, after all there is ample scope for individual variation in traits like intelligence, but if he is from a more closely related ethnic group to me than sub-Saharan Africans then this closer relatedness is something that I will respect and value, just as I would prefer and value my own brother above a more intelligent stranger who has objectively superior characteristics and is less of a douchebag.

I am glad that you value your brother. Presumably his douchebag behavior is somewhat better than that of a defective like our Little Prince who subscribes, without question or opposition, to a belief system which would see you imprisoned or executed, your wife raped by non-whites, and your children placed into a homosexual-friendly, multiracial social system - ostensibly for having anonymously expressed “racist” views on the Internet - because it empowers him. A brother like our Little Prince poses a greater threat to your ethnic genetic interests (EGI) than any Negro.

If you have difficulties conceptualizing this, then remember that jews are genetically closer to you than sub-Saharan Africans.

Posted by Armor on July 17, 2009, 08:25 PM | #

Genotype: “remember that jews are genetically closer to you than sub-Saharan Africans.”

By the way… something I find funny is that Europeans get on better with Chinese people than with Arabs and Jews, even though the Chinese are supposed to be genetically more distant.

Posted by Q on July 17, 2009, 08:48 PM | #

see you imprisoned [ ... ] ostensibly for having ... expressed “racist” views on the Internet

As exemplified by this:

Jailed race-hate pair win go-ahead for appeal

Simon Sheppard: Jailed for running racist website.

« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryADVERTISEMENTPublished Date: 14 July 2009
By Rob Preece Crime Correspondent

TWO men jailed for spearheading a race-hate campaign on the internet were yesterday granted permission to appeal against their convictions.
Simon Sheppard, from Selby, and York university graduate Stephen Whittle were sentenced on Friday after being found guilty of publishing racially inflammatory written material. Jurors had rejected the pair’s claim that the articles were beyond the reach of English law because they were published on a website registered in the United States….

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Jailed-racehate-pair-win-goahead.5459060.jp

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2009, 08:52 PM | #

I don’t see how it’s possible to argue with someone like “anti-racist” who, right at the outset, denies that there are races (or does the equivalent thereof). We and he are living in different universes. Might as well try to explain to someone from the eleventh dimension that there are only three dimensions — you won’t accomplish much.

The other thing is, it may be that seeing race is very hard for some individuals. Think of the hardest thing you studied in college — remember how hard that concept was to grasp? For some people it might have been a particular math topic, for others physics, maybe for others chemistry or biology or engineering or what-have-you. The point is, it was hard to grasp. Maybe you took a week, maybe a month, maybe a year, maybe a few years, of thinking about it to finally “get it.” Well, surprising as it may seem, there may be people out there for whom seeing race is that hard, so they can’t see it. You’d think it was as easy as opening your eyes and seeing white men, Negroes, and Chinamen but it may not be for some. Some simply may not get it, and when we talk about it, they don’t know what we’re talking about it. I’m not saying that’s part of what goes on, I’m just throwing it out there as one possibility.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2009, 08:57 PM | #

In that last comment I made a real effort to not call “antiracist” the vilest names I could come up with. I went through a couple of longer drafts with lots of vile names in them but shortened the final version and cleaned it up for posting. I had some new and really good, effective names in there, really vile.

Posted by GenoType on July 17, 2009, 08:59 PM | #

Okay, you have me interested. I really want to know what you think motivates them

Power, status, money, and fear motivate the ostensible Europid. Race, ethnicity, and religion are incidental to the formation of empowering economic and political alliances with out-groups. Fear of the underclass Europid is used to justify out-Europid alliances. Ostensible Europids are true aracials capable of posing as racialists in monoracial societies where survival requires it – much as racialist Europids may conceivably pose as multiracialists off the Internet.

Posted by Q on July 17, 2009, 09:16 PM | #

I had some new and really good, effective names in there, really vile.

I’d like to think that the mocking bird—who was obviously nurtured in a cultural Marxist nest—is a unique aberration, but mutants who think like antiracist comprise the majority in many elite social circles.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2009, 09:28 PM | #

“I’d like to think that the mocking bird—who was obviously nurtured in a cultural Marxist nest—” (—Geno Type)

You could be wrong about that — I read through most of his stuff and got the distinct impression this specimen might be your typical Thomas-Fleming-style, Karl-Rove-style, Sean-Hannity-style, George-Bush-style, National-Review-style, Free-Republic-Style, Lucianne-com-style, Paul-Weyrich-style, Newt-Gingrich-style, Mary-Matalin-style, yes even Ann-Coulter-style, “conservative.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2009, 09:29 PM | #

Excuse me, that was Q who posted that, not Geno Type.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2009, 09:47 PM | #

Get all the top “establishment conservatives” in this thread, David Cameron, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, President Bush, Newt Gingrich, etc., and ask them whom they agree with more, us or “anti-racist.” Anyone actually think they’d choose us?

Anyone here still call himself a “conservative”?

Sorry, I’m a progressive.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2009, 09:57 PM | #

(I took a big risk there, posting that cluster of half-a-dozen comments, JRichards’ll likely get that erased as fast as he can get his finger on the delete button. He sees himself as saving the readership from my Jewish influence, don’t ya know!)

Posted by Q on July 17, 2009, 09:59 PM | #

“Thomas-Fleming-style, Karl-Rove-style, Sean-Hannity-style, George-Bush-style, National-Review-style, Free-Republic-Style, Lucianne-com-style, Paul-Weyrich-style, Newt-Gingrich-style, Mary-Matalin-style, yes even Ann-Coulter-style, “conservative.”

Or more precisely, Fred, they’re the ex Trotskyites paid mouthpieces.

Posted by Kunthjol on July 18, 2009, 12:06 AM | #

It is the question of law and public order and not of “racial theories”.

I would like to test the Racial Theory of you taking a walk late at night alone through West Oakland or Detroit, we can discuss what happens to you around large numbers of Blacks… if you make it out alive!

Such an exercise would be especially important to conduct given your attempt to debase the late, great Baron Evola. If you like the ‘Spiritual Racism’ of Evola, assuredly you will also like the Spiritual Racism of Hindu Priestess Savitri Devi or maybe even Miguel Serrano!! They worshiped Hitler as an Incarnate God-man! Laugh out loud! The joke is on you, usually the most militant and hard-core of Racialists are the ones with a Spiritual bent!

Posted by anonymous on July 18, 2009, 06:01 AM | #

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2009, 09:05 PM | #

SHOULD READ

Give them complete no bars held freedom to rant and rave in public

The expression you are looking for, Miss, is “no holds barred” — so, your sentence would be, “Give them complete no-holds-barred freedom to rant and rave in public.”

(this commenter is of course that Moslem gal who always calls us “jokers” and taunts us for “never doing anything, just talking”) “

I know what the expression is/was, what I was looking for was what you just proved! LOL.
I support you in your right for your freedom to rant and rave in public and I give you some goooood advice by telling you should do something practical about your situation i.e by starting to breed more and you throw it back in my face LOOOOOOOOOOOL. Thats appreciation for you.

Posted by nonracist on July 18, 2009, 06:39 AM | #

Anti-evil-white-hate-men,

First off, what is your ethnicity? Details, please. We have done you the service of assuming you are of European descent. If you are not, the game changes, of course. Please inform us.

I am American of European descent.

Second, can’t you give yourself a moniker that has about it some normal qualities of human warmth and kindness, and doesn’t make you sound like a madman. “Antiracist” declaims very loudly to the world:

That’s the only advice I will accept: from now on I am nonracist. “Antiracists” are way too obsessed with race. They want equality among races, multiracialism and similar nonsense while I think “race” as concept is totally irrelevant, in fact non-existent and should be abolished from any serious discourse.

“Races” don’t exist!

There exists biological variety among humans on earth, but this diversity is too large, with way too many traits, as to justify classification into clear-cut races. Besides, it is impossible to establish clear boundary among races. From Congoid to Nordic there are many shades of brown. Where does the black “race” end and the “white” race begin? No-one has as yet succeeded to establish that.

Notion that all culture (understood in the broadest sense of word) flows from “race” is fruit of naive 19th century material-mechanicist conception of the world, pretty outdated scientifically, but still with a powerful grip on the popular culture and imagination.

“Everybody look at me. I am fanatical. I have given my life over to an extremely unpleasant religious vocation, and I did it because, essentially, I am immature and suggestible enough to believe that, through it, I can display myself as a morally superior being.

“But the truth is that I am the kind of man who joined all persecutionist movements in the past. The kind who hunted witches. The kind who burned crosses. The kind who truly believed in the Reign of Terror, at Katyn and in the gulags. The kind who harbours every terrifying possibility, and whose unmistakable signature is the act of sadistically dehumanising that which he seeks to destroy, as today I dehumanise Europeans who desire their peoples to survive.

“Ultimately, of course, I am the kind of man who is entirely motivated by the moral sickness in my own soul. My efforts to cleanse myself by projecting this sickness onto others is more or less unconscious. So it’s not really my fault. I am just a pitiable wretch. I know it, really. If it were otherwise would I waste my time with this ideological junk?”

Hahaha. What a load of nonsense. Now you really dissected me with the help of some kind of psychoanalitical phraseology (how “Jewish”).

You prove to be unable to think outside of some pre-determined categories, cliches, boxes. If someone refuses to accept racialist nonsense, it must automatically mean he does so because he wants to look “morally superior” etc. I reject biological racialism for the sheer stupidity of it, that’s all.

Many conservative (in the old sense of word) thinkers of 20ieth century criticised, nay, refuted the superstition of race. For example, Eric Voegelin and Jacques Barzun. I already mentioned Evola, a too intelligent and educated man, thinking with his own head, to accept at face value the materialist reductionist junk of biological racialism.

You see, blind little rabbit, the key to understanding life - how Nature works, what human nature is - does not lie in the Jewish junk you were exposed to at college. People like Tim Wise are only interested in making you their extended phenotype in the war of the Final Solution of the European Question. So they taught you white guilt. They taught you self-loathing. Then they taught you how to free yourself of it by exporting it onto others. They were, and are, vile liars. But let’s not pretend you were other than perfectly willingly to go along with their lies. We know you well. We know you were complicit.

Congratulations, Mr. Sherlock Holmes! You now “know” everything about me, what I was exposed to etc. You are ridiculous with your hysterical ranting.

Understand - the highest human interest is continuity, in which Nature’s very purpose subsists. There is nothing comparable. Not equality, not freedom, not prosperity … nothing trumps life. For the first time in human history, an entire race of Man - we Europeans - is being expunged from its living spaces. This is a crime against humanity recognised in the 1948/51 Geneva Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of Genocide and in the September 2007 approval by the UN General Assembly of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Individual humans want continuity, to have offspring, that’s natural (but not granted, because humans have free will acd are able purposefully to reject this biological drive). Nations, family lineages want continuity too, that is fruit of their striving for eternity, becasue no man is an island and is, apart from being unique person, also part of some larger whole.

But “race”???? To be concerned with the continuation of a “race”? Such an abstract social construct, corroborated by pseudo-“scientific” nonsense, mostly outdated? Only idle individuals can occupy themselves with something so futile.

We, not you, are moral. We, not you, are right. Besides our politic, your little libbo-Marxism a-squawks for a “liberty” of weenie little individuals that would shatter an entire race of Man and consign it to history (what else can you expect from Jewish intellectualism?) Fortunately, it is irrelevant … a hobby for 120 IQ vanity cases who, actually, can’t quite process abstract thought.

Since you can’t process any abstract thought, then you insist on reductionist naturalism-materialism as supposedly supreme “truth of life”. That is zero level of thought.

Posted by Dasein on July 18, 2009, 06:48 AM | #

anonymous is just another example of what has been described in prose and verse by Forster and Kipling, namely the completely alien nature of the subcon mentality. There’s a gulf that makes her incomprehensible to any normal White.

Posted by nonracist on July 18, 2009, 06:53 AM | #

Alan Templeton: Race doesn’t exist

Evolutionary biologist: race in humans a social, not biological, concept

By Tony Fitzpatrick

May 20, 2003—The notion of race in humans is completely a social concept without any biological basis, according to a biologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

There are not enough genetic differences between groups of people to say that there are sub-lineages (races) of humans, said Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. On the other hand, there are different races in many other species, including chimpanzees, our closest evolutionary relatives.

Templeton is a renowned evolutionary and population biologist who has analyzed billions of genetic pairings called base pairs for numerous evolution and population biology studies. He has shown that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation within local populations. While between-population variation exists, it is quantitatively small and does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.

“I’m not saying there aren’t genetic differences among human populations,” he cautioned. “There are differences, but they don’t define historical lineages that have persisted for a long time, which is one criterion for race in a scientific sense.”

Templeton was part of a St. Louis panel discussion that previewed the first episode of the National Public Television’s “Race: The Power of an Allusion” series running nationally on May 4, 11 and 18 (check local stations for times). The first episode is “How different are we really?” The second one is “Where did the idea of race come from?” The third is “Just because race isn’t biological doesn’t mean it isn’t real.”

Last spring in an article published in Nature magazine, Templeton analyzed many different gene trees based on human DNA sequence data and showed that humans long had genetic interconnections all over the globe. He showed that there were at least two major waves of human migration out of Africa. DNA evidence suggests also that these wanderers bred with the people they encountered, rather than replaced them, in a “make-love-not-war” scenario.

“There is more and more hard genetic evidence that all of humanity has evolved as a single unit, with regional variations, but that’s all they are, slight variations,” said Templeton. “A race has to be a sharply defined, geographically circumscribed population that represents an isolated or nearly isolated lineage within the species. There’s nothing at all like that in humanity. In terms of the living world, it’s really hard to find a species so genetically homogeneous across its populations as humans.”

Templeton said that the genetic variation between different geographical populations in humans — what some might incorrectly consider to be “race” — does make a difference when it comes to transplanting organs because organs have to be genetically compatible. The best predictor of overall genetic differences is how far apart geographically the ancestral populations are.

“We need to look at these indicators of genetic differentiation directly and not just tied into skin color or race because that’s not actually the most reliable indicator of the differences,” said Templeton. “For instance, let’s say you have a person from Micronesia who needs a transplant. These are people who have dark skin and resemble western Africans. Yet genetically the Micronesian is closer to a European than he is to an African. So, the skin color here is not a reliable indicator. It’s actually more important to find out a geographical ancestry than a donor’s skin color. For instance, Tiger Woods is mostly Asian in his ancestry. If he should need a transplant some day, he will be more likely to match an Asian donor.

“It’s geography and not culture or skin color that matters in this instance.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 18, 2009, 07:17 AM | #

You should have read “Erectus Walks Amongst Us” instead, “non-racist.” Here, I’ve pasted an excerpt:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/street_fighting_forum_fighting_and_reporter_fighting_discourse/#c69915 .

(Can’t believe I actually found an old comment of mine that JRichards hasn’t gone behind my back and erased “to protect the readership from my sayan-Jewish influence.” Goddamn miracle. Of course that one won’t last much longer, now that he knows it’s there.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 18, 2009, 07:31 AM | #

“I support you in your right for your freedom to rant and rave in public and I give you some goooood advice by telling you should do something practical about your situation i.e by starting to breed more and you throw it back in my face LOOOOOOOOOOOL. Thats appreciation for you.” (—Anonymous, who is a Pakistani girl living in the U.K. if memory serves, who adores coming here to call us “jokers” and taunt us endlessly for being all talk, no action)

That’s good advice and thanks for it, but we can rant and rave in public and still breed more — the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Don’t forget, we rant and rave on here only 16 hours a day, which leaves the rest, eight whole hours, to be with our wives! We can get a lot done in those eight hours, Miss!

Posted by Loriver on July 18, 2009, 07:55 AM | #

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 17, 2009, 11:57 PM | #

A propos of Loriver’s thing that “clusters are irrelevant to EGI,” and

”I see no reason to base in-group and out-group distinctions on these clusters. It’s two different spheres that don’t need to come into contact.” (—Loriver)

and

”In my case, I’m too unclear about my ancestry within Great Britain to be able to consider any group alien. And I would include the Irish in the in-group for reason b, since among other reasons they are heavily interbred with us.” (—Loriver)

What happens when the Sub-Saharans are heavily inbred with you, thanks to the efforts of the other side? Do you include them in the in-group too? You’ll have to, if it all depends solely on whom the whites of the moment are related to — that’s what the other side is counting on: forcing miscegenation on your group, then letting the group find itself before the fait accompli, letting it look in the mirror at its new mulatto self, tell itself it’s not so different from the Sub-Saharans after all, and deciding the whole idea of resistance had all been wrong, since it’s inbred with them so they’re now part of its race, the two EGIs are now intertwined.

No, sorry, the clusters aren’t “irrelevant.” And yes, there is a “reason to base in-group and out-group distinctions on these clusters.”

I’d like to do a better job first, that wasn’t well put: I think that the smallest unit that you should use is defined by criterion a, whether you can identify your specific interests within a certain descent group. Following this, I probably wouldn’t even see things in terms of an in-group and out-group; a more complete view is to consider the precise way that you would treat every other ethnic group, making it a less firm distinction between acceptance and rejection. For example, I might not stand for deporting Irishmen, but voluntary repatriation might be encouraged. I might want to deport Poles, but only after non-Europeans have been deported, and so on.

I probably wouldn’t look to deport anyone more closely related to us than the Poles. But I would have less tolerance for German mass immigration, even if of equal strength to Irish immigration in Salterian terms, because mobilisation against the Irish is so problematic.

Concerning how the Irish are to be treated by the mainland British people, you have to look at the whole picture and I only gave one of the considerations. There’s something like 6 million people in Britain with an Irish grandparent, and given the very close relatedness of these people to us it would be highly counter-productive to alienate them. They are closely related enough that they would not be ashamed to advocate British racial interests. There is a lot more to gain by accepting them than by trying to deport them! And although there are a lot of Irish immigrants in Britain, which counts against EGI, another factor is that there is some reciprocity in this.

In theory, if Indians for example were heavily interbred with us, or for some other reason difficult to mobilise against, it might be the case there as well that the optimal course would be to accept them whilst deporting others, even if more closely related. However, for one thing there is no chance that an Indian or half-Indian, let alone a half-negro would ever co-operate in defending British ethnic interests. Ethnicity has to be some sort of circle drawn around neighbouring populations, I don’t believe anything else would work practically.

Furthermore, Indians and sub-Saharans are a big part of the race replacement problem, unlike the Irish. Although negroes might be equally interbred with us, there is a lot more to be gained by excluding them, so the balance is a lot more likely to fall against accepting them. If we alienated 6 million or more near-Britons, that would harm efforts to deal with the bigger problem of non-European immigration, but when it comes to negroes you already have dealt with a large element of the problem by excluding them.

There is also the fact that if the public are going to accept racialism, it’s best for racialists not to try to push their luck. There is ample resentment of Eastern European immigration, and we have to count on there being motivation to deport or otherwise limit non-Europeans, but mobilising against nearby populations might not find similar favour with the public.

By the way I appreciate that this might seem an overly calculating way of looking at things, but I don’t think any more organic approach is logically defensible in the EGI framework. Even if I’m wrong about what is practical, which I may well be, I still don’t see why race has to be invoked. You can just draw some different practical conclusions of your own.

Posted by Dasein on July 18, 2009, 08:04 AM | #

This is all new. None of it, from the threat itself right throught to the racial activism, has happened before. Not the nationalism that flowed from 1789, not National Socialism, not Evola or de Benoist … nobody had produced a nationalist response to this present situation, for it has never been seen before. You are looking at a new movement of European men and women who demand life, and who strive to turn back all the forces of death, including your own sick little death-movement.—GW

?? µ????? ????? ???????? [All that is great stands in the storm]—Plato (The Republic)

We children of the future, how could we be at home in this today? We feel disfavor for all ideals that might lead one to feel at home even in this fragile, broken time of transition; as for its “realities,” we do not believe that they will last. The ice that still supports people today has become very thin; the wind that brings the thaw is blowing; we ourselves who are homeless constitute a force that breaks open ice and other all too thin “realities.”—Nietzsche (The Gay Science)

Deep down, I think anonymous senses that her ‘home’ in the West may not be legitimate or stable. Antiracist is too feeble-minded to understand how little he knows and too insecure to attempt to remedy it. They would do well to heed the sound of cracking ice.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 18, 2009, 08:17 AM | #

“By the way I appreciate that this might seem an overly calculating way of looking at things,” (—the well-meaning but evidently somewhat confused Loriver)

Overly calculating? No, I’d call it one hundred percent incomprehensible.

Here the U.K. is being deliberately changed people-wise into China, the Subcontinent, the Maghreb, and the Sub-Sahara and you post a comment in which you spend 95% of your verbiage fretting about the proportion of Englishmen who have some Irish ancestry. Hello? Earth to Loriver, come in please. Do you read me? You’re way off in the clouds somewhere, Lor, mate. When you come back to the planet Earth look me up, OK?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 18, 2009, 08:46 AM | #

Way down at the bottom of his long complicated post Loriver helps us understand his point with this paragraph:

“Furthermore, Indians and sub-Saharans are a big part of the race replacement problem, unlike the Irish. [Wow, they ARE??? Who wudda guessed!!!] Although negroes might be equally interbred with us, there is a lot more to be gained by excluding them, so the balance is a lot more likely to fall against accepting them. [Boy am I glad Loriver is setting us straight on that — we all mistakenly thought there was more to be gained by excluding Irishmen, Ulstermen, Scotsmen, Welshmen, Cornishmen, and Manxmen than Bantus, Zulus, pygmies, and Hottentots but now we’re seeing the light! Thanx, mate!] If we alienated 6 million or more near-Britons [by which Loriver means Welshmen, Irishmen, and Scotsmen], that would harm efforts to deal with the bigger problem of non-European immigration, but when it comes to negroes you already have dealt with a large element of the problem by excluding them. [Good thing Loriver had room to tell us this all the way at the bottom of his comment — so glad he fitted this part into it before he ran out of space: we avoid more problems excluding West-Central Sub-Saharan African Negroes than those penny-pinching Scots, those drunken Irishmen, and those Welshmen always singing off-key! We all would have said the exact opposite! Now let’s get back to deciphering the rest of Lorimer’s very complex post — there are bound to be more gems in there!

Posted by Q on July 18, 2009, 08:46 AM | #

[f]rom now on I am nonracist. “Antiracists” are way too obsessed with race. They want equality among races, multiracialism and similar nonsense while I think “race” as concept is totally irrelevant, in fact non-existent and should be abolished from any serious discourse.

Ever since the end of WWII, the directive “we need to get beyond race” has been constantly drummed into our minds. Over time, the suggestible white masses foolishly accepted that message and for the most part abandoned their own EGI and acted acordingly for the supposed greater good of society. The problem, however, arouse when at the same time whites practiced “antiracism” the “people of color” en masse went in the opposite direction; their entire identity became defined by race. Therein lies the problem. How are white ethnic groups supposed to maintain their existence in a world filled with “people of color” advancing their own EGI? Here’s an example of what we are up against:

Now comes Harvard educated Noel Ignatiev, an academic at Harvard’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African-American Research. Dr. Ignatiev is the founder of a journal, Race Traitor, which has as its motto, “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”

The journal’s purpose is “to abolish the white race.”

At the least, Dr. Ignatiev intends cultural and psychological genocide for whites. It is unclear whether physical extermination is part of the program. A statement by the editors on the web site says that the new abolitionists

“do not limit themselves to socially acceptable means of protest, but reject in advance no means of attaining their goal.”

Dr. Ignatiev does not believe his agenda is controversial. He writes:

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.” Thus does he put whites on notice. If they oppose their abolition, they are “white supremacists.”

According to Dr. Ignatiev,

“The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.”

“Make no mistake about it,” he says,

“we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

What “social construct” will be left? A black one? An Hispanic one? Muslim? Asian? What about Jewish?

http://vdare.com/roberts/harvard_genocide.htm

Again: While the white race is in the process of being systematically abolished, all “people of color” are encouraged to embrace their own ethnic heritage - both culturally and biologically.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 18, 2009, 09:20 AM | #

“Racial superiority is or should be a side-issue.” (—Loriver)

Agreed, but let’s say, rather, that it shouldn’t be the main issue. It’s important of course and should be taken into account but shouldn’t be the main issue, otherwise we’d have to change into Chinamen to get their higher average IQs, for one thing. But we don’t want to change into Chinamen, we want to stay ourselves. Or let’s say Negroes had the highest IQs but to get those IQs you had to change into Negroes including looking like them. Forget that, I’d rather have the low IQs and look like us — looks count too, you know! (Especially when the choice is between us and Negroes! ........)

The main issue is we like ourselves the way we are, warts and all, and don’t want to change into anyone or anything else (— that is, if it’s all the same to the Jews, communists, and clueless women voters):

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/iq_matters/#c58839

Posted by Guessedworker on July 18, 2009, 10:58 AM | #

Little rabbit,

Your earlier comment of the last two offers nothing. Your posting of the liberal geneticist’s piece of political correctness is a bit better.

Yes, we know all about liberal politics in genetics research. Liberal geneticists won’t consider genetic structure:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12557124

Human population genetic structure and inference of group membership.

Bamshad MJ, Wooding S, Watkins WS, Ostler CT, Batzer MA, Jorde LB.

A major goal of biomedical research is to develop the capability to provide highly personalized health care. To do so, it is necessary to understand the distribution of interindividual genetic variation at loci underlying physical characteristics, disease susceptibility, and response to treatment. Variation at these loci commonly exhibits geographic structuring and may contribute to phenotypic differences between groups. Thus, in some situations, it may be important to consider these groups separately. Membership in these groups is commonly inferred by use of a proxy such as place-of-origin or ethnic affiliation. These inferences are frequently weakened, however, by use of surrogates, such as skin color, for these proxies, the distribution of which bears little resemblance to the distribution of neutral genetic variation. Consequently, it has become increasingly controversial whether proxies are sufficient and accurate representations of groups inferred from neutral genetic variation. This raises three questions: how many data are required to identify population structure at a meaningful level of resolution, to what level can population structure be resolved, and do some proxies represent population structure accurately? We assayed 100 Alu insertion polymorphisms in a heterogeneous collection of approximately 565 individuals, approximately 200 of whom were also typed for 60 microsatellites. Stripped of identifying information, correct assignment to the continent of origin (Africa, Asia, or Europe) with a mean accuracy of at least 90% required a minimum of 60 Alu markers or microsatellites and reached 99%-100% when >/=100 loci were used. Less accurate assignment (87%) to the appropriate genetic cluster was possible for a historically admixed sample from southern India. These results set a minimum for the number of markers that must be tested to make strong inferences about detecting population structure among Old World populations under ideal experimental conditions. We note that, whereas some proxies correspond crudely, if at all, to population structure, the heuristic value of others is much higher. This suggests that a more flexible framework is needed for making inferences about population structure and the utility of proxies.

Comprenez-vous? The battle in the genetics world is over semantics. Anti-white racists in colleges and in the funding institutions have forced honest geneticists to use replacement terminology (the same way they forced sociobiologists underground in the 80s and 90s). “Population structure” means race. So does “continent of origin”.

The skin-colour game that liberals play is another piece of outright dishonesty. Tamils and Abos, for example, are dark-skinned. They aren’t Negroid. But we know subcontinental Indians from Sub-Saharan Africans even though the melanin level in their skin may be similar. So do they. And so do you.

Gee, I wonder how.

Templeton was part of a St. Louis panel discussion that previewed the first episode of the National Public Television’s “Race: The Power of an Allusion” series running nationally on May 4, 11 and 18 (check local stations for times). The first episode is “How different are we really?” The second one is “Where did the idea of race come from?” The third is “Just because race isn’t biological doesn’t mean it isn’t real.”

Yes, he is a liberal and, surprise, surpise, has access to Jewish media for the promulgation of his political correctness. Well, note Bamshad & Co’s final plea in that abstract for “a more flexible framework is needed for making inferences about population structure and the utility of proxies”, ie, an end to the Terror and the acceptance that racial assignation is part of their work.

Last spring in an article published in Nature magazine, Templeton analyzed many different gene trees based on human DNA sequence data and showed that humans long had genetic interconnections all over the globe. He showed that there were at least two major waves of human migration out of Africa. DNA evidence suggests also that these wanderers bred with the people they encountered, rather than replaced them, in a “make-love-not-war” scenario.

Not modern Africans, though, who only emerged 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, and have not travelled “all over the globe” making “love-not-war” with Amerinds and Suomi. I guess Templeton didn’t think too hard about that back in 2005 when he was doing his research.

A current take (June 2009) on African ethnicity, complete with references to genetic distance to the rest of us, is here:

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v10/n6/full/nrg2605.html

The author talks about “African genomes”, which is another way of saying the r-word.

“Geography” is yet another euphemism selected, like all liberal language, for its capacity to skate over the ghastly racial truth while not disaccomodating activist Jews and their client-groups. The correct term when speaking of race and geographic origin together is “Evolutionary Environment of Adaptiveness”. No two Scots living in good old gone-to-hell Rhodesia ever made a Bantu-coloured baby because Picts and Norse and Engles and Jutes evolved in a profoundly different EEA from Bantus.

Are they different races? Or are they blessed with different “genomes”, or “population structures”? We use the word “race” as an indicator, at the macro-population level, of macro-population difference - not as a fetish. You appear to be unable to get past the fetish. That’s just a problem inside your own head - along with all the others. Another is hypocrisy. Let’s test you for it.

1. Do you accept that West African populations exhibit at the group level a heavier and more powerful physique, smaller brain case with smaller and lighter brain, lower intelligence, larger reproductive organs, earlier infant development, earlier sexual maturation and higher sexualisation than the Japanese population?

Yes, of course you do. You would be a total clown not to.

2. Do you believe that if the population of Japan is removed and replaced by West Africans brought up to speak the Japanese language and to live a Japanese culture the resultant lived experience on the islands of Japan will be “Japanese”? Or will it reflect the realities of evolution and be West African?

No, of course you don’t think it would be Japanese. Only the most heinous idiot would say that “geography” does not produce huge differences between population groups. And they are not plastic.

3. Do the Japanese desire to be replaced in Japan by West Africans?

They are sane. So no.

4. Do the Japanese deserve to be replaced by West Africans because of their forefather’s militarism and empire-building?

Nope.

5. If it comes about that race-activists of a certain ethnicity enter Japan and agitate to open the borders to West Africans, and then the money elites corrupt the Japanese political class into initiating race-replacment migration from West Africa, and the cultural elites initiate preventative action against dissent by:

a) Declaring all peoples the same, give or take a little melanin,

b) Teaching Japanese children to be ashamed of their “yellowness” and their history,

c) Demonising dissenters as “racists” and “Nanking Rapists”,

d) Controlling all media output to show West Africans as hip, wise and natural leaders, and great marriage partners for Japanese girls, whilst Japanese are boring, “hideously yellow”, dumb and always needing to be guided to do the right thing,

... would that be wrong? Would it be evil, in fact, a crime against humanity ... a genocidal act?

Yes, obviously.

Still with me, or do you think that Japanese and West Africans are just the same except for “geography” and “melanin”, and West Africans have as much right to Japan as the Japanese?

6. So, what is the special principle that changes all this when European peoples in the European homeland are the ones being replaced? Or White Americans in the America they alone built? Or Canadian whites, Australians, New Zealanders? Is there some reason why they cannot also protest their own race-replacement by not just West Africans but by all the other peoples of the world? Or are they “racists” and “Naking Rapists” too?

You see, you dishonest, lightweight little worm, the argument for European survival is a moral one. You stand with the race-replacers, the criminals, the genocidalists. You are no better than them. I imagine you will try to argue that Japanese collectivism is “ignorant” and “oppressive”. But then you come up against the brick wall of free choice, don’t you. How on earth do you deal with the common desire of peoples when that desire simply cannot be chastised out of existence? For it is present everywhere you look.

You are in dire need of recalibrating your worldview. It is based in liberal deceit. It is immoral, even genocidal. You should be ashamed to think as you do. Instead, you define yourself by it. As I said before, you are a damaged piece of goods. One of many in these times, alas.

Posted by nonracist on July 18, 2009, 12:56 PM | #

You are all in dire need of at least some shred of common sense. Or of a reality check. Yours is a terribly closed worldview, based on some reductionist thinking, on some myths of 19th century, ostensibly supported by arbitrarily chosen (at your whim) pieces of modern genetics (while, of course, every geneticist who dares oppose racialist hallucinations is declared to be “no real scientist at all, but a PC ideologist”). You remind of some weird cult which claims to know all answers to everything, incredibly simplistic answers. The most hilarious thing of all, however, is your arrogant pretence to be the spokesmen for the entire “white race” and its “genetic interests”, although nobody ever authorized you for that. In fact, most of the imaginary “white race” can’t care less about your views. It is even unclear, when you speak of the “white race”, which part of it you mean? Only the Anglo world (Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand)? The Anglo world plus Europe without Russia? Including Russia too? What about “whites” in South America?

People living in countries where the majority of the population is of the phenotype you designate as “white” (or Caucasian, or Europid, however you wish to call it) define themselves by many identities. Some by religion, others by nation only, by traditions, by language etc. I go to Europe quite often, especially Eastern Europe, and I met there quite a few nationalists who can’t care less about “survival of the white race”. I mean, they are not even hostile to racialism, they simply ignore the entire issue, it’s irrelevant to them. Most define their identity by historical traditions of their respective nations and by language. I barely heard anyone blather about genetic interests of the “white race”, about genotypes, evolutionary adaptations, chromosomes, things with which American racialists are literally obsessed. The Western Europe seems to be a bit more infected by racialist discourse form the USA, but there too it is pretty absent. You’ll say it’s all due to PC censorship, but I don’t think so. People care about other things when formulating their ideas, due to different traditions. Or you confine your conception of the “white race” to America only (and the Anglo world)? If so, then the “white” identity has some sense, because America was founded by “whites” originating from various European nations, so the “white” identity popped up as something self-understood. But that clearly shows it is politico-social construct, which arose thanks to very specific historical circumstances.

But then again, great many people in the “white” Anglo world, where “white” identity would be something of, let’s say expected, don’t care much about your theories. Thence your rage. You remind me of rabid feminists who pretend to be speaking in the name of ALL women, who simply cannot accept that there might be non-feminist women, women who don’t accept their theories. So, according to you, every whitey must be raci(ali)st, otherwise he is a race-traitor, Marxist, crypto-Jew, lemming brainwashed by the (“Jewish”) media and the (“Jewish”) Academia. Putting tags on someone forehead instead of indluging in serious conversation of the thrust of the matter is, by the way, characteristic of the lesser intelligent specimens of the human kind.

While it is natural that people care for their own offspring, moderately about their cousins too, you have yet to prove that genetic interests of something so imaginary and constrcuted as the “white race” should naturally matter to all people who belong to certain phenotype. In fact, there are no proofs for that and you provided none.

Posted by Loriver on July 18, 2009, 01:11 PM | #

Scrooby, apparently you didn’t disagree with anything I said. You seem to think most of it went without saying, and I agree. But then why did you complain in the first place?

You know what anti-racists are like, they challenge everything, hence the need for pedantry. But the plus side of this attitude is that misconceptions do get challenged.

Personally I resent, greatly, the insinuation that British people should be accepting of European mass immigration. Because that is the effect that the ‘whiteness’ approach that you favour has on us, even if you are not aiming for this.

You may find the idea of talking about Irish immigration and EGI laughable, but what would you consider an appropriate response if someone asked an Englishman why Irish mass immigration to England is acceptable? Saying that ‘It’s obvious’, or that ‘They are just like us’, or ‘They are white’ is not good enough in my opinion. The last two may be true, but this doesn’t mean that we necessarily don’t have a reproductive interest, even a very strong one (since EGI is about numbers as well as relatedness) in deporting or otherwise mobilising against them.

Now consider Eastern Europeans, after all they would be part of an in-group based on continental clustering (as you apparently favour for us). They are indeed much better than negro immigrants, but so are a lot of non-Europeans, so are Pakis. You can say that sort of thing on any scale you choose.

I’ve not done any calculations on this, but given that there are hundreds of thousands of them over here now, including many from towards the fringe of Europe, they are not exactly a trivial part of the race replacement problem in Britain. Certainly they are not the priority, but then neither are Turks, neither are Iranians. There is no essential value that you can give these Europeans, and I think that on balance it is practical for us to attempt to deport them, especially when you bear in mind that this stance has the positive effect of dispelling so many anti-racist criticisms.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 18, 2009, 01:16 PM | #

Loriver, I oppose the forced race-replacement of the English with any race, be it unrelated, like the Papua-New-Guineans, or related, like the Poles, Germans, or Irish. The English have the right to remain the race they are.

Posted by Loriver on July 18, 2009, 01:32 PM | #

Loriver, I oppose the forced race-replacement of the English with any race, be it unrelated, like the Papua-New-Guineans, or related, like the Poles, Germans, or Irish. The English have the right to remain the race they are.

I totally dispute your distinction between ‘related’ and ‘unrelated’ populations. We are all related, and if you think that’s anti-racist speak then clearly they are right about some things.

Clustering is just a matter of geographic barriers impeding gene flow, so you get discontinuous variation rather than purely clinal variation, and if variation departs significantly from a continuous spectrum then you get a degree of bunching up in the genetic similarity of populations with respect to their geographical origin; clustering.

I would identify these clusters with races, since analyses show that clusters match up very well with popular conceptions of race. But there is no special, valuable difference between populations on one side of the geographic barrier and populations on the other. It’s not a qualitative difference, just a matter of them being a bit more closely related to you than you would infer from looking at geographical distances only.

I also don’t see how what you just said is compatible with this:

No, sorry, the clusters aren’t “irrelevant.” And yes, there is a “reason to base in-group and out-group distinctions on these clusters.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 18, 2009, 01:56 PM | #

“I totally dispute your distinction between ‘related’ and ‘unrelated’ populations. We are all related” (—Loriver)

We’re all related to amoebas, blue-green algae, yeasts, bacteria, and viruses too.

“Clustering is just a matter of geographic barriers impeding gene flow, so you get discontinuous variation rather than purely clinal variation, and if variation departs significantly from a continuous spectrum then you get a degree of bunching up in the genetic similarity of populations with respect to their geographical origin; clustering.”

Wow, I’m glad you explained that to me.

“I would identify these clusters with races, since analyses show that clusters match up very well with popular conceptions of race. But there is no special, valuable difference between populations on one side of the geographic barrier and populations on the other. It’s not a qualitative difference, just a matter of them being a bit more closely related to you than you would infer from looking at geographical distances only.”

I don’t get your point here but PLEASE DON’T explain, as I’m sure it’s something unfrickingbelievably moronic. Keep it to yourself, OK? Thank you.

“I also don’t see how what you just said is compatible with this:”

Think about it, it’ll come to you.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 18, 2009, 03:08 PM | #

lapin,

I have explained that the left - to which you, as Karl Popper’s pet rabbit, belong - is a vile cauldron of hate.

reductionist thinking

such as?

, on some myths of 19th century

ditto

arbitrarily chosen (at your whim) pieces of modern genetic

This website is a champion of Ethnic Genetic Interest. There is nothing arbitrary at all about our interest in population genetics.

every geneticist who dares oppose racialist hallucinations is declared to be “no real scientist at all, but a PC ideologist

Look, for a hundred years Jewish scientists (Boas, Montague, Lewontin, Rose, Kamin, Levine, etc) have consistently denied the existence of human bio-diversity. Boas even claimed, in his famous 1910 study of negro cranial size in America, that the brain was plastic and grew because of exposure to Western culture. Only in 2002 were his findings finally checked and found to be utterly fraudulent. The old bastard was a liar.

Please do not tell me that “liberal-minded” scientists find through their disciplines that European survival is “racism”. They find racism because they are, by and large, Jewish ethnic warriors or European race-traitors. You, too, are a race-traitor. Do you perhaps have a non-white wife? Do you have non-white children? If so, I shall be pleased to explain your treachery in technical terms.

You remind of some weird cult which claims to know all answers to everything, incredibly simplistic answers.

So I have explained that this word “race” has been banned by the left in the same way that the discipline of “sociobiology” was forced underground twenty-odd years ago, only for it to re-emerge as “evolutionary psychology”. I have explained that the word “race” is re-emerging in the same way and in a variety of forms.

You do not take issue with that. You can’t. It is a matter of record. So, in typical liberal fashion, you try to delegitimisation.

Why don’t you try engaging with the argument. Has the word “race” transmogrified into other forms? Come no, don’t be shy. It’s perfectly OK to say, “Yes, there are geneticists studying race to all intents and purposes, but they do not feel free to say so.” Because that really is the situation.

You subscribe to an ideology that does violence to men and to the truth, and always has.

The most hilarious thing of all, however, is your arrogant pretence to be the spokesmen for the entire “white race” and its “genetic interests”

Spokesmen? Example, please.

It is even unclear, when you speak of the “white race”, which part of it you mean?

No, it isn’t. We debate Eurasionism, for example - the last, brief foray was here:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/i_have_nothing_to_add_to_my_statement/

What about “whites” in South America?

We argue that all settled populations have a natural interest in and right to their living space. Argentinians and Chileans definitely qualify.

the phenotype you designate as “white” ...

You mean our race.

... define themselves by many identities.

In common discourse, the concept of “identity” presupposes the singular agency of personality, ie what is acquired in us. This is a false model of Man. We have blood in our veins, not ideas. The ways in which - and the degree to which - we are determined by our genes rather than culture, and the degree to which culture itself is determined by our collective genes, is another battleground waiting to be violated by political warfare.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/false_identity/

I go to Europe quite often, especially Eastern Europe, and I met there quite a few nationalists who can’t care less about “survival of the white race”.

Not sure I believe you meet nationalists in Eastern Europe. Perhaps we know them. Which countries? In any event, if you read the Jobbik post you will see that mass Third World immigration is not the concern yet. Nationalists tend to be much more focussed on economic models, against egalitarianism and, sometimes, democracy, and the homogenising effect of American cultural imperialism.

In the West it is a completely different situation, because the threat is existential. We are being race-replaced by aliens used as proxies by powerful and ambitious forces:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_problem_of_the_power_elite/

I barely heard anyone blather about genetic interests of the “white race”, about genotypes, evolutionary adaptations, chromosomes, things with which American racialists are literally obsessed.

As I said, we are all standing at ground zero of the nationalist response to the globalisation of the money power. This is new.

Western Europe seems to be a bit more infected by racialist discourse form the USA, but there too it is pretty absent ... You’ll say it’s all due to PC censorship, but I don’t think so. People care about other things when formulating their ideas, due to different traditions.

I am English, living in England. I was born in 1951. I have a very clear idea of what my people truly think about being race-replaced, and it isn’t joy and thanks. Immigration is the permanent main concern in all polls. The enemy class calculates that they can frustrate us from obtaining power through the ballot box and saving our people from the dispossession, deracination and dispersal which they desire:

http://www.magentanews.com/cache.asp?n=6483397

http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pressReleases/13-July-2009

In very broad terms, they have three indoctrinatory methods at their disposal: control of the education system, control of the media, control of language. What you are seeing, then, is a very large test of the old nature vs nurture argument. Can the natural instincts and interests of the people overcome money power + the political class + the cultural and academic elites?

I am doing what little I can for the people. You are doing what you can for racial aliens and, they being the proxies of the ruling class, for the latter too.

America was founded by “whites” originating from various European nations

Erm ... and you are an American, you say? You didn’t learn about the Pilgrim Fathers, and the War of Independence, the Founding Fathers ...?

so the “white” identity popped up as something self-understood. But that clearly shows it is politico-social construct, which arose thanks to very specific historical circumstances.

I regularly ambush hapless social constructionists on the Guardian threads. I will warn you again that you have imbibed nothing but Jewish bullshit at college, and it won’t save you around here. We deal in lead, friend, when it comes to knocking over the SC as an attack on Europeans.

Would you like to “construct” a black identity for yourself. Ah, penis size ... the revenge mentality (you do know, I take it, that African tribal religion is substantially predicated on revenge), and all the rest. Guess you’re stuck with that ole white thang. Too bad. But, of course, it is all a construct drawn from evil whitey’s ways, and there’s nothing, absolutely nothing that is particular to your European blood. Not the morals you uphold. Not the life-long love you nurture for your wife. Not the altruism you feel for others. Not the individualism you have, or the cooperatism. Nothing comes from your biology, right?

Wrong. The SC says prejudice (meaning pattern recognition) can be removed by choice. It can’t. There is, you see, implicit as well as explicit prejudice. But I won’t go there just yet. I’ll wait for you to make your claims, just like all the rest of those liberals in virtual Boot Hill made theirs.

Thence your rage.

Little rabbit, I am responding to the criminal class who are taking life away from my people. Rage doesn’t even scratch the surface of it.

according to you, every whitey must be raci(ali)st, otherwise he is a race-traitor, Marxist, crypto-Jew, lemming brainwashed by the (“Jewish”) media and the (“Jewish”) Academia.

Every healthy and normal people are ethnocentric, and expect their rulers to be so too. Do you deny this, or do you think that the great mass of the world’s population outside of whites in the West is wrong?

Putting tags on someone forehead instead of indluging in serious conversation of the thrust of the matter

You have no serious conversation to make. You do not understand that I have heard all the Marxised mainstream has to say, over and again. You have no opinion that I haven’t disembowelled dozens of times. One of the quiet bitches of the thinking left is that those hateful racialists keep pointing out that there aren’t any arguments for European race-replacement. The only reason they do that is because it’s true. There are no arguments to counter ours - not unless you want to defend a process of genocide.

You haven’t said anything interesting or original that causes us discomfort. When we look at you we see a gullible child with little self-awareness, probably with personality flaws, definitely with little or no comprehension of who and what we are and what we are defending. That is what we find in mad anti-racists like you. Demonstrate to me that you are different, because you haven’t yet.

you have yet to prove that genetic interests of something so imaginary and constrcuted as the “white race” should naturally matter to all people who belong to certain phenotype. In fact, there are no proofs for that and you provided none.

EGI is the reason we love our children, our family, our people, and desire their protection and advancement. That’s all it is. The fundamental human interest, and the reflection in Man of subsistent Nature herself. There is a wealth of information on it available here. Read the articles linked at the top of the side-bar.

Of course, EGI cannot be explained to Joe Schmoe, we accept that. But we are a community of people intelligent enough to seek the roots of human nature, and draw philosophical sustenance therefore.

Posted by Q on July 18, 2009, 03:11 PM | #

You remind of some weird cult which claims to know all answers to everything

Cult?LOL! If you read the comments at “WN” sites for any length of time, you can’t come away with anything except we are a diverse bunch. The only unifying characteristic we share is we believe people of European decent are under attack; albeit mostly in subtle forms, but the end result is we’re selectively and methodically being ethnically cleansed off the planet.

But there’s no such thing as the white race you still say? The U.S. Government would beg to differ. It certainly doesn’t have any problem whatsoever deciding who is white or not, especially when it comes to dealing out special privileges for “protected minorities” (i.e. anyone who isn’t a white male)! Yet you keep insisting the white race doesn’t exist. If you say so, then it must be so? Very well. But keep in mind: when a person bases his/her conviction on a deeply flawed premise—such as you do—it can only result in an incorrect conclusion. Go back and check your premises, antiracist. Wake up to reality. Realize this racially mangled tangled multiracial multicultural nightmare the moonbat-social-engineers, rapacious businessmen and corrupt politicians has created could have been avoided!

“If only Strom Thurman would have won a few more elections!”

Posted by Darren on July 18, 2009, 03:11 PM | #

You are all in dire need of at least some shred of common sense.

Marxist drivel on race relations is not “common sense” and has never been.

Or of a reality check.

So says the race denier.

Yours is a terribly closed worldview, based on some reductionist thinking, on some myths of 19th century

Such as?

ostensibly supported by arbitrarily chosen (at your whim) pieces of modern genetics (while, of course, every geneticist who dares oppose racialist hallucinations is declared to be “no real scientist at all, but a PC ideologist”).

So says the one who denies the evidence that supports the racial viewpoint.

You remind of some weird cult which claims to know all answers to everything, incredibly simplistic answers.

One could say the same thing about yours. A rather meaningless jab, honestly.

The most hilarious thing of all, however, is your arrogant pretence to be the spokesmen for the entire “white race” and its “genetic interests”,

I don’t think anyone here holds that pretense.

In fact, most of the imaginary “white race” can’t care less about your views.

If its imaginary, how can you determine whether or not it cares? Idiot.

People living in countries where the majority of the population is of the phenotype you designate as “white” (or Caucasian, or Europid, however you wish to call it) define themselves by many identities. Some by religion, others by nation only, by traditions, by language etc.

Your point being? Did anyone here say that culture and cultural circumstance are irrelvant for consideration? I certainly didn’t and I don’t know who here has.

While it is natural that people care for their own offspring, moderately about their cousins too, you have yet to prove that genetic interests of something so imaginary and constrcuted as the “white race” should naturally matter to all people who belong to certain phenotype. In fact, there are no proofs for that and you provided none.

For something that is so imaginary, you seem to be able to talk about it in specific detail.

Your straw men are not worth responding to.

If you want to have a genuine debate, go pluck out quotes from Salter or any of the comments here and respond to them individually, then we will reply.

Posted by GenoType on July 18, 2009, 03:15 PM | #

Little Prince,

There exists biological variety among humans on earth, but this diversity is too large, with way too many traits, as to justify classification into clear-cut races.

Ask your professor to take this objection of human biodiversity being “too large” or “too complex” to a forensic anthropologist tasked with identifying skeletons, or to a geneticist tasked with identifying lines of descent. Everybody needs a good laugh from time to time. Criminal forensic investigators are people too, you know!

Besides, it is impossible to establish clear boundary among races. From Congoid to Nordic there are many shades of brown. Where does the black “race” end and the “white” race begin? No-one has as yet succeeded to establish that.

Where is the distinction between the observable and non-observable? Where, precisely, do atmospheres, frequencies, colors, valleys, mountains, points on a line, and so forth begin and end? At which “point” does ionized gas begin to display the characteristics of plasma? Sorry to disappoint you, Little Prince, but distinctions needn’t be sharp to be non-arbitrary. Let us not confuse mental templates which assist in identifying reality with reality itself.

That’s the only advice I will accept: from now on I am nonracist. “Antiracists” are way too obsessed with race. They want equality among races, multiracialism and similar nonsense while I think “race” as concept is totally irrelevant, in fact non-existent and should be abolished from any serious discourse.

Rather dictatorial for a lib, wouldn’t you say?

If the concept of magic is meaningless, then there is nothing to choose between one group of believers and the next. Given the pathetic state of our particular brand, why do you choose to “confront” us and not the others – those believers in brown and black magic? Is it because we are weak and you’re a bully? Or is it because you identify with us in some way and are merely exhibiting concern, as a father or elder brother would? Take care of your answer, Little Prince: Among other things, proof demonstrating equal concern toward all believers in magic – white, brown, and black – shall be demanded of you. Furthermore, be advised that everything you’ve written to this point shall be held against you.

Posted by Loriver on July 18, 2009, 03:20 PM | #

Posted by nonracist on July 18, 2009, 04:56 PM | #

The most hilarious thing of all, however, is your arrogant pretence to be the spokesmen for the entire “white race” and its “genetic interests”, although nobody ever authorized you for that. In fact, most of the imaginary “white race” can’t care less about your views. It is even unclear, when you speak of the “white race”, which part of it you mean? Only the Anglo world (Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand)? The Anglo world plus Europe without Russia? Including Russia too? What about “whites” in South America?

White is synonymous with European-derived, and this includes Russia. The white race is perhaps the only practical unit to deal with for American racialists, and since a large majority of European nations are experiencing mass replacement migration or are threatened by it (whereas nearby non-Europeans are not), the demographic situation of all Europeans is also relevant to those of us who live in Europe and have specific ethnic European origins.

As for South Americans, from the EGI perspective it is in our interests to prevent the replacement of more European individuals by less European individuals, despite the fact that most South Americans, even if considered phenotypically ‘white’ there, are substantially admixed with non-Europeans. However this is seen as a bit of a lost cause, or something that is difficult to influence, and therefore not a priority. It is also the case that the race replacement process is occurring much more rapidly in Europe, North America and Australasia than it is in South America, since I believe it is just a matter of birth rates in South America.

If nobody cares about our views, that’s something we have to combat. The purpose of a movement is to persuade people.

I don’t believe that anybody needs to be ‘authorised’ to speak for Europeans. On this site, people discuss their political objectives, and information that is interesting or potentially persuasive to people of European descent. It is no different to what goes on at any other political forum or website; I don’t feel that Marxists are authorised to speak for me either, but they have objectives that influence people like me, they attempt to persuade, and they attempt to speak on behalf of sections of society (such as the working class) that have members who may completely repudiate Marxist ideas.

People living in countries where the majority of the population is of the phenotype you designate as “white” (or Caucasian, or Europid, however you wish to call it) define themselves by many identities. Some by religion, others by nation only, by traditions, by language etc.

Regarding identity, our objective is to encourage awareness of the reality of ethnic biological kinship, such as the ‘Ethnic genetic interests’ link at the top of the page explains. This need not conflict with all other identities. In any case, just because the status quo may not be amenable to us does not mean that it is futile to try and change this.

I go to Europe quite often, especially Eastern Europe, and I met there quite a few nationalists who can’t care less about “survival of the white race”. I mean, they are not even hostile to racialism, they simply ignore the entire issue, it’s irrelevant to them. Most define their identity by historical traditions of their respective nations and by language.

Restrictive ethnic nationalism, rather than pan-European nationalism, is most appropriate in Europe so I am not particularly troubled by such attitudes.

I barely heard anyone blather about genetic interests of the “white race”, about genotypes, evolutionary adaptations, chromosomes, things with which American racialists are literally obsessed.

Perhaps that reflects the company you keep. But ethnic genetic interests is a fairly new concept, and again the objective is to increase awareness of this. We are fully aware that it is not widely known, but that is all the more reason for this site to exist.

The Western Europe seems to be a bit more infected by racialist discourse form the USA, but there too it is pretty absent. You’ll say it’s all due to PC censorship, but I don’t think so. People care about other things when formulating their ideas, due to different traditions. Or you confine your conception of the “white race” to America only (and the Anglo world)? If so, then the “white” identity has some sense, because America was founded by “whites” originating from various European nations, so the “white” identity popped up as something self-understood. But that clearly shows it is politico-social construct, which arose thanks to very specific historical circumstances.

I agree, the white race is both a social construct and a biological reality (a European cluster exists), both descriptions have validity.

However I don’t consider the fact that the white race can be regarded as a social construct to be indicative of pathology. It is a practical distinction in service of ethnic genetic interests, which are very much a biological reality. As such I don’t see it as an arbitrary distinction - it fulfils its role of guaranteeing European reproductive interests in America better than other identities would - so it is not problematic.

Also, the fact remains that a European cluster does happen to exist, so it is not true when certain individuals claim that the white race is exclusively a social construct, and has no taxonomic basis (and it is even less true when they claim that larger and more robust clusters such as the negroid race do not exist biologically).

But then again, great many people in the “white” Anglo world, where “white” identity would be something of, let’s say expected, don’t care much about your theories. Thence your rage.

Again, so what? This is something we would like to change, that’s all. I believe it can change, that’s enough for me.

So, according to you, every whitey must be raci(ali)st, otherwise he is a race-traitor, Marxist, crypto-Jew, lemming brainwashed by the (“Jewish”) media and the (“Jewish”) Academia. Putting tags on someone forehead instead of indluging in serious conversation of the thrust of the matter is, by the way, characteristic of the lesser intelligent specimens of the human kind.

That is typical behaviour for any ideological group. Leftist labelling is very prominent in mainstream society, and there is a profound unwillingness for mainstream cultural, political or intellectual figures to engage in serious debate with racialists.

I would not say that racists are more guilty of this than anyone else, and certainly our labelling is less effective because it is not backed up by cultural enforcement through the mass media and education system (such that the word racism induces a strong guilt response in the majority of people, inhibiting their receptivity to reasoned argument that is deemed ‘racist’ or supportive of racism by the establishment).

While it is natural that people care for their own offspring, moderately about their cousins too, you have yet to prove that genetic interests of something so imaginary and constrcuted as the “white race” should naturally matter to all people who belong to certain phenotype. In fact, there are no proofs for that and you provided none.

No-one has made that argument, as far as I am aware. I suspect that ethnic nepotism is to a certain extent an evolved trait, but this has yet to be proved and it is not a fact that I rely on.

The value of the EGI argument, which establishes the strong correspondence between family nepotism and ethnic nepotism, is that it demonstrates that ‘racism’ has a basis in reproduction, and is related to behaviours that are fundamental to human society and regarded as totally normal.

It is not to say that racism is a natural disposition, but you might view it as proving that racism is ‘natural+’...it is analogous to very natural and fundamental behaviours. Although there is no compelling reason for you to accept the racial sentiments* that you may have (perhaps you might claim to have none, but whether this is true or not there are certainly a great many people who do have varying degrees of suppressed racism, or the strong potential to be racist given appropriate social conditions), the reality of ethnic kinship and ethnic genetic interests is something that you should dwell upon and understand, before you can make a rational decision about race, ethnicity and your political identity.

This is an issue of some significance, and the importance that leftist anti-racists place upon scientific race-denial and related arguments is testimony to this.

Take for example the case of University professor Geoffrey Sampson: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=169625

Although I do not endorse everything he said in the ‘racist’ article that he published on his website, the reaction of the University staff and senior academics as documented in the Times newspaper article, and the comments of the author himself, are all things that we can refute, and if they were unable to say such things (particularly with such unchallenged confidence), due to these ideas having been intellectually overturned, then their ability to criticise such a person and the things he said would be tremendously diminished.

*As I suggested, it doesn’t matter if these are due in any way to an evolved disposition, or if they are exclusively the product of upbringing and there is no natural inclination towards ethnoracial sentiments. It’s not about the origin of these sentiments, it’s about leading you to consider their status - are they something that you feel the need to suppress, a baseless prejudice, or do they have some meaningful basis.

Posted by Cameron Diaz on July 18, 2009, 03:40 PM | #

Nonracist—You claim to be White yourself, so why do you care if Whites organize qua “Whites?” It won’t hurt you any—quite the opposite—if you’re truly of White/European descent as you claim. Instead, you’ve come here to whine, whinge, and cry over the fact that Americans, Brits, and Europeans are becoming aware of a larger racial identity. Ironically, they are only becoming aware of this identity because Libtards like you are promoting and apologizing for an uninvited tsunami of brown, Third-World migration.

Why are you so obsessed with attacking Whites and Europeans who prefer their own kind? Unless you feel inferior to them, you shouldn’t give a damn. If you want to go miscegenate or live in a Multi-Kult environment then go ahead. No one cares.

What’s telling, however, is your carpet-chewing, foaming-at-the-mouth rage over the pro-White movement at MR. If we’re such loonies and fringers, then why are you spending so much time slumped over your keyboard, pounding furiously and desperately at the keys? Your vain bid to disprove and contradict ideas that—to any White person (and to even more East Asians)—are patently obvious, implies that the “Race Idea” is far more compelling than you want to admit.

Are you afraid that we’re gaining ground? Does that explain the lingering scent of desperation drifting off your jumbled posts?

If you’re really White, you wouldn’t care one way or the other. You wouldn’t be so obsessed with the drift of thought at MR…and, increasingly, all over the Web…

Posted by nonracist on July 18, 2009, 05:20 PM | #

why do you care if Whites organize qua “Whites?”

I don’t. If they wish so…

It won’t hurt you any—quite the opposite—if you’re truly of White/European descent as you claim. Instead, you’ve come here to whine, whinge, and cry over the fact that Americans, Brits, and Europeans are becoming aware of a larger racial identity.

Whining? Who is whining? As much as I can see, racialists are some of the biggest whiners in the modern western world. I was just challenging your terribly closed modernist naturalistic worldview, out of curiosity, hoping for some intelligent conversation. But you being not able of something like that, all you can do is throwing around hysterical tags: Jew, Marxist blablabla. The only intelligent comment/answer that I got was the last one by Loriver.

Are you afraid that we’re gaining ground?

I am not, because you are so narrow-minded and detached from reality that you are beaten in advance, so to say. And I am not gloating over it (that you are beaten in advance), just stating a fact.

100

Posted by Guessedworker on July 18, 2009, 05:53 PM | #

lapin,

All you have done, true to your nature as Oryctolagus cuniculus, is to dive down the nearest burrow. You have scarcely engaged with any substantive point we raised, which is slightly amazing since we are raising a question of genocide.

You didn’t even trouble yourself to acknowledge your ignorance of American history, of which you claimed “America was founded by “whites” originating from various European nations.” If you had just said, “Whoops, OK got that wrong - they were British,” it would be a start. But you don’t even engage that far. How, then, are we supposed to have a meaningful conversation about the (actually quite technical and, for liberals, intellectually alien) concept of European racialism?

As to your “stating” of “facts”, this is a long game, and as I’ve repeatedly said, we are only at the beginning. If we fail - and the next two decades will decide - the strong likelihood is that it will end in civil conflict and revolution - at least in Europe, the salvation of which is, of course, our greatest cause and heaviest responsibility. As to America, we shall see.

But if conflict comes to America too, will you fight beside a white man seeking his independence from multiracial America or beside the Jew seeking his supremacy and the Mexican seeking reconquest?

101

Posted by GenoType on July 18, 2009, 05:59 PM | #

Little Prince,

If someone refuses to accept racialist nonsense, it must automatically mean he does so because he wants to look “morally superior” etc. I reject biological racialism for the sheer stupidity of it, that’s all.

Anti-racism (or is it non-racism, now?) is Platonic in its elevation of ad hoc, deductive reasoning over contrary empirical evidence. Where conflict exists between the former and latter, the latter is trivialized, ignored, or suppressed as base – as evidence of race is trivialized (we are pathetic, stupid, white trash losers, remember?), ignored, or suppressed – while the former is patched with additional ad hoc, deductive band-aids designed to “explain” the discrepancies. Anti-racism is designed to appeal to the little Plato in all of us – that part which believes it has special access to superior wisdom (Christianity) or through superior reasoning has access to pure knowledge (pop secularism).

Moral superiority on the cheap is easy and empowering. Yes, you do feel morally superior to us. It is behind all that you do here and elsewhere. Equally clear is that you’ve not examined, understood, or are capable of understanding the evidence for race, for you persist in parroting Marxist liberal arts school propaganda. Polly wanna cracker?

102

Posted by Loriver on July 18, 2009, 06:04 PM | #

Not that I consider proving the existence of race, as in racial clusters, to be of paramount importance, but here goes:

Besides, it is impossible to establish clear boundary among races. From Congoid to Nordic there are many shades of brown. Where does the black “race” end and the “white” race begin? No-one has as yet succeeded to establish that.

Not true. The boundary of the negroid race and the caucasoid race is the Sahara, which has been a major barrier to gene flow between populations and has therefore created a discontinuity in the genetic spectrum from sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070

This is Rosenberg et al (December 2005) on the subject of clines and clusters. It is the last word on the subject. Something that you should appreciate is that when it comes to sources like this, cherry-picking is basically impossible, because there are only a handful of papers on the topic (despite its importance) and it is clear which is the eminent one (the one that came last, and used the most loci hence obtained the best results - this one).

Quote: “Previously, we observed that without using prior information about individual sampling locations, a clustering algorithm applied to multilocus genotypes from worldwide human populations produced genetic clusters largely coincident with major geographic regions [i.e. races - races correspond to continental divisions].”

Quote: “Examination of the relationship between genetic and geographic distance supports a view in which the clusters arise not as an artifact of the sampling scheme, but from small** discontinuous jumps in genetic distance for most population pairs on opposite sides of geographic barriers, in comparison with genetic distance for pairs on the same side. Thus, analysis of the 993-locus dataset corroborates our earlier results: if enough markers are used with a sufficiently large worldwide sample, individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe, with some individuals from intermediate geographic locations having mixed membership in the clusters that correspond to neighboring regions.”

**small being a rather subjective word here. They go on to say that the average size of one of these jumps, in Fst terms, is 0.0153. They refer to this as a small fraction of human genetic variation, but to be specific it represents about 1/10 of the difference between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans, and about 1/6 of the difference between Europeans and the Chinese. For another perspective, 0.0153 exceeds the difference that exists across the whole of Europe from Ireland to Greece, and is roughly equal to the maximum difference that exists in the other direction across Europe, from Southern Italy to Finland.

So when you cross the Sahara, or the Himalayas, not only are you adding on genetic distance in proportion to the geographic size of the desert or the mountain range, but also an additional hit equal to the maximum genetic variation within Europe (excluding extreme outlier populations, like Kuusamo and Sardinia - but this is the maximum variation across normal populations).

Bearing in mind the extremely low population density in these barrier regions, what you are getting is actually an amplified discontinuity; the absence of populations in the inhospitable geographic barrier area, and the additional ~0.015 Fst discontinuity that the barrier creates.

So there is your non-arbitrary dividing line between negroids and caucasoids.

I should also mention that the paper does make a statement, which Dienekes Pontikos refers to as ‘PC-mandated’, that arguments about the existence of race are orthogonal to the question of scientific utility. To me this is completely uninteresting, I look at the hard science in these papers and draw my conclusions from that. Dienekes, who is the internet authority on population genetics, seems to agree.

If you scroll down to figure two in the paper above, you will see a visual respresentation of the clustering analysis that the researchers conducted for this paper. There are preset numbers of clusters, k=2 yields two clusters, k=3 yields 3 etc. But if there were no real clustering, there would simply be no clear blocks on the graph like there are, it would all be vague. So the analysis reveals genuine structure in each pass.

As for whether the number of races is arbitrary, I quote: “When the number of loci, sample size, and correlation model were held constant, K = 2 (that is, two clusters) generally produced smaller clusteredness than did the larger values of K (Figures 3 and 4; Table 1). For the correlated allele frequencies model, K = 5 and K = 6 tended to have higher clusteredness than did K = 3 and K = 4, whereas the reverse was true for the uncorrelated model”

The correlated allele frequencies model is considered to be the superior one, and clusteredness is a measure of how accurately the model represents the data. A model of human genetic variation that uses 5 or 6 clusters/races (as you can see on the graph, K=6 splits Northern from Southern indigenous Americans whereas they are grouped together at K=5) represents the data best, and this is not an arbitrary choice.

Of course, as higher K is used these categories can be broken down, since they have sub-structure (e.g. European race within the caucasian race). Then you might want to consider what is the best fit for the data within each of the 5 or 6 identified macro-races.

Something else to bear in mind with structure analyses is that the coverage of populations, i.e. which ones are focused on the most in the data, does to a certain extent affect which clusters are revealed once you get into the higher orders of K. Nonetheless, the clusters are all meaningful and not arbitrary, and what you see consistently in all of the studies is that the major races are always clearly distinguished straight away in the earliest passes (K=2, K=3 etc.), being as they have the most robust and clear-cut differences.

Some more clustering analyses:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/04/fine-scaled-human-genetic-structure.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/02/rosenberg-et-al-on-indian-population.html

http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/publications/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf (graph on page 2)

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/02/huge-paper-on-human-genetic.html

The last study linked here, which is presented on Dienekes’s blog, is the one that used the most loci to date. Interestingly, it is the only one so far that has uncovered a meaningful European cluster, that is distinguished adequately from nearby Middle Easterners. Here’s the graph: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/R79MXyHURCI/AAAAAAAAAFg/8MeKImXcV34/s1600-h/structurescience.jpg

There is every reason to believe that the European, Middle Eastern and South Asian clusters represented here are all fairly robust clusters that will be reproduced in future studies that use such a high number of loci. The first study that I linked demonstrated that the number of genetic loci used in a clustering analysis is correlated with how well the population structure is identified (as you might expect)...quote: “Holding the number of clusters, sample size, and allele frequency correlation model fixed, the general trend was that clusteredness was noticeably smaller for ten and 20 loci, and was larger for 50 or more loci”

So again it is not cherry-picking if someone were to refer to this particular study as evidence for the existence of a European race and ignore the others, because this is the eminent study that has the best data (most loci) and therefore gives the most accurate results.

103

Posted by Guessedworker on July 18, 2009, 06:42 PM | #

We should, btw, proffer the plucky little fellow a vote of thanks for single-handedly generating a very good thread with some excellent contributions which, since in most (but not all) cases I know the quality of the individuals concerned, does not surprise me in the least. Thank you plucky little fellow, and thank you all.

104

Posted by Cameron Diaz on July 18, 2009, 07:09 PM | #

Nonracist—You claim not to care if Whites organize as Whites. You even claim that MR and the ‘Race Idea’ are “beaten in advance” and that this outcome is a “fact.” You’ll have to excuse my skepticism. Once again I have to ask the question: Why the need for your hysterical denunciations? Why are you here, desperately dancing your feverish anti-racist jig, if we’re such a lost cause? Why are you wasting your time?

No, it’s not that simple. You’re not here to whine, whimper, and denounce us because Racialist ideas are “beaten in advance.” You’re here because you feel threatened. You want us to stop talking, stop discussing, and most of all, to stop GROWING.

You babble on incessantly about how marginal we are. And then you keep coming back. Right now, Majority Rights is the center of your existence. You can’t stay away from us, even as you point and scream shrilly: “You’re already beat! You’re already beat!”

Are you desperately trying to tell us something? Or are you desperately trying to convince yourself?

105

Posted by nonracist on July 18, 2009, 07:12 PM | #

You didn’t even trouble yourself to acknowledge your ignorance of American history, of which you claimed “America was founded by “whites” originating from various European nations.” If you had just said, “Whoops, OK got that wrong - they were British,” it would be a start. But you don’t even engage that far. How, then, are we supposed to have a meaningful conversation about the (actually quite technical and, for liberals, intellectually alien) concept of European racialism?

Mouse (aka Guessedworker - since you like rodents so much),

I know who founded America. When I said about people from different European nations flowing into America, I was referring to 19th century immigrants, many of whom came from Germany, Scandivavia etc, and who are descendants of many of today’s “whites”.

106

Posted by nonracist on July 18, 2009, 07:13 PM | #

ancestors of many of today’s “whites”

I wanted to say.

107

Posted by nonracist on July 18, 2009, 07:29 PM | #

Moral superiority on the cheap is easy and empowering. Yes, you do feel morally superior to us. It is behind all that you do here and elsewhere. Equally clear is that you’ve not examined, understood, or are capable of understanding the evidence for race, for you persist in parroting Marxist liberal arts school propaganda. Polly wanna cracker?

Bla bla bla….

I am disappointed. You should have “jewed” me at least once, to make your boring parroting complete.

108

Posted by Q on July 18, 2009, 07:47 PM | #

You’re here because you feel threatened. You want us to stop talking, stop discussing, and most of all, to stop GROWING.

Right you are, Cameron. He/she/it knows all too well the multiracial/multicultural experiment is dangerously constructed on a racial faultline ready to quake at a #10 on the Richtor. As things are shaping up, it ain’t gonna take much to set it off.

109

Posted by Guessedworker on July 18, 2009, 08:04 PM | #

lapin,

I know you know your own history. I know you made a mistake. That’s OK. I know, too, that it is an impossible ask for you to engage so many adversaries. You are not a chess master on a club visit, playing a dozen games at once. You are just a captive of the Marxised zeitgeist who, for some strange reason (probably the one Cameron says), is drawn to a place where the writ does not run.

Maybe you should have tried it mob-handed with some fellow forest creatures. In the past we’ve had a riot invading other blogs, including the radical-chic libertarian sort you might find agreeable:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ecce_homo_scratchy/

Anyhow, at least re-read Loriver’s last two lengthy submissions, and do so without anger or a closed mind. We have all tried to explain something of the way the world works to you, using the race issue as the keystone. In the end, we are not seeking to punish you but only to destroy your Weltanschauung ... to burn out from you the deadly embrace of the postmodern.

Q wisely said quite early on in the thread that you would simply regroup and repair. That is certainly true today. But now, perhaps, the penny is slowly dropping that these evil racists possess a revolutionary intent and a completely coherent intellectual platform - though your false model of racialism still obscures your view of the latter. You know that our highest value is not racial supremacism, where you began here, but the survival of our people. You know that this is honourable and good. You know, too, that your anti-racist plaint that peoples do not exist is deeply questionable, and you know we have described it as evil and genocidal for Europeans. Perhaps you won’t be able to reason that out for months or even years. But nothing of your argument here stands, except for your entirely natural pride and anger. And that will not carry you indefinitely into the future ... not if you have any need for intellectual substance behind your political convictions, and for convictions that flow unerringly from the good.

One day, you may belong to your people again, and they to you. What is certain is that you will never belong to SSAs or Mexicans or Jews, because they are not self-estranged, ethno-masochistic white men spouting total nonsense in opposition to their own ethnic interests.

Time to move on, and stop feeling bad about your skin colour.

110

Posted by Weston on July 18, 2009, 11:41 PM | #

That’s OK. I know, too, that it is an impossible ask for you to engage so many adversaries. You are not a chess master on a club visit, playing a dozen games at once.

He deserves credit for sticking it as long as he has. He’s flat wrong on the issues, of course, but I have hope that it won’t always be so.

111

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 19, 2009, 12:01 AM | #

Weston gives a powerful demonstration of misplaced optimism. Textbook!

112

Posted by Keanu Reeves (since Cameron's here too) on July 19, 2009, 12:15 AM | #

“In the end, we are not seeking to punish you but only to destroy your Weltanschauung ... to burn out from you the deadly embrace of the postmodern.”

That ..... is bloody awesome.

113

Posted by Cameron Diaz on July 19, 2009, 01:00 AM | #

Hey Keanu—Join the party!

We’re hazing a larval Libtard into a beautiful White butterfly of race realism.

“Like…Excellent!”

114

Posted by Thunder on July 19, 2009, 06:38 PM | #

GenoType Dasein,

Thanks for the insight. I appreciate it.

I guess I knew of these motivations, although without any real certainty. But what really intrigues me is how these people can believe things that are so patently wrong, even against their own interest with such passion to the point of acting violently upon it.

I have spent years and many many communications trying to enlighten some, even family members, to no avail. In truth I think Griffin has it right especially for the would-be violent antiracists—just punch them in the mouth they deserve it and probably respect that more.

115

Posted by Thunder on July 19, 2009, 08:17 PM | #

GenoType, Dasein

I did type in a thank you for your insights but I slipped somehow and it wasn’t posted. I guess I understood what you are saying but the motivations of anti-racists seem so absurd to me. To be passionate about something so wrong to the point of acting out violently.

I think Griffin is right. The best way to deal with them is just punch them in the face. That seems to be what they understand and respect.

116

Posted by GenoType on July 19, 2009, 11:08 PM | #

To be passionate about something so wrong to the point of acting out violently.

Ostensible Europids are truly aracial individuals - selfish, narrow-minded, hateful toward what they fear most, and condescending toward almost everything else. Without thought for anything but the green bottom line they brought the third-world to this continent, happily bought and traded them as property, and later freed them for employment on the cheap as “free laboring” servants. To them the third-world as property and free-labor on the cheap has always had greater value and was/is less to be feared than an uppity, comparatively expensive, free-laboring Europid underclass. What seems wrong to you is right for them.

We view them as traitors. They are not. We call them lemmings. They are not. They are a newly emergent sub-race of Europid which has survived and grown through centuries of manipulation and deceit. They have evolved, but in a direction which eventually dooms them for unlike jews they are not ethnically cohesive. Still, they are the natural allies of jews – perfect allies, in fact. We cannot persuade them with anything short of coercion, the effect of which would only be temporary. We are fools to try, for they would always constitute a fifth-column more difficult to identify than jews. There is no bringing them back to the fold. Our attention must be directed elsewhere.

117

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 20, 2009, 02:56 AM | #

“Who Killed the Men of England?”

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/07/anglo-saxon-apartheid-theory-in-harvard.html

No one really. According to Mark Thomas, he of the apartheid theory, the wealthier Anglo-Saxon out bred the indigenous Briton.

“Killing an Anglo-Saxon was a costly business, but killing a native Briton was quite cheap.” This points to differences in economic status. And differences in wealth “almost always result in differences in reproductive output,” he said. “Sometimes two- and three-fold differences.”To the extent Anglo-Saxons were able to have and support more children, this could lead to a gradual replacement of the indigenous Y-chromosome over many generations. Simulating such an advantage, and choosing an arbitrary ?gure of 10 percent migration, Thomas found that the Y chromosomes of native Britons could have been replaced in the general population in as few as ?ve generations.

The Britons, at the end of Roman times, numbered some 2-3 million souls. According to Thomas two hundred to three hundred thousand Anglo-Saxons replaced the Celtic population of England in five generations, just by accumulating greater wealth. It further confirms Clark’s position that the rich replaced the poor in England, between 1600 and 1851.

118

Posted by SM on July 20, 2009, 04:48 AM | #

Where is ‘Monitor’ friar [creationists] et al?

Here is chance to link up with his natural allies…

The bubbled headed anti-reality cult [marxists and there useful idiot teenwolf rebels].

======
To Monitor et al:

Regarding ‘anonymous’/ ‘anti racist’ postings etc…

Do you see now what an anti ‘Darwinist’ is?

The arguments are moral based. They deem material reality a “patriarchal construct”. Indeed “reason” is considered a mental illness (when it is actually totally the reverse).

Do you see what you fight for (as useful idiots) when you create an anti science—though technologically endowed—society.

119

Posted by Fr. John on July 20, 2009, 08:49 AM | #

An interesting collection of POVS…. all except for non/anti- racist.

First off, I (for one) DO consider the White race to be exemplarily superior to all other races, with the Asians excepted, for the most part- intellectually, creatively, musically, architecturally, philosophically, etc.

I have to. I am a White Man. Why would I wish to denigrate my race, my folk, my kith and kin? To do so, is what the Germans label ‘selbsthass’ - or ‘self-hate.’

Besides, if IQ scores are noticably higher than other ‘races’, and collecting Western art, sculpture are merely ‘second rate’ and adoption of the Western ‘way of life’ are so bad, then why does everyone emulate it? Just one example: Looking at a parallel culture (Japan) that is almost on a par with the West, why did Shinichi Suzuki create an entire school of musical learning, based - NOT on traditional Japanese tunes- but on the panoply of Western Art Music? Is it because it is superior?

Moreover, as long as one Jew exists, the reality of race persists…even if all that remains is their envy of the West- call it what you will, to them that envy of Christendom, is still called ‘antisemitism.’ Why would ‘the smartest’ people (as a ‘race,’ you understand) continue to live in Western Lands, now that they have a ‘homeland’ of their own, if there is no ‘difference’ between a ruler such as Nelson Mandela, and Constantine? What do they continue to find so fascinating our cultures, our foods, our banking systems, our inventions (such as the media), as opposed to more ‘enlightened third world countries?

And, isn’t the concept of nation tied to the Latin term, “natio” meaning “I was born”- itself a definition of that most elusive of terms to anti/non-racist, i.e., ‘race’?

Add to that something this person probably has never heard, if he has been raised in the modern morass known as “Evan-jelly-goo Xianity’ or it’s Vatican II symbiont, Roman ‘Catholi-schism.’. The Entire Edifice of Christianity is built on the concept that YHWH is a ‘tribal god’ who, long ago, CHOSE one ‘race,’ one ‘nation,’ one ‘ethnos’ to be His own ‘especial people,’ and did so with - not a ‘Jew’ - but a ‘Gentile’ (these terms are confused in meaning today, thus the quotation marks) named Abraham.

If we therefore note the ‘race’ of Abraham and Sara, we should know whom YHWH God favors above all others.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/of-what-race-are-abraham’s-seed-gal-329/

Moreover, if we realize that Jesus Christ came to save ‘His People’, and ONLY His People, as [Matt. 1:21] Christ’s own words attest to, [Matt 15:24], and that these are ‘Abraham’s seed’ (his racial offspring!) [Gal. 3:29] and that Christ chose HIS Ethnicity to incarnate, ‘before the foundation of the world,’ [Eph. 1:4]
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/the-theotokos-the-incarnation-and-foolish-self-wounding-pelikans/

then all of this breast-beating, (which is so much a feature of the modern liberal’s whole existence) becomes moot…or already was before we began this argument- to those who add Biblical religion to the findings that corroborate Science, that clearly shows that while the Almighty may make use of the same materials, he ‘fashioneth one for noble use, and one for ignoble use,’ and therefore, ‘who art thou, O Man, to talk back to God?

Otherwise, I am afraid anti/non-racist is the modern-day equivalent of the Papal Inquisition, confronted with a racial Galileo that calmly can state, “Eppure, si muove.”

120

Posted by GenoType on July 20, 2009, 09:09 PM | #

It further confirms Clark’s position that the rich replaced the poor in England, between 1600 and 1851.

Yes I know, Desmond.

To be an easy money, morally flexible, risk-averse, underclass-hating, a-racial, ostensible-Europid is to be “adaptive” from an evolutionary perspective. That is, until the sterner non-pretentious stuff - be they underclass Englishmen or third-world colonial emigres imported for reasons of cheap labor - turn around and slaughter the “adaptive” like lambs.

To prevent this from happening the only solutions available to the “adaptive” are:

1. Set the riff-raff (underclass Englishmen, Muslims, or whatnot) against each other and call it “equality” and “democracy.”

2. Fool underclass Englishmen into believing that they have a stake in protecting the asses of the evolutionarily “adaptive” from the third-world and call it “nationalism.”

I’d rather see the “adaptive” slaughtered by Muslim emigres, thus ending the problem once and for all, than see a single underclass Englishman die in their defense.

The funny thing about the “adaptive” ostensible-Europid is this: He needs me, I don’t need them.

Myself? I’m merely getting the word out. We won’t be fooled again.

121

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 20, 2009, 09:53 PM | #

To be an easy money, morally flexible, risk-averse, underclass-hating, a-racial, ostensible-Europid is to be “adaptive” from an evolutionary perspective.

It’s the reverse that is the truth, of course. It was the risk taking Arminius that stood on the banks of the Elbe despite the protestation and insults hurled at him by his brother, who like the Celts of England, sucked at the Roman tit. It was Arminius that broke the back of eternal Rome. It was the Germanic tribes that gambled upon victory in England, and in so doing claimed the wealth of Arturius and the Romano-Celts. It was those same adventuring, risk taking Anglo-Saxons who in five generations out bred the obsequious Celts and replaced them as Englishman.

122

Posted by GenoType on July 21, 2009, 07:43 AM | #

It’s the reverse that is the truth, of course.

Then I haven’t understood your point.

123

Posted by Union Jock on July 21, 2009, 08:39 AM | #

The question why the British indigenes are not more alert to their impending “replacement” is far from easy to answer.

One explanation is that in their eyes no such threat exists, or has been overstated.

Another is that the threat is muffled by the media and the interests for whom they toil.

Another is that reality has not hit white Britons hard enough for them to work it out for themselves.

But now we are heading for 3m unemployed and a long period of hardship, more straws are fluttering in the wind.

The establishment has hitherto adopted a two-pronged strategy for choking off unease at the browning or blackening of these islands since 1948. The “Nazi racism” card has been played again and again to suppress qualms, which Labour as much as the Tories harboured when the boats began to disgorge their Caribbean cargoes.

How to smother dissent:

In good times, maintain that the immigrants are fitting in well and will soon be indistinguishable from their unconsulted hosts, besides being indispensable to keep GDP growth on the go and public services staffed. This is the pragmatic appeal. Ted Heath used it to kill the most dangerous early resistance, the wellspring tapped by Enoch Powell.

When things get tougher, fade up the ethical argument: they have a right to “seek a better life” here, they were born here and are as British as you and me. Or the weaker pragmatic arguments: now we’re in the EU we can’t stop them, it would cost too much (morally and financially) to send them away and where would they go anyway?

Up till now, the strain of living alongside these newcomers has not been too great for most indigenes. Although the UK is said to be the most crowded EU state apart from Malta, “white flight” and confining oneself to one’s own kind are general and pretty easy in most parts of the country. As studies by the equality bureaucracy have found, there is little voluntary socialising between races above the lumpenprole level; only compelled interactions in the public sphere. And the non-white groups are none too fond of each other either.

But 2009 et seq. is different. Never before has so deep a slump attacked a house unhappily divided by race.

The scramble for work, especially among the young, intensifies. There are strains on welfare that especially benefits minorities and is paid for from white people’s taxes. There are continued differences in violent crime rates, illegitimacy, truancy. The non-whites’ self-appointed leaders mouth off about their wrongs and peddle guilt feelings, too dense to realise they should pipe down. Propaganda of “diversity” becomes more and more discordant with perceived fact.

There could be quite a fast shift in the majority’s tolerance of compulsory tolerance. Tension will be ratcheted up by differences in birth rates, attempts to impose US-style affirmative action and the manifest corruption of the elite which has sicked this problem on to Britain while arrogantly shielding itself from its worse consequences. The public stomach for liberal hypocrisy and doubletalk is not bottomless.

Some sections of the Press (not the BBC, of course) are already dabbling in anti-anti-white campaigns and agitation, though carefully and prudently masked for the moment.

Bodies such as MigrationWatch, which is careful to couch a nativist case in ostensibly colour-blind terms, get a hearing. The BNP has moved from “crazy Nazis” to “vile scum but if we don’t listen to their message and work out why it gets applause, we may get hit”. The BNP cagily responds by shelving much of its traditional goals and rhetoric. Then there’s the “Islamic terror” blather, which at least makes whites more mistrustful of non-whites.

One can see a potential new post-multiracialism settlement: no repatriation but no more immigration, more emphasis on a core common culture based on ancient folkways instead of the invented traditions of multicult, a severe crackdown on the most obvious awkward squads such as the mosques, a rejection of the EU and subservience to America which breeds patriotism.

Will such concessions be enough to choke off any stirring of blood- or gene-consciousness among most white people which might swell to confront the liberal globalist hegemony? Whenever an apolitical Briton says “I’m not a racist, but I’m beginning to feel like a stranger in my own land”—or worse, an enemy of its rulers—that is an opportunity to make the blood stir.

The British have long been noted for being polite and discreet, taking care not to show their hand and all too apt to respond only belatedly to mortal threats. I don’t think they have quite given up the ghost on their innate identity as some of our commenters obviously think they have, and should.

A lot rests on how bad the cure will be for the orgy of borrowing and the ostrich postures of the past 40 years. The lousier the patient feels, the likelier to seek heretical remedies.

Keep Britain Poor and keep it white?

124

Posted by anonymous on July 21, 2009, 09:24 AM | #

Posted by Dasein on July 18, 2009, 12:04 PM | #

“This is all new. None of it, from the threat itself right throught to the racial activism, has happened before. Not the nationalism that flowed from 1789, not National Socialism, not Evola or de Benoist … nobody had produced a nationalist response to this present situation, for it has never been seen before. You are looking at a new movement of European men and women who demand life, and who strive to turn back all the forces of death, including your own sick little death-movement.—GW

?? µ????? ????? ???????? [All that is great stands in the storm]—Plato (The Republic)

We children of the future, how could we be at home in this today? We feel disfavor for all ideals that might lead one to feel at home even in this fragile, broken time of transition; as for its “realities,” we do not believe that they will last. The ice that still supports people today has become very thin; the wind that brings the thaw is blowing; we ourselves who are homeless constitute a force that breaks open ice and other all too thin “realities.”—Nietzsche (The Gay Science)

Posted by Dasein on July 18, 2009, 10:48 AM | #

“anonymous is just another example of what has been described in prose and verse by Forster and Kipling, namely the completely alien nature of the subcon mentality. There’s a gulf that makes her incomprehensible to any normal White. “

Why dont you take a step forward Dasein? because your far off the mark anyway brother. The difference is like you I dont “think” it I “know” it. I have answered all your questions including this one and the questions of all others if you scroll up a little and read “you dont have what it takes in your genetics as you would argue to carry it through so the fact is and there is no other conclusion you can come to even if you wanted to that you have lost and no amount of so called intelligent prattle and smart remarks on majorityrights.com is going to change that fact” so go ahead keep prattling and aim with the arrow any direction and from every direction you like wherever you turn you have lost and with every word you provide that extra laugh so if your smart youll stay schtum.

As for sensing my ‘home’ in the west being not being legitimate or stable remember Ive never called it my home thats what youve just called it for me but thats not exactly how Id describe it more like a shithole. There is nothing I fear from WANNABES but there is EVERYTHING you fear from people like me (not me) who will kick you out. The furthest heights you will ever reach is war you’ll never go beyond that that is the ultimate for you, the ultimate reach, the ultimate peak, the ultimate manifestation but Im beyond that I am further, I am alot further so go ahead give it every shot like you are doing right now you’ll loose like they lost before you, you’ll never learn like they never learned before you.

125

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 21, 2009, 09:39 AM | #

Union Jock’s comment was outstanding until the last line — what was that closing gibe supposed to mean? What will impoverish Britain or any Eurosphere nation is forcing whites into minority status, not “Keeping it white.” Keeping it white, on the contrary, is the best guarantee of prosperity. Or was that intended as sarcasm?

126

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 21, 2009, 09:41 AM | #

Excuse me, I just “got” it: he’s saying the prospects for overthrowing race-replacement are improved when the ecomony tanks. OK that’s fair, but of course there are ways around that dilemma too.

127

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 21, 2009, 09:48 AM | #

Anonymous, we’ve got the message, we’ve already lost, the Moslems have won, instead of us kicking them out of our lands they’re going to kick us out of our lands, and there’s nothing we can do about any of it, it’s destiny, it’s in the stars, it’s written in the book of fate that that is to be our end. We got it. Now, why do you need to come here repeatedly and rub it in? Are you a sadist? If that’s your only point — and apparently it is — you can stop now. Your point’s been made.

128

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2009, 10:53 AM | #

Rape is rape, crime is crime, regardless of the skin colour (or some other racial traits - for those who insist that race is not just skin deep) of its perpetrator.

I missed out on all the fun, and am responding chronologically (so someone else may have made my point already), but I have to address this.

No, rape is not rape. Interracial rape is worse than intraracial rape.

Racism is a sin, no? Or at least, it’s treated as one, and many people think of it as such. Interracial rape can lead to interracial animus, AKA racism, whereas intraracial rape cannot. Ergo, interracial rape is a worse crime than intraracial rape.

And it is your ideology (so-called “anti-racism”) that dictates so.

Same goes for interracial (and interethnic) crime in general.

Everyone should be punished for their crime.

No, interracial rapists and criminals should be punished more harshly than intraracial rapists and criminals, at least if one follows so-called “anti-racism” through to its logical conclusion.

Racialists who maintain that “blacks” are somehow more prone to rape due to their genetic make-up are in a way justifying rapists. By the racialist logic, someone could say: “For God’s sake, they are not guilty, it’s in their nature.”

You are correct, but I doubt very much you’ve thought this through, as you’re justifying “racial profiling” (AKA common sense, pattern recognition, etc.) and separatism.

As for Jews: the ethnic exclusivity (commanded by OT and Talmud) is something completely different than modern biological pseudo-“scientific” raci(ali)sm.

Aha! We’ve found common ground!

Glad to see we could settle this like adults: we’ll file the serial numbers off the OT and Talmud, run a “find and replace” to substitute “white” for “Jew,” and you’ll climb down off our backs.

Everybody wins!

They should be allowed to talk about their ideas totally freely

Give them complete no bars held freedom to rant and rave until there hearts content, until there thirsts quenched

Ah, cost-free altruism! This reminds me of how so-called “anti-racists”* make cost-free assertions about how bad Israel is, how they dislike Israel as much as they dislike racists, bla bla bla. Except, they never do shit about Israel. Except, the supposed equivalency is a lie, since Israel is the modern Apartheid state and racists have zero power (except in non-white states, and Israel that is), so they prove themselves liars, as ever.

It’s easy to make mealy-mouthed claims about how we should be allowed to speak, even as one joins the chorus in taking a great big shit on us.

How fair-minded and upstanding and just they are, no? Paragons of virtue, I says.

*what a disingenuous term, seen in this light! “No, sorry, I can’t help them black folks being strung up by racists, because I’m an anti-racist and I don’t see race, so I can only laugh at these blac- er, people claiming they’re victims of genocide or whatever. Silly racists!”

Yes, think on it you dimwits, this is PRECISELY what you’re doing.

Scroob:

I don’t see how it’s possible to argue with someone like “anti-racist” who, right at the outset, denies that there are races (or does the equivalent thereof). We and he are living in different universes. Might as well try to explain to someone from the eleventh dimension that there are only three dimensions — you won’t accomplish much.

Indeed, in these cases it’s time to backtrack to first principles. We should offer to agree to disagree, offer to live and let live, and when they refuse (as they must) point out that so-called “anti-racism” is a hegemonic lunacy that will not be satisfied until all the universe bends knee. This is not an exaggeration; so-called “anti-racism” recognizes no limits of any kind on its authority or jurisdiction, and this is a feature, not a bug. So-called “anti-racism” cannot abide “live and let live” (AKA self-determination, AKA freedom); the two are diametrically opposed, mortal enemies, polar opposites.

Freedom and “anti-racism” are locked in a death struggle, because “anti-racism” hates freedom and has decreed that freedom must die.

I think anti-racists hate having this brought up, because I’ve been arguing about this stuff since 2001 and not one, not one single “anti-racist” (out of hundreds of engagements in which I’ve made this argument) has ever even acknowledged this point, not even to deny it. That implies to me that they know it’s true, and don’t want to admit as much.

“Non-racist”:

That’s the only advice I will accept: from now on I am nonracist. “Antiracists” are way too obsessed with race. They want equality among races, multiracialism and similar nonsense while I think “race” as concept is totally irrelevant, in fact non-existent and should be abolished from any serious discourse.

A lie, of course. Otherwise, when I inevitably demand to see your sallies against the current racial regime, you could produce multiple such for the one you’ve made here (priorities, you see - the current regime violates your ethos infinitely more than we could), rather than the sound of crickets chirping, which we all know will be the result.

Our lot is used to dealing with liars, ma’am. Long experience shows how to suss them out. That’s how I can reliably play the game several moves ahead, as I just have. But, I’ve been proven wrong before, so I await your response.

Alan Templeton: Race doesn’t exist

Templeton’s had his ass kicked by our lot so many times it’s up around his shoulders. In fact, if memory serves, I kicked it myself once. Search Stormfront, I think it was there and it should still be around for your reading pleasure. You’re about five years late to the party.

129

Posted by Dasein on July 21, 2009, 03:41 PM | #

anonymous, if you consider your home in England to be a shithole, how much money would it take to convince you to move back to Pakistan? No point lying, no one here is likely to pay you anyway. What’s the minimum you would accept?

130

Posted by Dasein on July 21, 2009, 03:47 PM | #

To Monitor et al:

Regarding ‘anonymous’/ ‘anti racist’ postings etc…

Do you see now what an anti ‘Darwinist’ is?—SM

I think with the Monitors the key is to get them to accept micro-evolution. Just forget macro-evolution, it’s of little or no importance for WN.

131

Posted by Dasein on July 21, 2009, 03:55 PM | #

You’re about five years late to the party. —Svigor

I’m guessing that Loriver’s last post finally did antiracist in. Denying race (which he did the whole way through, despite being told repeatedly to read the Wiki) really is passe. I look forward to the new egalitarian fashion. Epigenetics, I suspect, will be one of the accessories.

132

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 21, 2009, 05:28 PM | #

Shit hole may be a reference to dar al-Harb, which poses a problem for non-whites. Islam is all about orthopraxy. If the English adopt sharia and behave according to the code of conduct it has the potential to resurrect them as a vibrant moral force. Potentially, there will be a re-focus upon adaptive behaviors; emphasizing reproductive sex, controlling female sexuality; arranged marriages; as a result larger families; conflict with other religions; all of which may portend the reawakening of a sleeping giant. An invigorated English population may pose an existential threat, through sectarian violence, per Iraq, as an example, that may not be as accommodating of non-whites as the current leviathan.

Bit of a catch 22 really.

133

Posted by Wexler on July 21, 2009, 07:31 PM | #

I posted some very few past comments as Boromir, but am changing the name.

I have a question that may seem out of the blue, but have wondered about it before, and noticed Mr Bowery mentioned the subject earlier in the comments, and as there have been other direct questions posed:

What do you mean when you write that it is the goal of jews to make Euros part of their extended phenotype? That their goal is to breed with all half-billion-plus of us? To thus turn us into jews, in the process making whiter jews? That is what the phrase suggests to me. It would seem an impractical goal, on their part. And it appears that is not their aim, that their aim is rather to get us bred out with non-whites and non-jews. If I am missing the meaning entirely, could it be clarified please, or perhaps an explanation pointed to.

There have been some great threads lately, they are appreciated.

134

Posted by Wexler on July 21, 2009, 07:36 PM | #

I do not know whose idea it is, that of the “extended jewish phenotype”; earlier in the comments it was referenced by Guessedworker, not Mr Bowery as I suggested. Sorry for the confusion.

135

Posted by Guessedworker on July 21, 2009, 07:39 PM | #

Wexler,

“Extended phenotype” is a term coined by the geneticist Richard Dawkins. It means that the genotype of one organism expresses as a phenotype in quite another organism. It is used in discussion of the JQ to explain how whites can reject their own natural ethnic interests and replace them with Jewish ethnic interests - for example, Christian Zionism and the nationalist concentration on Islamification are two broad categories within which the respective Christians and nationalists might be described as being extended phenotypes. They are serving Jewish ethnic interests, believing them to be their own.

136

Posted by Alan Gaylord Templeton on July 21, 2009, 09:40 PM | #

Your English is very poor, anonymous. There are numerous spelling and punctuation errors in your comments. You really need to do a better job of writing and proofreading—not to mention organizing your thoughts, which tend to be chaotic, jumbled, and incoherent.

We can’t take your claim seriously when you assert that our struggle is hopeless, because your claim is a priori weakened by your poor spelling and syntax. It neuters your message that White/European Nationalism is futile.

You need to work harder, and proofread your comments if you want to convince us we haven’t got a chance. Presentation is very important. (Otherwise, you’ll just come across as another dumb and lazy anti, encouraging our efforts rather than discouraging them, and reinforcing our perception that our opponents are inferior.)

137

Posted by Dasein on July 22, 2009, 06:10 AM | #

anonymous is not an anti. To me, antis are necessarily White. Otherwise they are tribal warriors. anonymous is a semi-literate barbarian squatter. That may sound harsh, but I think it’s an accurate description of her and many of her type that are in the West.

138

Posted by Alan Gaylord Templeton on July 22, 2009, 07:00 AM | #

“anonymous is a semi-literate barbarian squatter. That may sound harsh…”

Harsh? No. LOLorific? Yes!

139

Posted by Armor on July 22, 2009, 09:08 AM | #

Racialists who maintain that “blacks” are somehow more prone to rape due to their genetic make-up are in a way justifying rapists. By the racialist logic, someone could say: “For God’s sake, they are not guilty, it’s in their nature.” (—NonRacist)

Whether Blacks are more prone to rape because they are bad, because of racial animus, or because of their genes, their culture, their poverty, their unhappy childhoods or their victimization by the Whites … we should consider enforcing a twice harsher penalty for any crime they commit. After all, the more likely they are to fall into crime, the more harshly they must be deterred. Deterrence is the main role of the justice system.

140

Posted by Dasein on July 22, 2009, 05:49 PM | #

Thanks, Templeton It’s a good way to think about what’s happening- it’s 4th generation barbarian warfare. BTW, I just checked, “barbarian squatter” is a Googlewack.

141

Posted by Wexler on July 22, 2009, 07:11 PM | #

Thanks for the reply, Guessedworker. I had quite the wrong idea of that concept, it needed correcting.

For the most part, I leave the intellectual platform behind our white interests to those who’ve put in the work to lay it out. I do not feel that such a platform is unnecessary, though it seems pretty simple in its essence, and I’ve garnered the phrase here: We don’t want to be replaced. Basically, my arguments with those who don’t get it boil down to that.

142

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 22, 2009, 07:44 PM | #

“We don’t want to be replaced. Basically, my arguments with those who don’t get it boil down to that.” (—Wexler)

That’s right. That’s all that’s needed. We don’t need any other “arguments” than that. Good statement. And of course the reason we’re being replaced right now isn’t because of some fancy arguments that prevailed over weaker ones or whatever might be imagined, it’s because a lot of people with money and influence (mainly money) went to the people with their hands on society’s control levers and said simply, “We want whites replaced.” That was it, as simple as that. No “arguments,” no “philosophy,” they just wanted it. And they insisted on it (they wanted it pretty badly). And they got it. And they’re still at it, trying to bring the project to completion. We’re being replaced because men with lots of money want it. Period.

Well, we don’t want it. Period. Exactly as Wexler says, nothing more is needed. Our task: ram our rejection of what “they want” right down their genocidal throats til they “get their minds right.” Figuratively speaking, of course.

Of course.

143

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 05:59 AM | #

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 21, 2009, 01:48 PM | #

It was never about giving you the message or rubbing anything in like ive made clear your only getting what your asking for yourselves whats so difficult in that that you cant see? The message isnt going to change just because you refuse to see/accept it and beside why after everything do you finally accept it?. Im not a sadist but you on here clearly are and as for coming here Ive already as you know fred answered that in my previous comments and it certainly isnt because im gonna learn something new on here.

144

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 06:11 AM | #

Posted by Dasein on July 21, 2009, 07:41 PM | #

“anonymous, if you consider your home in England to be a shithole, how much money would it take to convince you to move back to Pakistan? No point lying, no one here is likely to pay you anyway. What’s the minimum you would accept? “

“Home” and “shithole” are not synonymous. Never recalled calling england my “home” but you seem ever so eager to attribute it as such to me- “anonymous, if you consider your home in England to be a shithole”. I never recall arguing I considered my home in england to be a shithole but I do recall arguing I considered england to be more like a “shithole”.

Posted by Dasein on July 22, 2009, 10:10 AM | #

“anonymous is not an anti. To me, antis are necessarily White. Otherwise they are tribal warriors. anonymous is a semi-literate barbarian squatter. That may sound harsh, but I think it’s an accurate description of her and many of her type that are in the West.”

Truth hurting is it Dasein? LOL. Ive already answered that one ” no amount of so called intelligent prattle and smart remarks on majorityrights.com is going to change that fact” still not smart enough Dasein obviously you enjoy being a JOKE! as you keep providing the last Laugh. LOL. At least Fred Scrooby has an ounce of honesty in him and knows when to admit defeat even though the truth hurts.

145

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 06:15 AM | #

Posted by Alan Gaylord Templeton on July 22, 2009, 01:40 AM | #

“Your English is very poor, anonymous. There are numerous spelling and punctuation errors in your comments. You really need to do a better job of writing and proofreading—not to mention organizing your thoughts, which tend to be chaotic, jumbled, and incoherent.

We can’t take your claim seriously when you assert that our struggle is hopeless, because your claim is a priori weakened by your poor spelling and syntax. It neuters your message that White/European Nationalism is futile.

This ones been answered too “no amount of so called intelligent prattle and smart remarks on majorityrights.com is going to change that fact” LOL.

Posted by Alan Gaylord Templeton on July 22, 2009, 11:00 AM | #

“anonymous is a semi-literate barbarian squatter. That may sound harsh…”

Harsh? No. LOLorific? Yes!

Harsh? Yes. LOLorific? Yes. Smart? NO! LOOOOOOL

Buh Byeeeeeee!!!!!

146

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 06:17 AM | #

Posted by Dasein on July 21, 2009, 07:41 PM | #

Should read-

“Home” and “shithole” are not synonymous. Never recalled calling england my “home” but you seem ever so eager to attribute it as such to me- “anonymous, if you consider your home in England to be a shithole”. I never recall arguing I considered england to be my home and as such my home to be a “shithole” but I do recall arguing I considered england to be more like a “shithole”.

147

Posted by Captainchaos on July 25, 2009, 06:25 AM | #

your only getting what your asking for yourselves

Yes, by being weak, and tolerating for a second the kind of self-entitled swine who believe it their birth right to take from us the necessary conditions (e.g., exlusive living space) to sustain the life of our people, so they can advance the interests of their own people, we are getting what we deserve. But there is always redemption - and by your own standards, or perhaps more accurately, the standards you force upon us - and that is by the sword.

Im not a sadist

You are a self-entitled little worm.

I never recall arguing I considered my home in england to be a shithole but I do recall arguing I considered england to be more like a “shithole”.

The parts of England which your kind inhabit certainly are shittier than the environs of the English, and it is no coincidence. Although I suspect you find it more congenial than Pakistan, otherwise, why are you here and not there? And, once England has been completely colonized by Pakis, do you suppose it will have been improved or diminished? You see, it is the genetic quality of the English which makes it so pleasant. Joker!

148

Posted by Dasein on July 25, 2009, 07:14 AM | #

Scrooby’s reply is not meant to be taken seriously, anonymous. I know it’s tough. Our White thought patterns are completely alien to you. All these strange concepts, like punctuation. Mustn’t be any fun; you have my sympathy.

149

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 25, 2009, 08:47 AM | #

To Miss Joker: Dasein is of course right, that was not “an admission of defeat” on my part. It was a rhetorical concession — rhetorical only — of your position as a way of moving the debate forward a bit, but it didn’t work because you always prefer to answer with mysticism whereas we Westerners expect straightforwardness. Because you’re a Subcontinental Moslem woman you incline toward taking a mystical, fatalistic view, a belief in the futility of refusing to accept one’s destiny. We in the West don’t accept destiny, we change it. We change it till it suits us. We don’t believe in succumbing to what’s written in the book of fate.

Why do you stay in England if it’s so bad you call it a shithole? Its dearth of sunshine by itself would be enough to put a Pakistani in a bad mood and get her talking in mystical riddles instead of making sense.

150

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 11:11 AM | #

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 25, 2009, 12:47 PM | #

“To Miss Joker: Dasein is of course right, that was not “an admission of defeat” on my part. It was a rhetorical concession — rhetorical only — of your position as a way of moving the debate forward a bit, but it didn’t work because you always prefer to answer with mysticism whereas we Westerners expect straightforwardness. Because you’re a Subcontinental Moslem woman you incline toward taking a mystical, fatalistic view, a belief in the futility of refusing to accept one’s destiny. We in the West don’t accept destiny, we change it. We change it till it suits us. We don’t believe in succumbing to what’s written in the book of fate.”

Ok if you insist on labelling yourself as such Fred Scrooby “Miss JOKER” your welcome because you sure as hell talk like a woman and behave like a woman. You expect straightforwardness? You got that long ago.YOUR A JOKER!

Ofcourse if was not an admission of defeat by you Joker and nor was the statment made because it was believed by me to be such it was made to see if you would believe that I actually believed it to be such which you clearly did, your defeat is not written in your words its written all over your face, all over your actions or lack of actions. JOKERS Like you Fred Scrooby enjoy semantic games too much and as it stands Fred Scrooby you are a lapdog whoose always after a pat from the Big boys so you better run along now. Destiny cannot be changed hence its called destiny. Dont you know anything? If its written in the book of fate how can you change it or else it wouldnt be written in the book of fate. You dont half talk twaddle.

“Why do you stay in England if it’s so bad you call it a shithole? Its dearth of sunshine by itself would be enough to put a Pakistani in a bad mood and get her talking in mystical riddles instead of making sense.”

Theres plenty of shitholes around the world England just happens to be one of them. If in case you skipped a beat Freddy boy Ive never associated England as home so I would not expect reference to it being a shithole and my being here to be associated or understood in the same light as it being my home.

Why do you insist o

151

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 11:12 AM | #

why do you insist on responding each time fred scrooby, youve made your point now run along.

152

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 11:14 AM | #

Posted by Dasein on July 25, 2009, 11:14 AM | #

“Scrooby’s reply is not meant to be taken seriously, anonymous. I know it’s tough.”

Its not tough at all Dasein. I know Scroobys reply wasnt meant to be taken seriously and nor was it since when has anything you Jokers have said been taken seriously by anyone.

153

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 11:29 AM | #

Posted by Captainchaos on July 25, 2009, 10:25 AM | #

“The parts of England which your kind inhabit certainly are shittier than the environs of the English, and it is no coincidence. Although I suspect you find it more congenial than Pakistan, otherwise, why are you here and not there? And, once England has been completely colonized by Pakis, do you suppose it will have been improved or diminished? You see, it is the genetic quality of the English which makes it so pleasant. Joker!”

You got one thing right, you rightly signed yourself off as ‘Joker’ you see Joker the parts of England I inhibit can be shittier than whatever part of england you like or whatever part of the world you like and the gentic quality of the JOKERS might make it more pleasent but it still doesnt change the way the wind is blowing.

154

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 11:32 AM | #

Posted by Captainchaos on July 25, 2009, 10:25 AM | #

“Yes, by being weak, and tolerating for a second the kind of self-entitled swine who believe it their birth right to take from us the necessary conditions (e.g., exlusive living space) to sustain the life of our people, so they can advance the interests of their own people, we are getting what we deserve. But there is always redemption - and by your own standards, or perhaps more accurately, the standards you force upon us - and that is by the sword.”

Who asked you to tolerate us? If your not the JOKER i think you are your the JOKER i think you are!

155

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 11:34 AM | #

Posted by anonymous on July 25, 2009, 03:14 PM | #

Posted by Dasein on July 25, 2009, 11:14 AM | #

“Scrooby’s reply is not meant to be taken seriously, anonymous. I know it’s tough.”

Its not tough at all Dasein. I know Scroobys reply wasnt meant to be taken seriously and nor was it since when has anything you Jokers have said been taken seriously by anyone. In fact I can always rely on you JOKERRRRSSSS! LOL.

Ta ta

156

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 25, 2009, 12:30 PM | #

Miss, we don’t speak in arcane riddles or understand them. Unless you can start producing some clarity maybe GW should ask you to stop taking up space here, since your comments so far have served to enlighten strictly no one about anything.

157

Posted by Captainchaos on July 25, 2009, 01:06 PM | #

Here is a documentary entitled Are you 100% English? in which the producers perform DNA tests upon celebrities and English nationalists (there are five parts, I have linked to the first):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlTks9toOmQ

Some have non-Northern European alleles, and some have non-European alleles, though the documentarians concede a 70% frequency of Northern European alleles is the English average, with no non-European admixture, which was the genetic profile of respondent former Tory MP Norman Tebbit. Two other respondents, English nationalists both, had some South Asian and Middle Eastern admixture, but their DNA profile was purported to be that typical of Russia or the Ukraine. Both then essentially conceded anyone can therefore be English. Stupid lemmings.

158

Posted by Captainchaos on July 25, 2009, 01:42 PM | #

Correction, the documentarians state Tebbit’s no non-European admixture is not typical; so some admixture is typical in the English. But so too is alleles in common with chimps. Besides, how can the documentarians say something is typically genetically “English”, then insinuate further admixture does not matter? Wouldn’t that thing which was formerly “English” have been altered, in which case it would no longer be “English”, but something else? If I shit in a box, and call it a chicken dinner, is it chicken or is it shit? Hmmm.

159

Posted by Lurker on July 25, 2009, 03:29 PM | #

The thrust of the documentary seemed to be to prove there was really no such thing as English. This deconstruction seemed to rely on taking for granted the existence of other ethnic groups who do exist.

160

Posted by Captainchaos on July 25, 2009, 04:25 PM | #

The thrust of the documentary seemed to be to prove there was really no such thing as English. This deconstruction seemed to rely on taking for granted the existence of other ethnic groups who do exist.

The thrust of Nordicism is more Northern European alleles good, more wog alleles bad. I suppose the moderate position would be to preserve the gene frequencies that adhere in the English as stands. Yet, if the salient quality of the English is their Northern Europeanness, does that mean those with more wog alleles are less English? Yes, that is logically unavoidable, given that standard.

The thrust of the lemmings’ thinking was, “Uh oh, I’ve got wog alleles. That could mean I’ll be excluded. Best let the niggers in too. Then I’ll definitely be included.” LOL! Ask not what your people can do for you, but what you can do for your people. Some idealist.

161

Posted by Captainchaos on July 25, 2009, 05:00 PM | #

Of course, there is the political/state craft calculation of, “How do we get enough of the lemmings to come along with us in preserving the gene frequencies we deem essential to us, and therefore desirable?”. One guy said he feels English, though he purportedly had a genetic profile more consistent with a Russian/Ukrainian than is the English average. So, if one wants to keep guys like him in the fold, and not fleeing to the other camp, there will have to be some of “identity” in play, whilst the hard core genetic qualifications are kept on the level of the esoteric. But wait, we don’t lie to the lemmings, that’s what the liberals and the Jews do, right? Wrong, we’re dealing with lemmings.

162

Posted by Alan Gaylord Templeton on July 25, 2009, 05:08 PM | #

‘Allah’s dirty beard!’ Is that semi-literate, barbarian squatter “anonymous” still stinking up this thread?

Her time would be better spent cooking civet cat in her free council house. This site is for intelligent readers.

163

Posted by anonymous on July 26, 2009, 09:17 AM | #

Posted by Alan Gaylord Templeton on July 25, 2009, 09:08 PM | #

“‘Allah’s dirty beard!’ Is that semi-literate, barbarian squatter “anonymous” still stinking up this thread?
Her time would be better spent cooking civet cat in her free council house.
This site is for intelligent readers.”

Clearly your not an example of an intelligent reader one who if he had read the thread throughout and had been an intelligent reader would not have come to the end and asked “‘Allah’s dirty beard!’ Is that semi-literate, barbarian squatter “anonymous” still stinking up this thread?” because being an intelligent reader you would have been able to see that that semi-literate, barbarian squatter “anonymous” is still stinking up this thread. Looser!

164

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 26, 2009, 10:10 AM | #

Miss, if you’re going to keep coming back why not express yourself more clearly, as you would with family or friends. Then we might get an actual conversation going. We don’t understand your brand of dark Moslem riddles that would be great if we were characters in the Rubaiyat of Omar Kayyam or A Thousand and One Arabian Nights.

165

Posted by anonymous on July 26, 2009, 02:02 PM | #

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 26, 2009, 02:10 PM | #

“Miss, if you’re going to keep coming back why not express yourself more clearly, as you would with family or friends.
Your inability/disinterest to understand anyones argument except your own precedes (has always) the clarity of my and anyone else’s expression unfortunately its not something I hold the solution to.

“Then we might get an actual conversation going”
I dont come here to have tea and make sweet conversation. I come here to make my point and when I feel Ive made it I will go and you will never see me again (Lucky you eh?)

“We don’t understand your brand of dark Moslem riddles that would be great if we were characters in the Rubaiyat of Omar Kayyam or A Thousand and One Arabian Nights.”

Ofcourse you dont understand your not smart enough to. Your more characters out of Snow white and the Seven Dwarfs. Which one is it you are Fred? Dopey? Grumpy?

166

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 26, 2009, 02:39 PM | #

”the clarity of my […] expression” (—Miss Resentment-filled Pakistani)

You call that “clarity”??? Wow I’d hate to see you when you’re being murky ....

”I dont come here to have tea and make sweet conversation. I come here to make my point”

Uhhh … could you make it just one more time? (I must’ve missed it.)

”and when I feel Ive made it I will go”

Uhhh ….. wait a minute .... was it your point about us going down to defeat, the Moslems winning and taking over, and us being unable to do anything about it because it’s written in the stars and we’re such jokers? If that’s the one, you’ve made it. (OK you can go now.)

”Of course you dont understand your not smart enough to. You’re more characters out of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Which one is it you are Fred? Dopey? Grumpy?”

No I’m Joker.

167

Posted by Alan Gaylord Templeton on July 26, 2009, 03:53 PM | #

LOL @ “dark Moslem riddles”

Our svart squatter speaks in riddles. Or perhaps it’s just the incoherence of imbecility, hashish, and poppies: Too much “smack-y” for this Paki.

168

Posted by RenoType on July 28, 2009, 09:41 AM | #

Myself? I’m merely getting the word out. We won’t be fooled again.

So grave he is. He’s a tireless martyr of the word. He’s getting the word out so “we” won’t be fooled.

Next entry: David Irving on, oh, lots of things, but chiefly the English

Previous entry: Selected behavioural traits by race

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age

Comments:

Post a Comment:

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Links