|
|
|
A letter to Steve Steve Sailer’s latest article in The American Conservative was, as usual, replete with exactly the kind of language we want to see eliminated from public discourse. So we decided to write to the Great Man and let him know none too gently where he is falling down on the job ...
The reason we think you are a phony in almost everything you write is because of sentences like this one:-
You have to know that calling us “non-Hispanic whites” is a symptom of hostility to the majority of USA voters. So why are you using a hateful vocabulary that smothers our diversity and reeks of contempt to describe us in the context of an article that seems to argue that Democrats should give some respect to us? You are really part of that great hate-filled attack on Americans of European origins. Most people don’t get it, but we see it clearly in your vocabulary and in your arguments. And we see you like the hate term “gentile” as used in this sentence:-
I don’t know who you think you are fooling, but “gentile” is a name imposed on us. Many of us reject it out of hand as contemptuous and certainly as part of an effort to smother our diversity in public discourse. Where do you get the right to slap us with “gentile”? Comments:2
Posted by Matra on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:18 | #
Uh…probably because that is the term used by those who collect statistics in the US! If you read US newspapers you’ll come across that term a lot. I never use it myself but I can’t imagine getting my knickers in a twist over something so trivial. BTW, complaining about something that “smothers our diversity” sounds like something an effeminate leftist would say. That’s as much the language of multiculturalists as “non-Hispanic white”. 3
Posted by allotmentkkeper on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:33 | # Yup, the RDO orthodoxy slams up against normal understanding when it’s given free rein. Non, White, and Hispanic, are words coined by Whites (or whatever Womack might allow me to call myself), and the term, Non-White-Hispanic was coined by Whites. Who coined the term Latin-American? Or Jew? Are these really hate-terms? I think they are more likely to be seen as terms which implicitly recognise and respect diversity, more than they deny it. None of these “labels” suggests gentiles, or Euros (or non-Jews/Whites(is that what you’d prefer) are uniform or inferior). What do you suggest for alternate terms? How should those sentences have been framed for equal and respectful understanding? 4
Posted by Reg Cæsar on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:48 | # Those of us of Anglo-Saxon and/or other British descent object to the term “Americans of European origin”. Hell, we haven’t been European since the time of Cerdic. 5
Posted by allotmentkeeper on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:13 | #
One or two of you do. You need to grow up. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:04 | # Europreservationist: If not, why are you guys picking fights with Steve Sailer, one of the first people to link to your frickin’ blog? MR is not a single voice or a single point of view, but I would guess that the majority opinion here is that Steve is very useful for his race realism and his access to the wider world but, strangely, he isn’t sound on Euro preservationism, Europreservationist. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:25 | # Matra and the others, I join you in feeling I don’t have much if any objection to a few of the things Stanley criticises but I’m glad he’s criticising them because there’s a war on and the war we’re in has many fronts, and all fronts need to be manned, and pressure brought to bear on the other side from as many directions as possible and in as many ways as possible. He’s manning one of the fronts in this war, bringing pressure to bear in his own way, and doing it extremely ably. I’m damn glad to have him as a comrade in this struggle. 8
Posted by EC on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:55 | # I echo Fred Scrooby above. Mr Womack is ably addressing one issue of this full scale war on whites and using their tactics to do it. While some may not view it as extremely important, it is the total package that counts. Hell, Jews bitch about every single little slight they perceive and they do it incessantly. Why shouldn’t we?
9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:07 | # Gene Expression is rabidly anti-Europreservationist. One of its main goals is the complete race-replacement of all European peoples. This is their position thanks mainly to the person signing as Godless Capitalist. 10
Posted by Europreservationist on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:26 | # Replying to various posters here: I would guess that the majority opinion here is that Steve is very useful for his race realism and his access to the wider world but, strangely, he isn’t sound on Euro preservationism, Europreservationist. That is my opinion of Steve as well. But I don’t think that he is an enemy of European preservationism, unless you are going to say that everyone who is not with us is against us. (God help me, I quoted Bush.) And given that there are plenty of people who do want to see Europeans replaced, I don’t see why a poster here chose to attack Mr. Sailer. Matra and the others, I join you in feeling I don’t have much if any objection to a few of the things Stanley criticises but I’m glad he’s criticising them because there’s a war on and the war we’re in has many fronts, and all fronts need to be manned, and pressure brought to bear on the other side from as many directions as possible and in as many ways as possible. What is going in the West in regards to race replacement is many things, among them unjust to whites and foolish. But it doesn’t meet the definition of a war. I seriously hope you were using that word figuratively. As for fighting it on every front, fine. But why make enemies we don’t need to make? Why attack Steve Sailer for using “offensive” phrases that everyone else uses? Why not attack someone from the ADL who hates us anyway? And for that matter, no one has answered the question as to what phrases we should instead, if “European-Americans” and “non-Hispanic whites” is so offensive? Anglo-American? That doesn’t fit the millions of whites in this country who came from Italy, East Europe, France, etc… And what about the millions who are of mixed European ancestry (e.g. half German, one quarter Scotch-Irish, one eighth Italian, one eighth Polish). What do we call the “mutts”? Personally, I just call Europeans white, but when discussing demographics it isn’t as precise as “non-Hispanic white,” because a minority of Hispanics is also white. Gene expression that you link to on your new blog is anything but euro preservationist in ideology I didn’t link to Gene Expression because they are European preservationist. I linked to GE because they are on top of things that are important to our cause. Also, it’s a good blog, even if I disagree with some of their politics. Anyway, the template for my blog isn’t complete. By the time I start actually posting I’ll have segregated the links into an EP-friendly category and a category for those which are not. Hell, Jews bitch about every single little slight they perceive and they do it incessantly. Why shouldn’t we? Some Jews do, and it’s ANNOYING. Which is why we shouldn’t do it. 11
Posted by Steven Palese on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:14 | # Matra, you write
We have to adapt our tactics to the ideological terrain we’re on - it’s not an option. The effeminate leftists you mention have kicked our ideological asses out of every single campus in the U.S. by playing the victim card. The victim card may not be honorable, it may not be manly, it may not be appealing, but it does work. In this fight, the only thing that matters is winning. On campus, and probably everywhere else, playing the victim card and seizing the high moral ground is rule number one for winning all conflicts. I don’t like that either and I wish things like objective truth still mattered, but they don’t. That’s the way it is. I’ll also point out that in playing the victim card you can be very very aggressive. Look at the leaflet posted here. Nothing effeminate about it at all. The fact of the matter is that there is no identity politics without grievance politics. None. Ever heard a black ethnocentric speech that doesn’t mention slavery? A Jewish one that doesn’t mention holocaust? Neither have I. Our grievance is, “Why are our children worth less than a third of a person?” - it’s very powerful and it shuts up anyone who asks why race matters or why they should bother with pro-white issues. One sentence shuts them up in a way an entire library of IQ/genetics material can only hope to do. One sentence. In short, grievance politics is the only way forward and Stanley has led the way and pioneered this approach. I think all of us should follow him. I certainly am. 12
Posted by Steven Palese on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:35 | # Europreservationist,
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. At the end of the day, Jews have gotten so much grease their children are forty times more privileged than ours. If we don’t stop taking it and don’t start dishing it out, we’ll just keep losing. To see what fighting back looks like in the age of victimology, check Stanley’s website or my attack leaflet posted here. I didn’t ask to be deployed onto an intellectual terrain where reason, logic and objective truth fires duds yet strident victimology detonates earthshaking explosions. Yet here I am and I’m adapting to fight on regardless. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:05 | # Steven’s comments are right.
I don’t understand this quibble: the way in which there’s a war being waged against us is obvious, just as is the sense in which my use of the word “war” was both figurative and legitimate. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:18 | #
It’s more than “annoying.” It’s a carefully thought-out, wildly successful tactic aimed at Euro ruination and outright genocide. This deadly menace we’re fighting is not some accident or some spur-of-the-moment spontaneous reaction or unplanned manifestation. These things don’t happen by accident. They happen by cold calculation on the part of a great many very bright, patient minds thinking, analysing, planning, and experimenting over years, nay decades—perhaps many decades. What’s happening is far worse than “annoying” and we’d better come up with come effective ways to counter it. We’re at war, not one of our choosing but war has been thrust on us. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:32 | # The main thing people must understand is race-replacement immigration is being imposed on us deliberately by powerful people and interests exerting influence on government. It’s not some accident or some unstoppable “force of history.” It’s happening because powerful people hiding behind the scenes want it to happen and want it very badly. The people forcing it on us from behind the scenes are very tough and determined, not the sort to give up easily. 16
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 05:06 | #
Because Steve Sailer might actually modify his behavior. 17
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 05:11 | #
I don’t follow you here. If you (correctly) consider some Hispanics to be “white”, why can’t you call them “white”? You seem to be rejecting a tautology. 18
Posted by Europreservationist on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 05:19 | # I guess I just hold on to the hope that we can win this fight without resorting to such nonsense. Anyway, it’s not something I really care enough about to keep arguing over. 19
Posted by allotmentkeeper on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 05:47 | #
But are they offensive terms Ben? or seen as such? or worth developing the climate where they are seen as such? - what will that mean for every other plank of race-realism/preservationism/nationalism? I rather think the RD.O argument and website offered to an open-minded audience just looks silly. I went there hopeful, but it’s disappointing. There are complaints about defamation which can legitimately be made, but I doubt they can be so predictable to be tabled, or are so widely defined as the RD.O guys do. I understand the argument others have made that all avenues are worth developing -that we all come at this from different angles- but I hope we can also criticise honestly the most obviously flawed approaches, and so reserve for ourselves a place at the best tables. 20
Posted by Stanley Womack on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 06:20 | # Some responses: 1) We never claim to be offended. That’s how we differ from Minority complaints. We never claim hurt feelings. We’re just outraged. 2) We have turned “slurring” on its head by addressing the feelings and putative motives of the slurrer, not by addressing how we feel. 3) We use only three wildly popular PC terms to dissect slurs addressed toward us: a) Is the label contemptuous? Not too scientific, but arguable by reference to the name given us, eg, is it an animal, insect, or food name? b) Is the label based on a claim to supremacism by the namer who chooses to ignore our right to name ourselves? This is very scientific, that is, it can be determined objectively. c) Does the label smother our wonderful diversity? This can also be determined scientifically, ie, objectively. Media and entertainment generally do not like to provide insight into our own diversities, thus it is good to attack back along that line. ************************* If our speaking out is based on any feeling or emotion, it would be outrage based on one or more of the three reasons listed just above. One practical reason to avoid claiming “hurt feelings,” is that there are so many sell-outs that one may be found on every corner denying that his or her feelings were hurt, thus undermining our point of attack. We skip lightly over “hurt feelings.” So we look at slurs from the speakers point of view, and bash away. Yes, we hope to educate Sailer. He’s probably never had anyone take him to task like this before, and it’ll be good for him. Lest you think he is too good a friend, remember that he prescribes “citizenism” (silence, passive acceptance, etc.) for us and opposes our organizing around any of the causes we are surrounded with: discrimination, race replacement, genocide, defamation, etc. We must be “good citizens,” not activists for our own interests in his view. We do attack ADL, SPLC, PAW, and ACLU all the time. ************************* It is true that some “white” people developed the “non-Hispanic whites” term, but they also developed the parallel terms, “non-Hispanic blacks,” “non-Hispanic Jews,” etc. Somehow we never see those derogatory terms in the dominant media culture. Do you suppose the media like the negative and unwanted naming of ourselves, but dislike its use in other contexts? 21
Posted by Matra on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 06:38 | # I don’t have a problem with whites playing the victim card - I’d be delighted to see more whites using anti-discrimination laws initially set up to assist blacks. As Steven says there are many fronts in this conflict. But criticising someone because their language “smothers diversity” implies (to me at least) that the critic supports diversity. Besides of all the things we have to complain about media references to “non-Hispanic whites” seem trivial. In fact when I read US statistics I prefer the news source to specify that the whites are not Hispanics as it is better than all those crime stats for “whites” that actually include Mexicans and other Hispanics. I’m also more concerned about the strong possibility that the term “non-Hispanic whites” includes Arabs and others who do not share our European roots than I am about the diversity smothering aspect of it. For the record I’ve started to prefer white Americans being referred to as simply ‘Europeans” as is often the case in books about French, Belgian, and British settlers in Algeria, the Congo, Kenya and other places outside of Europe. Since a “Frenchmen” in pre-independence Algeria could’ve been an Arab most writers would say “European” when they were referring specifically to white settlers - who were often of mixed European national backgrounds anyway. Used outside of Europe itself the word carries a racial connotation and it connects whites to their pre-American heritage. This is now more important as the word “American” now seems to mean someone with particular values - equality and democracy! - rather than a particular people. 22
Posted by allotmentkeeper on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:39 | # Stanley Womack, if you are not offended, or if your feelings are not hurt, and you choose not to address how you feel, exactly how are you OUTRAGED? These kinds of basic failures of logic, consistency, and even racial fairness are easily observed by anyone who visits your website. Correct the failings or keep quiet. You guys are a let-down. 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:41 | # ResistingDefamation.org “a let-down”? Sorry, I don’t see it, not in any way, shape, or form. It’s a fantastically good site and a wonderful soldier in this fight. Hearty congratulations to the guys running it on a job well done! 24
Posted by h-man on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:35 | # Resisting Defamation is a great site and Stanley Womack is a talented guy. I found his site because one of my favorite sites linked to his elucidation of the insulting term “white bread” within the last year….....the linking site was isteve.com. Perhaps his next project could be an explanation of the term “bite the hand that feeds you” 25
Posted by Matra on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:44 | # I agree “white bread” must be resisted. I heard it used recently by a Jewish sports reporter. He was referring to lack of diversity in golf. A lot of the supposedly offensive terms at his site are fine by me as they were invented by other whites. Intra-European banter is fine. Terms like “Fritz” for Germans or “Paddy” for the Irish shouldn’t bother anybody in Europe. Perhaps if black Americans are using them it would be different. I can see how an American of German or Irish ancestry wouldn’t like protected races using such terms. But the world would be a poorer place without ethnic humour. As a white man I reserve my right to refer to pommies, krauts, frogs, eye-ties, sheep-shaggers (Scots, Kiwis, and if you’re South African, Aussies too), Geordies and monkey-hangers, Pepsis (French-Canadians), Newfies, and seppos (septic tanks = yanks). Making fun of others is a part of the British Isles heritage! When whites use the above terms they don’t have the same edge as when they refer to non-whites as, say, dolly mixtures (mixed race) or currymunchers. If another white wants to call me an Orangie*, Prod, or a Paddy I couldn’t care less. Let’s not lose our sense of humour here. My only problem is with protected groups (blacks, Jews, Asians) having it both ways. * Ulster Catholic joke - what’s the difference between an apple and orange? There’s no such thing as an apple bastard. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:47 | # Amen, Matra. My only problem is with protected groups. 27
Posted by Rnl on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:49 | # If even White nationalists are unable to detect defamation in “non-Hispanic White,” it’s safe to conclude that no one else will either. I have no idea what Stanley Womack thinks is wrong about the term, and with due respect to his valuable efforts on other issues, I think he should take the time here to explain. I suspect Sailer was mystified by his complaints. In an American context “non-Hispanic White” is simply a rough way of saying “person of European ancestry” or “Euro-American.” It’s true enough that “Hispanic” is an imprecise label from a racialist perspective. Not all Hispanics are non-White, a fact Sailer himself often emphasizes. But clearly that isn’t the source of Womack’s outrage. Anything implying that our “wonderful diversity” of European ethnicities is subsumed in our common group membership—i.e. in our “whiteness”—is surely good. That, incidentally, is why the proponents of “whiteness studies” are so eager to delegitimize the category. They fear multiethnic whiteness. 28
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:11 | # Svyatoslav Igorevich wrote: The proper situation is to call whites, the majority, a proper name, and to leave the minorities with the qualified names, like “hispanic whites,” and for everyone to know the difference. A small quibble: If these “Hispanic Whites” are White, then they aren’t minorities. They’re part of the majority. More seriously: As Matra pointed out, “non-Hispanic White” is a common demographic category. Steve Sailer had nothing to do with its invention. It’s also a necessary category. It’s imprecise, but nevertheless you can’t talk seriously about race in America without it. Since most Hispanics, especially Mexican invaders, are non-White, anyone (like Sailor) discussing racial population statistics must treat all Hispanics as though they were non-White. He can have no way of determining exactly what percentage of these Hispanics subjectively identify themselves with the Euro-American majority or how many of them would be identified as White by the Euro-American majority. And he certainly can’t subject them all to mass DNA testing. He can only speak roughly, so he (following the practice of government statisticians) must remove all Hispanics from the category White, even though we know that some of these officially non-White Hispanics—many Cubans, for example—are socially recognized as White and think of themselves as White. If all Hispanics were stamped on their foreheads with the labels “White” or “non-White,” we could dispense with “non-Hispanic White” as a demographic category. But since no such mass labelling has yet occurred, we’re stuck with imprecision. Linda Chavez used to cite statistics indicating that about a third of Hispanics identify themselves as White and that about half see Whites as the group most like themselves. I’m sure those numbers are now much lower, but they’re worth keeping in mind. Few Cubans think of themselves as future citizens in a sovereign Aztlan. If we wanted to think up a stupid complaint that nevertheless conveyed a serious racialist message, we could berate Sailer for his insensitive exclusion of Whites of Hispanic ancestry from the American mainstream: “Pedro, my Argentinian brother-in-law, has been weeping uncontrollably since he read your article, which so insensitively denied his precious European lineage. I’ll hold you responsible if he requires psychiatric counseling.” 29
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:08 | #
That doesn’t make sense. Spaniards are European, and so are the Irish and Germans who immigrated in small numbers to Mexico and Central America. A Hispanic White is a White—that’s a tautology!
We can dispense with “non-Hispanic White” simply by employing he term “non-White Hispanic” to encompass those who are not White. Indios, judíos, negros, and mestizos from predominantly Spanish-speaking countries are non-White Hispanics. Or “non-white Latinos” or “non-European Hispanic/Latinos”. Whatever. There’s no need, and no convenience, in defining ourselves by what we are not. 30
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:30 | # Svyatoslav Igorevich wrote: Seems to me using the proper term, mestizo, would render it superfluous. If you mean that mestizo should replace Hispanic, then I would likely agree. The fact that mestizo is not yet an official demographic category isn’t, however, Steve Sailer’s fault. You’re wrong, moreover, if you’re assuming that the vast majority of Mexicans are mestizos. Some Mexicans are Spanish, some are Indians, most are mestizos. The idea of Mexico as a uniformly mestizo nation is part of the anti-hispanophile racial mythology of post-colonial Mexico. One of its major political objectives, besides its overt diminution of Mexico’s Spanish heritage, was to integrate the Indian in post-colonial “Mexicanness” by falsely defining him as part of this ostensibly new hybrid people, neither Indian nor Spanish. The first true Mexican was therefore the son of Cortez and his Aztec interpreter Marina/Malinche. It was a strategy of assimilation, and as William Prescott noted way back in the early 1840s, the principal advocates of this new anti-Spanish ideal of mestizo Mexico were themselves the largely unmixed descendants of conquistadors. It’s politically useful for Mexicans today to define their nation as a mestizo hybrid, and it would perhaps be politically useful for us to define each and every Mexican as a non-White mestizo, but it’s wrong in both cases. In an American context “Hispanic” is a linguistic category that falsely serves as the name of a race. It’s an omnibus category into which multiracialism can dump loads of otherwise separate ethnic groups as though they formed some uniform collective whole. It was devised to classify everyone with a Spanish surname as an aggrieved racial minority and to hand them all benefits on the basis of their new group membership, thus encouraging their emotional loyalty to it. If an Argentinean immigrant receives racial preferences on the basis of his new status as an “Hispanic American,” he may grow to like the label, just as if we handed out benefits to left-handed Whites, many of them would soon discover a deep emotional connection with their lefthandedness. At any rate, the point we’re discussing should be clear. You can’t treat all members of this bogus racial category Hispanic as non-White, because they’re not. That means that there will be “Hispanic Whites” and “non-Hispanic Whites” for as long as the term “Hispanic” remains a population category. We don’t speak of “non-Black Whites” because Blacks and Whites are discrete groups with no overlap, thanks to the old one-drop rule of racial classification, which all major Black leaders now defend. We do speak of “non-Hispanic Whites” because Whites and Hispanics are not discrete groups. They do overlap. Obviously we’d be better off without any of this silly racial esoterica. But if we’re looking for sources of complaint, there are surely better choices than the defamation allegedly implicit in “non-Hispanic White.” Sailer believes that the US should have a southern border, which in the current political climate is a controversial proposition, one which the President of the United States himself doesn’t endorse. That makes Sailer one of the good guys. ... the tiny percentage of the Spanish-speaking population that is white… I don’t believe that the percentage is tiny. That may be our source of disagreement. 31
Posted by Stanley Womack on Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:51 | # This was a very intelligent discussion of the matter of negative names. Let me just provide one way to look at the matter which may bring the defaming element into the foreground. If “non-Hispanic white,” a clumsy and unwanted term (at least we never hear of our own guys using the term to identify themselves) is okay, at least partially because the US Census Bureau created it, and the dominant media culture uses it so often, then why don’t we hear the dominant media culture (or Steve Sailer) use terms like these which may be found in US Census literature also: non-Hispanic Jew (there are lots of Jewish Hispanics) non-Hispanic Asian (there are lots of Asian Hispanics, especially in Mexico) non-Hispanic American Indian (there are lots of American Indian Hispanics) non-Hispanic black (there is a huge number of black Hispanics) Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest reason for the media to use “non-Hispanic white” is that it rips the heart out of our already bashed and trivialized identity. It is an unbelievable act of hostility to use the negative label “non-Hispanic white” for us, and never use any of the similar and parellel terms for anyone else at all. Does anyone really ascribe media love or media neutrality to this phenomenon? I’ll leave the “best tables” to “allotmentkeeper”—I wouldn’t want to sit at a place with a card saying, “Non-Hispanic White.” And, hey, guys let me scream at you—don’t forget Sailer is not your friend, he wants you to practice “citizenism.” Have you forgotten that silencing proposal already? 32
Posted by allotmentkeeper on Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:48 | # SW and GW, I should apologise for being over aggressive in my comments. I think my youth and enthusiasm sometimes get the better of me. Much more important than any gripes I have with some of the RD claims is that they are on our side, and that different approaches to our problems are clearly necessary. Even so, I just don’t see “the hateful vocabulary that smothers our diversity and reeks of contempt.” To resist defamation is clearly very important, but unwarranted complaints seem likely to be counterproductive. For example, if Steve Sailer is ‘not our friend’ when by “citizenism” he means that he “believes Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners”, how is RD.Org any more a friend when they “are just active to reduce the hate and slander directed at our children”. Citizenism has ample room to accommodate resisting defamation, but resisting defamation means only that. And apologies to Reg Cæsar for completely misunderstanding him too. 33
Posted by Stanley Womack on Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:46 | # Wow! That’s not what Sailer means by “citizenism.” He promotes that term as representing an approach to contemporary events by whites which explicitly bans activism based on our race, ethnicity, continental-origins, etc., even as he accepts the opposite behavior for all other (“minority”) groups. Sailer advocates our silence and disorganization, while accepting that of others. That’s what “citizenism” is, a special death cult doctrine for us. “Citizenism” has no room for resisting defamation against young European American children. 34
Posted by allotmentkeeper on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:23 | #
Of course it does. I don’t agree with Sailer’s approach - it’s unworkable because, as you suggest, no other racial or ethnic group would play ball (and it’s undesirable to me anyway) - but there’s no ‘ban’ on ethnic activism, and no compulsory toleration of double standards or defamation. You have a habit of going just a bit too far Stanley, and I think the comments above which questioned whether your post was a parody and suggesting the very real possibility that Sailer would have been mystified by your letter should give you some pause for thought. Shrill, over-aggressive, or dubious complaints made in the course of resisting defamation are sure to be counter-productive. If some of your comments on Sailer and Auster look that way to friendly eyes, I think the uninterested or self-censoring masses will be even more resistant to your message. 35
Posted by Stanley Womack on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:43 | # Dear Alotmentkeeper, replying to your words: “I don’t agree with Sailer’s approach - it’s unworkable because, as you suggest, no other racial or ethnic group would play ball” No, I don’t suggest that. We’re way beyond games references, this stuff is serious. “I think the comments above which questioned whether your post was a parody and suggesting the very real possibility that Sailer would have been mystified by your letter should give you some pause for thought.” Sailer was not at all mystified. He wrote back directly with a reply that demonstrated his view and his understanding completely. No pause needed. He gave a very strong defense of his claim to define us as “gentiles,” one which we found untenable, of course. GW has a copy. “Shrill, over-aggressive, or dubious complaints made in the course of resisting defamation are sure to be counter-productive.” Well, that’s a testable hypothesis. What evidence do you have that shrillness, over-aggressiveness, or dubious complaints are sure to be counter-productive? Of course, the word “dubious” and the prefix “over” serve to taint the discussion, but still: What’s the evidence? “I think the uninterested or self-censoring masses will be even more resistant to your message.” Now, who are these masses? Are these the kulaks? Are these the blue-collar workers slandered by “All In The Family”? Are these the veterans smeared by the hate thank-you note embedded in the 1947 film, “Crossfire”? Your use of “masses” tells us a lot more about you and your mind set than you may have wanted to tell us, although your desire for the “best tables” gave a lot away. 36
Posted by allotmentkeeper on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:37 | # We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m sure your style and argument is persuasive to some - and as I say, whatever works - but I just don’t get it yet. I share a house with four other students who have really had their eyes opened on race and nation issues by well reasoned, moderately made arguments by writers like Steve Sailer, Laurence Auster, Yggdrasil, the guys here, and various others. When I showed them your site, the initial reaction was ‘great, wonderful’, but going deeper and seeing defined as slurs such terms as
and
turned off my housemates just as it did me. It’s patently false. Like I say Stanley, I think you go too far with both the identification of slurs, and the tone of your complaints - at least as regards Sailer and Auster. It’s up to you to decide whether the responses in this thread suggest, just maybe, that it’s counter productive. 37
Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:00 | # My two cents: Actually, what I find offensive is the US census and overall establishment definition of “white” which includes just about everyone and anyone not obviously black, Oriental, or Hindu. More sane and truthful racial categories by the establishment would be a good start. The *real* problem I see in Sailer’s essay is that it is just more of his usual shallow analysis. Yes, what’s wrong with the Democrats? The country is headed in their direction demographically, so in the long run, nothing is wrong with them. Better question: what’s wrong with the Republicans, who are cooperating in their own demographic extinction as a viable party. Best question: what’s wrong with the US political system - that allows a situation where majority interests are disregarded. With regards to “citizenism”, I see that as profoundly destructive and despicable. Yes, in theory, it would allow for “resisting defamation.” In practice, it promotes aracial altruism toward “fellow Americans”, which would, probably, make whites feel guilty and “unAmerican” in promoting their interests as the RD site does. So, while I don’t see Sailer being wrong with respect to the terms he uses in this essay, and I don’t see why a big deal must be made about *that*, Sailer’s entire worldview is “off.” He never follows through on the implications of his ideas (whether out of ideology or to protect his establishment viability) and he becomes worse than useless when he promotes “citizenism” - but I’ve discussed that enough in other posts. 38
Posted by Stanley Womack on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:07 | # Dear allotmentkeeper, replying to your words: “We’ll have to agree to disagree.” That’s fine, but that’s not what you do. You persist in your attack on finely honed concepts without demonstrating that you are making the slightest effort to speak out in your own society, whatever it is, to beat back defamation. Just what do you do when you see slurs against the English, for example. How about a couple of examples? Or does dining at the “best tables” dictate such good manners that raising one’s voice in one’s defense is simply not done? Why not provide examples from your own experience that demonstrate how to do this well instead of merely attacking what has been done well and successfully elsewhere. The reason is clear, you do not find offensive labeling of European Americans to be offensive. You welcome it. “It’s patently false.” Your reference to “white male” and “white female” was framed in a wholly dishonest way. Our on-line syllabus makes the point very clearly that slurs are slurs because of various factors, and in this case, when “white male” or “white female” are used to show contempt or to smother diversity. Let me give you an example. When a listing of persons is made with various names, like for example, “Nigerian student, Asian leader, Mexican artist, and white male,” the words “white male” are clearly a way to show contempt and to smother diversity. If the list states, instead, “Black male, yellow male, bronze female, and white male,” then “white male” is patently not a slur. How hard is that? Let’s do agree to disagree, but let’s have an end to your offensive misreadings. 39
Posted by JJR Apologist on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:49 | # Citizenism does allow “white gentiles” to defend what is currently in possession, and on a morally defensible platform. Meaning: no mass immigration, an end to affirmative action, etc. It is a great, big step up from exactly zero. Anyway, Sailor is not the type to favor the ethnic cleansing espoused by WNs like Jared Taylor. He is your typical, normal, healthy, well-socialized boy who does not plot for mass rapine, world conquest, and like desiderata. 40
Posted by Kulturkampf on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:06 | # Actually, Jared Taylor made the point that whenever he hears a white man describe himself as ‘a white male’, he tells him to say ‘a white man’ instead because the phrase suggests a laboratory rat. There’s an important point about self respect here - a white man can be proud of being both a man and white, while the term ‘white male’ does indeed suggest a lab rat, or a criminal suspect, and as such is a phrase shorn of any respect for either masculinity or whiteness. I too agree with the gist of what RD is trying to achieve but to my ears as well there’s too much shrillness and a failure to make their points about offensive, anti-white language in a measured and persuasive fashion. There’s definitely a prize at the end of all this - witness the vast energy that ethnic activitists channel into policing the English language. But more fine tuning is required. Not to mention a better choice of targets. The posters here may not be on the same page as Sailer vis-a-vis his citizenism or Auster vis-a-vis his support for Israel, but these men are in the vanguard, respectively, of race realism and Western/white preservationism. To attack allies like this is just ludicrous. 41
Posted by Kulturkampf on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:15 | # JJR apologist- Taylor’s never said a dickie bird in favour of ethnic cleansing. He repeatedly says there are only two policies that he advocates: 1. An end to immigration. 2. The removal of all race relations laws. Please don’t regurgitate the other side’s propaganda! I agree with you about Sailer’s normality, though - he seems like a well-adjusted, friendly guy, which makes newbies more likely to give his ideas a fair hearing instead of running screaming from the room. (Not that I wouldn’t call Taylor normal too - it’s the people who think his position is immoral who are weird.) 42
Posted by JJR Apologist on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:43 | # Um, Jared Taylor has written of other ethnic groups as “fit for extermination” and his expectation that a white, healthy America would expand into and entirely repopulate South America with pure-bred Europeans. (Not that there’s anything wrong with aiming high.) 43
Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:42 | # “Um, Jared Taylor has written of other ethnic groups as “fit for extermination” and his expectation that a white, healthy America would expand into and entirely repopulate South America with pure-bred Europeans. (Not that there’s anything wrong with aiming high.)” References, please. I’ve been reading AR for many years and don’t recall that - unless it was written in the very early years of the journal. Sailer’s citizenism is immoral for reasons already discussed on this blog, in detail: his idea was dissected in several posts. The posts should be in the archive; if needed, GW can dig them up - I may even have at least one of them saved and can be reposted if it was lost when I was deleted from the blogger’s list. If Sailer is normal - with his promotion of miscegenation and aracial constitutional patriotism (which is what citizenism is, but, worse, it even lacks any coherent ideals) - then give me abnormality. Sailer’s site is always an interesting read but I don’t forget that he is ‘them” and not “us.” 44
Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:45 | # “If not, why are you guys picking fights with Steve Sailer, one of the first people to link to your frickin’ blog? “ The Great Man unlinked this blog, twice I believe, and currently does not link to it. He still links to, and promotes, GNXP, with all that entails about his interests in white preservation. 45
Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:49 | # http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/citizen_sailer/ I don’t really have much to add to that. 46
Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:07 | # “Citizenism does allow “white gentiles” to defend what is currently in possession, and on a morally defensible platform. Meaning: no mass immigration, an end to affirmative action, etc.” How? Whites would have to explain to non-whites how these policies, which benefit whites but harm non-whites, is in the interest of “all Americans.” Non-whites would argue otherwise, that, for example, affirmative action makes America “fairer”, gives minorities “a chance against institutional racism”, and lets America benefit from “underutilized minority talents.” Or, does Sailer - who promotes Wolfe’s ideas that groups have their own ethnic narratives that rule their thinking - believe that nonwhites will go along with his own thoughts on IQ and racial differences? Hardly. Since affirmative action benefits white women as well, one could argue that the majority of “American citiizens” benefit - a citizenist argument for quotas? The same for immigration, one can make careful arguments showing that “all Americans” are harmed by such immigration, but ethnic advocates may think otherwise. Will suspicious, ethnocentric Hispanics believe that white citizenists are against immigration solely for the “good of America (even if it were true?)” Ethnic conflict is inherent in a multiracial society, and I don’t see how deluding whites as to their interests is going to change that, nor will it “fool” ethnocentric nonwhites who will cry “racism” every time the citizenism doesn’t go their way. And then you have certain Asiatics who define “the American way” as having organized groups of Asian newcomers outcompeting individualistic white natives - and if you object then that is “unAmerican.” There are Sailer’s buddies - grist for the mill of citizenism? 47
Posted by JJR Apologist on Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:51 | # In a truly citizenist US (if that were possible), “white gentiles” would get their way almost all the time… the point being, the interests of every group would count, including that of white gentiles. As it stands, it’s white gentiles zip, jewry almost everything else (including even the minorities’ share - Jews only use them for instrumental purposes only; blacks for instance have zero power to actually get a law passed, ya know. Same goes for your bete noires at gnxp.) Anyway, it’s a heck of a step to convince the typical comfortable middle class American that the way to go is “race war”... that’s a tough, even impossible sell and isn’t happening. So, whether Sailor actually believes that crap or has coldly assessed it for its instrumental value, “citizenism” stands as a potentially useful banner. 48
Posted by Steven Palese on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:18 | # On Holliday,
That essay is absolutely magnificent. Where else do you write 49
Posted by Kulturkampf on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:38 | # Citizenism is silly and Sailer isn’t a white nationalist. However, he is an excellent populariser of race realism, which makes him an ally. I wouldn’t worry about many readers being seduced by citizenism or rushing out to miscegenate after browsing his site - it ain’t going to happen. They’ll just come away with a better understanding of the realities underlying the race taboo, which is one of the main things that we all want to see happening. 50
Posted by goon jordan on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:26 | # AK: I don’t agree with Sailer’s approach - it’s unworkable because, as you suggest, no other racial or ethnic group would play ball SW: No, I don’t suggest that. We’re way beyond games references, this stuff is serious. LOL. It seems Mr. Womack has a serious humor deficit. Not surprising given his faux-outraged, pseudo-politically correct posturing. I agree with Allotmentkeeper. Defamation should be resisted, but not in this petty, obnoxious way. I also think that white diversity should be stressed, but without resorting to whining. 51
Posted by On Holliday on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:41 | # “Anyway, it’s a heck of a step to convince the typical comfortable middle class American that the way to go is “race war”... that’s a tough, even impossible sell and isn’t happening. “ Mr. Strawman, no one, certainly not me, has advocated “race war.” Do you have a reference for my comments on that, the same as Taylor’s? Citizenism is a sickingly despicable policy of diverting the energy of white advocates and reinforcing all the white pathologies that got us into this mess. No explanation of course to answer my objections as to why any group other than whites would sacrifice self-interest for “the good of America”, why they would define any pro-white action as “good for America”, and how whites can promote their own interests in an aracial fashion. How is one to oppose intermarriage for example, if the only thing that matters is the legal fiction of citizenism? Citizenism has to be about the worst idea I’ve heard..even propositionism is better. Steve, I certainly am not going to write here… No where else for now. Post a comment:
Next entry: A little reality dawns
|
|
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) |
Posted by Europreservationist on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 00:34 | #
Is this post a parody of some sort? When did the terms “gentile” and “non-Hispanic white” become offensive?
If not, why are you guys picking fights with Steve Sailer, one of the first people to link to your frickin’ blog?