|
|
|
A letter about Larry I received a mail today from MR reader Bruce Graeme. Here it is. Lawrence Auster defines “the unprincipled exception” as:-
However, recently, in his post On the difficult issue of how to talk about race, Auster himself applied the liberal “unprincipled exception” in full force to challenge some aspect of racism without challenging racism itself. He claims that “in order to defend the white race and Western civilization, we don’t need to make it sound as though race in itself is the highest value.” ... “we simply need to recognize that whiteness is an indispensable facet of what white people and Western society are and have been.” Then he continues saying that “through all of American history until the mid 20th century, the leaders of our society frankly believed in the white race, they took it for granted that America was a white man’s country and should remain so.” Further applying this principle he concludes: “To make the case for the preservation of the white race and white civilization plausible, it must be justified within a moral framework. When race is treated as a value in itself, it inevitably declines into cruder forms of racialism that are wrong and that will be automatically rejected.” The problem, however, is that due to this liberal “unprincipled exception” the very definition of ‘whiteness’, has changed so much over time, that the racial quality it stands for has declined. In the early 20th century most immigrants were not considered white (Italians, Irish, Greeks, Jews, and many others). The Immigration Act of 1924 was aimed at limiting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who were immigrating in large numbers (setting quotas on immigrants from certain European countries), as well as prohibiting the immigration of East Asia. Whiteness implicated that one was of Northern European descent! But by applying the “unprincipled exception”, ‘whiteness’ nowadays can almost be won legally and may well result in the absorption of the “white” race by “colored” races which would actually mean a corruption of society. By applying the “unprincipled exception”, the concept “white race” has extended so much and has become so empty of content, that - following Auster’s footsteps - it has no value any longer as a guiding factor of civilization and even implies that, ultimately, the world can be seen as only being composed of simply black and white races. Bruce Graeme And here is my reply:- There is a point, Bruce, in the political development of everyone who comes to value the racial integrity of all Europe’s peoples when he or she must walk away from the purveyors of partial solutions. Western civilisation ... whiteness ... Christianity ... at best, these are comfortable, unchallenging proxies. None have the specificity required to preserve a people subjected to calumny, dispossession and race-replacement. All have the potential to be abused by groups eager to obtain their own advantage, and careless as to the fate of the victim. Actually, I am pleased to see Larry Auster so clearly state his opposition to the outright and unashamed advocacy of European racial preservation. “When race is treated as a value in itself,” he says, “it inevitably declines into cruder forms of racialism that are wrong and that will be automatically rejected.” Obviously, that’s Larry’s ethnic paranoia speaking. And what it says is that never, never, never again shall there be a vigorous and successful “cruder form” of resistance to Jewish ethnic interests like that mounted by Herr Hitler’s shockingly vigorous and successful, not to mention crude, National Socialists. But that isn’t all of it because, actually, no successful resistance at all is tolerable. It isn’t really the “decline” into “cruder forms” that is the problem - that brings Jews together. It’s success. Period. But let’s do the magnanimous, European thing and give Larry’s proposition a fighting chance. Let’s ask ourselves whether treating race as “a value in itself” inevitably leads to said “decline”, and “crudity” and “automatic rejection”. Well, the Japanese ... Mexicans ... Iranians ... Koreans are all proud and nationalistic peoples. Obviously, “decline” and “crudity” have not appeared by magic among them merely because they are substantially blessed with healthy, normal racial awareness. So there are only two explanations for Auster’s proposition. Either there is an Original Sin lurking deep in the European heart and the European heart alone, or Larry is lying and the all-important difference between Weimar Germany and modern Iran is that in the former the Jewish population was politically and culturally active. Now let’s put that to the test. Let’s exclude from consideration all the WNs who are stridently anti-semitic on the premise - unlikely, I know - that their stridency has its genesis not in treating race “as a value in itself”, as Larry claims, but as a reaction to Jewish ethnic aggression, as they claim. Now, it happens that all the rest of us who are not stridently anti-semitic still surely treat race as “a value in itself”. Are there, then, signs of “decline” and “crudity” in the work we do? Let’s see. There are three categories or levels of work that nationalists like us can undertake. In terms of prospective audience the first is the most outward-looking, and it is topical analysis. You know ... the big stories, the omissions of the media, the all-too-familiar way of the world. We do it. Everybody does it. In fact, most conservative and nationalist sites do little else. Europe’s (nominally) nationalist political parties do the same. They do it in their literature and on their websites. They do it when they canvass for votes on the doorstep. Naturally, it engages at the formative level. It is repetitive and intellectually shallow. But it is necessary. It explains to the vexed white man why the world outside his window is changing skin-colour, and why this change has far-reaching effects that the political, academic and media Establishments simply refuse to debate or even acknowledge. “You’re not wrong about the things you see”, it tells our vexed friend, “and you’re not a bad man because you don’t like them - the bad men are the ones who are forcing them on you and yours.” At its most technically proficient level this involves espousing white survivalism in some challenging environments. This is work Matt Nuenke was doing on Usenet long ago, and work Svigor has honed to a fine art at Steve Sailer’s blog and elsewhere. CC’s recent work at Takimag falls into the same category. Where it is undertaken for the purpose not of making new converts but of surveying the enemy’s weight of fire we enter upon a different level of work entirely. This is the second level at which we can work, and might be viewed as the service level. It is tactical analysis - the study of how the other side thinks and works, how best to negate their influence, and engage with our own people through Level One topical analysis. A good deal of straightforward political analysis from the nationalist perspective falls into this category. So do some of the more rarified and philosophical commentaries from Jonathan Bowden - for example, his speech about the Frankfurt School. Larry’s espousal of Western civilisation, his conservative critique of liberalism generally and, specifically, of the “unprincipled exception” you, Bruce, mention also fit here. So do his frequent and very tiresome recommendations to focus on Islamism. So do his implicit and implacably defended commendations not to focus on Jewry but, instead, to make Euro-nationalism a recepticle for its interests (and, whaddya know, they would prove entirely benign if only WNs would stop the “crudity”)? I suspect that Larry would like very much like to think he is engaging at Level Three - that most rare and demanding work of theoretical analysis. He has a good enough mind, but all its resources are consumed in the effort to obtain Jewish inclusion. He is strategising to the last. And anyway, the theorising of nationalism as a vehicle of European racial survival is a bell cast of metal so pure, no ethnic Jew treating Western civ as “a value in itself” can participate. It is work only for the very best of us. So, where in all this Euro-nationalist advocacy is there the “decline” and “crudity” that Larry predicts? I just do not see it. Not a sign. And neither, really, does Larry. If he wants to be regarded as an honest man, he must direct his thoughts not at our people but at his fellow Jews in diaspore. He must apply himself to ridding their nationalism of decline into the culture of critique and the crudity of the tradition of subversion. At least then we would have one less Western civ artiste to lead our people astray. Comments:2
Posted by Tusky on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:33 | # Very interesting analysis. A couple of years ago I stopped paying attention to Mr. Auster. For him, there is really only one ruling viewpoint, a viewpoint that touches his soul and forms his chief value. And that viewpoint is his own ethnic heritage. Tusky 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:43 | # Western civ a Jewish construct? Well, in the way that it is used to replace ethnicity, yes. I like the chutzpah of this Auster post from a couple of days ago:-
“Pro-Israel” ... “anti-Islam” ... “reflexively anti-Israeli” ... “horrible al Qaeda” ... “European Awakening” ... “white Israel-haters” ... Larry is a Jew to the roots of his roots. The Catholic-conservative-traditional-white-civfreak is another of those constructs. 4
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:44 | #
The term didn’t exist at the beginning of the 20th century. The Pan-Humanists like Hirschfeld in Europe and the Boasian School of fraudulent anthropology attacked Arthur de Gobineau, Vacher de La-Pouge, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, in Europe and Madison Grant in America, all notable Nordicists. Even the alleged “White” Australia Policy, (possibly Professor Frser can fill in the details) was not about “whiteness or preserving Western civilization.
6
Posted by Diamed on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:08 | # Check out Age of Treason’s evisceration of Auster for a more thorough ‘outing’ of his ethnic cheerleading. As for GW’s reasoning, it’s spot on. The only ‘ugly’ part about caring about race qua race is it leaves jews out in the cold. That’s all jewboy Auster finds ugly, because everything else is rather beautiful. Who was not impressed by the Beijing 2008 opening olympics ceremony? Contrast it with the awful, gutter trash closing ceremony London put on advertising for 2012, which was so diverse it even included a token DISABLED WHEELCHAIR DANCER in the mix but not one hint of grace or harmony. 7
Posted by john on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:35 | # There never was a white Autralia policy, it’s a construct. 8
Posted by Joe on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:47 | # “In the early 20th century most immigrants were not considered white (Italians, Irish, Greeks, Jews, and many others). The Immigration Act of 1924 was aimed at limiting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who were immigrating in large numbers (setting quotas on immigrants from certain European countries), as well as prohibiting the immigration of East Asia. “ These people were not considered not white, but not Anglo-Saxon. All Southern and Eastern Europeans, as well as Jews and Arabs were always legally classified as white in America at every time and every place. 9
Posted by Bruce Graeme on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:02 | # Guessedworker said: “his implicit and implacably defended commendations not to focus on Jewry .” Indeed! Think of Lawrence Auster’s Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society: “The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctess in covering up for that group. Thus, instead of the revelation over the last 14 months of Islam’s dangerous and savage character leading (as would happen in a rational world) to a major discrediting of Muslims, or at least to a more sceptical attitude toward them, it has led to their being more favored, more coddled and more protected from criticism than ever before.” http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/000933.html However, Auster NEVER applies this Law to the Jews, notwithstanding the fact that the jews are “more favored, more coddled and more protected from criticism than ever before.”!! 10
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:12 | #
I keep seeing that claim over and over, yet keep wondering what is the documentation for it. Especially the (expanded) claim that everyone from the Irish to the Germans weren’t considered White. Who didn’t consider them White? It is spoken of as though it was a national policy, yet I’ll be damned if I can find any official or even semi-official evidence of it.
All there seems to be is a quote from Benjamin Franklin and some political cartoons which highlighted periodic ethnic conflict. Reading through the nearly 900 page long Albion’s seed all I recall seeing in regards to this was a statute in North Carolina which forbid settlement by “peoples known as native Irish…..and Catholics.”
Plus there is the fact that America’s 8th President, born in 1782, was a non-Anglo who spoke English as a second language.
But Wikipedia even goes so far as to say that the Welsh were not considered White at one time. Its source is an article from the Yale Law Journal in 2000, titled, “Performing Whiteness: Naturalization Litigation and the Construction of Racial Identity in America,” In other words it’s a bunch of horse manure. They’ve cobbled together a circumstantial argument to insinuate that there has never been, historically, an acknowledged White race. It’s just more of that creepy justification for our planned genocide in which the left says, “White people don’t really exist anyway (being a social construct) so your genocide can’t be considered a crime”. 11
Posted by Joe on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:45 | # However, Auster NEVER applies this Law to the Jews, notwithstanding the fact that the jews are “more favored, more coddled and more protected from criticism than ever before.” —————————————————————————————————————————————— Paranoid jews like Auster will view any criticism of jews, even by anonymous nobodies like us on the internet, as being the same as jewish domination of the media and Congress. So in his view, jews aren’t coddled or protected from criticism, as long as anyone, anywhere in the world doesn’t bow down to them. Auster studiously ignores things like the Senate’s unanimous vote in favor of Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinians, and lives in a paranoid delusional dream world where jews are persecuted victims, no matter what is really happening. 12
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:02 | # Where do unintended consequences fit in? Promotion of porn and promiscuity. Increase in teenage pregnancies. Oh dear - why is this happening? 13
Posted by Bruce Graeme on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:32 | # @ the Narrator: 1/ “Germans weren’t considered White.” ...“yet I’ll be damned if I can find any official or even semi-official evidence of it.” Clairborne Fox Jackson - Missouri’s governor in 1861 - declared in a speech: “Germans seeking homes in Missouri should be met on the threshold, knocked on the head and driven back.” 2/ “there has never been, historically, an acknowledged White race.” Madison Grant argued that “the white man par excellence” - responsible for civilization - had to be identified with the Northern European people: “a strong, virile, and self-contained race”. Nevertheless, in the early 20th century, there was an increase of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. Those immigrants were not racially similar or identical to the founding stock of this country. Whiteness, as the privileged norm in North American society, became a more fluid concept and, that started a slippery slope downwards. 14
Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:37 | #
Your short comments are much better than your full-length posts.
15
Posted by Bruce Graeme is a Cunt. on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:56 | # ‘Bruce Graeme’, 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:31 | # I would prefer the last poster to find a more inventive name next time. Meanwhile, here’s map of European relatedness, for your info:-
17
Posted by silver on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:36 | #
Then read it as “considered racially close enough to Anglo-Saxons to justify your inclusion in what was once an essentially exclusively Anglo-Saxon country.” The only “Central Europeans” as light as (certainly not “lighter”—dream on) Anglo-Saxons are slavics, but, as is obvious to anyone with a functioning set of eyeballs, “dark” Bavarians and Austrians obviously have more racially in common with their Germanic Anglo-Saxon kin than “lighter” Slovaks and Polacks. (And what do you mean “phenotypically” lighter? As opposed to what, “genotypically” lighter?) Oh, and as for that dig about the Spanish, get outta here: A slavic mocking a Spaniard is the joke of the century.
Some vino to go with your sour grapes, perhaps? 18
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:37 | #
Thanks for proving my point with an un-sourced quote that has no contextual relevance to the discussion at hand in the first place. At no time in American history was there a broad (or even narrow, for that matter) consensus that proclaimed “most European immigrants”, not-White. . 19
Posted by Prozium on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:46 | # The Germans, Irish, Italians and so forth were always considered “white.” Jews were able to pass as whites. Hispanics from Latin America were not excluded by the Immigration Act of 1924. The U.S. Census classified them as “whites.” Although most Americans definitely considered Mexico to be a “nonwhite” country, immigration from Mexico increased into the 1930s, which is why there were mass expulsions of illegal aliens under Hoover and Eisenhower. 20
Posted by Prozium on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:48 | # Note: In the 19C, the Anglo-Saxons were often thought to be “whiter” than other Europeans. 21
Posted by Prozium on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:51 | # Re: Clairborne Fox Jackson German settlers were often met with hostility in Missouri because they were staunch unionists and abolitionists, not because of their race. 22
Posted by Bruce Graeme on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:33 | # @ the Narrator 1/ In the 1880s waves of immigrants began arriving from Southern and Eastern Europe. Earlier, immigrants from northwestern Europe had been assimilated into Anglo-American communities. They regarded the immigrants in the late 19th century (even Finns) as not-quite-white.Later they became “white”. Was this not the beginning of an expanded version of whiteness, because “we don’t need to make it sound as though race in itself is the highest value” (Auster)? Karen Brodkin sketches the history how Jews became white. Her premise is that whiteness has always been a shifting designation. “By the 1920s, scientific racism sanctified the notion that real Americans were white and that real whites came from northwest Europe” [Brodkin, “How the Jews Became White Folks”]
23
Posted by Dave Johns on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:48 | #
By the term “complexion”, he meant: 2 a: an individual complex of ways of thinking or feeling b: a complex of attitudes and inclinations. 24
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:51 | # Bruce Graeme….really…..give it up. If there was a lick of evidence to support such non-sense it would be readily available. There ain’t, so there’s not. .... 25
Posted by Prozium on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:05 | # 1.) Waves of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were able to settle in the United States, in contrast to the Chinese, because they met the whiteness criterion of America’s naturalization laws. 2.) To my knowledge, Jews always passed as “whites” in the United States. I don’t know of any law that ever excluded them. 3.) As I pointed out above, the Anglo-Saxons and other Northwestern Europeans were often considered to be “whiter” than Slavs and Italians, who were still considered “white,” but somehow less so. The Immigration Act of 1924 was designed to preserve America’s traditional racial balance; immigration from Asia was banned outright, limits were placed on immigration from certain European countries. 4.) Franklin believed Anglo-Saxons were “whiter” than Germans and Swedes. 5.) German immigrants settled en masse in Pennsylvania and the Midwest. It’s easy to imagine the American West being colonized by the Chinese. Why didn’t that happen? The Germans were always accepted as “whites” whereas the Chinese were not. The Chinese, Japanese, Indians (subcons), American Indians, Hispanics, and negroes all faced various legal hurdles in attaining U.S. citizenship on account of their race. The Irish, Germans, Italians, Poles and so forth never did. 26
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:11 | #
Yet you refer to us as anti-Semites. How shall I put this….. If you can accuse White people of being racist towards you, then you ain’t White. By all means defend your race and their civilization.
It’s one thing to support Whites right to defend their own and their civilization. But when you attempt to insinuate yourself into that race and civilization, while at the same time accusing Whites of being racist towards you, red flags go up. The reason you “loom large” in racialist discussions is because you yourself have set yourself up as a spokesman for a group with which you do not belong, Western peoples. (When I speak of White or Western I mean those indigenous to Europe). .
Thanks for reducing us to the same stereotypical monster that you claim your critics do to your people. Pot meet kettle… . 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:22 | #
Jews “became white”??? When is that miracle supposed to have happened??? They certainly don’t act like it! They seem to act like ... well ... as oily and viscous as ever! What, they’ve finally learned how to behave in white society without making spectacles of themselves and pulling all of their well-known crap??? Do you have any proof of this??? I flat-out don’t believe it! This is the first I’ve heard of that claim and, sorry, but I’ll demand proof. 28
Posted by Prozium on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:40 | # Larry does have a Jewish agenda. 1.) In the case of Israel, the apple of his eye, Larry is a vocal supporter of the “transfer” of the Palestinians. He claims the very survival of Israel depends upon ethnic cleansing. 2.) In the case of America, Larry changes his tune. If I recall correctly, he doesn’t even approve of segregation. Some traditionalist! Transfer is fine when it is “good for the Jews” in Israel, but “immoral” in the United States, as that would set a dangerous precedent for his co-ethnics. 3.) Is Larry a righteous Jew? He fails a very simple test. In a world of “good Jews” and “bad Jews,” which is the one Larry himself imagines, Larry doesn’t approve of “transfering” the “bad Jews” who are tearing down Western civilization to Israel. Ethnic loyalty precedes all of his ostensible ideological commitments. 29
Posted by Prozium on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:50 | #
Should hostile, anti-white Jews who are bent on tearing down and undermining Western civilization be excluded from Western countries? Yes or no. 30
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:03 | # The following it Auster’s entire article at his site. See if you notice a theme…
31
Posted by Armor on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:47 | #
It looks like a page from John Ray’s website. 32
Posted by Prozium on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:49 | # Larry has elaborated on his take of the Jewish Question at VFR. He believes that the “bad Jews” who dedicate their lives to undermining the white race and sabotaging Western civilization should have “the right to live and prosper in America.” It’s worth noting here that Larry does not believe that Palestinians, whether “good ones” or “bad ones” (in their case, he conveniently forgets this distinction), should have the right to live in the Jewish state of Israel at all. Oddly enough, he continues to wonder why we question the sincerity of his commitment to the preservation of white, Western civilization. Larry has an unprincipled exception in reverse: the liberal exception to his own traditional conservatism. He believes that “bad Jews” should enjoy all their sacrosanct rights and liberties as citizens of liberal democracies. They should be dealt with on an entirely liberal basis: judged as individuals, not as members of a group; their hostile activities should be “tolerated”; treated as “equals” before the law; “free” to heap scorn and abuse upon their hosts, although chastised for it within the framework of the liberalism - none of which applies to Israel. 33
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:20 | #
There were no Chinese Jews. Keeping the door open to Europeans meant keeping it open for Jews.
34
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:39 | # I guess this feminine attitude:
Leads to this kind of feminine thinking:
Erm, Larry, you don’t have a clue, really. Jews shouldn’t exist anywhere? (Larry, might want to wrap quotes around that, drop the question mark, and save it for further use eh?) Methinks “carefully” in the first paragraph should be pruned. This is the kind of thing that makes him look bad (and like a quintessential Jew I might add). See, G-d’s already told him everything he needs to know about anti-Semites, so now all he has to do is polish his Chutzpah and spit over his shoulder and stuff. Very limp-wristed. He should try to be more like a white man. Either ignore it, or engage it, but don’t try to do both Larry, you wind up looking like a schmuck. Larry, Larry, Larry. Are you listening? I don’t really care about Jews all that much one way or another, when they’re not in my face. If we separate, I’ll be happy. I don’t want to be your neighbor, Larry. I never will. My children never will. As long as you’re not trying to fuck me, Larry, you shouldn’t mind that I don’t want you in my bed. Whoops, there I go enhancing the local lowness again. Sorry. 35
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:49 | # Has Auster ever explained the upside for whites? He always has it underlying his writing but I’ve never seen him explain it. So I’m always asking myself, why he’s framing things as if there are several unstated premises (e.g., “It’s really important that Euros have Jews around”), with which I agree, when in fact I do not agree. What’s so great about Jews that we need to figure out a way to keep them, despite all their malfeasance? The only answer I ever come up with on my own is “so Jews won’t smash our faces in,” which I don’t find persuasive. To Auster’s “half-Jewish” “white nationalist,” interlocutor, that’s too long a title. I suggest you have to lose half of it for it to work. 36
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:22 | # Hey Lar, uhm, Prozium has a pretty good point here:
Could you respond to that? Directly? Without changing the subject? I mean, if you have time what with your busy schedule (guy’s gotta wash his eyeballs after seeing a site as debauched as MR) and all. 37
Posted by danielj on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:48 | #
Not one of those applies to me. Here is me Lar: monotheism, 6 day creationism, spiritualism, fatalism, VanTillian presuppostitionalism, moderate White racism, moderate anti-Semitism (Jews should be barred from control of unions, teaching, law, entertainment, media, etc) 38
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:58 | #
“Jews as jews”? As opposed to what? Jews as Koreans? Western Civilization is a racial construct. It exists whenever and wherever European Man exists….be it today or five thousand years ago. Your people, on the other hand, come from the Orient. They evolved in a completely different environment and developed a completely different set of social principles, morals and civilizational tendencies. In fact I’ll provide a visual aid to illustrate my point. Your people come from a place called Palestine. Here is a map of The West. Aside from showing the edges of four non-Western nations (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Turkey) which border The West, the map shows only The West. Do you see Palestine there?
The above is so preposterous in its mockery of American society and Western Civilization that Auster looses any momentum in his build up to present himself as sincere.
What is so difficult to understand? The West is people of indigenous European descent. That excludes the following: Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Cherokee Indians, Arabs, Turks, Africans, Gypsies, Huns, Jews and so on. The matrix of Western Civilization is spelled, D….N….A.
When have we done that?
Wow! You sure phrased that dramatically. Of course no one here has stated or implied any such thing, but the question mark sure makes it look self evidential! Whoops, sorry for the sarcasm. You were on a hyperbole-roll and I’m just being ants at a picknick aren’t I…
Allow me to help Hannon finish his thought there, “When I read such anti-Semitic views and their erudite justifications, I often wonder why it is that they cannot see the Jews as an important catalytic force within the humanity of the West. That they can’t come to honor, revere and yes damnit, I’ll say it, even come to worship Jews as the true embodiment of all that is good and noble about the Human spirit. For lo, are not the Jewish people come unto the lowly Gentile to lift-eth him up-eth? To bring unto him the great Western Matrix? Yay! For surely do-eth the goy cry out for our benevolent guidance. And truly we shall, though we endure much persecution-eth, oblige. ”
I don’t know Mike, I think it might spring up when people who self-identify as Semitic also boast of their power and subversive influence over gentile nations…http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1191257286817 Antisemitism might also appear to be wide spread because people who self-identify as Semitic blame everything from stale coffee to bad weather on the sinister actions of, the everywhere-but-nowhere, anti-Semites.
Before you go lavishing too much praise on him Mike, you may want to read through his blog a little closer. He’s been “persecuted” by jew and Gentile alike. He’s currently being “persecuted” by Paul Gottfried…a jew. But every week it’s a new person or organization that is “persecuting” him. . It’s certainly an effective tactic. It’s been, at times, successfully employed by jews, Christians and Muslims alike through the ages. . 39
Posted by Bruce Graeme on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:13 | # @ the Narrator (on January 10, 2009, 05:51 PM) said: In the European populations various “original” stocks are blended (Celtic, Nordic, Mediterranean and Mongolian). In his “Essai sur l’inegalite des races” (1853-55), the Count de Gobineau argued that Europe had inferior and superior races. He claimed that the English, not the Germans, are the best modern representatives of the Aryans - whose blood was least degraded by mixture with inferior stocks, because in England the stock has been better protected by the insularity of Britain. Modern racialists soft-pedalled Gobineau’s ideas and, Auster’s “unprincipled exception” is an extreme example of this. “White” has become a designation that fluctuates: it’s funny how now the Jews are considered white (while South Americans of equal pallor are considered Latino) and not a minority, so these minority groups can wreak havoc. If Jews are considered white, so Arabs are considered white. But, in fact they, are both Semitic - they have nothing to do with the Aryan race. 40
Posted by Diamed on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:40 | # @narrator:
lol. good stuff. Let me remember to thank the jews for christianity, communism, egalitarianism, feminism, and all the other ‘catalysts’ they’ve given the white race for the selfless sake of our wonderful development from the knuckle-dragging neanderthals we all were before the god-chosen jews arrived. 41
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:58 | #
Well gee, I guess that settles it. .
And to think, only seconds earlier (and in the same comment) you were arguing for the past-tense fluctuation of the definition of White.
Jews aren’t considered White now (accept, vaguely, by the census alone) ... 42
Posted by danielj on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:26 | #
Most of the people on MR would say Larry is doing it because of his genes and not entirely on the conscious level. A lot of us would say that Larry isn’t out to undermine the White race but that it is easier and most comfortable for Jews to be parasites on the White race instead of, say, the Mongoloid race that they do not phenotypically resemble at all, so it is in the best interest of the Jews to advance the cause of Whites. How come the Jews always bitch of Christians being the anti-Semites? Only over at Auster’s site have Jews made peace with Christianity. In fact most Jews consider Jesus and His band of followers to be the original anti-Semites so it is strange that you refer to anti-Semitism as an outgrowth of atheism. Then again, another poster has suggested that everything from bad coffee to stale bread gets blamed on anti-Semitism so I imagine that you Jews see it everywhere.
Now that is impressive. How did two groups of people that hate each other so much get together and make a baby?
That is only a concern for limp-wristed “traditionalists.” We don’t have that “problem” over here because we aren’t desperate for Jewish approval.
Now you are really confused. That is a problem for your HOST population to solve, not you.
So it is bad for “Gentiles” to see a problem and come to correct conclusions about it? I wonder why you think that?
And do you believe your “discussions” make you eminently more qualified than Professor MacDonald who has proved with a little more documentation that they do instinctively hate the White race?
So genetic Jews become White hating liberals because it is what American Jews do? That contradicts what you just wrote. Unless you believe in the “spontaneous culture” arising out of something outside of genetics than Jews hate Whites and become liberals instinctively.
Because you are a Jew.
In my “years on the street” living, working and partying in majority-minority neighborhoods I’ve never met anybody that understood the Jewish Question.
I think you didn’t stay a liberal because of the moderately anti-Israel minoirty students at you college which you perceived as anti-Semitism. Full stop.
Well then I ask you “traditionalists” to judge all those Muslims, Brothers and Browns as individuals - nothing more. You see, Larry really refuses to apply the law to Jews. You understand your hypocrisy yet Larry? You understand how everybody sees right through you?
Yes, but don’t Jews wage their wars by deception? How can we trust them if they support Obama by overwhelming majority but don’t state their support as Jews? If they support open borders by overwhelming majority but not as “Jews?”
Why don’t you let us in the majority send those fucking rabble rousing “bad” kikes over to the Gaza strip to terrorize innocent rock throwing Palestinians?
It is only possible if Jews are barred from practicing law, medicine, psychology, teaching, their religion, etc.
We are working on that over here at MR.
I don’t think anyone here is interested in seeing Western Civ collapse. That is a laughable assertion. It is equally laughable that Western Civ would collapse without the participation of the Jews.
As a theist, I think their linchpin dogma is their atheistic materialism.
Erudite is correct. We are not a bunch of knuckle-draggers deserving of denigration and our views should be engaged. They aren’t secret cabals, they are open Kaballas. Even the Jews talk openly about how powerful and rich and influential they are. We are in the know ova here nigga. We read the Jerusalem Post and Y-net and shit.
Yes. You philo-Semites are so much clearer thinkers than us, not content to settle for an easy solution, but rather, to carefully examine all facets of what ails us Westerners and come to proper conclusions.
We are intellectually lazy and indolent?
Liberalism is a Jewish philosophy. Just like communism.
Nobody here takes the easy way out. Just judge us as anti-Semites as individuals. 43
Posted by Ralph on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:49 | # Since I’m new to this site and have come over from VFR (which I read for a while but became disgusted with for the same reasons as many here have) I will add my small observations on what motivates Auster and why White Nationalism has no use for him. Although Auster has written many true and cogent observations about the state of Western society, his prescriptions for remedy either do not go far enough or, as many here have pointed out, incorporate his own version of the unprincipled exception he decries in others. The problem with Auster is that he has a prophet complex stemming directly from what I presume to be the same upper-middle or upper class upbringing as all those leftist multicults desperate to usher in the new post-racial world. Crossing over into ‘anti-semitism’ I would say that it is a very jewish prophet complex. Time and again he reminds us about how he was the first to bring to our attention the evils of mass immigration. Wrong. Those of us from the working class neighborhoods in the outer boroughs knew this first hand, as our neighborhoods were transformed overnight, with much pain involved. From what I understand he lives on the Upper West Side, where I doubt he’s had hispanic or Caribbean gangsters move in next door and turn their place into a drug den/brothel. From my point of view his warnings sound just a tad hollow. Even worse is his idiotic assertion that nearly everyone in the West is a liberal steeped in multicult think. He divides us all into ‘left liberals’ or ‘right liberals’ (with freepers he may have a point). Who’s left? Why he, of course, the only true conservative to warn us with his eternal ‘I told you so’. As for so-called paleo-cons like Pat Buchanan, well, they don’t count since they’re, predictably, anti-semites. Auster does not know or understand the great bulk of people in this country and Europe that do not and have not ever bought into the insane ideology that rules today. Auster takes our past silence as assent, ignoring completely all the economic and social pressure, with real consequences to one’s livelihood, to conform. People with kids rightly don’t take principled stands when it means they could lose their jobs. That, however, is changing and we are now seeing everyday folk begin to express more openly and hostily what they’ve felt along. Right-liberal my ass! In a word, Auster is a bloodless pedant, engaged in endless over-intellectualizing about things which cause real pain to real people, floating in some abstract space while ironically decrying the ‘propositional nation’. I may be wrong, but my opinion is that he does not feel in his bones what is happening, in the way that so many of us has been forced to. Whatever usefulness he´s had to WN is long over. Since I’m new and as a preface to a reply to Bruce Graeme I will say that I am an American of full southern italian ancestry and consider myself fully white. If southern Italy was swarmed with swarthies my family seems to have escaped the flood, what with all the red or light brown hair and some blue and green eyes and nary a hook nose insight (mostly aquiline). I mention this not because it’s of any great importance but because I might suggest to you (Bruce, that is) that your seeming preoccupation with true aryanism (only from these posts. I’ve yet to read your others) is akin to Auster’s own about the Jews, i.e., more than impractical at this juncture. If you are to build a White Nationalist movement on this basis you will find yourself rather short of numbers and antagonizing other whites who fully share Europe’s heritage. I might also add that, at least in the U.S., it was precisely those ethnic groups you mention as jockeying for ‘the Whitest’ prize that, alongside the jews, put us in this position in the first place. All those self-righteous Yankee BlueBlood abolitionist types or those hyper-liberals in Minn., e.g., all of good German or Scandanavian stock. I suggest you all get on the same page. You seem to know a lot about European history but perhaps you are missing the forest for the trees, that Europe’s history is an organic whole from Greece and Rome up to the lands of the Eddas. So Wagner and Verdi had a rivalry and Chaucer cribbed Bocaccio and Machiavelli’s hook nose found itself all over Europe. Without engaging in an argument over genetics (which I won’t) I’m not also going to accept the idea that somehow the Mediterranean cultures were more ‘Nordic’ in the past (what a very Afrocentric notion!). One walk in the Greek/Roman wing at the Met and I see some of my uncles among the busts. Vespasian, though, does look rather English. I’m not saying you made that argument but this is my only post of the thread and I am perhaps anticipating a bit. My point is that none of this White/maybe-White bantering makes sense with real and unequivocal non-whites battering down the door. Which is not to say that it is invalid to bring these themes up. Just not right now. 45
Posted by friendly word of advice on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:41 | # Ralph, Unless you are an extreme masochist, you will soon learn you are at the wrong blog. Good luck, though… 46
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:52 | # No, ‘friendly word of advice’, sounds like you are at the wrong blog. Don’t take any notice of the troll Ralph. 47
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:50 | #
Is that like being vaguely pregnant? Bruce, This article may be of interest, Who is White?: Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:37 | # Desmond, according to you, what is the interest of that article you linked? I see no interest in it whatsoever apart from for purposes of keeping tabs on the latest sophistries of the enemy (for those with strong stomachs). No “social definition of white” interests our side, only biological definitions of white. That “social definition of white” stuff is pure Noël Ignatiev, Desmond, and “who the Jews consider white” doesn’t interest me, only “who is white” interests me. Kosher-certified “white” (weiss) doesn’t interest me. Before you know it, the “Jewish social definitions of white” if left up to the likes of Ignatiev and the rest of the Jewish college professors (and their goy collabos and dupes like President Bush and See the Boring Disgrace) will start classifying rap star “50 cent” and Iron Mike Tyson as “white.” Count me out of that crap, Desmond. Skimming through that article you linked accomplished only two things in my case: 1) set my teeth on edge; 2) made my skin crawl. THIS WHOLE BUSINESS OF “SOCIALLY DEFINED WHITENESS” IS JEWISH ATTACK STRATEGY IN THE JEWISH-EURO TRIBAL WARS NOW IN THEIR FIFTEENTH DECADE. Desmond, there’s a limit to the north-south stuff. The limit is reached when, like Dienekes, a guy starts cutting off his own group’s nose to spite his own group’s face. That’s what Dienekes does. Don’t you start. Orientals and Hispanics may be weiss in future but they won’t be white, Desmond. Not by any kvetsch of the imagination. 49
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:22 | # From the article Desmond links: “For those who consider race to be a biological fact rather than a social and political one, Yancey’s projection is sure to raise eyebrows.” At least there is this feint toward objectivity. “In the chapter “How to be White,” Yancey covers ground commonly discussed by practitioners of what is becoming institutionalized as “whiteness studies,” including the racialized discrimination and nativism that different European ethnic groups faced before they eventually became socially accepted by Anglos and then later by a more expansive pan-European race simply known as “white.”” I think it is accurate to say that this is the commonly accepted definition of “whiteness”: a “pan-European race.” “Since it is generally argued that these ethnic groups were able to assimilate into whiteness because they had similar phenotypes and could trace their roots to Europe – a point Yancey acknowledges…” Sure, all of that, but what about the genotype?
Hmm, looks like the genetic evidence supports the “pan-European race” assessment as well. “– what makes Who is White? so provocative is its author suggests that European phenotype or ancestry will no longer be prerequisites for becoming white.” LOL! Is that why all the “Anglos” are fleeing California? Because the mestizoes are just so darn White? “Yancey concludes, “The rejection of African Americans, rather than the acceptance of European Americans, is the best explanation of social distance in the United States.”” Blacks always think the world revolves around them, when in fact most people would rather just avoid them. “Most importantly, Yancey’s findings hint at possible inadequacies of current approaches to “multiracial” America, most of which emphasize a white/non-white paradigm that minimizes or outright dismisses the reality of antiblack racism as the structuring and generative ideology of US race relations and social inequality.” Yancey wants Asians and mestizoes to be considered White so blacks can continue to be at the head of the line for free handouts because of their exclusive status as “oppressed” “victims”. Sorry Yancey, you and the homeys are going to have to work for your handouts. LOL! 50
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:50 | # Fred, The fluidity of whiteness, is the interesting component and supports Bruce’s position. Ever heard of the term ‘non Hispanic white’, Fred? It’s too late, Hispanics are already considered white, even the mestizos. White is of no interest at all Fred. It’s used when it serves the ethnic interests of particular groups, as in ‘unequivocal non-whites [are] battering down the door’ but considered a slur when the Irish Catholic Mr. Sears and Resisting Defamation are lumped in with the evil ‘Americans’. “You muther fuckin’ whites enslaved my people!” “No, no we’re the diverse whites living in America. We suffered too, brother. It’s not us it’s that white guy over there you want.” It means nothing when the diverse whites celebrate their triumph over Americans. It has meaning when ‘white supremacists’ draw upon Murray’s work to support their thesis when, according to Murray, 80% of the ‘human accomplishment’ in Europe derives from a particular group of people. Limits to the North-South stuff? No sir, it’s only just beginning. 51
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:52 | #
Once, after someone here told HiberniaGirl this was an English blog and English-owned (she had thought it was an American blog), GW came on and said no, it wasn’t “an English blog,” it was a blog “for all folk of European ancestry everywhere.” Do you think you’re violating the spirit of the blog, Desmond, with your attitude? And the other thing is, does it feel good knowing you’re probably Silver’s best and most useful ally here, in helping, whether wittingly or unwittingly, to get the job done which Silver logs on here in order to advance (namely, splitting us into “north” and “south”)? No second thoughts about your attitude, Desmond? I fundamentally agree with you and also “n/a” (“Northerner”), and I feel your attitude when judiciously translated into this or that approach actually makes for the strongest type of “WN,” the type least vulnerable to overthrow by the Jews and their race-replacing allies, as I said the other day in tentatively endorsing an idea put forth by Svigor (an idea which led “Fascist” to talk about “bashing”). Although “Fascist” said I had misunderstood something about Norman Lowell’s “regionalism,” I still think your idea dovetails well with Lowell. BUT: you overdo it. You overdo it to the point of potentially causing harm by straying into the sort of “bashing” which “Fascist” (JWH) warned about. Fundamental to Lowellism is recognition of broad Euro kinship notwithstanding separation into partially autonomous sub-racial ethnocultural regions. Your approach, Desmond, neglects that underlying unity and kinship-based mutual good will. Anglo-Saxons cannot and should not “go it alone” in struggling to emerge from this Jewish-induced mess in one piece, genetically intact. They can’t go it alone. They’ll need help. Help from, yes, their kin. 52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:28 | #
The spirit of the blog is not violated. These are issues worthy of discussion under the auspices of the above. Western culture, as is slowly becoming evident is an artificial construct, almost assuredly, an ethnic strategy of Jewish origin. It never existed prior to the early twentieth century. It is an issue certainly worthy of discussion and was posited here long before silver ever arrived. Unlike you this writer puts little credence in ‘feel good’ stuff. He goes where the evidence takes him. If you are presenting something other than “touchy feely, don’t you care what they think about you stuff”, then great, it will be examined with great interest, if not it’s of little value. The point is there is only mutual good will when it serves ethnic interests. The ethnic aggression against the founding American people has been evident for more than a century and remains unabated, whether its Jews, Asians or diverse Whites. All you need do is read Resisting Defamation. With kin like that, who needs enemies. N/A and Drew Fraser are correct. There is nothing to be gained by going there. 53
Posted by Des-tard on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:29 | # Easy now, Des-tard. You have Silver shaking in his boots.
Where would that be, Des-tard? How’s that multi-millennial battle with the Jews going? Let me guess, always the victim and never the victor? That should be your battle cry from now on.
And your contribution is? Aside from stewing anonymously and pointing fingers on the net, that is. Give me JWH, Rnl, Resisting Def, and Ralph any day of the week. With them, something may get accomplished. You, make yourself useful and go cry in n-tard’s nutsack about your victimhood. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:45 | # Desmond, Maybe I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but I’m having difficulty understanding your criticism of Bo Sears’ Resisting Defamation. I guess you accuse him of using pan-Europeanism, or Whiteness, cynically so as to advance the ethnic interests of non-northwestern European Whites at the expense of northwestern European Whites. But in what way does he accomplish this by stressing the diversity of White Americans; in fact in contrast to the way most White Americans view themselves - as generically White? If White Americans viewed themselves in the way he apparently wishes them to (as Europeans of diverse origin) would that not be an improvement on the current state of things consistent with what you would wish? “With kin like that, who needs enemies.” Now just what would well intentioned kin do? Fold up their tents and fuck off back to Europe? I guess they could make the same criticism of us if that is what we would demand of them. The evidence of the Rosenberg genetic study is clear: Europeans are in fact a genetically distinct group. The cultural achievements of Europeans are utilized, celebrated by, and identified with by all Europeans. That is a fact, there is your Western Civilization. And yes, Murray’s book pretty clearly demonstrates that Germanics have the edge in civilization building capacity amongst Europeans. But does that mean other European peoples have no achievements of their own and cannot share in the achievements of Germanic Europeans by building viable societies of their own utilizing the inventions of Germanics? Does it mean that they are shit, in fact less than shit, and should be cast into the outer darkness? 55
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:16 | # BTW, any supremacism that denies other peoples their moral worth and hence their right to exist is a sure loser. And so is this idea of victory in single combat being the touchstone of individual sovereignty. All of it is the ethos of superiority derived from barbarism - the superior is the best barbarian. To my mind all our creativity is vain if in order to sustain it we must adopt a morality that is lower than that of animals. Why lower than an animal? Because they have no choice in the matter; we are White, at least one can hope that we do. 56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:26 | # Desmond and n/a have misunderstood Bo’s motivation in pointing out the “diversity of white Americans.” Those two suspect it’s an attempt on the part of U.S. and Canadian white “ethnics” (Ukes, Irish Catholics, Greeks, and so forth) to grab for themselves a share of the benefits-laden spoils accruing to groups engaging in organized victimhood. It’s not for that that Bo introduced that concept of “the diverse white Americans,” not at all. It’s simply a way Bo has come up with for fending off the Jews’ insistence (Bo doesn’t call it “the Jews’ insistence,” I do that) that “monolithic, homogeneous, dull, boring, bland, unvaried, undiverse, tired, monotonous, same-old-same-old” white Americans badly need injections of “vibrancy” and “diversity” in the form of non-white races in their communities, lest white people’s own monotony and never-varying dullness put everyone to sleep, most of all themselves. “Getting vibrant races into their communities will be strictly for whites’ own good,” we are constantly assured. Bo answers these attackers by saying whites are NOT monotonous or in need of injections of vibrancy in the form of non-white races brought in. Whites are already highly diverse in and of themselves, thank you very much: diverse languages, cultures, customs, looks, traditional clothing, traditional cuisines, religions, etc., etc., etc. It’s a way of getting the diversitycrats off white backs: “We’re already diverse, so we’re sorry but we’re NOT buying any of your pure “diversity” crap today. In fact, you can take your “vibrancy” and your “diversity” and ... go vibrate and divert them somewhere!” 57
Posted by Des-tard on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:18 | #
I will have to respectfully disagree, dear Fred. A word of advice; careful with the verbiage lest Des-tard finds the need to point out your remnants of Jewish ancestry again. Short fuse, that one. No, it has nothing to do with misunderstanding. It has to do short sighted little men with empty lives in need of void filling. Somebody needs to pay for their worthlessness. Must be them there Eyeties. I guess Des-tard and n-tard haven’t heard of divide and conquer. Nope. Instead of combating the forces that threaten our very existence, Des-tard wants his pound of flesh now. Real selfless team players, these two twats. 58
Posted by Homelander on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:27 | # “Western culture, as is slowly becoming evident is an artificial construct, almost assuredly, an ethnic strategy of Jewish origin.” I would have thought, rather, that the conscious notion of a “Western Civilization” was a product of 19th Century colonialism - when the conquest of non-Western societies required more of a rationale than merely pushing New World savages aside. Prior to the Age of Empires Europe would have conceived of itself as Christendom vs Islam…or simply as “Civilization” compared to previous epochs of darkness and superstition. Still, essentially the same group of societies emerging from the collapsed Roman empire, and suprisingly homogenous, racially, according to the gene studies. Blood will tell. 59
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:35 | #
No that’s like being vaguely White. Like Auster or the next Preziden.
Why would that be of interest to Bruce? Now you’re linking him back to the magical realm where hispanics and Asians will, in the future, magically become “White” even though, having already been here for centuries, they have (for unknown reasons) yet to take that magical tranformative journey. Funny how no one ever suggests Indians will take the mystical journey into Whitedom despite the fact that many of them have become Christian, taken Anglo names and have been in the United States since the early days.
You don’t understand the label or its application. There are indeed White Hispanics. Rita Hayworth, Catherine Bach (aka Daisy Duke), Andy Garcia, Joanna Kerns (the mom from ‘Growing Pains’), etc… But many hispanics in the US are labeled White because they are forced to by the choices the census offers. And I would add that the census defines the following peoples as “White” as well; jews, Turks, Persians, Arabs, Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians and various other groups from North Africa and the middle-east. White people do not consider any of those people White. None of those people consider themselves White. As I said before, they aren’t considered White anywhere…... accept, vaguely, by the census alone. “becoming White” falls into the same pseudo-historical reality as Kwanzaa… . 60
Posted by silver on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:03 | #
That is patent nonsense. Firstly, civilizations have identifiable features which enable us to distinguish them. Just as a fish lives in ‘water’ whether it is aware of that fact or not, so too did “westerners” live in (well, create and live in) something we can call “western civilization,” whether or not they saw themselves as doing so. Secondly, a civilization can exist outside of race. Whether you like it or not, a country composed of silvers and Larry Austers would operate like, sound like and feel like “western civilization” (it’d just “look” less like it). There’d be slight differenes, to be sure—we can’t completely ignore race. But if it was possible for he and I to adopt its ways as our own, what does anyone imagine we’d pass on to our children? Hence, continuity. (I can assure you I wouldn’t be feeling any pressing need to add Maori ooga-booga dancing to the mix.) That said, it’s not only incredibly irresponsible to expect foreigners to carry on your civilization, it’s very silly. The basic experience has certainly been that, aside from a few exceptions, foreigners don’t want to carry it on and, if you let them (as you have), they will change it. Racial preservation is an entirely separate (and completely legitimate) question. Narrator, I can respect your racial passion, but I can’t see how it does your cause any good whatsoever to go spouting such easily refutable nonsense at learned men like Larry Auster, especially on issues that lie outside of racial preservation/racial nationalism. (Personally, I agree that he’s insincere; or that his sincerity only extends as far as the prospect of his inclusion. But that doesn’t make him wrong or insincere about everything.) Oh, and Auster, one tires of your lie that WNs don’t want Jews to live anywhere. That’s only true of some posters here (usually the dumbest). A territorial partition would certainly make room for Jews. That idea hasn’t taken off, unfortunately. Usually the same people who’d prefer Jews not to live anywhere, aren’t particularly enthusiastic about anyone else living anywhere else either—they want it all (all all). That’s just another way bad racialism drives out good. But you, Larry, you could make the point about partition, even if to rebut it. Why don’t you? 61
Posted by Bruce Graeme on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:52 | # the Narrator said: “Here is a map of The West. Aside from showing the edges of four non-Western nations Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Turkey) which border The West, the map shows only The West.” (on January 11, 2009, 08:58)
ANSWER:
“Stoddard divided the white race into three main divisions: Nordic, Alpine, and MEDITERRANEAN (= Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Turkey). He considered all three to be of good stock, and far above the quality of the colored races.” “Stoddard was less concerned with which varieties of European people were superior to others (Nordic theory), but was more concerned with what he called “bi-racialism,” seeing the world as being composed of simply black and white races.” 62
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:30 | #
Silver, what I wrote and what you said above don’t contradict one another. Western Civilization is a byproduct of genetics. It is the natural environment Europeans (naturally) construct for themselves.
What are you? I missed that. As to your point, yes, they can look and sound like Westerners. It’s called parroting. Israel has a veneer of Westernness about it, yet no one in their right mind would call it Western. Any more than they would call modern Brazil Western. And historically, your assertion offers no evidence at all.
If it were easily refutable it would be self-evident. It isn’t so it’s not.
I never said it did.
That’s great Bruce. Now explain to me how the above translates into a national policy which precluded some, or part, of European immigrants from officially be considered White in the United States in years gone bye. .... 63
Posted by Bruce Graeme on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:33 | # 1/ the Narrator: “Now explain to me how…. “ - Cf. GOBINEAU (Posted by on January 11, 2009, 09:13 AM) 2/ the Narrator on January 11, 2009, 08:58 AM: “As long as Europeans have existed as a distinct sub-species of Homo sapiens, their social environment has been Western Civilization. Your people, on the other hand, come from the Orient. They evolved in a completely different environment and developed a completely different set of social principles, morals and civilizational tendencies. In fact I’ll provide a visual aid to illustrate my point. Your people come from a place called Palestine.”
64
Posted by Prozium on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:43 | # Auster has more to say about us on his blog: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012275.html I point out his insincerity again here: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/01/12/larry-auster-a-sincere-western-patriot/ 65
Posted by Prozium on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:28 | # The discussion at VFR proceeds from a sloppy straw man, “their entire thought process is driven and determined by group competition for genetic reproduction,” and concludes in Larry’s self serving grand insight that “truth” is a “meaningless and impossible concept to them.” The point of this little exercise is to dodge the question that is being raised: is Larry Auster motivated by ethnic self interest? The answer is, yes, he plainly is; ethnic self interest explains why Larry supports the transfer of Palestinians from Israel, but opposes the transfer of radical, anti-white Jews from America. It explains why he consistently comes to drastically different conclusions from other racialists regarding the Jews. He doesn’t apply his own law to the Jews. He jettisons his commitment to Western civilization in support of Jews. He even relapses into textbook liberalism, his own unprincipled exception, in defense of Jews. 66
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:31 | #
ONCE MORE, Bruce......where is the documentaion for the asertion that there was once a policy in the United States which precluded European Immigrants from being called White? Time to put up or shut up. As for your questions…Mediterranean is a Sea, not a race of people. Or rather, how close to the actual sea itself does one have to reside to be Mediterranean? And I wrote above, The West is people of indigenous European descent. ... .
How can anybody read the above and take him seriously? Setting aside the slanders and false charges he tosses about, Re-read the above and ask yourself, “why then do jews feel the need to continue being jewish?” ... 67
Posted by Prozium on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:33 | # At VFR, “Hannon” writes:
Imagine what America would be like today without decades of Jewish influence. What if Franz Boas and his colleagues had not undermined the concept of race in the 1920s and 1930s? What if America had never entered the Second World War? What if the motion picture industry had continued to produce pro-white films like The Birth of a Nation? What would our immigration policy be like today? What if the United States had an America First foreign policy? What if Jews had not been around to fund and organize the Civil Rights Movement? How would the social sciences have progressed without deleterious Jewish influence in political science, psychology, anthropology, and sociology? What if Jewish historians were not around to demonize America’s racial past? What would our universities be like without whiteness studies and political correctness? What would America be like without its Jewish ideals of multiculturalism and diversity? Clearly, white racialists have no regard for the things that have made America civilized! 68
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:34 | #
That should read, The jews are no more indigenous to The West than Gypsies are. 69
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:46 | #
We aren’t. There is no pinnacle of human evolution. Each race evolved to its own current place to most effectively navigate the environment they were in. Not all environments were equally difficult to navigate though. People evolved to different IQ’s, Morals, Standards, etc….
You’re not only a slanderous twit but an illiterate as well. The argument for the need to remove what’s left of Christianity from the Civilization which it has leached off of for centuries has been laid out here in detail.
Prozium answered that one well enough… . 70
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:21 | # Paul Gottfried on why rich WASPs need to open their wallets: “The problem is we can’t stop this process of marginalization and the ongoing defamation unless we can launch a devastating counteroffensive, and that would take megabucks and a sponsor like the vile Rupert Murdoch. Let’s face it! Our enemies have done a brilliant job turning us into non-persons, and they will continue to do so until we can get hold of the kind of weapons they have turned against us. Then we can bomb away while getting personally noticed.” Paul Gottfried on how the neocons play dirty by allowing no opposition to their right: “For decades now the neoconservatives, with ample assistance from their (predominantly Jewish) liberal friends, have been playing the same game, pretending that they’ve no opposition on the right, except for unnamed “anti-Semites” inhabiting a fever swamp.” Hmm, kinda like with faileocons and White Nationalists? http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/counterattacking_the_smearbund/ 71
Posted by Prozium on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:31 | # What is a paleocon “devastating counteroffensive”? 72
Posted by n/a on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:36 | # Bruce, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Stoddard’s “bi-racialism” has nothing to do with “seeing the world as being composed of simply black and white races.” I’ve dealt with this before. Fred, I’ve misunderstood nothing. I’m well aware of “Resisting Defamation’s” purported mission, and I think the idea is fine. My problem is specifically with Bo’s implicit and explicit attacks on founding-stock Americans. 73
Posted by Dharma Chakra on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:47 | # While we are on the topic of “white supremacy” let us not forget that “liberalism” a favorite subject of criticism around here, is indeed one of the unique features of “white culture” and one that draws praise around the world. Many people even leave their own lands to flock to the shores of white countries that are more liberal than their own. So obviously there is some good in this white liberalism otherwise why is it so sought after the world over? 74
Posted by Bruce Graeme on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:54 | # the Narrator: 1/ Prior to 1890, 82% of immigrants came from north and western Europe. From 1891 to 1920, that number dropped to 25%, with a rise in immigrants from East, Central, and South Europe summing up to 64%. Animosity towards these different and foreign immigrants rose in the United States, resulting in much legislation to limit immigration.
75
Posted by Bruce Graeme on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:13 | # @ the Narrator: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=504267 Madison Grant- scientific racism
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/09/madison_grant_a.php
76
Posted by Loriver on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:43 | #
Justifying ethnic nepotism means justifying an ethic in which adaptiveness is the criterion - such as adaptive utilitarianism, discussed by Frank Salter in OGI. We are capable of demonstrating that ethnic nepotism is adaptive, but the other (relatively easy, but generally missed out) part must follow, otherwise our position could be considered to rest upon an is/ought fallacy. The issue of who is the same race as us and thereafter what action we should take is a matter for the first question, ‘What do we think is adaptive?’, rather than the second ‘Why is action based on genetic interests/adaptiveness justified?’ The limits are defined in the former rather than the latter question; at least that is if we want to adopt a pure ethic of adaptiveness, which is the most straightforward option and probably what the majority here have in mind. So to make my point, the response to this quote is that race, or genetic interests in general, is a value in itself. However, this does not inevitably lead to us advocating cruder forms of racialism (e.g. Nazism, genocide) because the question of what is adaptive must take into account such things as public opinion/support, confidence in the distinctiveness of different ethnic groups, the likelihood that, at least as far as white men are concerned, the overly agressive pursuit of EGI in the modern non-tribal environment will result in a fitness bubble and subsequent net loss, rather than permanent gains, etc.
From my perspective as a Briton (which is substantially different from that of a Greek, or a generic white American for example), in matters of immigration the race in question should be the British race; hence all mass immigration ends. As regards deportation from Britain, the race in question is the European race - although this could be modified to exclude the recently arrived Eastern Europeans, or extended to the border of Pakistan if that improved the overall prospects. This involves what is possibly a somewhat arbitrary distinction between SE Europeans and their Turkish neighbours, but it is justifiable on the basis of practicality (in multiple respects) - it is a distinction based on what is adaptive, rather than some general prejudice. Ethnostate formation is more an issue for Americans at the moment, but I would lean towards pan-Europeanism on that point as well. One thing I will add is that the word ‘white’ causes problems, and we might be better off using European or European-derived instead. This kills two birds with one stone, namely the idea that skin colour defines race, and the issue of imprecision. We can then also refer to the Northern European race, the Caucasian race etc. and ethnic nepotism becomes an issue of optimisation taking into account all degrees of relatedness. 77
Posted by Diamed on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:54 | # But Bruce! They were all white! Three sub-races, all white! Why do you insist we didn’t think of all Europeans as white with quotes that clearly show we did think of them as white! This debate is such lunacy. There are easily distinguishable differences between white sub-groups. This in no way precludes that there is an overarching white race. White is people of European descent—there is no shilly-shallying about the term white, no expanding or shrinking thereof, it is not a ‘construct’ but simple genetic reality. Narrator was pointing out jews aren’t white because they are not of european descent. Palestine is not in Europe. End of story! 78
Posted by Dharma Chakra on Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:55 | #
79
Posted by Ralph on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:03 | # That guy way up there was right. I really am in the wrong blog. I sincerely believe that you people here are far more intelligent and educated than I am. One would think that that would be of great value. But, respectfully, reading this thread kind of reminds me of those 3-D postcards that you tilt back and forth to see the little guy in the lederhosen waving back at you (but in this case he seems to be giving me the finger). This is not much different than VFR, really, where Auster and his coterie wax philosophic while I am there scanning and hard pressed to find anything that will actually contribute to solving the problem at hand. At least at a place like Stormfront, even though I have to endure the ‘Meds are Muds’ posts and the Hitler worship, I can at least get some good firearms and survival habitat tips I have been through this before. When my neighborhood was overrun with real non-whites who started to cause real problems I tried to get my neighbors to band together and see if we couldn’t at least mitigate some of the quality of life issues. To little avail, since they were selling into the rising prices and, at that time in the early ‘90s, we all thought that there was always Massapequa or White Plains to run to. I called and talked to the local precinct, where the regular cops and even a couple of lieutenants I got to know definitely sympathized, but their hands were tied (but hey, Auster would say that they’re ‘right-liberals’ unable to see the danger only he…) Then I emailed and visited city councilmen, state assembymen and senators. I didn’t bother with my Washington reps and my, uh, senators, Hillary and Schumer. I wrote to the papers, who never published my letters and even visited some local papers such as the Queens Chronicle, whom I naively thought would be on the side of we ‘long-time residents’, as I learned to put it in this PC age. When I saw the baby-boom jewish ladies that seemed to run the place I knew it was over. So for 14 years from ‘92 when it began to 2006 when I finally left I got to see first hand the degradation of the place I grew up in. I got to see my car broken into or stolen repeatedly, neighbors throwing garbage on my property and graffittying my house deliberately (because they knew I complained), as well as enduring frequent loud and rowdy parties, I was threatened and glowered at just because I was white (maybe I should have had Bruce Graeme there to explain to them that I was really a mud, just like them). I saw the elderly treated shamelessly. An old friend of mine had her house firebombed by some guy, who thought it was someone elses house. I saw burned out cars. I got to fear for my wife and child. And on and on. And I am definitely one of the lucky ones. There are millions of us who have gone through the same and much worse, like all those white women victims of rape and those killed by drunks on the highway and on and on, all throughout the white world. So I apologize to all of you for having wasted your time. I’m sure that this is a very, very important conversation you are having here and I’ll let you get back to it. I sincerely wish you all the very best of luck in whatever future awaits us. 80
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:30 | # In your opinion, Ralph, who exactly is running race-replacement? You can’t fight an enemy you can’t see. The first step is to know who’s doing it. It’s not happening by itself. Someone, some group, is consciously running it — planning it, planning the stifling of all criticism of it, and so forth. Who? Exactly who?. No mincing of words, no holding back, no resort to euphemisms. Plain language. Once we know who, we can more effectively strike back. Until we know who, we can’t strike back. As long as we don’t know who, we’re floundering, flailing ineffectually like a boxer in a boxing match wearing a hood over his head who can’t see where the punches are coming from that are continually landing on his jaw. Who? Who’s doing it? In fewest words, plainest language please. Sum it up in one sentence. 81
Posted by Prozium on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:57 | # I’m still waiting for Larry or his minions to respond to the points raised above. If Larry is a sincere Western patriot, why does he have one standard for Jews and another for Gentiles? 82
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:10 | # Ethnic aggression is a bitch, ain’t it Ralph. Altoona:
It’s a bitch when your neighbours suck too. Not many Americans in Queens or Brooklyn. Wonder what happened? Some main European ancestries in Queens, 2000:[49] * Italian: 8.4% In the 2000 Census, the following percentages of Brooklyn residents self-reported these European ancestries:[18] * Italian: 7.5% Surely, you don’t live in the Bronx?
Damn, there goes the neighbourhood! 83
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:38 | # On the subject of VFR, by the way, look at this upcoming conference where Auster will be a speaker: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012102.html Among the speakers there will be a Vdare.com contingent too: Peter Brimelow and Brenda Walker. Here’s the organizing outfit’s home page: http://preservingwesternciv.com/index.html Here’s the list of those who’ll speak at the conference: http://preservingwesternciv.com/speakers.html This conference promises to be something really, really major, are the vibes I get from looking at these announcements. And yes, I know Prof. Hart, the conference organizer, is the one who disrupted that Amren meeting by shouting at Dr. David Duke, and many on our side hold that against him. I for one warmly welcome both Dr. Duke’s and Prof. Hart’s support for an end to the current Eurospherewide official government policy of forced race-replacement of all white people, changing them into Negroes, mulattoes, mestizos, Orientals, or the other varieties of non-white. (I have nothing against the existence of the world’s non-whites. I just don’t want every white man, woman, child, and old person on the planet Earth forcibly changed into them by government. I feel Western governments should allow white people to remain ungenocided.) 84
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:33 | # Apart from D.Jones incessant kvetching who here is big on some North-South divide? Not me and Im not aware of it much from anyone else. Hope you do stick around Ralph, you sound like one of the good guys to me. Lurker (English & partly Dutch) 85
Posted by Prozium on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:49 | # It’s going to be just a bunch of conservatives. Nothing worth paying attention to. 86
Posted by Bo Sears on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:09 | # A Small Response To Remarks About Resisting Defamation We use three terms as references to us in the USA. European Americans. Euro-Americans. The diverse white American peoples. Fred has it right about why we emphasize how diverse the white American peoples are. Another big reason is to steer clear of arguments about whether Poles are white, or Irish are white, or whatever. We call these red herrings on the grounds (1) that we don’t have enough activists now such that we can drive away some European Americans, and (2) that such debates are tedious and deflect us from what we believe to be our true purpose—the development of a defensive white political identity. Other reasons for claiming white Americans are diverse is because it is true, and because it becomes a platform for attacking anti-white racialists who use language to smother our diversity by treating us, as Obama did (“a typical white person”), as mere clones of one another. Fighting defamation is only one way to create community awareness and attract white activists. Other ways are programs about European American Diversity (we had a weekly community TV program on that topic that lasted for a year), attacking inaccurate and white-bashing school texts, and on and on. The possibility of creating a public Euro-American voice is extremely possible if you remember one thing—in all your remarks stay white-centric, not other-centric. An example of other-centric speech is, “I don’t like Obama, he is a black African American.” That is not white-centric discourse—it is purely black-centric discourse. We teach this style, “I don’t like Obama because I am afraid of the consequences for the diverse white American parents and children.” That makes Obama an individual, and makes the speaker someone who speaks for all the diverse white Americans, and it relatively immune to attacks that sting. Most white people do not understand this. We have three lessons on the topic of attacking back against defamation that we will send to you if you like. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) 87
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:12 | # If Mr. Sears and Resisting Defamation really believed in creating ‘a defensive white political identity’, then they wouldn’t hide behind behind ethnicity. They’d show pride in being ‘typically white’. But, they don’t. If Lurker is dubbed a typical English person, should he proclaim an offence to his English diversity, (if he’s a Geordie) in order to fend off the anti-English racialists? Or should he be proud of being English? If you’re attacked for being white but run and hide behind your ethnicity it means whiteness holds no meaning. Two quotes from RD:
If not the diverse white Americans, then which whites were responsible. The Americans were responsible, however, the Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Slavic, and Greek were not? White is good when it benefits, white is bad when it doesn’t.
Who did the excluding from Harvard, Princeton and Brown? “Whites”? The “ungrateful nation”? More whites? Anti-white racialists? Who are these nefarious bigoted ungrateful white people? “Americans”? Give it up. White means nothing. 88
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:38 | # I’m white, no question. I mention English & Dutch to point out that I’m pretty much from the the North of Europe in origin, but Ralph isnt going to get any hassle from me. I dont do that to patronizingly allow Ralph to join our club, as far as I’m concerned its his club too. Seems to me the people who are hottest to differentiate between European groups are those most concerned to advance anti-white agendas. Maybe I’m very simplistic but the tired old phrase divide and rule springs to mind. So, silver did a neat job back there, winding up Ralph. I’m struggling to see what we gain from silver’s presence here. 89
Posted by Farewell "Whitey"??? on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:20 | #
From: R.I.P. WHITEY Read the blog here I was especially offended by this statement;
Puh-leeze. We are the ones making those cultures so “vibrant” through our media! 90
Posted by silver on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:33 | # Bunch of heavyweights right there. With a line-up featuring: Larry “You’re losing your civilization and you’re worried about race?” Auster salvation can’t be far off. I’m surprised they couldn’t squeeze Marcus Epstein or Ed Rubinstein in there. Then again, from the panel’s perspective, the point that ending immigration preserves the number of white slaves per capita is probably best left unsaid.
You make a good point. But identity has always been multi-layered. There’s just no easy way around that fact. 91
Posted by silver on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:47 | #
Why not ask the same about Desmond Jones’ or n/a’s presence, Lurker? That’s a serious question. From your “pan-white” perspective, theirs is a presence far more pernicious. My point isn’t that southern europeans aren’t white therefore they should all be anti-racists. My point is that whether or not they’re classed as part of a larger white circle they should advance something we can call “racialism.” Indeed, my point is that everyone should. The only group I can really see resisting such a push is negroes, but then I’ve made the point they’ll suffer tremendously at the hands of people like hispanics if nothing is done, so even they have an interest in “racial reform.” I think racialist argument along such lines stands an infinitely greater chance of public acceptance than “let’s define our white group and go to war against the rest.” Does any of this register (whether you agree or not) in that thick skull of yours? If not, an excellent question would be what does racialism gain from the presence of nutzi losers like Lurker & Co. 92
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:39 | # Apparently Mark Richardson is doing a tell all with Larry.
93
Posted by silver on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:58 | #
So you only began to see the problem when it began affecting you. Hey, Ralph. The US had a negro problem for a long time before 1992. Where were you then, buddy? Don’t tell me, I can guess: the US historically had a southern and eastern euro problem, too. Ah… Don’t shun or run from the larger questions the times force us to confront, Ralph. Hitlerism/nutzi-ism isn’t the only solution. 94
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:21 | #
That’s great Bruce. At your current rate you’re going to have enough material by the end of the year for an introduction to a high school thesis paper on the circumstantial evidence that a handful of people in the twentieth century wrote books illustrating their belief that different groups/classes of people saw each other as different groups/classes of people. You may even be on your way to a Nobel!!!! Unfortunately for us here, you have yet provide a single piece of evidence to back up your assertion that there was an official (or even unofficial) policy in the United States that excluded European immigrants from an official designation of White.
WOw! Seriously,
Your quote obviously illustrates that it was more than ethnic with the word, “Papists”, in there. But your (and Bruce’s) overall point is, with all due respect, kinda dumb. Conflict flares at various points between various groups. When Protestantism first hit England and violence between them and Catholics arose, was that evidence that each group saw the other as non-White? See how dumb that looks? Or, See how dumb that looks?
Or look at some of the historic animosity between the various Protestant sects…..all 30,000 of them. See how dumb that looks? ... 95
Posted by silver on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:15 | # Joe Lieberman’s a filthy kike, but Mike Dukakis is a good European. See how dumb that looks? 96
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:39 | #
Yes I do, which is why I’ve never said anything of the like. Nor tried to use such a half-assed analogy. I don’t use racial slangs (or even think of people in such contexts) and besides that I’ve no idea whether or not Mr. Lieberman is hygienic, let alone if Mr. Dukakis is a good or bad European (what ever that may mean in the context you implied). But as far as I know, Mr. Dukakis’s ancestors are European. They may both be fine, upstanding, individuals. I don’t know, and it isn’t really pertinent to conversation at hand. I don’t know why this is such an issue for you since jews don’t even consider themselves White. Even Auster doesn’t consider himself White as is demonstrated by his verbal tirade against MR at his site. My overall view on the subject of race (and I’ve stated this at my blog several times) is that race is real, race exists. Jews have a right (if not an obligation) to look out after their own and desire to see them thrive. (and in fact they do that without apology) The same goes for black, Asians, Whites, hispanics, Arabs, etc… there is nothing sinister or conspiratorial about any of it. It is just healthy, normal, out-group competition. And just as one or all of those groups attempt to outwit and outmaneuver the others to achieve a better position for its own, the others have an obligation to recognize and counter those moves….be it in finance, politics, philosophies or, what have you. Auster and co. would prefer a selective recognition of this competition. And it is that which people like Prof. MacDonald are addressing in their analysis of group behavior. “Anti-Semitism” and “Racism” are just easy slanders to throw around. You can level such charges against a cold french-fry if you are intellectually vacuous enough to do so. Unfortunately there are a great many such people in the world.
97
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:08 | # Silver, Perhaps you haven’t opened your mailbox for a few days, and don’t know that, since IP-banning is almost wholly ineffective, some days ago I requested your cooperation in withdrawing from the blog for several months, at least. This is so the anger you have generated here can dissipate, and you can have the time and space to reflect upon your penchant for controversy and thread-hijacking. I don’t like excluding any sincerely-felt points of view, and I recognise that you hold your views sincerely enough. But as things are the cost of hosting your freedom of speech is too high for me. To that end I have now been forced by your continued commenting to institute a formal ban. It’s easy to get around, as we all know. But I ask you to respect it. Later, perhaps, if you have arrived at a more measured understanding of the cooperative nature of MR we can talk about setting it aside. But not otherwise. 98
Posted by Joe on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:03 | # I’m surprised at how much nonsense from silver and other time wasters you put up with GW. Silver is clearly here just to be contrary and argue. BTW, Ralph, I’ve lived in the NYC metro area most of my life and have met lots of southern Italians and Sicilians who don’t consider themselves white. Some NY/NJ Italians have largely created their own ethnic world apart from mainstream white America. Others are very assimilated. The Italians who settled away from big east coast cities are all very assimilated at this point. 99
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:40 | #
Clearly Ralph falls into the latter category. As for the former we will see how they fare as the non-white demographics move against them. They might be able to hold out as a distinct group but when those evil intolerant WASPs are gone and the tolerant inclusive non-whites dominate… So anyway, Ralph seems to identify as white, I would regard him as white and the problem there is…? 100
Posted by Bruce Graeme on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:39 | # 1/The Narrator wrote (on January 13, 2009, 08:21 AM): you have yet [to] provide a single piece of evidence to back up your assertion that there was an official (or even unofficial) policy in the United States that excluded European immigrants from an official designation of White. Sorry, I can’t provide it. I searched google but still can’t find it. 2/The Narrator wrote (on January 13, 2009, 10:39 AM) that Mr. Lieberman’s ancestors are oriental. And what about Danny Thomas, born Amos Alphonsus Muzyad Yaqoob? He was the son of two Lebanese immigrants!! 3/ May I ask you opinion about the racial approach advocating complete racial separation? Each race would have its own sovereign government and territory. The nation of Northern European peoples could separate itself totally from the non-Northern European peoples now in its midst. (cf. Richard McCulloch, The Ideal and Destiny, chapter X - Partition for Survival) 101
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:17 | #
Thank you! For what it’s worth, admitting that certainly brightens your star to me.
Well Lebanon isn’t in Europe. So, no. Look, what you are getting at is whether or not this group or that group was/is/will be seen as White by some people.
But that was true even for long established British peoples here as well. In David McCullough’s book ‘John Adams’ you get a sense of that. Adams wife, Abagail, referred to Pennsylvania as, “that far away country”, in one of her letters. But with the rest, For one thing a lot of Italians, Greeks, Irish, Germans etc…Anglicized their names upon arrival to the US and were physically indistinguishable from British Americans. And with a multitude of wildly varying accents among those British-descended citizens and local customs, it wasn’t that difficult to blend in to the general “American” identity. Of course when they came in large numbers they stuck out like a sore thumb. Not with Italians. But when Appalachian-Americans moved in large numbers to the upper midwest in search of jobs. These were people who were tall, light haired, blue eyed, multi-generational rural Americans of mostly English and Scotch-Irish extraction moving to an area where the people were tall, light haired, blued eyed multi-generational rural Americans of mostly German, English and Scotch-Irish extraction. In many rural places in the 19th century, if someone was from a different part of the state they were literally referred to as “foreigners”. So how various groups of Europeans were seen or treated at various times doesn’t really reflect how they were viewed racially by other Whites.
At this point I think it’s an unnecessary question. In North America…the short answer. There are still areas of distinct sub-groups. English in New England, Germans in the midwest, Scandinavians in the upper-midwest, Cajuns in New Orleans, Scotch-Irish in Appalachia, Italians in New York and so on. But at this point, Whites (all Whites) are on the verge of a catastrophe of epic proportions. If we survive that, our descendants can arrange whatever type of institutions they see best to serve their purposes in building the best future for themselves possible. . And on that my response would have been similar. I don’t know of an official policy one way or the other. But it’s all academic any way. Obviously many Whites today would view Harrison Ford as White. Yet, he isn’t. Being half jewish he is no more White than Barak Obama is. What I busy myself with on this subject though, is not perception, but reality. 102
Posted by Prozium on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:07 | # Larry is now blaming the WASPs for the Immigration Act of 1965: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/01/13/blame-the-wasps/ 103
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:22 | #
Does that sentence in Auster’s essay “make up for” any of its “shortcomings”? (I’ll come right out and say: I don’t quite understand his essay and I don’t fully understand Bruce Graeme’s questions about it or GW’s critique of it in replying to Graeme. That failure to understand is my fault: there are theories that Auster and GW have dealt with that I just haven’t understood.) 104
Posted by Ralph on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:28 | # You know, I thought I was going to stay away but reading these posts I have to respond, because some of these points are off-the-chart idiotic: “In your opinion, Ralph, who exactly is running race-replacement? You can’t fight an enemy you can’t see. The first step is to know who’s doing it. It’s not happening by itself. Someone, some group, is consciously running it — planning it, planning the stifling of all criticism of it, and so forth. Who? Exactly who?.” Fred Scrooby It’s a combination of long-time hatred of the goy by jews, combined with upper-class white hatred of the lower classes masquerading as self-hatred, combined with a certain puritan strain of Christianity which is gnostic and manichean in nature, a dollop of teen daddy-rebellion by the boomer generation, a post-war prosperity, at least in the U.S, which allowed all this deracination to take place. All helped along by the Frankfurt school and an unbridled mercantilism brought about by the poor character formation of entire generations. Do you not think that people can sense this, even if they can’t articulate it? Ethnic aggression is a bitch, ain’t it Ralph. Desmond Jones This is the worst, most childish attitude on this thread. Did you not read my post? Do you think this is just a game of Gotcha? You personify everything I hate about these kinds of discussions. Tens of millions of people affected deeply and you’re bringing up historical false-parallels and doing your little schadenfreude sack dance. Would you have been even happier if something had happened to my wife or daughter? You sound just like a lefty saying we have it coming (in America) because we killed the indians. You are not a serious person at all. So you only began to see the problem when it began affecting you. Hey, Ralph. The US had a negro problem for a long time before 1992. Where were you then, buddy? Don’t tell me, I can guess: the US historically had a southern and eastern euro problem, too. Ah… Silver Don’t tell me about the ‘negro problem’, silver. My family had to move out of Brooklyn in the mid ‘70s because of the ‘negro problem’. I’d had run-ins with them ever since I was nine and was chased by a bunch of them looking to fuck up a white boy. Everybody had a story about being assaulted or other by them and my friends and I defended our neighborhood vigorously for that reason, until the media discovered the Howard Beach incident (ignoring all the black-on-white crime which touched it off), as a way to neuter white defense of their places. “Don’t shun or run from the larger questions the times force us to confront, Ralph.” Silver On the contrary, I actively seek serious discussion of the larger questions. Unfortunately it is sometimes carried on by people who have not been confronted with the nuts-and-bolts effects of those larger questions and so lapse into navel-gazing. Just like those college lefties on daddy’s money who smoke pot in their dormrooms and come up with outrageous notions they think actually will work. I don’t know anything about you so please understand that I am not a priori putting you in that category. “BTW, Ralph, I’ve lived in the NYC metro area most of my life and have met lots of southern Italians and Sicilians who don’t consider themselves white. Some NY/NJ Italians have largely created their own ethnic world apart from mainstream white America. Others are very assimilated. The Italians who settled away from big east coast cities are all very assimilated at this point.” Joe This is nonsense and not my experience. I never remember anybody Italian I knew or know that went around saying they were not white. That we don’t consider ourselves WASPS, maybe. But nobody went around making a big deal of it and in day-to-day life we lived alongside other ethnic groups and kept up the neighborhood in the same way. Perhaps you are speaking of a trend among younger italians brainwashed by marxists or finding a way to score non-white pussy. This is a trend I do not like, but it was not always so. BTW, the Irish and the Poles did the same thing. And BTW, lots of young people of good English or otherwise northern European stock go around denying their own whiteness. I do believe they are in fact the worst offenders in this regard. Never saw Italians do anything remotely close to that. But ultimately nobody cared, and I’ll tell you why. By the time I came of age the European Italian, the European Irish, the European Pole and so on had long since passed their assimilation stage. The U.S. is a product of Anglo-Saxon culture, unique but also stemming from the common roots of Christendom, Athens and Rome which helped form its profoundly new take on solving the problems of a sustainable society. And yes, genetics is very much a part of it. Sure, we had our salami stores and the Germans had their Oktoberfest but we all became increasingly anglicized, because our cultures and our races were never very far apart to begin with. So we had no problem moving into a formerly Anglo neighborhood and keeping up our houses and the streets clean and going to the same schools (if you bring up organized crime, well, that’s a constant in any culture). But sooner or later we all acted white. I do not try to minimize problems but please also do not exaggerate them. If you want to talk assimilation I’ll give you an example from my own family. My father and uncle are WWII veterans. My grandfather, who came from Italy, made damned sure the both of them signed up, knowing full well that not only could they possibly be killed but that they might actually wind up killing some of his own family, on the other side. His attitude was not unique among the immigrants. Assimilated enough for you? For the record I believe that England should be for the English, Germany for the Germans, Italy for the Italians and, because of our long-established patterns of assimilation the U.S.A. for mainly Anglos but for all white people in general. Israel for the Jews, since beside genetics they are avowedly hostile to the rest of us. Now I’m done. 105
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:57 | #
You’re articulating it quite well, Ralph. Thanks for your reply: you did better at summarizing it than I could have. You have a head on your shoulders, comrade. With men like you entering the lists on our side we will only grow stronger and stronger. Things are not going to keep going exclusively the other side’s way. That’s all I can say. Exactly what form things will take when they finally break our way, I don’t know; no one knows, obviously. But break they finally will. The other side’s days of getting everything they want, unopposed, are numbered. By the way — the guy who told you you had “come to the wrong blog”? He was mistaken. This blog is right for you, Ralph. And you’re right for it. 106
Posted by Ralph on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:38 | # Fred, Thank you for the gracious words. I thought I needed to break my promise to stay away to acknowlege that. But the guy is right. I think that conversations such as these must take place. I just don’t have the patience for them anymore. I do appreciate the thoughtfulness and seriousness of some of you here. BTW, I forgot to mention a major factor missing from the above quote: Feminism 107
Posted by Armor on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:13 | #
If you have interesting things to say but don’t want it to be buried in an absurd discussion, maybe you can send it by e-mail to Guessedworker, and I hope it will be posted as a log entry. 108
Posted by Armor on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:16 | # “it will be posted as a log entry. “ as a MAIN log entry. 109
Posted by Joe on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:27 | # “This is nonsense and not my experience. I never remember anybody Italian I knew or know that went around saying they were not white. That we don’t consider ourselves WASPS, maybe. But nobody went around making a big deal of it and in day-to-day life we lived alongside other ethnic groups and kept up the neighborhood in the same way. Perhaps you are speaking of a trend among younger italians brainwashed by marxists or finding a way to score non-white pussy. This is a trend I do not like, but it was not always so. BTW, the Irish and the Poles did the same thing. And BTW, lots of young people of good English or otherwise northern European stock go around denying their own whiteness. I do believe they are in fact the worst offenders in this regard. Never saw Italians do anything remotely close to that.” Well I’ve heard a good number of people say that. They say things like “I’m not white, I’m olive.” The people I’ve heard say this are mostly very dark Sicilians who look like the actor Vincent Pastore. I’m not saying that they aren’t white, only that they don’t consider themselves such(at least in some contexts). A lot of Hispanics do the same thing. They consider themselves “white” relative to blacks. Like my Puerto Rican friend who expressed concern about being “a white guy” traveling through a black neighborhood. But the same person will feel very un-white around a whole bunch of WASPs. I have heard Irish people say they are not white too, but they can’t point to any physical feature to support that. Western Irish people are probably the “whitest” people in the world in that they share less recent common ancestry with people from outside of Europe than any other ethnic group. Ethnic Germanic people in Central Europe and Scandinavia have relatively high amounts of Near Eastern ancestry by comparison. I also don’t think races have firm, clear boundaries. The white race blends into the people of the near east along two paths(from Greece to the Levant and from the Caucuses into the fertile crescent). There is also no clear separation between Caucasoids and Mongoloids as one moves across northern Eurasia. You have a series of ethnic groups in Russia that progressively become more phenotypically Mongoloid the further East one travels. 110
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:58 | # Armor: If you have interesting things to say but don’t want it to be buried in an absurd discussion, maybe you can send it by e-mail ... Of course. The contact button is under the header. I would also note that your thoughts too, Armor, would be welcome - especially on the situation in France, which many of us would like to keep abreast of better than we do. 111
Posted by gnipgnop on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:06 | # Harrison Ford is no more White than Obama is….ROTFLMAO. Statements like that make White Nationalists seem even more of a laughing stock than they already are to most people. As for whether Italians are White, of course they are. (They are Caucasoid people from Europe; while they have darker pigmentation than the European average, they have lighter pigmentation than the average for humanity in general.) Take this American of Sicilian descent (I have relatives who are probably more “olive” than Ralph’s family.) I went to high school with a lot of Blacks; there were times when I felt like the only White guy in the room (not a pleasant experience BTW). Other times, when I have been around a lot of WASP or Scandinavian types, I felt a little more “ethnic.” I don’t know why you guys are fighting so hard over who gets into your “white” club when white people’s share of the population is shrinking as fast as it is. *Prior to the alliance between Hitler and Mussolini, most of those (in America at least) who accepted Italians but rejected Jews did so on religious rather than “racial” grounds, contrary to what “the Narrator” says. Most “white nationalists” in America up to that time rejected both groups on both religious and racial grounds (the Klan was anti-Catholic as well as anti-Semitic and preferred Anglo-Celtic people over everyone else.) 112
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:11 | #
Ralph is so self-deluded that he can’t see he’s a poster boy for Auster and the “White” multicult. For him there is no foundational American. It can’t be that the US is a unique product of an “American” culture founded upon an “American” ethny. No, no because that would be non-inclusive. God forbid that the “American” desire to exclude the “European” (is there any other kind?) Irish, Italian or Jew. No, no, these were “former” Anglo (isn’t that an ethnic slur on diverse Whites) neighbourhoods (ghost towns no doubt) that suffered the brunt of the same ethnic aggression Ralph is bitching about today. No historical parallels there. If there’s crime in every group then why is Ralph kvetching? The Mexicans now invading his neighborhood have roots in Christendom. In a generation they too will be assimilated. The last generation of ethnic aggressors are getting their ass kick and they don’t like it. Suck it up and be a man. If you can’t beat it then flee it, Mr. Appeal to the anecdotal and emotional. Go home Ralph. Italy is still overwhelmingly Italian. No more identity crisis. You’ll be with your own people able to dream about the glory days of ancient Rome (at least for now). P.S. - Did your Dad and Uncle ever kill any of their “own” people. Too funny. 113
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:29 | # The Narrator, Re: the issue of ethnic versus religious aggression - The Philadelphia Nativist Riots
114
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:39 | # Re: The white issue, it matters not. Group X can be as white as the fresh fallen snow. Knock yourself out. It means nothing. It’s a false construct used to further an ethnic/class interest. 115
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:10 | #
No it’s when we depend on complexion alone that we drop our credibility. There are many millions of people around the world with light complexions, who are not White. (and I would think by now that when racialists say White most readers would understand that to mean, Europeans) There are millions of Chinese people with White skin, gnpgnop. But they aren’t White. They aren’t European. The same goes for Turks, Jews, Arabs, Berbers etc… A lot of them have light complexions, but they are none the less, not White.
As I pointed out above, large groups of outsiders, no matter how alike to you they may be, will always spark troubles. As for the not attacking German Catholics (which wiki sources to a passage from a book written in 1973), I would point out the following Notice which state Philly is in? ... 116
Posted by gnipgnop on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:06 | #
OK then buddy. If that’s true, why don’t you just say “European” or “European Gentile” instead of “White”? 117
Posted by upon46 on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:49 | # ‘Bruce Graeme’ is obviously the same poster as ‘G de B.’ (Note the quality of his non-native English.) 118
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:16 | #
White. European. Same, same. And there is no other kind of European than Gentile Europeans. Never-the-less, I explained the meaning of White in this very thread for the sake of the ill informed and slow witted…
Genetic studies are inconclusive on the amount of European DNA in jews. So your assertion is just that, your assertion. But half-White, or Quarter White still = not-White. Again, it’s not perception but reality that counts. Your comment about jews being able to pass as Whites better than Asians (in the eyes of many) will run up against Keanu Reeves types who are half Chinese (or other Asian mixes).
Yes, yes. And bumblebees resemble birds more than ants, but that doesn’t mean that they can or should be reclassified as birds, now does it…. Sure, a lot of people view Harrison Ford as White. But many of those same people believe Spain is somewhere in South America. What I’m arguing for is the way things truly are, as opposed to the way they are mistakenly perceived as being. And I would add, once again, jews do not view themselves as White. . 119
Posted by Vince on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:39 | # Ethnic aggression is a bitch, ain’t it Ralph. (Desmond Jones ) Ethnicity explains a lot. All Slavs are related and all Slavs are European, more precisely: Slavic people are alpines - a European (white) sub-race. However, consider the now-defunct country of Czechoslovakia. What’s the difference between Czech and Slovak? They are both - from a racial point of view - Western Slavs. The question then is how to explain the inner conflicts between Czechs and Slovaks? A still better example is the implosion of Yugoslavia in 1992 which led to armed conflicts in Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia/Kosovo and Macedonia. And, considering the fact that Palestinian Arabs and Jews are both Semites(!), how to explain the “Palestinian” demographic threat [the ever increasing Israeli-Arab population] that Israel - if Israel is to remain a Jewish State - is facing? Why don’t they both, Palestinian Arabs and Jews, consider themselves - first of all - as members from the same - SEMITE - race? Because there is another, more important category, than race. A sense of unity is not merely based on territory. More important than race is a consciousness of kind (by a long and continuous tradition, and by a faith which is nationalistic as well as religious). How else to explain the conflicts between the Han and the Vietnamese lasting thousands of years!? 120
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:59 | # “Upon46” is correct. The individual posting as Bruce Graeme (previously G de B) is a race-replacement advocate very similar in sliminess to The Monitor and Rocket. Such people should always post with the same name to warn others to stay away, as lepers were once required to do (or was it syphilitics? consumptives? people infected with the Black Death? with small pox? I forget which, it was one of those). 121
Posted by Prozium on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:06 | #
From 1790 until 1952, “whiteness” was the racial eligibility criterion of U.S. naturalization law, not “Anglo-Saxon.” The fifty-two racial prerequisite cases heard in federal courts all addressed the question of whether the petitioner was “white.” 122
Posted by Armor on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:18 | # Prozium on January 10 :
123
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:54 | #
Obviously a huge mistake if there was constant legal squabbling to determine who was “white”. The 1915 Supreme Court decision regarding Syrians, Armenians and Parsees being just one of them. The historical record, again, shows that the term “white” is measured upon an ever shifting scale of no value. 124
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:15 | # And the shifting of the concept of “whiteness”, in this case, was driven in large part by organised Jewry who feared their exclusion from naturalization on a racial basis. 125
Posted by Prozium on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:25 | #
“Anglo-Saxon” is an even more nebulous term. The 1915 Supreme Court decision regarding Syrians, Armenians and Parsees being just one of them. The historical record, again, shows that the term “white” is measured upon an ever shifting scale of no value. American naturalization law has traditionally been race based. If similar distinctions were made in Canada (ethnic or racial), I am unaware of them. I know that Canada was a popular destination for our fugitive slaves who were granted Canadian citizenship. The negroes who fought for the British in the American Revolution and the War of 1812 were settled in Nova Scotia. Here is an excerpt from the “Canada” entry in the Jim Crow Encyclopedia:
126
Posted by Prozium on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:28 | # To my knowledge, Jews were never excluded from Canada. 127
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:06 | #
Not nearly as nebulous or far-ranging as the term “white”, based upon the USSC decisions.
Correct. However, individuals were legally free to include or exclude blacks from their places of business/homes etc. The KKK also brought significant pressure in physical intervening to deny interracial marriage.
The immigration policy prior to WWII was based upon country of origin. British Jews were allowed, Polish Jews were not because immigration from eastern Europe was considered undesirable. 128
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:36 | # At Desmond Jones’s link of 11:15 PM the Jews in the early part of the last century are shocked that they might be considered to be Asians, and are struggling against any such classification being applied to them. But Semites, including Jews, are Asians. They come from Asia, they evolved in Asia, they have always lives in Asia. They’re Asiatics with, in many ways, a distinctive Asiatic mentality. 129
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:42 | # Moreover, the fact that the Jews want to genocide white people certainly doesn’t bolster the argument that they see themselves as white: you generally don’t want to utterly annihilate your own racial grouping, wipe it off the face of the earth, out of pure seething racial hate. That’s not generally the way things work. Jews are Asiatics. So, what are they complaining about in those book pages Desmond linked? Have they ever behaved as if they didn’t hate Euros? No. Let Euros therefore now classify them accordingly. 130
Posted by Prozium on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:04 | #
“Anglo-Saxon” is more nebulous because it is a cultural term. The indigenous Britons aren’t “Anglo-Saxons.” Neither are the Welsh, Scots, Irish or the descendant of the Normans, Vikings, and Romans. Yet all live in the British Isles and have intermarried.
Negroes enjoyed full Canadian citizenship from a very early date. 131
Posted by gnipgnop on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:20 | # Narrator, you have proved my point about most “White Nationalists”- namely, their incoherence and inability to come up with an argument that can convince people who aren’t already part of the “movement.” 132
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 07:24 | #
The genetic/cultural distance of all the groups you list is not nearly as great as that between Europeans and Non European Caucasians let alone the founding American population and Parsees. Number of immigrants needed to reduce ethnic interest by one child 8.5 between NEC and EC. Between the Germans and the English 57.2.
Canadian citizenship didn’t exist until 1947. 133
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:53 | #
Linking to a book called ‘The Racial State’ by David Goldberg is, ironic, at best…. The majority of Americans are against Amnesty for illegals, but that is hardly reflected in the actions of our government, media of courts of law. The ability on the part of a group to bring a case to court and challenge the status-quo (in court) is hardly evidence of shifting definitions on the part of a populace. There are accredited nuts out there right now declaring that the term “gender” is measured upon an ever shifting scale of no value. And, Anglo-Saxon means English. No one else…
If your going to fold on an argument just be man enough to say, “fold” like Bruce did.
I’m not “anti-jewish” and am not attempting to make an “anti-jewish” argument. I’m pro-White and defending my people.
That really seems to have bothered you! Certain concepts may be difficult for some to understand (not mentioning any names), but the truth is always worth pursuing. But it’s just not true! Attributing our existence to Evolution will confuse some and leave others behind. It’s not enough to appeal towards a, “it’s them vs. us” theme when discussing matters of race with Whites. We must clearly explain who we are and who they are. What makes us different. Why these difference exist and how those differences will manifest. I wouldn’t hesitate to guesstimate that one-third of White Americans already hold White National sentiments. What we are doing here is fine tuning the details in anticipation of a much larger public manifestation to come. You’ll forgive me if I don’t heed your council… Jews are not White. They are not White historically, geographically or biologically. It’s as simple as that! ... 134
Posted by Prozium on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:04 | #
“Anglo-Saxon” equally suffers from your objections to “white.” It cannot be precisely defined. The boundries of the construct have “shifted” throughout history. “Anglo-Saxon” is also more of a cultural term whereas “white” refers to a specific phenotype.
Well, British citizenship. 135
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:47 | #
Like this.
Nope. Try again. 137
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:04 | # An albino Negro doesn’t present the white phenotype, any more than an albino black bear presents the polar bear phenotype. Which Desmond knows, so he’s having a little fun there I assume. 138
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:46 | # The Persians are it then. Knock yourself out. Someone should tell VA though. She\‘s under a different impression. http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2009/01/pride-guilt-and-survival.html 139
Posted by Rammstein on Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:10 | # Ralph ~ Is that you, Dimitri? If so, what are you doing hanging around a scumbag like Auster? You should know better. 140
Posted by Bruce Graeme on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:14 | # @ Narrator… on January 13, 2009, 05:17 PM | # I wrote on January 13, 2009, 05:17 PM: “Sorry, I can’t provide it. I searched google but still can’t find it.” [Posted by Bruce Graeme on January 13, 2009, 02:39 PM] I have found it now, at last, and I am looking forward for your response, with great interest The primary aim of all this legislation [the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924] had been to preserve the racial profile of the United States as it had been defined and defended by the Founding Fathers[18] and had become “fixed” in the late nineteenth century. It was much too late for laws that would permit a privileged caste off fair-haired Nordics to lord it over a bottom layer of black slaves and white serfs. But it was not too late for Congress to prevent the Northern European racial nucleus from being physically and culturally submerged by continuing mass migrations of Southern and Eastern Europeans. 18. Washington was opposed to unrestricted immigration because he wanted to protect the “American character.” Jefferson feared that, since the bulk of European immigration would eventually have to come from Central, Southern and Eastern Europe, the newcomers would import with them the ideas and principles of absolute government under which they and their ancestors had lived for so many centuries. 141
Posted by the truth teller on Wed, 14 Dec 2016 23:14 | # You wrote Morocco is not part of the west? Post a comment:
Next entry: Why are Republicans so silent on the Obama eligibility question?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:25 | #
Interesting in that they are all Jewish constructs.