Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:34 | #

I guess you shut him up, GW.  (Someone had to ...)

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:12 | #

I’m glad you made this new post GW, because I was ignorant of this discussion.  Dragging much of the first thread here…

Phil Peterson

I have no dislike for Jews for their ethnic particularism. I am critical of Jews for their hypocrisy, i.e. preaching universalism to the world and reserving particularism for themselves. Much Jew-hatred in the world stems from this.

Phil, I’d like to agree but revise and extend that.  I’m not even critical of Jews for their hypocrisy.  I am critical of Jews simply because they’re not on my side.  I don’t begrudge their “preaching universalism to the world and reserving particularism for themselves,” because I regard that as intelligent behavior.  As Robert suggests (in a confused, roundabout sort of way), I want the same sort of rational behavior from my people.  It’s how a smart, ethnocentric people living in a multiracial society behaves!

I simply heap opprobrium on Jews to bring their “hypocrisy” to the attention of those ignorant of it among my people, so they can learn from, respond to, and possible adopt/adapt it to their own ends.

In short, I don’t hate Jews, <b>I just want the whole world to know everything about them<b>.  I want to crash their party so we can all play their games.

Ben Tillman

“The argument that accounts for the step to familialism serves equally well for each succeeding step -– except for the last.  Why the difference?  Because the One World created by universalism has -– by definition -– no competitive base to support it….  [Universalism] cannot survive in competition with discrimination.

I’ve been arguing the same thing (albeit less eloquently) for some time now; a “group” of atomized individuals will be out-competed by a group of collectivists, ceteris paribus, 100% of the time.

Robert Lindsay

have no beef against white nationalism, and if you can ever create a form of it that is purged of racism and chauvinism and hypocrisy, let me know. It’s clear to me that the only way whites (or any group) can compete on an equal level with, say, Jews, in the US anyway, is for whites to become ethnocentric. It doesn’t have to be racial.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/racism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism

Racism includes the idea that one race is superior to others, and implied in this is the idea that one race is superior to all others in an overarching sense; essentially, racism is supremacism.  Few thinking WNs are actually racist except in the catch-all, vernacular, race-realism sense (as in Wikipedia’s definition); note that I self-describe as a racist to save time, but really the appellation doesn’t fit.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/chauvinism

Chauvinism involves fanaticism; I detect no chauvinists here (though admittedly there are many at Stormfront), and I don’t see how fanaticism is intrinsic to WNism.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/bigot

Bigotry involves unreasonable behavior and rudeness, and usually fanaticism.

I am not playing word games here, I’m making an honest attempt to show you that simple discrimination, particularism, ethnocentrism, etc., don’t rise to the level of racism, chauvinism, or bigotry.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:13 | #

Re: evolution. In terms of natural selection, evolution is pretty near finished for the human race, except for some extreme situations (AIDS in Africa). I find it dubious that we have reached where we are today due to particularism, though tribalism may indeed be innate.

Nonsense.  Evolution continues, though the rules have changed and this period of evolution might properly be called social evolution (Darwin might call it the age of sexual selection).

Discrimination is hatred, or at least it’s based on it. Since Jews discriminate probably more than any other group in the US, they must be filled with hatred.

That’s just a silly leftist mantra.  Discrimination is choice; choice can be based on an enormous variety of motivations (self-interest, logic, taste, instinct, fear, love, hate, jealousy, etc.).  Discrimination is value-neutral.

WRT to the lighter skinned not breeding with the darker in India (and the world over), I doubt they understand IQ at all. It’s just deep prejudice and some really stupid religion to boot.

Humans engage in all sorts of adaptive behavior they don’t understand.  We aren’t simply rational free-willed actors after all.  I grew up in a black neighborhood, and I’ve seen at least part of what will replace race and racism in your utopia: colorism.  See Brazil for details.

No doubt that particularism is bred into us and is natural, but so is wife-beating, getting drunk, stealing, murder, rape and genocide.

So are wife-loving, staying sober, giving to charity, conceiving children, chivalry, and cooperation.  What’s your point?

We are Leftists, we are out to socially engineer the species away from its caveman tendencies.

Speak for yourself, I’m out for enlightened self-interest.

You would take the role of government and the elite beyond must into ought, and I think that way is fraught with peril.  Further, you’d invite great trouble by thinking you can socially engineer man; you want to take away his instinct for murder, I just want him to know he’ll spend his life in prison if he commits murder.

The whole idea of social engineering is madness writ large imo.

One thing you (and proponents of panmixia in general) don’t seem to understand is that it’s far less safe than particularism and self-segregation.  Panmixia is permanent and irreversible, particularism is temporary and easily reversed.  Any “pure” race can decide at any point to mix and create a new race, but the reverse isn’t true.  Panmixia is a one-way street.  Prudence demands a long, Long, LONG look at something as radical and irreversible as panmixia before it is carried out.  Personally, I say let’s wait it out, we’ve got plenty of time to make such a decision.

Immigrants “aggression for the land”. Laughs. Oh come now. They just want a better life is all. They aren’t invading or colonizing or anything.

Come now, surely you’ve heard of “La Reconquista?”

Oh, and your comments about getting it from both sides resonates well with me.  Take this quote from Effra:

We have a secret weapon of ethnic destruction: the blonde schicksa trophy wife, whose allure is as dangerous to secular Jewish integrism in the West as the fecund Palestinian lady is to the Zionist ghetto on the Med.

You wouldn’t believe the hell I caught at Stormfront for advocating the increased use of this secret weapon.  Actually, I simply stated that the most effective strategy open to WNism was the accelerated assimilation of American Jewry and the ostensible end to anti-Semitism (as far as is practical, since saying hello can be considered anti-Semitism by Jews), I didn’t advocate it.  You’d have thought I suggested panmixia or something.

dlg

Indeed. This is a point often missing from discussions portaying the Jews as hyper-ethnocentric pseudo-universalist hypocrites.

Well, history (three thousand years of it) argues against Jewish annihilation via assimilation.  I think a healthy skepticism is in order.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:20 | #

Oh, one last point Robert L., regarding your utopian views of the end of race and racism: you should review Social Identity Theory.  It argues against everything you believe on this matter.  People will always find phenotypical criteria in order to divide themselves into groups and compete.  Your utopia would just replace race with something else.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:32 | #

Well, history (three thousand years of it) argues against Jewish annihilation via assimilation.

And the data are much different from what they are reported to be. 

The last comprehensive study I am aware of (based on data from 15 years ago) placed an upper limit of 14% on out-marriage in the US.  See Medding, Peter Y., Gary Tobin, Sylvia Barrack Fishman, and Mordechai Rimor. 1992. “Jewish Identity in Conversionary and Mixed Marriages,” American Jewish Committee Yearbook 92: 3-76.  Of course, the figure may be somewhat higher now, though it is also worth noting that the figure is much lower, approaching zero, in Israel.  I am unaware of data for other countries.

The 52% intermarriage figure is based on the 1991 Jewish population survey commissioned by the Council of Jewish Federations.  The survey, however, overcounted rural, Southern, black, and poor Jews, and Kosmin et al. (who performed the survey) acknowledged that they may have undercounted the Orthodox.  Moreover, the interpretation of the data exaggerated exogamy by not accounting for those who have (or will have) married more than once, taking at least one Jewish and one gentile spouse.  It doesn’t matter if a Jewish man has numerous wives if at some point he marries and has children with a Jewish woman.  Likewise, it doesn’t matter if a Jewish woman marries a gentile after she has reared Jewish children and her husband has divorced her for a younger shikse.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 00:35 | #

Discrimination/nationalism/tribalism/ethnocentrism are evolutionary - not political - qualities.

In this vein, I would recommend David Sloan Wilson’s books on multilevel selection:  Unto Others and Darwin’s Cathedral.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 01:09 | #

And the data are much different from what they are reported to be.

Yeah, given Jewry’s historical tendency towards crypto-Judaism and external threat-exaggeration, the “outmarriage crisis” should be viewed with a shaker of salt.

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:55 | #

Hello Svigor: Well I do agree with the rest of you that there is a Jewish Question, but we differ somewhat on the nature of it. For the Left, it is essential to recognize that in the US the Jews are the most anti-universalist group of all. In fact, they must be the most anti-universalist group on Earth, since the most hyperethnocentric group is most logically also the most anti-universalist. Now, why modern Jews preach universalism, mass intermarriage and nondiscrimation to the rest of us is beyond me!

I am not sure they are smart enough to cook up this devious plot you accuse them of, but anything is possible. I think Jews don’t like to be minorities in a solidly ethnic - religious society because those societies have historically attacked Jews. So maybe it’s a self-preservation thing. At any rate, it is suspicious as Hell!

I just saw the website of a Leftist socialist Jewish convert. He flat out said that he encouraged intermarriage in everyone….but Jews! Straight from the horse’s mouth. He urged Jews not to intermarry, and he urged anyone marrying a Jew to convert. Outrageous! And I assure you that he, and 95% of other Jews, are completely blind to the hypocrisy here.

Let me show you how the Jews are the worst enemy of we universalists in the US:

In the US, the last group to practice any kind of ethnic politics or (nonviolent) ethnic warfare (all reference to ethnic warfare below refer to the nonviolent type) that works well are the Jews. The ethnic warfare of whites is very weak, and they have formed some insane alliance with Jews such that they won’t react to Jewish ethnic war thrusts. Due to the Jews practicing ethnic warfare, and everyone else divided and not practicing ethnic warfare, the Jews continue to take money and power from non-Jews.

Now, I am a universalist. But I acknowledge that in a situation like this the only way for non-Jews to fight back against Jewish ethnic warfare is for non-Jews to become ethnocentrist and start waging ethnic warfare back at them. You either do that or you’re f-d. At this point, the Jews will become aware of the reactive ethnic warfare against them and go totally insane, like they always do. They will try to kill those reacting to them (see Henry Ford).

They will whip the nation into a mad frenzy through the media and Hollywood, they will implement the nasty threat of the Jewish Boycott, they will use the courts against reactors, and at some point, Jews will enlist the Judaized US government in their behalf. At that point, all bets are off. History tells us that such Jewish counterreactions lead to increased rage amongst the reactors, who escalate their reaction. Pretty soon you have all-out ethnic conflict, and ethnic conflict between Jews and non-Jews is not very pretty, historically.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 14:12 | #

I don’t think this guy Robert Lindsay is for real.  There’s something wrong with this picture.

Posted by john rackell on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:12 | #

I want the same sort of rational behavior from my people.  It’s how a smart, ethnocentric people living in a multiracial society behaves!

Have you considered becoming a Mormon?

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:26 | #

Robert Lindsay:

First let me say that it’s refreshing to discuss things with an anti-racist who isn’t ridiculously blind to the realities of the JQ (you seem quite the opposite).

there is a Jewish Question, but we differ somewhat on the nature of it. For the Left, it is essential to recognize that in the US the Jews are the most anti-universalist group of all. In fact, they must be the most anti-universalist group on Earth, since the most hyperethnocentric group is most logically also the most anti-universalist.

Yes, Jews are historically the undisputed world heavyweight champions of ethnocentrism (among other things).  It’s always morbidly amusing to hear this public speaker or that scribbler refer to Jewry’s “mysterious” or “inexplicable” or “fated” survival of three thousand years (the same adjectives of course are often applied to the notable host of enemies it’s made along the way); it’s their racism, dummy!  Now, I leave modern American Jewry as open to interpretation, but Classical Judaism was not only the first culture to systematize ethnocentrism (and one of the few to ever do so), it made it a raison d’etre<i>.

<i>Now, why modern Jews preach universalism, mass intermarriage and nondiscrimation to the rest of us is beyond me!

I am not sure they are smart enough to cook up this devious plot you accuse them of, but anything is possible. I think Jews don’t like to be minorities in a solidly ethnic - religious society because those societies have historically attacked Jews. So maybe it’s a self-preservation thing. At any rate, it is suspicious as Hell!

Robert, the key to sorting that out is self-deception, one of Jewry’s secret weapons.  Self-deception allows that particular circle to be squared.  You’ve put your finger precisely on the longstanding ostensible reason for why Jews collectively engage in this behavior.  You should read Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Judaism; even if you find his scientific theories unverifiable (I know I do, having an insufficient science background), it makes for compelling reading.

In short, it’s not a “plot,” at least not for most Jews. 

I just saw the website of a Leftist socialist Jewish convert. He flat out said that he encouraged intermarriage in everyone….but Jews! Straight from the horse’s mouth.

Do you have a link?

And I assure you that he, and 95% of other Jews, are completely blind to the hypocrisy here.

Yes, and it isn’t at all difficult to understand why Jews are so monolithically blind to these matters.  Jews have always had rigid social mechanisms for collective thought control.  After the walls of the ghetto fell, the Holocaust took over that duty.  When you think your people the most irrationally hated, the most envied, the most special, it’s easy to justify and propagate all sorts of logical twists and obfuscations.  It’s easy to create an environment totally lacking in true introspection.

John Hartung has a good handle on how these mechanisms work.

I acknowledge that in a situation like this the only way for non-Jews to fight back against Jewish ethnic warfare is for non-Jews to become ethnocentrist and start waging ethnic warfare back at them.

Quite right.

Fred Scrooby:

I don’t think this guy Robert Lindsay is for real.  There’s something wrong with this picture.

Stick to dealing with his ideas and it doesn’t matter.

john rackell:

Have you considered becoming a Mormon?

Actually I have, if only in passing (and this from a spiritually atheist/logically agnostic skeptic!).

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:41 | #

You do that emotional “flip”, that rush to judgement best seen in your conflation of discrimination with hatred but also very apparent in your sweeping statement that “nationalism - tribalism - ethnocentrism - leads to racism, fascism, discrimination, bigotry, anti-Semitism”.

I have seen it with my very own eyes, for years now. I am just now slowly figuring this out, at age 47. I am convinced that it is true. Now, it does not *necessarily* have to be true, but surely, nationalism - tribalism - ethnocentrism (NTE), at the very least *contains the seeds* of fascism inside each and every instance of such. We need to regard NTE like matches or fire. Be careful how you play with it. I am in a bind here as a Pan-Arabist - Arab nationalist, now mind you. Further, *I* am an American nationalist, believe it or not. Were I not, I would not propose immigration limits. I hate George Bush because he is bad for America.

I have no idea whether NTDE (add discrimination) leads to evolutionary fitness. I find it highly dubious. I study biology. The most fit species are contantly breeding in with more divergent members of the species. The more homogenous the species is, the less fit it is, simple fact.

Bigotry and hatred generally arise because differing peoples who wish to live their lives as they please are, for one reason or another, forced together.

I do not think you can prove this at all. My observation is that people segregating themselves into different regions is what leads to international - intertribal strife. Look at Baghdad - there is less strife there because it is so mixed. The more homogenous areas of Baghdad see the most war, less the least. Outside of Baghdad, war rages in the Sunni Triangle, which is all Sunni. There is some fighting in mixed cities like Kirkuk and Mosul, but the tribes have maintained their separation there.

You also drag in Fascism, by which I suppose you mean the deeply repugnant ideology of aryan supremacism that informed Nazism.  Fascism is a political movement still important in Italy.  Liberals seem to know absolutely nothing about it but just use the word willy-nilly.

No, actually, Nazi NS was just one rather divergent kind of fascism. The prototype was Italian. There were others through Europe in the 30’s and 40’s, in the Baltics, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine, White Russia, Turkey, Greece, Spain. Also big movements in Britain, Japan, China and France. Later, movements in Portugal, Indonesia, Taiwan, Iran, India, and some similar movements in Latin America, South Korea and the Philippines.

It is an extraordinarily complex movement and I recommend the Wiki piece on fascism. No, I do not throw the term around too much. My recent studies indicate a continuum - as one goes Left, socialism trends increase. As one goes Right, fascist-like trends increase. The Right exception is libertarianism, but it’s never held power.

Now Nazism is, as John Ray repeatedly makes crystal clear, socialism.  It is on the left of the liberal political spectrum (libertarianism is on the right).

Actually, Nazism is regarded as a heterodox far Rightwing movement, a divergent fascist-like movement. The notion that Nazism is/was a Left movement comes from Von Mises and is regarded as crackpot by political scientists.

If you take a peak around our blog you will find that we spend a good deal of time discussing the place and nature of Conservatism - and, indeed, liberalism.

I’d very much like to see that. What’s your view on the welfare state? That’s the one main reason I am a Leftist. Do you support it or oppose it?

They all, though, operate on the basis that the untermensch must overthrow the ubermensch.

That’s me all right. For the poor, against the rich. A lot of times, the rich just need to be killed, frankly, some of them, anyway. That’s what revolution is all about.

But we are not, old man.

Now now, you are 6 years older than I am.

Robert, Christianity is not “about” transcending anything.

Then you don’t understand Christianity of the lesson of the Son of Man. That’s what it’s *all* about. Transcending our base natures (such as NTE) through Christian spiritual social engineering, to create the New Christian Man, like Guevara’s New Cuban Man. Note I am a Liberation Theologist.

There are, incidentally, superficial similarities between Christianity and racialism as there are between Christianity and liberalism.

I cannot think of a more anti-racist philosophy than Christianity! You accept the Christ, and you are one of the Christian Tribe, who are all equal and one before God.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:30 | #

I cannot think of a more anti-racist philosophy than Christianity! You accept the Christ, and you are one of the Christian Tribe, who are all equal and one before God.

That depends on which flavor you prefer (Christianity is open-ended enough to be contradictory, and more to the point, support both worldviews): there’s the “purer” Christianity which takes the New Testament as essentially the sum of Christianity, and there’s the “fundamental” Christianity which takes Christ at his word when he stated “not a jot or a tittle” of the old law was changed by his teachings (thus dragging in the Tanakh and all its ethnocentrism).

Now, it does not *necessarily* have to be true, but surely, nationalism - tribalism - ethnocentrism (NTE), at the very least *contains the seeds* of fascism inside each and every instance of such.

Sure, but what we’re really interested in here is violence, and violence has been far better implemented via your fellow travelers, for far longer periods.  More have been killed in the name of equality than in the name of separation.

I see no reason why racial nations couldn’t show one another mutual respect, and I see no reason why racial nations are axiomatically more inclined to incite violence.  The truth is that unrepresentative government is orders of magnitude more problematic than particularism in this regard.  Most of the strife in this world boils down to a lack of self-determination for peoples.

Actually, Nazism is regarded as a heterodox far Rightwing movement, a divergent fascist-like movement. The notion that Nazism is/was a Left movement comes from Von Mises and is regarded as crackpot by political scientists.

If true, that only shows that most political scientists are themselves Leftists and terrified of any association with Nazism.

There are two real distinctions between Nazism and Communism - Internationalism/Nationalism and Classism/Racism.  These are hardly enough to move Nazism into the “Rightist” category imo.

I do not think you can prove this at all. My observation is that people segregating themselves into different regions is what leads to international - intertribal strife.

I think that’s just ridiculous.

Look at Baghdad - there is less strife there because it is so mixed. The more homogenous areas of Baghdad see the most war, less the least. Outside of Baghdad, war rages in the Sunni Triangle, which is all Sunni. There is some fighting in mixed cities like Kirkuk and Mosul, but the tribes have maintained their separation there.

This is a flawed analogy (I’m being kind).  The Sunnis areas are hotbeds of fighting because the Sunnis are the big losers of GWII, not because they’re homogenous.  The Shiite areas aren’t fighting because they’re the big winners of GWII, not because they’re heterogenous.

Here’s an equally facile analogy: look at the areas of Iraq where there are both Iraqis and Coalition troops!  In these heterogenous areas, ALL the fighting occurs.  In homogenous areas where there are no Coalition troops, only Iraqis, all is quiet.

As a final note, heterogeneity breeds movements like Communism (which allows ethnic groups like Jews to maximize their power and abuse other groups), so heterogeneity is bad.  I know, that’s a strange argument, but this has turned into a strange discussion.

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:51 | #

In short, I don’t hate Jews, I just want the whole world to know everything about them.

That’s about where I am coming from.

I am not playing word games here, I’m making an honest attempt to show you that simple discrimination, particularism, ethnocentrism, etc., don’t rise to the level of racism, chauvinism, or bigotry.

Oh boy! I am going to really disagree with that, all right. I will acknowledge that ethnocentrism is not necessarily racism chauvinism or bigotry, but is it hard to argue that particularism and discrimination are not!

Nonsense.  Evolution continues, though the rules have changed and this period of evolution might properly be called social evolution (Darwin might call it the age of sexual selection).

I am talking about pure natural selection theory, in terms of, the less fit die before they can reproduce or before they can raise their young and their young die. That’s history, though such stuff as AIDS or who knows, tsunamis, may have some kind of effects. In this part of California, 93% of the Indians died in about a 50 year period. You know some natural selection effects came out of that.

Discrimination is value-neutral.

Let’s see, you are going to hire and promote your own kind, and openly discriminate against everyone else, and there is not anything nasty about it! LOL. You sound like a Jew. We all know that’s what they do, and they say they are the biggest racist-fighters on Earth. Laughing. You gonna convert to Judaism or do you just want to use them as a model for your group? Wink.

I grew up in a black neighborhood, and I’ve seen at least part of what will replace race and racism in your utopia: colorism.  See Brazil for details.

Colorism will be a lot easier to fight than overt racism. And Brazil is widely acknowledged to be one of the least overtly racist states on Earth, considering its population. However, there is a disturbing white supremacist movement in the South. The society is profoundly unfair, but that’s more structural.

What’s your point?

My point is you all are championing discrimation and particularism on the basis that it is genetic. Hell so is genocide and murder, so what? Go champion that too. It’s insane to champion *anything* merely on the basis that humans have some tendency that way.

you want to take away his instinct for murder, I just want him to know he’ll spend his life in prison if he commits murder.

Nope, I am like you. We cant’ take away the instinct as it’s bred in. We just want people to rise above, and avoid these things via punishments, as you suggest.

The whole idea of social engineering is madness writ large imo.

Not at all. It works very well. It’s why you have low crime rates, hard working populations, mass altruistic behavior, all sorts of good things. And racism reduction is working great in the US in the younger generation, many of whom don’t even seem to care about race.

Any “pure” race can decide at any point to mix and create a new race, but the reverse isn’t true.

Yeh but a lot of these idiot ethnics who think they have some kind of a pure race are just worshipping their own mixed race. See: Italians, Arabs, US Blacks, US Hispanics, Spaniards, Portuguese, Ashkenazi Jews, Indian Hindus, Hungarians, and other such fuckwads.

Prudence demands a long, Long, LONG look at something as radical and irreversible as panmixia before it is carried out.

Hell it’s already happened. There are mixed races all over the globe. They are extremely common. It’s been going on for millenia.

Come now, surely you’ve heard of “La Reconquista?”

You mean the Aztland crowd in the US? That’s a joke. I live in California, trust me.

Oh, and your comments about getting it from both sides resonates well with me.  Take this quote from Effra:

Thx man. That is the unusual thing here. I have been in ME fora for 3 years and have been called a white nationalist, white supremacist, rightist, conservative, racist, bigot, hater, KKK, Nazi, brownshirt, anti-Semite, sexist something like 100,000 times, mostly by Jews, then liberals and Leftists (JLL). Then I come in here with the *real* WN boyz and they pound the Hell out of me. Laughing. You may be interested that according to JLL, I am an:

1. Anti-Black racist
2. Anti-Hispanic racist
3. Anti-Semite
4. Sexist
5. Anti-Arab
6. Muslim-hater
7. Gay-hater

Then I come in here and you all accuse me of being a lover of all these groups.

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:25 | #

“We have a secret weapon of ethnic destruction: the blonde schicksa trophy wife, whose allure is as dangerous to secular Jewish integrism in the West as the fecund Palestinian lady is to the Zionist ghetto on the Med.”

You wouldn’t believe the hell I caught at Stormfront for advocating the increased use of this secret weapon.  Actually, I simply stated that the most effective strategy open to WNism was the accelerated assimilation of American Jewry and the ostensible end to anti-Semitism (as far as is practical, since saying hello can be considered anti-Semitism by Jews), I didn’t advocate it.

That’s my solution to the Jewish Question. I am thinking of doing a post on it. Also, one of the main problems with Ashkenazi Jews is the high IQ, which makes them overrepresented in so many fields, which pisses everyone else off. So, the high Jewish IQ needs to be lowered. Best way to do that is through intermarriage because the Gentiles these Jews marry will probably have lower IQ’s. A problem with intermarriage is this bizarre Jewish fixation on *conversion of the Gentile spouse*, which reaches near-obsessional qualities with the Jewish spouse.

Another way it works is that the Gentile spouse is treated like *total dogshit* by many of the couple’s Jewish friends. So, many spouses convert, and since Jewishness is mostly cultural and not genetic, my observation is that converts tend to become about 500 years Kosher right quick! Do they require Obnoxiousness Classes for conversion? Laughs.

Oh, one last point Robert L., regarding your utopian views of the end of race and racism: you should review Social Identity Theory.  It argues against everything you believe on this matter.  People will always find phenotypical criteria in order to divide themselves into groups and compete.  Your utopia would just replace race with something else.

I had a conversation recently with Kevin MacDonald and that was what he said. I think it will be easier to deal with if there are less obvious differences. Consider: if IQ differences between Asians and Western Blacks were on the order of not 20 points but 10 points, or 5 points. That would be progress. I will look into this Social Identity theory but I guess it just confirms that we still have caveman genes in us, no?

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:00 | #

First let me say that it’s refreshing to discuss things with an anti-racist who isn’t ridiculously blind to the realities of the JQ (you seem quite the opposite).

Thx Svigor! You know, it took me about 3 years of intense studying to get here, after 45 years of Judeophilic ignorant stupor. The evidence is so obvious it should be clear to anyone, but so many refuse to see. Also, the Jews are clearly a serious problem to universalists, so all these universalist liberals and Leftists really ought to look into this JQ a bit more.

In short, it’s not a “plot,” at least not for most Jews.

I am not sure if I get it, though it seems dubious it’s a real plot. So, can you tell me, why does a hyperethnocentric group preach wild universalism to everyone but themselves? I do understand why they can’t see it though.

I just saw the website of a Leftist socialist Jewish convert. He flat out said that he encouraged intermarriage in everyone….but Jews! Straight from the horse’s mouth.

Do you have a link?

LOL, yep. I hate to link to Irving but here goes:

Who is Andrew Mathis?

From the link:

A correspondent informs us: “Mathis claims to have initiated the first “anti-hate” website, The Web of Hate. That site is defunct, but parts remain located at: http://www.geocities.com/andrewmathis/

Among the items on that page I found this most revelatory item:

  ” Interracial Sites on the WWW http://www.eden.com/~crusader/irsites.html links here. I’m all for interracial marriages: even seen the garbage that inbreeding causes? But kids, I don’t budge on Jewish intermarriage. If you’re gonna marry a Jew, convert to Judaism http://www.convert.org I did. it! After all, as Rabbi Harold Kushner said, “We import better than we export.” And think, you get to learn the ZOG handshake!”

Israel Shamir says this about him in his article: Maidens and Warriors:

“It brings us back to the adage of our sages, regarding paedophiles and proselytes. Jewish faith is extremely suspicious of proselytes. They are like scab on the head of Israel, taught Rabbi Helbo, and modern practice supports his learned opinion. Judaism is too complicated to receive in mature age. People born and raised as religious Jews got used to be the Chosen folk, and take it easy, but neophytes go dizzy at the thought.

It is not strange. The true English aristocrat Tony Benn supports the rights of ordinary folk, while freshly created parvenu Conrad Black promotes the oppression of Europeans and Muslims alike in his numerous newspapers. Some of the worst racists in Hebron, this frontline of Israeli apartheid are actually proselytes who took literally some risky Biblical ideas. Witness the converted American Gentile Nazi who took the name of Eli Hazeev (the Wolf) and was slain by Palestinian guerrillas, or this scourge of cyberspace, Dr Andrew Mathis who converted and began to defend his version of Judaism on various Internet localities.”

Shamir speaking of converts to Judaism. There is a well-known tendency of Jewish converts to go more Kosher than a f-g Matzo Ball Factory right quick. They are often so hyperJewish that born Jews are *embarassed* of them. Dr. Mathis appears to be such a case. I am having an email interrogation (I mean conversation) with him right now, but of course, it’s going nowhere. Dr. Mathis is one of these Jewish self-styled anti-revisionist Crusaders who is also (of course) an “anti-racist” Crusader. I’ve met 100’s of them and they are cookies from the same cutter.

Posted by dlg on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:14 | #

“Also, one of the main problems with Ashkenazi Jews is the high IQ, which makes them overrepresented in so many fields, which pisses everyone else off. So, the high Jewish IQ needs to be lowered.”

Yes, high IQ is a problem. We need more dumb people in the world. Long live mediocrity!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:11 | #

“Thx Svigor! You know, it took me about 3 years of intense studying to get here, after 45 years of Judeophilic ignorant stupor. The evidence is so obvious it should be clear to anyone, but so many refuse to see. Also, the Jews are clearly a serious problem to universalists, so all these universalist liberals and Leftists really ought to look into this JQ a bit more.”  (—Robert Lindsay, 3/21, 7:00 AM, with emphasis added)

The Jewish imbecilic assholes who espouse anti-particularist universalism—nay, not “espouse” it, but literally devote their entire lives to promoting it, raise their children in Anti-particularist Universalist diapers, contribute fortunes of hard-earned money to its coffers, make it into a new religion (which is exactly what many moronic blind, deaf, and dumb Jews do)—almost as some sort of Jewish National Mystic Ideal in the expectation that it will save the Jewish people in the long run are so stupid they don’t realize the people they are putting themselves in league with expect THEM to abandon their particularism ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE.  You see, THEY think they’re going to succeed in destroying all the Jews’ potential enemies among “the Nations” and little Israel and the Jewish diaspora will live happily ever after in peace. 

There’s only one problem:  IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY, MORONS!

It’s no more the Jews’ fault they have lots of screws loose than it’s the fault of that recently discovered fish for losing its coloration and eyes after having lived thirty thousand years in a pitch-dark underground lake:  that fish didn’t need eyes or color and the Jews didn’t need all their brain screws tightened during two millennia without a country so certain screws in the Jewish brain loosened up.  That’s OK—those screws will tighten up again with time, now that the Hebrews have got their country back.  But in the meantime you’ve got these clueless, wacko Jews running around making common cause with internationalists like this Stalinist genocidal creep Lindsay here, actually never imagining Israel and the Jews will be next on Lindsay-&-Co.‘s list of particularisms to be targeted for destruction.

Clueless Jewish organizations like the ADL will be extremely surprised when there’s no more United States because they’ve helped turn it racially into a mixture of Somalia, Mexico and China, thinking that would save them, and there’s no more Europe because they helped turn that into a giant extension of the Arab world, thinking that would save them too, so there’s no one left to stop the future Chinese behemoth from giving the go-ahead to Israel’s neighbors to carpet-bomb it with H-bombs for the reason that, as Lindsay the Marxist internationalist says, “Jews are a serious problem for universalists.”

To all Jews who’ve adopted the religion of anti-particularist universalism in the belief it’s “good for the Jews”:  Hey, you’re being real smart, guys!  Way to go!

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:09 | #

Fred,

That’s very ingenius.  Like they say, you learn something new every day.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:30 | #

Robert,

I’ll start with a compliment, because I think it’s earned.  You display tenacity, which is a quality I admire.

Now … this rush to judgement thing.  It is, I strongly suspect, central to your entire worldview.  Without the conflation of a Conservative love with a liberal Nazi hate you cannot keep all the plates up in the air.  As it is you have incorporated some race realism, at least, and the meaning of Jewish ethnocentricity into your views – steps that few liberal-minded people can take.  But NTE (like the abbreviation, btw) as love would bring everything crashing down.  So you have a massive intellectual and emotional investment in keeping Nature and love out of NTE.

Today, perhaps, you will be still be able to reassure yourself of your rightness and succeed in that.  But eventually - tomorrow or the next day - you will have to give it up.  People do all the time.  There is a steady stream of travellers from left to right.  None travel the other way.  Knowledge once gained cannot be put away, however inconvenient it may be.

It’s clear that you have not digested the temporal separateness of Conservatism and liberalism.  You are still thinking in terms of the usual left-right spectrum.  I can’t blame you for that because the whole world says it is so.  But scroll down our page to the Karlmagnus post below this.  Martin Hutchinson is the author of Great Conservatives and I believe you will find him authorative on this issue.

Of course, if you believe that Conservatism lies to the right of liberalism rather than behind it your worldview stacks up.  Nazism is somewhere way out to the right of Conservatism.  Fascism, too.  But, Robert, everything - everything - that has freedom as its singular objective, however it is formulated, is liberalism.  If Nature and, especially, race must be denied in order to keep open the psychologically goofy tennet of self-authorship that is liberalism.  If one man must be destroyed for the freedom of another that is liberalism.

Liberalism was born an obsessional politic in 17th century England and has bred political disease and cost hundreds of millions of lives.  Communism has been the greatest killer, dwarfing National Socialism.  But killing is the end product of all political obsession, and all political ideas that declare warfare are obsessional.

Advanced Liberalism, which is the beast as it is manifest today, is set upon another genocide ... the Jewish fantasy of the disappearance of European Man.  That programme - your programme - IS the genocide of ordinary white men and women, political innocents for Christ’s sake.  This you are really anxious- can’t wait -  to see done in order to wipe out imaginary sins which, by what marvellous irony, are actually outcrops of forms of liberalism … racism, Nazism, Fascism!

Robert, NTE is “love” by another name and is deeply Conservative.  It belongs to Nature and the politic of the past, which is why you interpret it in modernity in such a crass and ill-informed way.  Until now you have had no means to do otherwise.  But here, on a proto-Conservative website – not a WN blog btw – you have been disabused of the commonplace ignorance around you.  Wake up.  It’s long past time to support genocides.  Fight them, if you love humanity as you seem to think you do.

Two last points.  The Wiki people are liberals.  They’ve never met a real live Italian Fascist, as I have.  Genuine Fascism is full of the unmistakably liberal illusion of self-authorship, but based on the creation of leadership and the will to power.  Nuts, like all liberalism.

Finally, Christianity as organised religion lies within the liberal politic because its practictioners do.  As esoterica, naturally, it stands without politics entirely.  But ordinary Christians are not esoterists.  I think, therefore, that it is pointless to discuss Christianity.  There are no proofs to be got from it

Try to stretch your thinking, Robert.  Don’t stay in the comfortable circle where you can keep all those belief-plates in the air.  I’m telling you things you have not heard before.  Let the plates fall where they may.

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:09 | #

there’s the “purer” Christianity which takes the New Testament as essentially the sum of Christianity, and there’s the “fundamental” Christianity which takes Christ at his word when he stated “not a jot or a tittle” of the old law was changed by his teachings (thus dragging in the Tanakh and all its ethnocentrism).

That second one is called “Judaized Christianity”. I believe in Replacement Theology, which is supposedly some anti-Semitic kind of Christianity but really is just Xianity period. The Old Testament was *replaced* with the NT.

Sure, but what we’re really interested in here is violence, and violence has been far better implemented via your fellow travelers, for far longer periods.

I am not sure if it is true or not. Really hard to say. WW2, started by 3 far rightwing regimes, killed 60 million people in just 6 years. Armenian genocide killed like 5 million. India-Pakistan ethnic war killed 5 million. Ethnic war in Congo killed 3 million past few years. Chinese rightists killed 10 million. That’s 73 million right off the bat, and World Communism only directly killed about 55 million over an 80 year period. Not that I would want to include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Vietnamese Commies, etc., as “my side” anyway.

More have been killed in the name of equality than in the name of separation.

Dubious, not that it matters anyway. Peasant rebellions never bothered me too much, and they are awfully bloody. Desallines lives!

I see no reason why racial nations couldn’t show one another mutual respect

Typically they don’t, the more ethnocentric they are, and that is the whole problem. Now homogeneity need not equal ethnocentricity.

If true, that only shows that most political scientists are themselves Leftists and terrified of any association with Nazism.

We could care less. The Khmer Rogue, the Cultural Revolution and Stalin were Leftists, and that’s as bad as it gets. Hitler himself stated a number of times that Nazism was a rightwing movement, and they attacked everyone on the Left. Nazism is generally considered to be a divergent form of fascism. So what? You can always reject it.

As a final note, heterogeneity breeds movements like Communism

How does it do that? And how does homogeneity fight Communism?

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:18 | #

Yes, high IQ is a problem. We need more dumb people in the world. Long live mediocrity!

You know dlg, I hate to kiss and tell, but don’t you think, in the interest of fairness, you should let everyone here know that the reason you are making all these pro-Jewish remarks is because you are Jewish yourself?

Back to the question. The Ashk Jewish IQ is 113, way too high. High IQ’s are fine but so many in such a tiny group just causes problems. Too many Jews get into the Law, medicine, the professions, law professors, government, media, opinion shapers, etc. The make lots of money that way and lots of Jewish lawyers doesn’t bother me. But it really enrages 100’s of millions of other humans. So, it’s in the Jews’ best interest to have their IQ lowered somewhat.

Then they will fit in better, won’t dominate societies so much, and anti-Semitism will go down. And Jews will still have plenty of money. If Jews marry Gentiles, the odds are the Jewish IQ will start to drop in their offspring. If the average Jew marries a Gentile with average IQ of 100, the offspring will have 106 IQ. This will be better for social harmony and better for the Jews in the long run. Hey, money’s not everything you know?

Jews marrying Gentiles will not create “lots more dumb people”, you silly man. The offspring will be at least average and probably above.

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:38 | #

As guessworker notes, Scrooby makes a very astute observation.

But NTE (like the abbreviation, btw) as love would bring everything crashing down.  So you have a massive intellectual and emotional investment in keeping Nature and love out of NTE.

No, clearly NTE does involve massive amounts of love and nature. But then the Jews are full of love too. No one loves more than the Jews. Loves *their own*, that is!

There is a steady stream of travellers from left to right.  None travel the other way.

Yep. Leftism is like Christianity, it’s a demanding religion. Too demanding for a lot of humans. They just aren’t good enough for it. They want to be bad, be natural, be caveman. That’s why we have Judaism, the essential anti-Christian religion, or polar opposite of Christianity, and Conservatism, that says don’t even try to be good, just be the animal you were born as.

Nazism is somewhere way out to the right of Conservatism.  Fascism, too.

Sure, that’s reasonable.

psychologically goofy tennet of self-authorship that is liberalism.

What’s self-authorship?

Liberalism was born an obsessional politic in 17th century England and has bred political disease and cost hundreds of millions of lives.  Communism has been the greatest killer, dwarfing National Socialism.

Maybe so, but NS only existed in one nation of 40 million and its colonies for 13 years, in which time it killed 50 million people. Communism killed 55 million over 80 years under 1.5 billion subjects.

Advanced Liberalism, which is the beast as it is manifest today, is set upon another genocide ... the Jewish fantasy of the disappearance of European Man.  That programme - your programme - IS the genocide of ordinary white men and women, political innocents for Christ’s sake.

I only support it in the US, because US Whites are reactionary. Minorities are good for the US because they are progressive. European whites are progressive, so they can stay white for all I care.

racism, Nazism, Fascism!

These 3 things are aspects of liberalism?! Wow, you guys need to take a Political Science class!

Robert, NTE is “love” by another name and is deeply Conservative.

Both true, but you wish to discriminate due to that love, and you wish to be particularistic due to that love, which is crappy. If my Black or Filipina gf’s show up at your workplace, you want to be able to discriminate against them due to “love”. Forgive me for being cynical here, sir! And particularism is crappy. It says “everything for my group and nothing for anybody else”. Forgive me for failing to see the massive love in a statement like that.

I’m telling you things you have not heard before.  Let the plates fall where they may.

Yeh it’s been interesting. Well at least you are trying to modify this WN thing into something more moderate and palatable.

Posted by dlg on Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:29 | #

Robert, your plan to lower Jewish IQs still seems fundamentally wrong-headed to me. Should we also try to lessen black athletic abilities so they won’t dominate professional sports so much? Ever read “Harrison Bergeron”?

Anyway, I have nothing against Jews marrying Gentiles, I am the product of such a marriage myself. But I would also like to see the Jews preserve themselves as a group.

“Hey, money’s not everything you know?”

How did money get into this? I certainly didn’t bring it up. But I guess you assume that, since I’m Jewish, I must be obsessed with money.

Posted by - on Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:01 | #

It’s likely Jews assortively mate with gentiles of similar IQ. The Intelligence will stay and the jewishness diminish; though knowledge of one’s part jewish heritage still seems to have a potent effect on one’s outlook.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:23 | #

It’s likely Jews assortively mate with gentiles of similar IQ.

There is a bit of a stereotype of the Hollywood-mogul type marrying the actress-bimbo type, but your observation is consistent with the Jewish male/gentile female marriages I am personally familiar with.

As for the reverse, Jewish females & gentile males, my experience suggests that Jewish females are strongly socialized (or genetically predisposed) to seek intelligence. 

The Intelligence will stay and the jewishness diminish; though knowledge of one’s part jewish heritage still seems to have a potent effect on one’s outlook.

It does in many cases.

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:53 | #

Robert, your plan to lower Jewish IQs still seems fundamentally wrong-headed to me.

Figured you would say that.

Should we also try to lessen black athletic abilities so they won’t dominate professional sports so much? Ever read “Harrison Bergeron”?

It’s not a serious problem. They do dominate professional sports, but that does not lead them to economically dominate society. Anyway, hardly anyone hates Blacks for dominating sports. No one cares. Furthermore, 100’s of millions of people are angered by Jewish domination of the professions, which leads to Jewish domination of societies and helps lead to Jewish economic domination. I am trying to suggest as something that’s good for the Jews, but as usual, you shoot it down. This is what always happens.

Anyway, I have nothing against Jews marrying Gentiles, I am the product of such a marriage myself.

Fine.

But I would also like to see the Jews preserve themselves as a group.

Not gonna happen so much. Ethnic identification is bound to diminish as marrying out continues, assuming the spouses don’t convert and they don’t raise the kids Jewish. So far the conversion is happening both ways with marrying out spouses, which means conversion in these cases doesn’t benefit the Jews.

“Hey, money’s not everything you know?”

How did money get into this?

Why the heck else are you so worried that Jews might get that precious, oh-so -necessary 113 IQ diminished a tad?

But I guess you assume that, since I’m Jewish, I must be obsessed with money.

Hmm, well, you would be one of the first Jewish ethnic activists that doesn’t care about such things. But, to answer your question, I was friends with a very Jewish writer named Avram Davidson. He was fairly famous. I saw him about maybe 1 year before he died when he visited me. Anyway, Avram cared probably less about money than any US citizen, especially one as brilliant and educated as he was. The guy actually loved living like a hobo.

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:04 | #

It’s likely Jews assortively mate with gentiles of similar IQ.

Maybe, but the usually mate with White Gentiles in this part of the world, and White Gentiles have an average IQ of 100, 13 pts lower than Ashk Jews. I think you are sort of correct though.

The Intelligence will stay and the jewishness diminish;

I figure that IQ has just got to go down. I don’t think you realize how brilliant an average 113 IQ is.

though knowledge of one’s part jewish heritage still seems to have a potent effect on one’s outlook.

No kidding! My God, this never fails to amaze me.

Posted by dlg on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 02:15 | #

“Why the heck else are you so worried that Jews might get that precious, oh-so -necessary 113 IQ diminished a tad?”

Believe it or not, there are people who value intelligence for its own sake. There are many things you can do with a good mind besides make money. You’re dead wrong on this one, and offensive.

“Hmm, well, you would be one of the first Jewish ethnic activists that doesn’t care about such things.”

I’m not a “Jewish ethnic activist”. I sometimes defend Jews on the Net when I feel they’re being unjustly attacked.

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:25 | #

Believe it or not, there are people who value intelligence for its own sake.

Yeppers.

There are many things you can do with a good mind besides make money.

Yep, but that’s not at all the problem as far as Jews are concerned, now is it?

You’re dead wrong on this one, and offensive.

Of course I am wrong. I am always wrong with you folks.

Offensive! LOL. What’s so offensive about the suggestion? The very high IQ of Ashk Jews creates circumstances that create tidal waves of anti-Semitism, which is harmful to the Jews, right?

I don’t know what’s the matter with you people. You bother me, and I am pretty mild.
And here we are at a website full of Holocaust Deniers, white nationalists, the “racial science” crowd, people who think they have a right to discriminate against non-Whites (including Jews) and push the interests of the Whites above everyone else, and not one word from you. Instead, you bother me, your least worst enemy. But then, you folks never do have your priorities straight.

I’m not a “Jewish ethnic activist”.

Sure you are.

I sometimes defend Jews on the Net when I feel they’re being unjustly attacked.

More than sometimes, you do it quite a bit. And anytime anyone criticizes Jews, it’s always “unjust”. We know the game. See Kevin McDonald’s essays in Occidental Quarterly for more. On second thought…don’t bother.

BTW, what you are doing is all it takes to be a JEA. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Posted by dlg on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:45 | #

Robert, take a moment to consider that you are addressing a single human being, not “you folks”, not “you people”. You assume that I’m just like every other “JEA” you’ve had a run-in with in recent times, and address me in derogatory collective terms. This is offensive. Maybe you just get your jollies out of Jew-baiting at this point, I don’t know, but your behavior is pretty obnoxious and un-Christian, if I may say so.

Oh, by the way, I left a comment on the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler thread about you. It’s probably defunct, but what the hell. If you look at it, you’ll see that I’m not part of the pack you decry, although I am ideologically closer to their camp than yours.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:58 | #

Look dlg, give it up and start thinking of yourself as a Jewish Ethic Activist.  Me, I’m a Nordicist apparently.  Or, at least, “us folks” are.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:54 | #

Robert Lindsay:

Oh boy! I am going to really disagree with that, all right. I will acknowledge that ethnocentrism is not necessarily racism chauvinism or bigotry, but is it hard to argue that particularism and discrimination are not!

I provided the links, read the definitions.  Chauvinism and bigotry require certain rather extreme behaviors that are simply not inherent to ethnocentrism, racism, particularism, or discrimination.  You have no argument here.

I am talking about pure natural selection theory, in terms of, the less fit die before they can reproduce or before they can raise their young and their young die. That’s history, though such stuff as AIDS or who knows, tsunamis, may have some kind of effects. In this part of California, 93% of the Indians died in about a 50 year period. You know some natural selection effects came out of that.

Then you should have written “pure natural selection” rather than “evolution.”

Me: Discrimination is value-neutral.

You: Let’s see, you are going to hire and promote your own kind, and openly discriminate against everyone else, and there is not anything nasty about it! LOL. You sound like a Jew.

Discrimination is value-neutral.  Specific forms of discrimination may not be, but that’s why I made the statement in the first place, to highlight the need for specificity.

No, I don’t see anything nasty about discriminating for one’s own kind.  No, I don’t see anything nasty about exercising one’s right to free association.  No, I don’t see anything nasty about particularism.  No, I’m not one of the millions of drones in this country for whom the years of indoctrination stuck and you can rely on to hold in common certain received wisdoms.  Don’t presume that your probably deeply held but shallowly examined revealed truths apply to me, and that all you need do is reference them to dismiss an argument.

Btw, I’m not the sort of WN whose buttons you can push with “you sound like a Jew,” if that’s what you were after.

Btw, I’m not pissed, though these two paragraphs might make it seem so.

Colorism will be a lot easier to fight than overt racism. And Brazil is widely acknowledged to be one of the least overtly racist states on Earth, considering its population. However, there is a disturbing white supremacist movement in the South. The society is profoundly unfair, but that’s more structural.

You’re just not getting it.  Hello McFly!  Colorism and overt racism aren’t what we need to fight!  YOU, YOUR FELLOW TRAVELERS, AND YOUR UTOPIAN BATTLE TO REWRITE MANKIND is what we need to fight.  YOU and YOURS murdered millions more than racism or colorism.  People who want to reshape man en masse are the disease, not the cure.

My point is you all are championing discrimation and particularism on the basis that it is genetic.

That is incorrect.  We are opposed to you and your mission to rewrite man, and part of our opposition is based on the fact that man is not infinitely plastic.  He’s not a toy.  More to the point, he’s not a sucker waiting for people like you to make a power grab for “his own good,” which is all Leftists, Socialists, Communists - whatever - ever seem to end up doing.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:54 | #

Not at all. It works very well. It’s why you have low crime rates, hard working populations, mass altruistic behavior, all sorts of good things. And racism reduction is working great in the US in the younger generation, many of whom don’t even seem to care about race.

What a crock of shit.  White people are law-abiding, hard-working, and altruistic (relative to blacks) mostly because nature made them that way.  Their laws and societies are conducive largely because those are the kinds of laws and societies law-abiding, hard-working, altruistic peoples create for themselves.

Me: Prudence demands a long, Long, LONG look at something as radical and irreversible as panmixia before it is carried out.

You: Hell it’s already happened. There are mixed races all over the globe. They are extremely common. It’s been going on for millenia.

That was a nice dodge.  If it’s already happened, why are you promoting and looking forward to it?  Perhaps while answering this question you should look up “panmixia.”

Best way to do that is through intermarriage because the Gentiles these Jews marry will probably have lower IQ’s.

My guess is that’s too speculative.  My guess is that Jews marry “gentiles” (I despise that word as it’s a Semitic slur) whose mean IQ is closer to that of Jews than non-Jews.

I had a conversation recently with Kevin MacDonald and that was what he said. I think it will be easier to deal with if there are less obvious differences. Consider: if IQ differences between Asians and Western Blacks were on the order of not 20 points but 10 points, or 5 points. That would be progress. I will look into this Social Identity theory but I guess it just confirms that we still have caveman genes in us, no?

Again, you should review SIT.  It requires only the most trivial of differences, e.g. ideological differences.  Are you going to purge those too?

I don’t think of SIT as a justification of race-realism or particularism.  In fact, I don’t NEED any logical justification for my particularism.  All the justification I need can be found in the physical beauty of my race, a beauty I find unique (and yes, superior), a beauty that you want erased.  Isn’t that rich?  My true motivation for WNism is essentially that of the environmentalist.

Why is the spotted owl worth saving, if the white race is not?

I am not sure if it is true or not. Really hard to say. WW2, started by 3 far rightwing regimes, killed 60 million people in just 6 years. Armenian genocide killed like 5 million. India-Pakistan ethnic war killed 5 million. Ethnic war in Congo killed 3 million past few years. Chinese rightists killed 10 million. That’s 73 million right off the bat, and World Communism only directly killed about 55 million over an 80 year period. Not that I would want to include Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Vietnamese Commies, etc., as “my side” anyway.

That’s some interesting math you have there.  Wars take at least two national participants, I’m talking about auto-genocide here, where a state murders its own subjects.  Communism (utopian universalist man-as-target-of-social-engineering Communism) is the all-time undisputed world heavyweight champion there, and dragging in wars won’t help you obfuscate that fact.

Typically they don’t, the more ethnocentric they are, and that is the whole problem. Now homogeneity need not equal ethnocentricity.

Oh, you’re right there.  Homogeneity need only go hand in hand with ethnocentricity when it’s concomitant with prosperity.  No one gives a shit that many African nations discriminate against whites.

Me: As a final note, heterogeneity breeds movements like Communism

You: How does it do that? And how does homogeneity fight Communism?

See Russian history for details.

guessedworker:

There is a steady stream of travellers from left to right.  None travel the other way.

That’s very true.  I came to the same conclusion regarding WNism two years ago - the door only swings one way.  There are exceptions of the rule-proving kind (mental defectives, activism junkies, etc.,), but otherwise, once you go race-realist you don’t go back.  There is of course the option of cooling off, but you don’t just go back.
The Wiki people are liberals.

Yes, Wikipedia should be trusted only on a very short leash.  It’s run by a cabal of fellow-travelers and neoconservatives.

Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:08 | #

....once you go race-realist you don’t go back.

Naturally.  The Left is premised on falsehoods not subjected to critical analysis; elementary principles of logic dictate that a falsehood cannot be “proven”.  Once one has uncovered a truth through critical analysis, no amount of Leftist “argumentation” (i.e., mere assertion) can overcome one’s critical faculties.

Posted by Robert Lindsay on Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:00 | #

Robert, take a moment to consider that you are addressing a single human being, not “you folks”, not “you people”. You assume that I’m just like every other “JEA” you’ve had a run-in with in recent times, and address me in derogatory collective terms. This is offensive.

Everything offends you dlg. Everything but the important stuff. How many times a day do you get offended? 50? 100? 300? Ridiculous. And you’re in a thread full of Holocaust Deniers here and not one word. You afraid of them, dlg?

Maybe you just get your jollies out of Jew-baiting at this point, I don’t know, but your behavior is pretty obnoxious and un-Christian, if I may say so.

Jew-baiting?! Sheesh you wouldn’t know Jew-baiting if it hit you on the head. Go to Iraq, wear your Star and see what it’s really like. Everything is Jew-baiting to you. All criticism.

Oh, by the way, I left a comment on the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler thread about you. It’s probably defunct, but what the hell. If you look at it, you’ll see that I’m not part of the pack you decry, although I am ideologically closer to their camp than yours.

Got a link? Yeh you’re definitely not like the others, but there are many similarities.

I actually like you, dlg. Though I probably shouldn’t.

Me, I’m a Nordicist apparently.  Or, at least, “us folks” are.

No, you are not a Nordicist, guessedworker. I talked about you folks with a Nordicist colleague of mine. He said, “Oh that’s the white = white crowd. Now, you are gonna get PC-offended too, Guessedworker? Never thought I’d see the day.

Then you should have written “pure natural selection” rather than “evolution.”

Um, Svigor, that’s the only kind of evolution I thought there ever was! Until I heard of this, ahem, group selection thingie.

Btw, I’m not the sort of WN whose buttons you can push with “you sound like a Jew,” if that’s what you were after.

Btw, I’m not pissed, though these two paragraphs might make it seem so.

I wasn’t trying to piss you off. You don’t seem like you hate Jews anyway, Svigor. That was just an attempt at irony.

I’m not pissed either. I actually like most of you, except the obvious one.

YOU and YOURS murdered millions more than racism or colorism.

Guess you are talking about this century then, correct? Not human history? Capitalism kills at least 7 million people every year, maybe more like 40 million. How’s that?

That was a nice dodge.  If it’s already happened, why are you promoting and looking forward to it?

We need more of it. US does anyway. I’m agnostic about the rest of the World. It’s only US Whites I want mixed. And maybe Jews in general.

Again, you should review SIT.  It requires only the most trivial of differences, e.g. ideological differences.  Are you going to purge those too?

Wow amazing. Then it’s not a racist theory anyway. Maybe I will look into it.

All the justification I need can be found in the physical beauty of my race, a beauty I find unique (and yes, superior),

Well of course you think it’s superior. That’s how it works, man.

a beauty that you want erased.

Only in the USA.

Why is the spotted owl worth saving, if the white race is not?

We don’t save races in environmentalism. Animals are not the problem. Humans are. If a population of animals goes extinct in a large region, that’s bad. If a population of humans vacates a region, that’s probably a good thing. Human races are worthless, biologically. They offer us nothing, no fitness, zero. They come and go all the time. A spotted owl is a species, not a race. A northern spotted owl is a subspecies, not a race. You make an interesting point though, and I will ask around about it.

That’s some interesting math you have there.  Wars take at least two national participants, I’m talking about auto-genocide here, where a state murders its own subjects.

The 7 million a year that capitalism kills doesn’t count, right? The millions that got killed in the transition to capitalism in the Soviet Union? Do they count?

No one gives a shit that many African nations discriminate against whites.

Do they? Examples?

It’s run by a cabal of fellow-travelers and neoconservatives.

The last part is surely true. I was very dissapointed with the hatchet jobs they did on anti-Zionism, the new Anti-Semitism, the PLO and Kevin MacDonald. I went in and tried to edit MacDonald’s piece to make it more balanced and some jerk deleted my changed within like 30 minutes. It’s extremely Judeophilic, for some odd reason. Or maybe not so odd?

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 25 Mar 2005 01:09 | #

No, you are not a Nordicist, guessedworker. I talked about you folks with a Nordicist colleague of mine. He said, “Oh that’s the white = white crowd. smile Now, you are gonna get PC-offended too, Guessedworker? Never thought I’d see the day.

There is no necessary conflict between WNists and Nordicists.  Within WNism there is the White=White crowd and there are those who go in for further particularisms.  Here’s a good article on my concept of the ideal dynamic:

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no1/mxr-genetic.html

Um, Svigor, that’s the only kind of evolution I thought there ever was! Until I heard of this, ahem, group selection thingie.

I’m not qualified to pontificate on evolution, but I don’t think “group selection” and “sexual selection” are interchangeable.

I wasn’t trying to piss you off. You don’t seem like you hate Jews anyway, Svigor. That was just an attempt at irony.

Ah, now you’re getting somewhere.  It is indeed ironic…

Guess you are talking about this century then, correct? Not human history? Capitalism kills at least 7 million people every year, maybe more like 40 million. How’s that?

All of human history is up for nomination, though the further back one goes the greater the risk of anachronistically attributing an “-ism” in error (e.g.., manorialism wasn’t an ideology or even an economic system, it’s just our word for what was)

That said, can you somehow contrast the deaths capitalism causes (to it’s own citizens) with the deaths that go uncaused by its alternatives, or are we entering a no verification zone here?

It’s only US Whites I want mixed.

Mixed with whom, one another?  I’ve no problem with that, though I’ve no problem with the “Rienzism” above either (and the latter would be my personal choice).  If that isn’t what you meant, then you might be the world’s biggest scumbag.  If that is what you meant, then you should’ve said so earlier, and I have to wonder why you even bring the subject up as, as you’ve said, here in America it’s largely a done deal.

Well of course you think it’s superior. That’s how it works, man.

Which begs the question, why would you want to stir up all the trouble that inevitably accompanies failing at changing how “it” works?

We don’t save races in environmentalism.

Nonsense, environmentalism goes right down to the breeding population, let alone race.

Animals are not the problem. Humans are.

Eh?

A spotted owl is a species, not a race. A northern spotted owl is a subspecies, not a race. You make an interesting point though, and I will ask around about it.

Taxonomical hair-splitting aside, whites are obviously biologically unique.

What’s funny is how eager Leftists are to sound facile in dismissing this.  Humans are orders of magnitude more important to humans than any other animal, yet the distinctions of human biodiversity are constantly being ignored, obfuscated, and lied about by Leftists (and the rest of the mainstream political establishment).  The fact that humans are orders of magnitude more important to humans than any other animal necessitates the view that human differences are orders of magnitude more important than semantically equivalent animal differences.  In other words, human racial differences are more important the difference between animal species, in terms of impact and profundity.

The 7 million a year that capitalism kills doesn’t count, right?

Source?

The millions that got killed in the transition to capitalism in the Soviet Union? Do they count?<i>

Yes they do, they go in the “Communism” column.  When a woman leaves a wife-beater and finds a new man, that new man may have to deal with her emotional baggage, but that doesn’t mean he packed it for her.

<i>Do they? Examples?

I’ll find some stuff for you.  It can be harder to find than hen’s teeth, but there are bits here and there.  I think I first read about it (I’m talking about the kind that isn’t a power-grab swathed in “reparations” talk like in Rhodesia and South Africa) at Yggdrasil’s WN Library.  The media reaaally don’t like owning up to it.  As long as people aren’t being beheaded in the streets they’d prefer to ignore it.

Yes, Jews are of course overrepresented at Wikipedia.  What’s to be expected at a free, popular Website devoted to the democratically-decided dissemination of truth.  One might as well say it’s written in the Jewish genome that they’d flock to the place.  G-d forbid, someone unchosen might decide the truth otherwise.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:00 | #

Um, Svigor, that’s the only kind of evolution I thought there ever was! Until I heard of this, ahem, group selection thingie.

“Group selection” *is* individual selection (and vice versa) because every individual consists of a group of lower-level units.

In the words of David Sloan Wilson from “Darwin’s Cathedral:

Natural selection is a multilevel process that operates among groups in addition to among individuals within groups. Any unit becomes endowed with the properties inherent in the word organism to the degree that it is a unit of selection. The history of life on earth has been marked by many transitions from groups of organisms to groups as organisms. Organismic groups achieve their unity with mechanisms that suppress selection within groups…. Human evolution falls within the paradigm of multilevel selection and the major transitions of life. Moral systems provide many of the mechanisms that enable human groups to function as adaptive units.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:14 | #

Guess you are talking about this century then, correct? Not human history? Capitalism kills at least 7 million people every year, maybe more like 40 million. How’s that?

I have no idea where the figures come from, but they’re immaterial. 

Capitalism is not conservative. 

Acknowledgment of the natural-law principle of property does not imply endorsement of the hyperindividualism connoted by “capitalism”.  Chesterton defines capitalism as “that economic condition in which there is a class of capitalists, roughly recognisable and relatively small, in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage.”  Thus, socialism is simply the ultimate in capitalism.  It is a monopoly in which the state owns all the capital and all citizens must serve the state for a wage.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:28 | #

In fact, I don’t NEED any logical justification for my particularism.

Ernest van den Haag’s essay, published in the 9/21/65 National Review in opposition to the 1965 Race Replacement Immigration Act, is apposite:

http://www.vdare.com/pb/haag_memoriam.htm

The wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification—and no belief in superiority—any more than the wish to have one’s own children, and to continue one’s family through them need be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others, or more fit, or better in business. One identifies with one’s family, because it is one’s family—not because they are better people than others. For no other reason one identifies with one’s national group more than with others. Else there would be no nations.

The feeling needs no justification anymore than one’s love and preference for oneself and one’s own does. That the feeling has often been rationalized in rather foolish terms is as true as it is irrelevant. Even if I think silly your belief that your mother, or girlfriend, is the greatest thing God ever made, I do not condemn your feeling about them. It needs no justification.

...One does not love one’s children or parents because of their behavior, ability or achievement—but often despite them. One loves them because one feels them to be part of oneself—more than people to whom one is not related, however much greater their achievement, however much better their behavior.