|
|
|
An exercise in critique An MR reader - I guess we can call him G de B - has mailed me with a collection of counter-arguments to, for the most part, a genetically-focussed Nordic racialism. He requests a response with an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of these various arguments. So I reproduce the mail in full here, duly formatted. You will see that the sources are broad to say the least, ranging from Yockey to Kritarchy! Much of it, though, just represents differing positions among nationalists. G de B implies that these are intellectual problems for Nordicism in particular and white preservationism in general which he has not resolved to his own satisfaction. I trust we will not experience too much difficulty in setting that right. Dear Sir, I would like to draw your attention to the following observation from Tatu Vanhanen in: Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism:
Take for example Northern Ireland. It’s a place where sectarian violence is commonplace, where warring factions look alike, are of the same race, speak the same language, often have the same last names; think of Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants. Or take Korea: North and South Koreans are of the same race. But economically, politically, and culturally, what a difference! Jews and Muslims are of the same race - they are both Semites!! Hundreds of examples can be given. The question is then: will such a state of affairs not hinder your ideal of a homogeneous monoracial existence, which is - according to you – necessary for a continued Northern life? Generally it is assumed that nationalism – in an ‘unnaturally’ way - divides races in general and Northern kind in particular. But according to Vanhanen it is not that ‘unnaturally’! If I am not mistaken, I belief that Rienzi also emphasizes the importance of nationality and he stresses the importance of ethnic racial preservation! According to him, ethnic groups (ethnies) as well as races, are real biological entities, related by common descent and genetic similarities. In Race is a Myth? The left distorts science for political purposes by Michael Rienzi I read that transplant donors and recipients often have to be matched not just for race but for close ethnicity within race, because inter-racial transplantations often fail. Arthur Kemp in March of the Titans, claims that “all civilizations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else. Indeed, “It has been suggested that if a group of Nordics were placed almost anywhere, in complete isolation, in a few generations they would produce a thriving civilization. But how to explain then the historical fact that those Nordics who have remained in their homelands - and thus have been preserved from the admixture of lower potential - never achieved to create a civilization in Scandinavia and Northern Europe in general, but had to wait…. until it was The most Nordic of European lands, Norway and Sweden have not succeeded in producing a single philosopher of distinction. In Nordicism revisited, James Gregor observes that the most prominent men in European history have been of manifestly mixed racial origin. Many of the men who are universally regarded as the greatest in history (for instance, Socrates, Michelangelo, Luther, Goethe and Beethoven) were obviously of mixed race. Speaking generally, it is exceptional to find that distinguished men exhibit a pure racial type. In The Might of the West, Lawrence Brown explains that:
In Imperium, Yokey also argues in the same vein. For him too is the concept of race the result of imposing a thought method adapted to material problems on to living things, and thus materialistic. In this book, he claims that:
In his novel The Camp of Saints, Raspail includes an East Indian among the “Saints” who defend France, and portrays many white Frenchmen who welcome the invaders as their equals! This also seems to imply that being a Westerner is not a matter of race, but a “state of mind”. Others claim that:
The human world is constituted by the existence of different and separate human beings who can be held to account for what they do because they are individually free agents. Freedom is the reality of a person, his very being. As such, age, gender, length and weight of body, colour of skin or hair, proficiency in mathematics or any number of other properties or characteristics are not taken into account. They are properties or characteristics of individual persons, but their presence or absence to a greater or smaller degree in any individual does not determine the answer to the question whether that individual is a person or not. No matter how different persons are in any dimension of shape or talent, they are all persons because of their freedom of action, speech, thought and rational communication. In that crucial respect they are all alike. I also found an interesting statement by Frank H. Hankins in his book The Racial Basis of Civilization (1926):
In the same vein Robert Spencer said:
Finally, I have read these comments: 1/ The problem with “White Nationalism” is that there are more than a lot of “White people” that don’t like other groups of “White people”. For example, trying to unite White Southerners and White New Englanders is an impossible task, other than through the use of force (see 1861-1865). [compare Tatu Vanhanen!] 2/ within my family I have two cousins, both sisters. One has black hair and dark eyes, and is obviously a genetic Cherokee Indian. The other is a blonde, with blue eyes, obviously genetically “White”. So, if genetics is family, is the sister that is genetically Cherokee Indian NOT in my family, despite being the daughter of my father’s sister? At our family Christmas Party, should I forcefully remove her from the room? How would you reply?; could you please comment on strength and weakness of such arguments? Sincerely, G de B Comments:2
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 02:45 | # Paleo, within my family, I have two cousins, both sisters. One has black hair and dark eyes, and is obviously a genetic Cherokee Indian. The other is a blonde, with blue eyes, obviously genetically “White”. So, if genetics is family, is the sister that is genetically Cherokee Indian NOT in my family, despite being the daughter of my father’s sister? At our family Christmas Party, should I forcefully remove her from the room? I’m sure to be very popular for that, seeing as my family are proud White folks, and they wouldn’t want any of the inferior races tainting the family… Posted by Ivan on Dec 04, 2008. http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_fall_and_rise_of_the_alternative_right/ Pardon me. Ivan’s comment was not in response to mine, but a commenter called “Paleo”. My work at Takimag is beginning to bear fruit. If our ideas can get a fair hearing, we will win. 3
Posted by Matra on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:19 | # But how to explain then the historical fact that those Nordics who have remained in their homelands - and thus have been preserved from the admixture of lower potential - never achieved to create a civilization in Scandinavia and Northern Europe in general, but had to wait…. until it was The most Nordic of European lands, Norway and Sweden have not succeeded in producing a single philosopher of distinction. I don’t understand the bit about needing ‘bastard peoples from the Mediterranean’ to develop an advanced culture. Here is a list of some Swedish inventions and discoveries. Sweden is a small nation that has always punched above the weight of most similar sized nations of the world. The homogeneity of Norway and Sweden appears to have had little to no negative impact on them. Until recently they had no trouble conserving and expanding their genetic interests nor did such homogeneity prevent them from building such advanced, civilised societies that, evidently, many non-Scandinavians have been eager to enjoy. Surely there are more important things than producing universally recognised philosophers? 4
Posted by silver on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:26 | #
The simplest explanation is the one long favored by nordicists: Greece and Rome were substantially more nordic/ish before being submerged by foreign stock, a submergence which was to eventually cause their downfall. Not exactly a flattering explanation but I don’t have any problem with it. As Matra says above, there are more important things than producing universally recognised philosophers—and I would add, even than world-beating technologically advanced societies.
Har har. But that’s 90% of human beings right there. Would it kill your case to put it in terms people might find it easier to relate to and to fit into the context of their own lives? I can’t see how. Btw, this sounds very much like the sort of request to hammer out details that has been known to send our esteemed “Caesar” here ballistic. Watch out for the fireworks. 5
Posted by Matra on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:39 | # No matter how different persons are in any dimension of shape or talent, they are all persons because of their freedom of action, speech, thought and rational communication. In that crucial respect they are all alike. But when they use said ‘freedom of action, speech, thought and rational communication’ they will do so to achieve objectives not just as individuals, but as members of a group. 6
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:28 | #
This is not entirely true and is why altruism and its incidental offspring sympathy pose such a problem. Rushton also writes;
7
Posted by Matra on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:32 | # So, if genetics is family, is the sister that is genetically Cherokee Indian NOT in my family, despite being the daughter of my father’s sister? At our family Christmas Party, should I forcefully remove her from the room? Quoting Hankins:[W]ell-endowed Italians, Hebrews, Turks, Chinese and Negroes are better materials out of which to forge a nation than average or below average Nordics… Much of that [Anglo- Saxon]stock is utterly worthless and should be sterilized at the earliest possible date At my family Christmas party I will not be forcefully removing average or below average Anglo-Saxon relatives in order to make room at the inn for more intelligent unrelated Asians and blacks. Given scarcity of space and resources I cannot simply increase the absolute overall number attending this Christmas to include these intelligent outsiders without it adversely affecting those who actually are relatives. Fortunately the homogeneity of my family means there are no conflicting interests leading to internal pressure on me to do so anyway. 8
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:25 | #
It depends what the measure of civilization is. If the measure is human accomplishment then clearly Northerners dominate. Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo are all of Tuscan origin. Tuscany was dominated by the Lombards post-Rome and they were a Germanic tribe.
They are not the same race. Ulster Protestants are Anglo-Saxon and the east coast of Ireland also shows strong Hiberno-Norman influence. Irish Catholic mean IQ is lower than Irish Protestant and there is also variances in morbidity and mortality rates. It’s also evident in Scotland where the west of Scotland shows much higher crime rates, Irish Catholic immigrants, than the more Nordic eastern lowlands.
Since external forces were removed (Stalin and US Jewish Communists) there has been little ethnic conflict, unlike Northern Ireland, between the two groups. Re: the Semites; It’s evolutionary pressure just as in European tribal conflict. It is inevitable byproduct of evolutionary competition. 9
Posted by G de B on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:10 | # ” you cannot expect us to liquidate the very being of our people to suit your non-White relatives.” - Captainchaos According to the nordicist Richard McCulloch (who wants to preserve the Nordish race), the WHITE racial supremacist theories can actually be classified as a form of interracism(!), as they they require a multiracial population. (cf. Destiny of Angels, p. 275) 10
Posted by the Narrator.. on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:49 | # This, Nordicism, is a non-topic for me, but what the heck…. He opens with this point,
After this he cleverly precedes to take apart his own opening point by arguing that the races and groups he lists above as infighting…..don’t even exist in any meaningful way as to be defined. So how can he then say that the Protestant and Catholic Irish are similar?
Once again, G de B takes down his own argument. 1. There is no such thing as pure (distinct) groups….therefore there are no Nordic people. 1. Everybody is mixed. Always have been. 1. There are no distinct races or sub-races.
Yeah it is odd since Sweden and Italy have the exact same climate. But seriously, how exactly did the Mediterranean peoples “stimulate” development in Scandinavia? The history I’ve read seems to suggest that Rome had little contact with Northern Europe and even less with Scandinavia. And it wasn’t for a lack of trying as they made a few attempts to conquer those backward hicks in Germania, but got their ass kicked every time. And Scandinavia’s development had zero to do with Southern Europeans. Most experts agree that a sudden population growth kick started the Viking age which began long after Rome had fallen. But then why? Scandinavians were few in number and existing in one of the harshest environments in the world. Once their numbers increased they began to move out. And when they did they conquered wherever they went and explored farther than the Romans or Greeks could imagine possible, and all without the aid of a centralized government and military…..and did so being far fewer in number. Even today, Mediterranean (Southern) Europeans number around 160 million compared to Scandinavia’s 19 million.
The above is just gobbolygook. I take it the person who wrote that has never encountered the mentally handicapped. “Freewill”, even if it exists, is limited. And what is considered coherent thought and rational communication is genetically defined so that it varies from race to race. Anyone who has ever had a business transaction (even if it is just ordering a hamburger and fires) with a black person will know this.
How can you, who rejects the existence of individual -distinct- groups/ethnics, find the above interesting?
Yeah, good point. What with the incessant battles and bloodletting between the two factions lo these past few decades.
Once again we see the ridiculous and BLATANT hypocrisy. Throughout his silly diatribe, G de B demonstrates that he has no problem identifying (or acknowledging those who do) Hebrews, Turks, Chinese and even Cherokee Indians, but suddenly gets all hazy eyed when it comes to identifying Whites. In other words there is not an original thought to it. Same circular logic we’ve seen for years. On the one hand there are no racially distinct groups, but on the other hand the offspring of two racially distinct groups is superior to all of the non-existing racially distinct pure people. Same ol, same ol….
I have a suggestion. Quit making so many unfounded assertions or quoting people who do. For example,
Western Civilization is the genetic product of White people. No Whites, no West. Non-Whites have never been able to acclimate to Western Civilization. They can only ape it. If Spencer’s assertion held the slightest grain of credibility, then we should not expect to see such things as Race Quotas, Affirmative Action, Forced Integration, Congressional Race Caucasus, Hate Crimes legislation, Fair Housing, Ebonics, the NAACP, the ADL, La Raza, Political Correctness…the list goes ever on. I could spend a night and a day listing examples. In fact my own blog, this site, Amren, Vdare and host of other sites and blogs all exist to illustrate, to one degree or another, that non-Whites are in FACT significantly and fundamentally altering Western Civilization. Hope that helped. . 11
Posted by Thought Criminal on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:35 | # It’s fun engaging in a bit of PSYOPS on a few left-wing blogs from time to time; Robert “The Jew Dwarf” Reich has a new post up on his blog stating that if the economy gets worse there could be a “populist backlash” of some sort—see: http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/12/are-we-courting-populist-backlash.html
Making lefties piss in their pants is just fun, sometimes. 12
Posted by the Narrator.. on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:06 | #
And notice Reich’s hypocrisy, typical of his kind. He is engaging in the kind of fear mongering (against Whites) that he is implying Whites will engage in against non-Whites. Pot Kettle black rinse, repeat. 13
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:45 | # I can’t wait to tear every last bit of this ‘counter-argument’ down. It infuriates me that we have to even argue for our right to exist and not be race-replaced by invading foreigners. How hateful must the opposing side be where we have to convince them not to genocide us and if we’re convincing enough maybe they’ll consider sparing us? 1. Basically, ‘many people of the same race still have other conflicts which divide them.’ So? So let us divide freely, with the right to self-determination and the freedom of association, into any group we want. Race is a necessary division, religion, politics, language, etc are also justifiable reasons to divide further. There is nothing here that conflicts with dividing by race as well as other reasons. 2. Scandinavia underperformed compared to Rome and Greece. Did it ever occur to you that more mild climates can host much larger populations and thus have a greater chance at producing geniuses because they have more chances? Mild climates also create more wealth which allows more people to pursue more abstract callings than simple hard-scrabble life. The only fair comparison between nordic and med ethnies would be nords living in bountiful climates in large numbers. No attempt has been made to compare apples to apples here, it is thus just a smarmy smear job with no attempt at intellectual honesty. 3. Goethe, Beethoven, Michelangelo etc were all mixed-race. I don’t know how he is using this word. Does he mean to say they are part negro? Part asian? White is one race, you cannot be mixed race if you’re part german / part french. Thus his whole point is gobbledygook. If he means to say the best people are mixed-ethny, I really wouldn’t know but I doubt it. A few examples does not prove that’s the rule. 4. Next he quotes someone saying thinking of race as a factual reality is ‘materialism’ and in fact race is a social construct, a ‘state of mind’. Anyone who ‘feels’ he is x race is thereby x race. This is insulting. Would he say he is Chinese just by feeling it enough? Would Chinese say he is Chinese if he moved there, spoke the language, adopted Buddhism, and volunteered for the Chinese military? NO. Because race is a reality. Only Chinese are Chinese, it is obvious who they are, you can never be anything else but what you are. We are not blank slates, get over it. 5. Next he says racism is unfair because we are judging people for things they have no control over. Boohoo. Loving your children is unfair since they never chose to be your child. Loving your brothers, cousins, etc more than some bantu in nigeria is unfair since they never chose to be your brothers, sisters, cousins etc. Maybe that bantu really wanted to be your brother and your real brother thinks you’re a total jerk. How unfair to not favor the bantu! You can say anything that isn’t chosen is arbitrary, lacks any moral content, but that’s just your opinion. I think beautiful is Good, whether or not someone ‘chose’ to be beautiful. I think intelligent is good, whether or not they chose to be intelligent. I think certain personality types, like honest and courageous, even though they are dictated by genetics, are good and preferable to those lacking them. I also think a horse that runs fast is better than a horse that runs slow, and a computer that works is better than one that blue screens every five minutes, even though the horse and computer never chose to be slow or not work. You are simply imposing your moral values system on me, which you view to be universal but I view to be ridiculous and worthless. 6. Next he says all humans have certain traits, like free will and rationality, that makes us fundamentally equal and differences of degree don’t matter. I disagree. Every single difference of degree matters greatly to me. Nor is there any such thing as free will, and very few people actually act rational, closer to 1% than 100% like he claims. It is not that all other life forms lack any value, it is that if they are in competition with something more valuable, then they are a net negative. Though you can isolate a bantu and say, ‘look he has many admirable traits like free will and rationality,’ the bantu is not in isolation. In fact he is competing in a world of finite resources and a threat to someone much better than him and his existence makes it physically impossible for the existence of a much finer specimen to be born, because he’s taking up space, food, water, air, etc. People’s value is not in isolation, it is all relative—if they are the best around their value is infinite, if they are inferior to others their value is little to negative. 7. Some non-whites are smarter than some whites. Does this mean we should accept all those non-whites into our society? Of course not, race is not just intelligence. Race differs by looks, personality, and loyalties as well. You can never trust a smart bantu to not still prefer bantus over whites and thus betray your community for his bantu friends in the end. Supposing there were some very good looking intelligent non-whites who wished to pledge their loyalty to the white race, I’d be happy to take them in through interbreeding so long as they were in Small Numbers and did not fundamentally destroy what they, supposedly, are trying to serve. It is like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. If the very act of measuring the particle’s location moves it, you cannot get its location. Just so if the very act of ‘serving’ the white race moves/destroys it, you cannot be a servant. Supposing there were a race of high elves or angels who came down to the earth and were more beautiful, intelligent, virtuous, and civilized than anything whites could dream of, I would be happy to serve them instead of whites, who would instantly become worthless due to their relative position on the great chain of being, and hope to become one of those happy few who got to interbreed with high elves or angels because I could add something to their race, but I would not wish for so many whites to interbreed with them that they cease to be elves or angels and just become whites again. However, whites are the best race on earth, the small numbers of non-whites who actually have merit and wish the great privilege to join our race, must serve us, our racial/cultural interests not be our equals or some sort of multi-cultural multi-racial hodgepodge. Btw, eugenics will deal with our own trash it’s not like we aren’t aware of them. 8. Half whites like your cherokee cousin would be in the same category as non-whites, if they hold merit they can join the white race in small numbers, otherwise no. We cannot afford to lose your blue eyed white cousin for the sake of your half-breed cherokee cousin, if push comes to shove. Hopefully push won’t come to shove and, I at least think once a lot of the non-whites have been expunged there will be plenty of territory all of a sudden ‘available’. 14
Posted by G de B on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:52 | # @ the Narrator Racial preservation has to be based on racial reality and nordicists (e.g McCulloch) focus on phenotypes: physical appearance. But if race (i.e., to have the same phenotype according to nordic theory) is the real issue, how to explain the clashes between the BLACK Hutus and the BLACK Tutsis? The skin color of both are much the same, they speak the same language, inhabit the same locality, and follow the same traditions. Even if Nordicism, is a non-topic for you, it is hard to explain this butchery in Rwanda from the viewpoint of “race relations”, and that there is something “more important” than race - perhaps culture (compare Yockey’s view)?! In the same vein, Evola developed an ideology that went beyond the merely biological to the spiritual. While characterizing race as something hereditary and biological, Evola also claimed that race was not simply and linearly defined by mere skin color and the various other hereditary factors. Superior for him is the spiritual orientation; one must prove oneself spiritually. 15
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:04 | # Hutus and tutsis do vary genetically. One is taller and smarter than the other. It wouldn’t matter if you were right though. You are simply saying that cultural conflict can occur even in a monoracial world. That does not mean that culture can erase conflict between two races. All you are saying is we are so likely to have conflict that not only race, but other things will also lead us to war. That does not mean suddenly race won’t lead us to war. 16
Posted by the Narrator.. on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:16 | #
With all due respect that’s just a free-of-a-point type question. Or to put it another way, I’ve seen women fight other women and men fight other men. Does that mean that gender doesn’t exist in any meaningful way? Of course not.
That’s basically the same kind of fluff you quoted from Spencer.
17
Posted by G de B on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:45 | # @ Diamed In a region of the world where poverty and undemocratic government seem to be the rule, Mauritius is an exception. Arab traders were the first to come upon the island in the 10th century, followed by the Portuguese in the 1500s, but neither group remained to make permanent settlements. The Dutch landed in the late 1500s and named the island after Prince Maurice of Nassau. They remained for little over a century but also decided to leave. It was the French, arriving in 1715, who stayed and gave the island its essentially French character. The population is made up of people of Indian, African, Chinese, and French origin - with each racial group maitaining its own culture and traditions. Most people speak English, French, and Creole, but English is the official language of the government and education. An individual’s name easily identifies his or her ethnic and religious background. There is a strong correlation between religious affiliation and ethnicity. Citizens of Indian ethnicity usually are Hindus or Muslims. Citizens of Chinese ancestry usually practice both Buddhism and Catholicism. Creoles and citizens of European descent usually are Catholic. Now, compare the situation on this island with what the Catholic traditionalist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn said in the “The Principles of The Portland Declaration”: “We share with the beasts a craving for sameness and a gregariousness which makes us desire the company of people of our own age, sex, race, creed, political conviction, class and taste. But it is exclusively human to have a thirst for diversity, i.e., to be happy in the company of those who are different from us in every respect, as well as to travel, to enjoy other foods, hear other tunes, see other plants, beasts, and landscapes. The delight in the variations of creation distinguishes man from beast as much as religion or reason. It is the low drive for sameness and the hatred of otherness that characterizes all forms of leftism, which inevitably are totalitarian because, defying the divine diversity of the universe, these ideologies want to convert us by force to sameness—sameness being the brother of equality. The leftist vision enjoins uniformity: the nation with one leader, one party, one race, one language, one class, one type of school, one law, one custom, one level of income, and so forth. Since nature provides diversity, this deadening sameness can be achieved only by brute force, by leveling, enforced assimilation, exile, genocide. All forms of totalitarianism, all leftist ideologies, reaching their culmination in the French, Russian, and German Revolutions, have gone that way—with the aid of guillotine, gallows, gas chambers, and Gulag.” 18
Posted by the Narrator.. on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:27 | #
I guess old Erik never heard of White Flight! ... 19
Posted by Darren on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:02 | # Racial homogeneity does not automatically imply automatic racial altruism. Whites have slaughtered other whites too. Racial homogeneity is an important topic to me because it implies (1) common ancestral (thus, common cultural heritage and hence a common ethnic interest) and (2) biological compatibility - that is, fellow whites are more likely to create and maintain the same kind of culture due to similar cognitive mechanics. Altruism definitely has a genetic component, so as such, whites are more likely to be altruistic to fellow whites and more altruistic in general than others. But, in general, the lack of ethnocentrism among whites probably means that we’re, at best, altruistic to fellow members of our community than whites as a racial whole. So, we need to create a new moral principle for our people to recognize the value of preserving our ethnic interests on a racial level. BTW, I respect Evola and he is a good read and inspiration for political / metapolitical topics. But his rejection of biological race for “spiritual race” is definitely a sore point and an intellectual deficency on his part. In a region of the world where poverty and undemocratic government seem to be the rule, Mauritius is an exception. What is your point here? You could give a similar example for many nations that thrive on being a tourist trap or a slave to global economy. Democracy is not indicative of the quality of culture or people. It is the low drive for sameness and the hatred of otherness that characterizes all forms of leftism, which inevitably are totalitarian because, defying the divine diversity of the universe, these ideologies want to convert us by force to sameness—sameness being the brother of equality. The leftist vision enjoins uniformity: the nation with one leader, one party, one race, one language, one class, one type of school, one law, one custom, one level of income, and so forth. An ironic and wildly inaccurate statement. The idea of pan-mixia destroys diversity and creates sameness. Racial homogeneity is not a leftist ideology. Racial homogeneity, when viewed in its correct context - preservation of our culture and ethny, is fundamentally traditionalist and opposes all forms of liberalism and leftism. I try to approach the Christianity topic as gingerly as possible, but this is a perfect example of why I generally oppose Christianity - it believes in moral universalism. It wants to destroy unique culture (i.e. the diversity that Kuehnelt-Leddihn calls “sameness”) for the sake of making everyone a member of the religion. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:52 | # Desmond. I’m sure you see the altruism apparent among Europeans as an archaic product of small and relatively isolated kin-groups ... an extended hand at the boundary, whose meaning is cooperation rather than competition, and security rather than conflict. Obviously, the physical raison d’être for it has been lost - in fact, overwhelmed in the modern era. But here’s my question:- In the EEA altruism which was not reciprocated had to trigger a speedy corrective or altruistically behaved peoples would have been killed off by trickster competitors. If one looks at the long history in Europe of punitive actions against Jews, many extremely severe, it is apparent that the corrective did not die out. So it is in us, but it is suppressed. I know you like to posit the Darwinian conundrum of limitless altruism. But there has to be a limit in a healthy people, no? G de B, On Tutsis and Hutus. It is highly likely that they are different peoples, the Hutus being Bantu, the Tutsi origins being at present unknown. Resource competition does the rest. The problem with the spirit of race is that it does not actually exist. Neither is Man a sovereign individual. It is sad and true that he lives and dies in a state of sleep, deluding himself as to his powers of decision and will. The most deluded are those who ascribe the greatest autonomy to themselves. In such a condition, which we call life, it would be much, much better to live by the dictates of love, even though they force us to belong to others and not to ourselves. I will spend a moment on this Kuehnelt-Leddihn fellow. Darren is completely correct, of course. Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s delight in the discovery of “abroad” and its picturesque tribal charms is, aside from being rather insufferably middle-class and superior, not the same as handing one’s living space, which is a primary guarantor of one’s survival, to aggressors. Diversity requires ethnic survival, or there will be nowhere for poor Kuehnelt-Leddihn to profitably travel. And then, for this man to equate the desire to preserve one’s people from extinction with violence suggests that he has no useful concept of the modern political world. The violence belongs everywhere but with those who love their people. BNP members on a leaked list immediately have to worry for the security of themselves, their homes and families. Kuehnelt-Leddihn could go to the top of the Empire State Building with a megaphone five times a day and bellow “I am a libertarian”, and those within earshot will be completely unmoved to run at him screaming, knock him to the floor and beat him to a pulp, and then go home that night convinced that they had advanced the interests of decency and good. Kuehnelt-Leddihn is safe in his little political creed. But he is safe, too, in ours. If, in all their psychological captivity, the normal level of racial consciousness somehow returns to our people, and we decide to live and not die, Kuehnelt-Leddihn will not be excluded. His children will live, his distinctive genes will survive, and not die. For the greatest violence in this world consists in that ... in the removal of distinctive genes from the genotype. Like all libertarians, this fellow is ignorant of life’s true values. He thinks about himself and his personal pleasures, and he calls their exercise freedom. But first, freedom is the freedom to live and not die. He needs a proper definition of the word before he starts spraying it around. I am not surprised though I have heard it all before from people like that. 21
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:02 | # From Innate Social Aptitudes of Man by W.D. Hamilton:
Until civilization comes to grips with this dysgenic character, it must be considered a public health hazard and “civilized man” a mere babe irresponsibly toying with the wheels of the gods. That is the real reason the Goths, and then the Vikings, were so hostile to it. Single combat to the death in the wilderness armed only with one’s cunning and weapons of one’s own making out of nature herself was the old law of the Norse for a very good reason: Sexuality includes masculinity, the warrior, and sexuality is the precursor to individuality—individuals merely being the ultimate in “civilization” (multicellular creatures) consisting of vast throngs of genetically identical sub-individuals (cells) all sharing their ultimate genetic interests and ultimate altruism in harmony so far beyond that even contemplated by “civilized man” that it is virtually unrecognizable as comparable with “civilization”. If “civilized man” wants to show himself even remotely worthy of the technology he toys with, he must first admit his profound ignorance and embark on a path of enlightened experimentation with voluntarily formed human ecologies to test ecological hypotheses. Until he does so, he is unworthy of civilization and even of his own being as a supremely civil triumph in evolutionary experimentation. 22
Posted by G de B on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:50 | # I have to admit, you all made strong and valid arguments. On balance, I agree with the comments and cogent points regarding the issue I addressed. @ Darren, you say “I generally oppose Christianity.” I understand: valuing human beings by their intrinsic qualities requires discrimination, which is anti-Christian and anti-Semitic. Modern liberalism is Christianity in secular form and both are Jewish in origin. you also say “we’re, at best, altruistic to fellow members of our community than whites as a racial whole.” Indeed, nordicists don’t want to be lumped in with southern and eastern Europeans. And sir Arthur Keith considers ‘race’ and ‘nation’ as near akin; the nation is an “evolutionary unit” he says. He claims that “the only live races in Europe today are its nations.” (...) “The term [race] was originally given to a lineage group. Later it was restricted to distinctive varieties of mankind. ‘Nation’ is the term used to designate the lineal descendants of a local group.” - cf. A New Theory of Human Evolution; Essay XXXII: The Making of Human races - http://www.whitenationalism.com/etext/index.htm But now I am back again with what I started: Tatu Vanhanen! 23
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:12 | # G de B: “...Catholic traditionalist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn said in the “The Principles of The Portland Declaration”:” Kuehnelt-Leddihn is a piece of fucking excrement. “There have always been persons who are intellectually or spiritually unable to accept any religious tenets and values. They should be treated with tolerance and compassion and, at the same time, encouraged to gain at least an understanding of the “practical” values represented by religion.” That is, unless you value your bloodbound peoplehood. “Any discrimination based on ethnicity, race, sex, or religion in public life (which includes education) would therefore be illicit and should be ruled out. Persons have to be treated equally in order to evaluate their performance and their (obviously unequal) contribution to State and Society.” But if one is to nurture the life of his bloodbound peoplehood one must so discriminate. “It [race] has, however, an effect on certain qualities—primarily, though not only, physical qualities.” So Kuehnelt-Leddihn acknowledges the existence of race, and partially, its implications. “It is empirically obvious, after all, that very tall races produce better runners than very short ones, and that a sense of music is better developed among tropical than among arctic races.” The “tropical” races have a “better developed” musical sense than Whites? LOL! Bongo drums trump Bach and Mozart every time, eh? “It is also distinct from race, which is biological and unchangeable for an individual, although it may change in the course of generations.” Yes, genocide through miscegenation. Von Fuck-Nut implicitly advocates this in that he devalues the bloodbound virtues of the White race (see his bullshit about “tropical” races), calls for proposition nation style citizenship and loyalty, and would in practical terms deny Whites the things need to pursue their bloodbound peoplehood. “Yet, these and any other qualities in which races differ (like those in which men differ from women) are of a purely statistical, not a personal nature.” LOL! As if the differences between persons are not also “purely statistical”. “There are also, however, institutions like the United Nations, striving to establish something like a world government. In other words, if said adhered to the ideals of von Fuck-Head he wouldn’t oppose it. “A world government today would be analogous to a marriage between children of different classes, creeds, colors, levels of intelligence, and moral qualities, motivated only by a precocious sexual attraction.” This graphic ‘analogy’ betrays von Shit-Dick’s consciousness of the blunt reality of racial annihilation through bestial miscegenation. “A centralized (or even not so centralized) world government could try to destroy local cultures, traditions, and values, thereby depersonalizing big and small nations alike and establishing a dead level of civilization.” Of course, in von Douche-Bag’s One World Government, preservation of genetic differences would be verboten. Von Shit-Head, you are a slimy, conniving, intellectually dishonest piece of fucking shit. May you rot in hell. Hey, Ivan, is this the best you can muster? Your tack at Takimag was to deny the existence of the White race, citing its various group components. Then you went on to claim that since it didn’t matter that various European groups mixed in America it didn’t matter if more non-European groups mixed in as well. You think that a Bantu can become just as Irish as O’Hara. With you the buck stops nowhere. You have betrayed yourself as the anti-White, genocidalist, piece of filth you are. Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on! 24
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:04 | #
Not really GW. It is fundamentally the root of success of the Anglo-Saxon people. It is to the English as a pond is to the beaver. Not only does it enhance the fitness of the beaver but it furthers the well being of so many others. As for the Jew, is it extremely severe or extremely exaggerated? If it is/was severe, how to account for the “Jewish Century”? The Jew today, like no other time in his history, stands astride the world. He swims in the Anglo-Saxon pond. If there are limits, apparently when they appear, in a form necessarily hard and unappealing, they are viewed as morally depraved and subjected to “severe” altruistic punishment. The Jew limits altruism by incorporating it in their religious cosmology. They are the chosen. They are superior. The goyim are cattle and unworthy of consideration. What are the altruistic limits of the good people of Postville? 25
Posted by Prozium on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:31 | # G de B is “Ivan” or “Vlad,” which I cannot recall, from Takimag. He has been arguing with CC over there for weeks now. 26
Posted by Prozium on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:41 | #
“Ivan” must live in a parallel universe. The Left is the greatest champion of “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” 27
Posted by skeptical on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:59 | # The nationalist web is a small place, one is bound to run up against the same persons (only the aliases vary) over and over again. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:13 | # CC, take it easy. Desmond: What are the altruistic limits of the good people of Postville? To try to answer that I have to continue from my understanding of the genesis of altruism, and that might disqualify it in your eyes. But anyhow ... First off, many societies beside “Anglos” or Europeans have a tradition of hospitality to strangers, which I take to be a related phenomenon. But for the sake of the discussion we’ll stay in northern Europe. As an evolutionarily adaptive behaviour, the offer of an open hand to the “other” is accompanied by a sense of moral good. Among northern European kin-groups of the “normal” past, where the “other” was virtually always racially akin, it was plainly a solid strategy. However, it has a design flaw. Unlike sex, say, which delivers reward at the point of evolutionary gain, altruism delivers its reward (a sense of moral good and amity) up-front and speculatively. The trickster, or free-rider, can always feign reciprocity, and attack an unprepared host at will - the most graphic example of which is not Postville but the Massacre of Glencoe. Self-evidently, in the EEA losses such as that were sufficiently rare to make altruism a functioning strategy. In complex social interactions where the choices are not reduced to friend or foe, and perhaps kill or be killed, it is still more difficult to ascertain reciprocity. And then the Christian nostrum of charity without thought of anything in return on this Earth ... without thought of any “amicable understanding”, further muddies the waters. So it isn’t surprising that the grasping of the reward - that sense of moral good and amity - should proceed in spades while reciprocity slips off the table. It isn’t surprising, either, that this reward should be grasped most readily by those least likely to pay the price for non-reciprocity, for example the corpus of official, left-liberal and Christian opinion for taking “asylum seekers” from Sub-Saharan Africa into our midst. As for Darwin’s conundrum, that comes into play only when there is no conceivable gain to the altruistic party, as in the SSA asylum case. It is not commensurate with Postville, where the good and, no doubt, not irreligious folk of the town welcomed the Hasidim from NY in the wholly reasonable expectation of employment and prosperity. To return to your question: the Postvillians were deceived. But given the value in modern times attached to employment and prosperity, and the ubiquity of social messages of tolerance and inclusion, who at the time would have said that they were overstepping the limits of altruistic return. They seem like pretty normal folks to me. The Jew, by the way, swam in the Soviet pond rather well, too. And it isn’t the Anglo” pond he is swimming in today. It is the American pond. The liberty he exploits, and even philosophises for his further exploitation, is American liberty - the light by which the entire West sees today, alas. 30
Posted by martin_uk on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:37 | # I would like to endorse what Mr Jones wrote about the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. There are indeed two subraces, with the group originally coming from England/Scotland a little more intelligent than the native Irish. “Bog Irish”, as they are sometimes called, can be rather thick, but they are hard workers. Not many people outside the UK appear to know this, thus we often hear the canard, “Catholic and Protestnt are the same blood”. 31
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:14 | # Ivan supports, in effect or by intent, the genocide of the White race. Look at his ‘post’: any rationalization, no matter that it is laughable, or that each one is mutually exclusive to the other, will do; it doesn’t matter to him. He throws it against the wall to see if it will stick. What does he have to be ‘ashamed’ of? Isn’t that the going line? Why should he care if someone ‘outs’ him? Ivan, I’m going to make this real simple, if you want to see the White race annihilated, or you don’t care if it is annihilated, then why not just come out and say it? 32
Posted by snax on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:51 | #
That is the practical value of religion. 34
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:02 | # GW, The evidence that Rushton presents is less about hospitality/benevolence than it is about reflection. Reflection in the sense of a mirror that Smith posits in his Theory of Moral Sentiments. You see something of similarity, which may or may not be genetically based, (although Rushton probably argues it is, otherwise it would contradict his thesis), but transcends the ethnic/racial barrier. In effect you are sympathetic to that personality because it reflects your own.
Generally that appears to be true however, pure altruism is not necessarily in need of reciprocity and commonly, as discussed previously, is shown by the common man.
There is no gain in saving the drowning people who may ultimately replace you, however, that is not a consideration. For civilized man the event generates a reflection, the sense of imagining the sensation of near-drowning, or as Smith described it as squiggling along with the runner on the end of a slack rope. There is sympathy. It is not something, as Darwin suggested, that is felt by the savage. Sadly, even Darwin fell afoul of it, wishing for the genocide of the Portuguese in Brazil;
Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313 The Bolshevik pond was almost entirely of Jewish origin and was toxic for all who entered. It is not American liberty, but some perverse and demented universe created by those like Robert Spencer, who believe that the evolved traits of the Anglo-American, non-kinship reciprocity, are transferable.
35
Posted by the Narrator.. on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:53 | # Altruism can be exaggerated one way or the other. It can be natural or artificially induced. True Altruism, in a general form, doesn’t leave you with some warm and fuzzy sensation of having done the right thing. In fact true altruism, being an evolved instinct, generally doesn’t cause reflection anymore than quenching your thirst with water will cause you to pause and think, “I just drank that glass of water, and it was the moral thing to do!”
The above example would be a case of artificially induced Altruism. False Altruism. And if our most powerful drive is to survive and pass along our genes (which are shared by our tribe), then anything, person or situation that endangers that drive can hardly fit into the sphere of natural Altruistic instinct.
I’m not sure how true that is, as most Christians like to believe that The West’s material wealth and general fortunes are tied to its adherence to Christian doctrine. But in its truest essence, Christianity is a religion whose worship is done in front of a mirror. I once saw a documentary in which a young White man described his aspiration towards Rock stardom and what he hoped that would bring to him. That completely sums up the motivation for White Christian Charity (which induces false altruism).
I have to agree with Guessedworker on this. Before the era of “American Exceptionalism” Anglo-Saxon Altruism benefited other Anglo-Saxons. Still, a lot of what passes for Altruism today is not even philosophical but simply political and economic coercion…. 36
Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:39 | # “Within my family I have two cousins, both sisters. One has black hair and dark eyes, and is obviously a genetic Cherokee Indian. The other is a blonde, with blue eyes, obviously genetically “White”. So, if genetics is family, is the sister that is genetically Cherokee Indian NOT in my family, despite being the daughter of my father’s sister? At our family Christmas Party, should I forcefully remove her from the room? “ No one has raised the obvious, but necessary point that, according to the Biblical prohibitions against mixing one’s ‘seed’ with ‘the nations round about,’ in the O.T.- and the utter lack of denial of this in the N.T. [Gal. 3:28 only posits a ‘familial relationship’ to the Semitic Hebrews and the Japhethite Europeans, tacitly acknowledging the utter ‘otherness,’ therefore, of the Khazarian conversion some 7 centuries after the fact, by ‘those who say they are Jews, but are not’ [Rev. 2:8,9]. The parallels to the modern situation are clear. Thus, it would seem that the basic model for restoring Christendom in this multicultural age, would be to strive to have a) National Churches tied to the ethnicity of the parent populations (much like the Orthodox Church’s ‘narodnost’ construct, rather than the false Roman Catholic model of a pagan ‘Empire’ of all races and creeds) where such homogeneity is relatively obviously present (discounting the foreign, “Xenos”, illegally present hordes of Turks, Jews, and Africans) In this construct, I have written of the recent ‘gay marriage’ scenario as just ONE example of how we have been lied to, who used to follow God’s Law, into following Man’s (and ultimately, Satan’s) ‘law.’ http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/fractured-‘fairy’-tales-gay-marriage-as-mirage/ (In this post, I quote rather much the thoughts of Dr. Gary North, one of whose quotes is germane at this point: “So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian [schools] until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.” ) Following on from this premise: b) in those areas where ‘mixed-race’ offsrpring dominate, such as exist in much of the USA today (such bi-or tri-racial constructs are what the Hebrew language calls ‘mamzerim,’ and the English language rightly calls ‘bastards’ -Deut 23:2) - or are ENCOURAGED TO DOMINATE (the so-called ‘breakdown of old stereotypes,’ which is nothing more than the propaganda of the Jews) Christ’s approbation [Matt. 5:17 ff.] and the apostle’s clear enunciation of these O.T. racial purity prohibitions [cf. Heb.12:8 and the promise of chastisement for our cultural and racial fornication] the enactment of DNA testing for all prospective communicant COVENANT members of any serious, biblically-consistent Church becomes a necessity. When the O.T. stated that such ‘half-breeds’ were to be excluded up to ten generations, there is not one iota of doubt that such is still in force today, simply because it is the LIBERAL Churches, the MARXISTS, and the JEWS who are most opposed to such a godly prohibition. In short, the ‘rotten [racial] fruit’ doesn’t fall too far from the ‘mamzerized tree.’ Therefore, ‘come out from among her, my people, and be ye separate’ becomes the rallying cry for a restored, purified Christendom. DNA testing in this regard MUST become the first step in allowing any prospective member into the Assembly. In answer to the question, “At our family Christmas Party, should I forcefully remove her from the room? ” the clear and obvious reply is, you shouldn’t have invited her to your house in the first place. Just as with the sodomite relative - whose’ outing’ clearly ‘cuts him off’ from his family, his people, and his reproductive future- such ‘mamzerized’ people have CUT THEMSELVES OFF from the covenant (Granted, it may have been your own ancestor’s fornication with a pagan (to this day) tribe ‘NOT OF ISRAEL’... but there you are). The sins of the fathers ARE visited on their children, especially in the matter of race, genetics, and ‘unholy unions.’ With the reduced cost of DNA analysis, all those who are not shown to be of ‘similar stock’ are not to be admitted to the respective congregation(s). The Hebrew’s (Note, I did NOT say ‘Jews’) scrupulous keeping of geneaological records served the same purpose. It is time to restore Christendom, as the purview of what she once was…. the “White Man’s Religion.” Anyone want to follow me in this? I and a growing number of Christian congregations in the USA are coming to this realization. 37
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:37 | # That’s a very interesting comment by Fr. John above. Of nil interest, of course, to those who don’t care one way or the other about Christianity or about saving it, it is, on the contrary, a welcome and much-needed effort at directly, explicitly tackling THE central crisis, THE central question, as perceived by those who wish to preserve both Christianity and the white race. As is by now crystal-clear to everyone with eyes, Catholicism and Mainstream Protestantism are become engines powerfully herding Euro-race peoples into a Jewish/homosexual/capitalist-engineered meat grinder to be turned into multiracial sausage. One reason I’m more interested in what’s gone wrong with Catholicism is it’s free-standing and chooses its own leaders, unlike the Church of England where the Jews who kept Blair on a leash very simply had him install the most degenerate cleric in Britain as head of the Church: they handed him a slip of paper with this man’s name on it, and it was done. As regards the Vatican, it’s clear that men who are explicit race-replacers in their own minds, men who actually explicitly say to themselves, in words, that they want whites race-mixed out of existence, are now in control. White Christians today are the Jonestown Negroes. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury are Jim Jones. Christianity in its present form is Kool-Aid. 38
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:27 | # the Jews who kept Blair on a leash very simply had him install the most degenerate cleric in Britain as head of the Church: they handed him a slip of paper with this man’s name on it, and it was done. Er ... Fred, that may not be quite how things are done over here. 39
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:01 | # Fr. John, what is the difference between what you are proposing an Christian Identity with DNA vetting of members? 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:02 | # Here’s the process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Nominations_Commission Go down through it step-by-step and note every step where Blair had discretion to choose someone to influence the outcome (for example, who was the Prime Minister’s Appointments Secretary, whose influence was that man under, exactly how was that man himself chosen by Blair, etc.?). Who was the other name on the two-name short list handed to Blair? Was the other priest as degenerate a piece of work as Rowan Williams has clearly turned out to be? Who exactly knew in advance that Williams was this awful? Has Rowan Williams turned out to be the worst conceivable priest for the job in all of Britain? Would, therefore, a flip of the coin have necessarily resulted in someone better? Do such cataclysms, such worst of all possible worlds, generally happen by accident? If not, by whose design exactly did it happen in this instance? Whom did Blair ultimately take his marching orders from? Was he thinking up most of the crap he pulled, and crap he spouted, himself or were men behind him writing his scripts for him literally every single solitary step of the way, scripts which he followed to the letter? Why would it have been any different in the case of his selection of the man to head the Church of England? Did Blair have one single original, honest, or sincere thought in his brain the whole time he was Prime Minister? His whole political life? His whole life, period? 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:06 | # Blair was one-hundred percent a puppet. The only question is who exactly were the men pulling his puppet strings. Since they refuse to come forward and openly identify themselves I’m justifying in surmising as best I can. And that’s exactly what I’ll do. 42
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:42 | # the Narrator, If we accept your position that
then are you not proving the case? A spontaneous action, occurring with no apparent external influence, causes these Europeans to rush into the water to save a boat load of Africans with no knowledge of who they are (murder, rapist) and why they are there. What else is it other than an instinctive, almost reflexive altruism/sympathy in the sense that you define it? Compare that reaction to the Stone Age tribes of the Andaman.
How do you explain Rushton’s finding if in fact
43
Posted by Anon on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:07 | # I don’t agree with the superiority of “Nordic Civilization”. I will digress from the current trend of the discussion here. Consider the “Aryan Invasion” Myth, in the context of India. It is a myth devised by the British Conquerors who wanted to legitimize their stay in India, and play the various communities there against each other. It is sad that it had led to so much conflict and chauvinism there. One look at a northern Indian and a “Aryan” from Europe will resolve for ever that there is NO similarity between them, even to the smallest extent. It is almost as though no one wants to believe that native Indians had any culture of their own. No, the glorious Vedic civilization is real Indian in origin, not created by some imaginary “Aryans”. It is today, as it always was, under threat from the conquering semitic religions, but four thousand years it has survived and will continue to do so. 44
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:42 | # Anon, cultural, linguistic, genetic data point to a connection. How do you explain that data? 45
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:35 | # James Bowery: “Anon, cultural, linguistic, genetic data point to a connection. How do you explain that data?” Map of R1a haplotype regional distribution and frequency:
46
Posted by the sangha on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:53 | # Does this forum not believe in free speech? I posted a comment which apparently was declined. How anti-intellectual and anti-Western! 47
Posted by the sangha on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:06 | # What I was trying to say yesterday was that there seems to be an unreasonable fear of Southern Europeans by some in the White Nationalist movement. The simplest explanation is the one long favored by nordicists: Greece and Rome were substantially more nordic/ish before being submerged by foreign stock, a submergence which was to eventually cause their downfall. This argument is similar to the one made by Afrocentrists regarding the supposed ancient “Blackness” of Egypt. Both Afrocentrism and Nordicism have an element of plausibility because in both Egypt and Greece there was either racial or subracial intermingling and mixture: in Egypt a minority of Negroids mixed with Caucasoids, and in Greece a minority of Nordics mixed with Mediterraneans. Also, in a normal Mediterranean family it is not unusual for there to be a Nordic or “Nordish” relative, and in some families a Nordic strain is more prominent than in others. It is not inconceivable there there was slightly more blondeness in the patrician classes, though even this, if true, would be a far cry from the oversimplistic view that ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome were Nordic or ignited by Nordics. The idea, though, that Nordics created the civilizations of China and pre-Columbian America, which the Kempians claim, is so far-fetched as to confirm that the low-IQ elements in the White Nationalist movement can concoct ideas equally as absurd as the most deranged Afrocentrist. It is a statement about the White Nationalist movement today that Kemp is regarded as its historical authority. 48
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:29 | # sangha, Evidently, you had your comment eaten by the software. It’s a very annoying but perfectly innocent feature of ExpressionEngine’s session-timing mechanism (which cannot be prolonged further or switched off completely). It is a statement about the White Nationalist movement today that Kemp is regarded as its historical authority. Is that true? To be honest, I’ve never bothered with Kemp at all. If Titans is authoritative history, authority is drunk on audacity and idealism. 49
Posted by A Nordicist on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:05 | # Some of this has been addressed here: http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/index.html Of special interest: The Ancient Romans were Nordic: 50
Posted by A Nordicist on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:37 | # An example of Nordic racial character traits, such as fortitude, curiosity, a certain spirit of resistance, and a passion for liberty: 51
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:38 | # The Sangha starts his comment by characterizing WNs as having a fear of Southern Europeans. This business of accusing our side (I don’t consider myself a “WN” specifically, but I mean our side in general) of “having a fear” of Negroes, “having a fear” of strong women, “having a fear” of colored people, “having a fear” of homosexuality, and so on needs to be codified as a corollary to Godwin’s Law (the internet convention that says the first one to compare the other guy to the Nazis or Hitler loses the argument). We’ll call this “the MajorityRights corollary” of Godwin’s Law, and here it is: The first one to characterize the other guy as “having a fear” of the thing being discussed loses the argument. So, there’s the law, and I move to make it ex post facto so we can tell The Sangha he’s lost the argument for violating it. Can I have a second on my motion to make it ex post facto? [I can see those hands raised and hear those voices saying, “I second the motion” in my mind.] Right, the motion is seconded, now for a vote: do we make the MajorityRights corollary to Godwin’s Law ex post facto? [A show of hands clearly has the Ayes carrying it over the Nays.] Motion is passed. Sorry, The Sangha: you lose the argument for violating one of Godwin’s Law’s corollaries. 52
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:26 | # At Takimag: me, turning out Ivan, like the punk he is. Do you think I should go easier on him, GW? http://www.takimag.com/site/article/baby_bust_the_demographics_of_global_depression/
Uh, NO ONE adjusts very well to modern high-tech societies where liberalism and capitalism dominate. That’s why there is a problem with not enough “White” babies being born - these “White people” live in a society where liberalism and capitalism dominate. Eventually, that same liberalism and capitalism will destroy the “high IQ” immigrants and their descendants, and we’ll be back to “square one”. What we need is an end to liberalism and capitalism, not more immigrants that can supposedly “survive” it. Posted by Ivan on Dec 10, 2008. Ivan: “That’s why there is a problem with not enough “White” babies being born…” Do you put eagle in quotes? Is “eagle” a social construct? No, of course not. You have a vested interest in denying the existence of the White race. It is no mystery just what specific things we could do to increase the birth rates of unmongrelized (parse away, genetic studies have the final word, and the word is in) Whites - it is merely a matter of the will. Rather, a lack of will, and an abundance of cowardice. At the critical moment, a coward’s knees buckle; such specimen are not worthy of being called men. Posted by Captainchaos on Dec 10, 2008. Hey Captain Noches, of what race is this gentleman?
Posted by Ivan on Dec 10, 2008. Ivan the pitiable: “Hey Captain Noches, of what race is this gentleman?” He looks White to me, but may have some admixture. I’d have to see the results of the DNA test once it gets back from the lab to render a final verdict. Are you of mixed ancestry, Ivan? Are you a miscegenator? Posted by Captainchaos on Dec 10, 2008. It would seem Ivan is also skeptical of IQ research. His skepticism regarding square one is perhaps most puzzling Posted by Dasein on Dec 10, 2008. “Are you of mixed ancestry, Ivan? Are you a miscegenator?” Of course, I am an American. My ancestors are of the Scottish, English, and Germanic races. My wife’s as well. “It would seem Ivan is also skeptical of IQ research. His skepticism regarding square one is perhaps most puzzling No, not necessarily. I do regard the various Germanic races the most intelligent and “complete” people, and the various “Black” African races among some of the least intelligent and “complete” people. That is not to imply that the various “Black” African races can’t plow a field, harvest crops, or fish. Nor are they devoid of the ability to create art. What I DO deny is their unsuitableness of being valiant, loyal countrymen. The Black Man can be just as much an “American” as I. “He looks White to me, but may have some admixture. I’d have to see the results of the DNA test once it gets back from the lab to render a final verdict.” Captain, you really don’t know much about genetics, do you? Posted by Ivan on Dec 10, 2008. Ivan: “Of course, I am an American.” You slippery little devil. There is nothing that gets my juices flowing like when I have a live one on the hook. “My ancestors are of the Scottish, English, and Germanic races.” By your own ‘racial’ taxonomy, I suspect, you would group northwestern Europeans together. That is my ancestry precisely. Only I am loyal to my people; you are loyal to your self-soothing, self-righteous delusions. The Rosenberg genetic study I availed to you utterly smashes your contention that Europeans do not constitute a genetically distinct group (i.e., the White race). Have you willfully banished that from your memory? Do you choose not to acknowledge it because that would explode the infantile mental universe you inhabit? That you dare equate mixture between European groups and European/non-European mixtures is a sign of your pathetic, desperate denial or just your patent intellectual dishonesty. “Captain, you really don’t know much about genetics, do you?” BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Because I do not possess the level of omniscience to determine precisely a man’s genetic ancestry by merely looking at him? I said he looked White, which he does; and I suspect that is why you selected the picture, no? His non-European (non-White) admixture could be determined at the lab. That is how you determine genetic ancestery, strictly. Did I stu, stu, stutter? Where do you come up with this garbage, Ivan? It truly is precious. P.S. Ever heard of the actor Jack Palance? Do you think that he was non-White? He was of Ukrainian ancestry - bet you didn’t know that. Two can play at this game. Posted by Captainchaos on Dec 10, 2008. “By your own ‘racial’ taxonomy, I suspect, you would group northwestern Europeans together.” Geography, geography, geography. “Because I do not possess the level of omniscience to determine precisely a man’s genetic ancestry by merely looking at him?” Exactly. “His non-European (non-White) admixture could be determined at the lab.” What if some great “White” was proven to have some “Black” African “admixture”? What would be your response? That he is no longer “great”? Is your classification not “performance based”, but “conditional”? For example, is Francis Cardinal Arinze a member of “Western Civilization”? “Ever heard of the actor Jack Palance? Do you think that he was non-White? He was of Ukrainian ancestry - bet you didn’t know that.” I did know that. And “Charles Bronson” was Lithuanian, and, like “Jack Palance”, from the anthracite region of Pennsylvania. What’s your point? Posted by Ivan on Dec 10, 2008. Ivan: “Geography, geography, geography.” Europeans are a distinct people of continental origin. Geography… “Exactly.” Not exactly, dissembler. From the Tang genetic study I availed you of you know that self-perception of ancestry of continental origin is highly accurate (99.86% accurate). But their are much more exacting studies than that, which can pin down intra-European origins. “What if some great “White” was proven to have some “Black” African “admixture”?” Any Negro admixture is essential the end of Whiteness. WTF do you suppose the “one drop” rule was adopted for? “What would be your response?” He would be non-White. That is my response. “That he is no longer “great”?” The Chinese came up with gun powder. Still, I don’t want my people turned into Chinamen. “Is your classification not “performance based”, but “conditional”?” My classifications are based upon genetics and evolved distinctiveness (i.e., genetic distinctiveness). You, yourself, all but come out and assert the supremacy of Germanic Man. The high esteem in which I hold the White race is partially performance based, partially, simply because they are my own; love of kind. “For example, is Francis Cardinal Arinze a member of “Western Civilization”?” What is the price of tea in China? Either you are for the genetic continuity of the White race (i.e., the survival of the White race) or you are not. Gas chambers or miscegenation; pick your poison, it is all the same in the end. If you are for the genetic continuity of the White race you are a genocidalist; are you a genocidalist? “What’s your point?” My point is this: are you an anti-White genocidalist? Posted by Captainchaos on Dec 10, 2008. 53
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:37 | # At Takimag: I deliver the coup de grace to a lying scumbag. Kidney shots, with brass-knuckles, were in order. If the genocidalists will not yield, then, they must be beaten to their knees; figuratively and literally.
You just don’t get it, do you? I am against the concept of a “White race” because the concept itself is Revolutionary. It has no place in Counter-revolutionary, traditionalist, conservative thought. The concept of “White Nationalism” is Revolutionary, it is against the Old Order, the “Ancien Regime”, if you will. “Gas chambers or miscegenation?” Well, neither me nor my wife has had the extensive genetic testing, which you require, but we are both “White” on the surface. We might have a “darkie” in the woodpile somewhere in our ancestry, I don’t know. Note: http://backintyme.com/essays/?p=5 “The Chinese came up with gun powder. Still, I don’t want my people turned into Chinamen.” Here’s a picture of a “Chinaman”:
Yes, this man is “Chinese”, ethnic Uyghur; a Turk. Your scientific, genetic racialism isn’t quite so “cut and dried”. As stated before, I have two cousins - one is (at least seemingly) genetically a Cherokee Indian, the other obviously Germanic. They are sisters, how can they not be both “White”? Posted by Ivan on Dec 10, 2008.
No, you are the one who doesn’t “get it.” “I am against the concept of a “White race” because the concept itself is Revolutionary.” I am against the concept of a heliocentric as opposed to geocentric view of things: heliocentrism is “Revolutionary.” “It has no place in Counter-revolutionary, traditionalist, conservative thought.” The conservation of the White race has no place in the tradition of preserving the White race and therefore we cannot engage in counter-revolution against the revolution to annihilate it?!?! LOL! “The concept of “White Nationalism” is Revolutionary,” The Founding Fathers and the Confederates were Revolutionaries and White Nationalists. “...it is against the Old Order, the “Ancien Regime”, if you will.” The “Old Order” and the “Ancien Regime” were rendered null and void by the advent of modern technology. Do you want to go back to tilling the fields with your oxen, boy? Throughout the arc of European history the White race has been the constant. Dispense with that, you dispense with it all. “Well, neither me nor my wife has had the extensive genetic testing, which you require, but we are both “White” on the surface.” Chances are if you took the ‘Tang challenge’ you would be given a clean bill of health. First: “Yes, this man is “Chinese”,” And then: “...ethnic Uyghur; a Turk.” So he’s a Turk and he’s Chinese? LOL! Did you get your college degree from correspondence courses? “Your scientific, genetic racialism isn’t quite so “cut and dried”.” Bullshit! BTW, my guess would have been that the man pictured had Asiatic admixture. It’s in the eyes. “...genetically a Cherokee Indian, the other obviously Germanic.” A half-breed and a pure-blood. “They are sisters, how can they not be both “White”?” Different fathers (or is it mothers?). Mmmm, tsk, tsk. Your entire race denial edifice stands or falls upon the muddying of the categories - which is patently unscientific in light of the genetic evidence. The truth brooks no competitors. You, yourself, confess the reason you dissemble: it is because you don’t like the implications of the truth. You are a liar, do good Christians lie? You want the White race to lay down and die because of your case of special pleading. You would will the genocide of the most beautiful people to ever walk the earth for your selfish reasons. You are unadulterated scum. Posted by Captainchaos on Dec 10, 2008. 54
Posted by Darren on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:57 | # “I am against the concept of a “White race” because the concept itself is Revolutionary. It has no place in Counter-revolutionary, traditionalist, conservative thought.” This person is clearly an imbecile. The concept of distinct ethnic and cultural groups is traditional. The idea of putting a medley of races together in a liberal society is not traditional. Tradition, by definition, requires a distinct (!!!) group of people who share a common culture (!!!!). I can’t believe that this even has to be explained to people. Its like arguing with a liberal on matters of immigration policy: “the white race doesn’t exist”, “all people have a right to live wherever they want”, “nations has nothing to do with ancestry and heritage”, and etc. How are the arguments any different? 55
Posted by Armor on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:42 | #
It appears that Spengler is an anti-White genocidalist too. You should go after him instead of wasting your time with a small fish like Ivan. An excerpt from the article you linked to :
I thought Spengler was an independent mind who was not afraid to speak out, even on matters of race. In fact, he is a race-replacement advocate. A Takimag commentator gave the right reply: “We should stop all immigration to raise our birth rate.” But he forgot to mention that Spengler’s advocacy of race-replacement was wrong and vile. 56
Posted by Armor on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:58 | #
I saw pictures of this in a magazine. It looked grotesque and sickening, as if it had been staged by journalists. I could only find one picture on the net.
Theoretically, the right thing to do would be to save them first, jail them next, and expel them in the end. Saving their lives doesn’t mean we have to let them replace us, although that is probably what will happen, thanks to Zapatero and the crazy media. 57
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:05 | # (blowing the smoke off my pistol) There is a time and place for everything under the sun. Sometimes you’ve got to let Hagen off his chain to do what he does. Without Balls you get nothing done. If there cannot be agreement, in some matters, there must be capitulation. And other such cliches. 58
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:42 | # Armor: “You should go after him instead of wasting your time with a small fish like Ivan.” I left numb-nuts Spengler a nice little stocking-stuffer for the holidays. Here it is, enjoy:
The origin of the crisis is demographic, and its solution is demographic. To break the vicious circle, America needs to find productive young people to whom to lend.” - Spengler Spengler, everything I said to Ivan applies to you. So, the way to stop the vicious circle of genocide is with more genocide? LOL! Does someone actually pay you to write this horse manure, Spengler? Here is the ticket: if the White race applied itself, with, if necessary, manic ferocity, to saving itself from genocide, you know damn well we could. You just don’t want us to. You prefer that we shuffle quietly toward the grave. I’ll bet you didn’t believe, even in the deepest recesses of your most private thoughts, that there were still White men left, who had the WILL TO LIVE and not die. Be on notice, Spengler, all it takes is a few strong men, of STRONG WILL, to lead their people. Our people don’t want your race-replacement. That is what White flight is. No, Spengler, you and your ilk will not genocide our people. We will stand by them. We will stand for them - to the last man! I’m sure, you will write this off as the ravings of a lunatic. LOL! I don’t expect swine to recognize pearls. You have forfeited what is best in life, the love and fellowship of your people, in exchange for your deracinated, cosmopolitan degeneracy. Some of us have not, some of us never will; our will to fight on is only breakable by death. I am one man, imagine what hundreds of thousands of the best men of our race can do for their people. Just wanted you to know, peace. Posted by Captainchaos on Dec 11, 2008. 59
Posted by the Narrator.. on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:21 | #
What I was trying to get at is that true Altruism has limits of expression. If it didn’t then there wouldn’t be tribes and nations let alone tribal or national warfare. A group of White people thoughtlessly rushing to save and nurse a bunch of Africans who washed up on the shore is not an expression of Altruism. It is an expression of White Guilt and/or simple vanity… 60
Posted by the sangha on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:37 | # Mr. Scrooby (I’m thinking Scooby as in Scooby snacks) shows us his talents as a logician below. The Sangha starts his comment by characterizing WNs as having a fear of Southern Europeans. First off, you might want to lay off the adolescent tendency of claiming to be an automatic “winner.” I remember those days when I was in college and I’d spend countless hours debating liberals, with each side claiming victory… Let’s grow up and debate specific points, rather than childishly proclaiming that an “enemy” is vanquished. This business of accusing our side (I don’t consider myself a “WN” specifically, but I mean our side in general)... Yeah, put that anti in his place! ...of “having a fear” of Negroes, “having a fear” of strong women, “having a fear” of colored people, “having a fear” of homosexuality, and so on needs to be codified as a corollary to Godwin’s Law (the internet convention that says the first one to compare the other guy to the Nazis or Hitler loses the argument). Uh-huh. Sorry, The Sangha: you lose the argument for violating one of Godwin’s Law’s corollaries. Yeah, I lost the argument. I admit it. I feel utterly demolished and demoralized. I can’t believe I came in and had the audacity to present you with such unreasonable and unintelligent statements. Your “Godwin’s Law” certainly applies to my assertions about Arthur Kemp and his status in the White Nationalist community. I, unfortunately, prefaced my comments with an allegation of fear, which, as you correctly point out, from the standpoint of sound reasoning, clearly negates everything I had to say which followed. I take back my words. Yes, Arthur Kemp is right: ancient Egypt, Rome, and Greece were ignited by Nordics. The pre-Columbian and Chinese civilizations were also ignited by Nordics. Let us also not forget the great moai of Easter Island, which clearly also have a Nordic influence. I thank the Nordicist who posted shortly after me for reminding us of the full extent of the glories of Western people throughout the times. 61
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:49 | # The Narrator: “A group of White people thoughtlessly rushing to save and nurse a bunch of Africans who washed up on the shore is not an expression of Altruism. It is an expression of White Guilt and/or simple vanity…” Allow me to bridge the gap between you and Desmond: there are obviously gradations of altruism in Whites. Saving some drowning Africans is a one-time thing for most. Living side-by-side with them and fucking them in the context of ‘relationships’ is a much larger, long-term commitment. The vast majority of Whites do not perform the latter. I’ll bet the tendency to miscegenation is predominantly genetic and conforms to a ‘bell-curve’, just like so much of the rest of it. 62
Posted by G de B on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:15 | # The chief elements of the English people are the Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Anglo-Normans. In the course of history, these populations largely intermarried and merged - combining languages and traditions - to form the English. 63
Posted by the Narrator.. on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:46 | #
I appreciate your point but the context is different. These Africans were, in essence, storming the beach. They were there illegally. They were forcing their way into the country. It wasn’t just a matter of helping somebody out in a moment of need. It went far beyond that. For example, same context but different scenario: A group of black men come pushing their ill gotten Chevy Nova down the street. How many normal (non-brainwashed) people would, out of Altruistic instinct, go rushing towards them with spare gas for their car and bologna sandwiches to refresh the beleaguered bruthas?
Would knowing that Whites are the establishment elite in Mexico ease your apprehension about moving into one of their slums there? Does the fact that America is still majority White make the prospects of living in Compton, Detroit or Camden New Jersey any better? And the entire country is one the verge of becoming Compton, Detroit and Camden all rolled into one with no place left to White Flight towards. Quality of Life isn’t always about income. And if a handful of Whites are still hosting cocktail parties in their fortress/penthouses high above the multi-cult hell the rest of us live in, is that really cause for me to sleep more soundly at night? .... 64
Posted by Diamed on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:32 | # First I applaud you CaptainChaos for standing up and not mincing your words. Second I think it is disgraceful for people to attempt to pretend it’s impossible to figure out what race someone is when genetic tests can even tell the difference between japanese and koreans, german and french, etc. Race is real and any computer can with perfect accuracy assign you to your race and even say exactly what admixture you are of each ethnicity. There is no honest way anyone can argue we are a giant ‘cosmopolitan man’ hopelessly white and yolked together. Third genes are the only true permanent heritage from generation to generation, and therefore conservatism that rejects conserving genes is meaningless. It will conserve nothing, and indeed, when have conservatives ever succeeded at anything? They have been losing for the last 100 years and now my president is a mulatto. Thanks a lot ‘conservatives.’ Fourth the demographic crisis is due entirely to women being given the freedom to do whatever they please. It will be turned around not by importing aliens (which will only create a new, worse problem), but by restructuring the laws of society so that women no longer have the right to genocide their own race through selfish hedonism. I proposed a simple plan where all women must marry by 20 and have 2 kids by 30 at gunpoint and that divorce was prohibited. Poof, just like that, problem solved. And not a single somali from sea to shining sea. Like Captain said, the only ingredient lacking is will. There are hundreds of solutions but when people say ‘nothing can be done,’ what they mean is they think this is a preferable outcome to ANY OTHER choice. Do not let them get away with ‘accepting a fait accompli.’ They are not resignedly accepting the inevitable. They are endorsing the status quo and celebrating it. They are the enemy. Something I’m worried about though, if say Austria decides to pass a law like that: “all non-austrians to be deported, all women to marry at 20 and have 2 kids by 30,” you can bet international sanctions, and eventually serbia-type bombings will occur until they are pounded back into submission to the multi-cult. Therefore there is no such thing as local success for WN. Simply by putting our own morality into practice in our own land, we will violate millions of universal human rights and be invaded by do-gooders around the world. What’s our answer to this? Sounds to me like the first ‘white conscious’ nation must be strong enough to take on the whole world, ie the USA or Russia with their nuclear arsenals. Doesn’t this kinda squash all hopes of separatism and require we conquer the world just to be left alone? 65
Posted by Armor on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:41 | #
The real problem is immigration, not ill will on the part of white women. The “birth rate specialists” who lament that white people no longer want children are dishonest. As you say (about something else), “they are not resignedly accepting the inevitable. They are endorsing the status quo and celebrating it. They are the enemy.” The idea that birth rates are plunging because white women no longer want babies is the kind of analysis you will get from the neocons, who are really active supporters of the race-replacement policy. The first step to increasing white birth rates should be to stop immigration and expel post-1965 immigrants. Failing that, the whites must be allowed to live on their own territories, and tax money levied on them must no longer be distributed to non-whites. Many other measures can be taken to increase the birth rates of the whites, but a number of politicians and lobbying organizations don’t want that to happen. In france, for example, any talk of paying stay-at-home mothers is routinely denounced as a nazi scheme. 66
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:08 | # Armor, In England we are still English, and more and more of us are dropping “British” and saying so. I do at every public opportunity, and disparage the use of the term “white”. How do French loyalists resolve the problem of self-identification and separation from les beurs francais? Narrator, the email address you routinely post here does not work. Can you please contact me? Thanks. 67
Posted by pasta on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:32 | # We are neither in a position to stop immigration nor to threaten women with physical punishment. These are political measures, only governments have the power to implement them, but since WNs are minorities in their countries, our governments won’t listen to us. In our current situation, in order to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, the only thing we can do now, is to have more white children, lots of them and raise them to be WNs. Even if what we want is to influence a democratic government, then we still need lots of WN children in order to field more votes. Even if what we want is to fight a separatist war in order to establish a homeland for whites, we still need lots of WN children in order to have soldiers for that army. Just stating that fact that whites don’t have enough children today (how is the fertility rate of WNs in particular?) doesn’t mean to endorse immigration or race replacement. Having children is a must for us and without that, frankly, I don’t see much point in all this WN blogging and commenting. Where does this ever get us while we are dying out fast? I know women tend to be traitors to our cause more often than men, but for sure there must be some WN women..? Why not support these heroic women as much as we can to have as many children as they can? I mean, us WNs as a whole, as a community, not just their husbands. Let us form “breeding clubs”. We whites are brothers to each other, if our brothers have more children, our family grows as a whole. Of course this requires us to make real sacrifices, but it also gives us the tangible benefit of gaining more allies and supporters in the future. 68
Posted by calvin on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:46 | # “Within my family I have two cousins, both sisters. One has black hair and dark eyes, and is obviously a genetic Cherokee Indian. The other is a blonde, with blue eyes, obviously genetically “White”. So, if genetics is family, is the sister that is genetically Cherokee Indian NOT in my family, despite being the daughter of my father’s sister? At our family Christmas Party, should I forcefully remove her from the room?” My oldest brother “looks like Sean Connery” therefore, he must be Sean Connery! I have an uncle who “looks like” chief Sitting Bull (I really do), therefore he must be a legitimate chief of the Lakota nation. Any European person with black hair and brown eyes is probably an Aztec, or Chinese. I have an big sister with size five feet, I take a size nine, she can’t really be my sister. I saw a horse and a pig come through the same gate, I can’t decide if they were both pigs or both horses, blah, blah, blah, blah….....LOL! What a buffoon! 69
Posted by Armor on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:57 | # I said: “The real problem is immigration” In fact, I don’t know how big a role immigration plays in the birth rate crisis. I know it is not the only factor. How come it has become more difficult to raise a family on a single wage? That is because taxes have been increased in order to pay for • health services and retirements, • a bloated bureaucracy, • the immigration policy. 70
Posted by Matra on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:46 | # For several hundred years the Tutsis and Hutus lived as one [so, heterogeneity does not necessarily breed conflict; the conflicts between the Tutsi and Hutu have been fostered by the colonial powers], speaking the same language, inhabiting the same areas, following the same traditions and intermarrying. The colonial powers mostly just maintained the status quo. The main difference was that a minority of Hutu received a Western Catholic education under the Belgians. This minority led the rebellion against Tutsi rule, with the support of Hutus who did not receive a Western education, in the late 1950s. It seems that in the past, when Hutus and Tutsis lived in harmony, Tutsi men rarely took Hutu wives, while Hutu men often took Tutsi wives. That could explain that the Tutsis are still ‘pure’; that they have not lost their energies, abilities and genes. But what about the Hutu? The ethnicity of the father determines the ethnicity of the children, which partially contributes to the continued larger proportion of Hutu in the region…It is obvious that the intermixture (after 600 years!), has only chipped off pieces from the surface of Hutus, so that they are still ‘intact’. How to explain that, after 600 years of intermarriage, they did not lose their racial identity? ; You’ve got it backwards. The miscegenation occurred between Tutsi men and Hutu women - rarely the the other way round. The offspring, according to Pierre van den Berghe, could rise above the station of their mothers and become lower status Tutsi. But, importantly, the miscegenation was limited and thus the Tutsi ethnic group remained intact. The various character traits also still differ: the Tutsis continued to maintain their social and political dominance (even though the Tutsis are a minority!). The Tutsi almost suffered genocide in the 1990s and many were also massacred in the 1950s and 60s. They’ll probably suffer more in the future. Their survival is not entirely in their own hands. don’t you think, there is no reason to fear that the white race will be become annihilated, as is continuous stated on many forums and websites? Look at Mexico: whites are a minority (only 9% of the population), but they are the elite - the Mexican Establishment is white! The ‘white’ Mexican elite (which is not all that white) is surrounded and heavily outnumbered by non-whites and must permanently and successfully manipulate the political system to remain in power. Anti-white Indians have won electoral victories in both Venezuela and Bolivia, and the Left almost won the last Mexican election. To some extent they also need the US to continue to allow millions of the teeming Mestizo underclass to move north. That’s not a secure position to be in. G de B started off criticising only Nordicism but now, judging by the ‘tone’ of his/her posts, seems to think whites here have nothing to worry about. So whites end up like Tutsi or the ‘white’ Mexican elite? No big deal! Well, the respective positions of those two groups do not look enviable to me. They are certainly not as secure in the long term as whites living in a mostly homogeneous white society. So why should we give up what we have and take any chances when the potential negative consequences are so serious and the benefits non-existent? 71
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:54 | # G de B (Grande de Butt-boy) “However, in the fusion of these three populations, there were no heterogeneous elements: Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, and Dane were all branches of ‘one race’. Things are otherwise in the case of ‘different races’ merging together.” Oh? What tune are you going to be humming tomorrow, you slippery little punk. “But is this necessarily always so?” Well, let’s see what the punk says about this and other nonsense. “It was 600 years ago that the Tutsis moved south from Ethiopia and invaded the homeland of the Hutus.” And then: “...at this moment, they still hate each other…” “But originally, this was not so!” Yup, they invaded and conquered them. It was done with love. “It seems that in the past, when Hutus and Tutsis lived in harmony, Tutsi men rarely took Hutu wives, while Hutu men often took Tutsi wives…” Here, you can have some of our women; but in exchange you have to be docile punks. “That could explain that the Tutsis are still ‘pure’; that they have not lost their energies, abilities and genes.” Yawn. Yup, the original Tutsi genetic stock was preserved, for the most part unmongrelized. “How to explain that, after 600 years of intermarriage, they did not lose their racial identity?” Because of a, more or less, imposed caste system. “...the original races never actually disappear since they are constantly reappearing in new subjects which are practically pure.” Yup, it has nothing to do with an unbroken chain of unmongrelized ancestry; it just “reappear[s].” Poof! “Look at Mexico: whites are a minority (only 9% of the population), but they are the elite - the Mexican Establishment is white!” What about the White working-class, you piece of shit? Ivan, are you just a dim-bulb or a slimy little dissembler? My guess is some combination of the two. Now, if you are constitutionally incapable of conducting yourself as a man I suggest you get out there on the streets and earn me some money, bitch. Come back with $500; or don’t bother coming back. LOL! 72
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:44 | # Diamed: “I proposed a simple plan where all women must marry by 20 and have 2 kids by 30 at gunpoint and that divorce was prohibited. Poof, just like that, problem solved.” The National Socialists succeeded in restructuring the economy by taking women out of the work force and putting men to work in those slots. I believe they gave some kind of loan to married women, one fourth of which was forgiven for every child born. It worked. If it can work then, it can work now. Why wouldn’t it? That, along with anti-miscegenation laws (e.g., only White women having White children will receive benefits - DNA tests should be utilized) and a Eurocentric curriculum that emphasizes the importance of propagating the unmongrelized genetic stock should do it. Where the National Socialists went off the tracks was with their lebensraum land-grabbery from fellow Whites. “Sounds to me like the first ‘white conscious’ nation must be strong enough to take on the whole world, ie the USA or Russia with their nuclear arsenals.” For the White race to have a reasonable assurance of a future we must win in North America. After that, we can strive to preserve the genetically distinct intra-European groups. Some form of White solidarity across national/ethnic boundaries will be necessary though. We must collectively protect the earth from despoilment by the teeming third-world rabble. 73
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:03 | #
True, but not limited by ethnicity/race, which is where the discussion began, with Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory. It also where Darwin goes. Once established altruism, through re-enforcement by public opinion broadens to encompass men of other countries, other races and eventual all sentient beings. People love their dogs and will go to great ends to save them from dire straits, but most do not make love to their dog. Unlike stone age man or orthodox Jews the altruism, displayed by the Germans on the beach with the beleaguered Africans, is not limited to their tribe.
Isn’t that what Rushton says and why the exception proves the rule.? 74
Posted by n/a on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:25 | # sangha, Let’s grow up and debate specific points, rather than childishly proclaiming that an “enemy” is vanquished. Good idea. Why don’t you. Your first post is nearly devoid of consequential argument. It seems aimed primarily at affirming your intellectual superiority through shit-talk of generic, unnamed “White Nationalists”. Incidentally, silver is a Southern European. Your comment is full of straw men and unfounded assumptions. The case for Northern European preservationism is not dependent on any historical argument (or “fear” for that matter). Historical arguments are not are not dependent on Arthur Kemp. Also, in a normal Mediterranean family it is not unusual for there to be a Nordic or “Nordish” relative, and in some families a Nordic strain is more prominent than in others. Where do you propose those genes came from? It is not inconceivable there there was slightly more blondeness in the patrician classes, though even this, if true, would be a far cry from the oversimplistic view that ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome were Nordic or ignited by Nordics. You’re the only one here mentioning Egypt. As for Greece and Rome, Latin and Greek are indisputably Indo-European languages. IE originated among people of Northern European physical type, and a fair amount of culture and religion spread with the language. Just considering culture and language, no Northern Europeans = no IE = no Greece and Rome. On the biological side, pigmentation is not the sole or primary basis for seeing Northern European ancestry in Roman Patricians. The skeletal evidence and portrait busts also point in that direction.
If you want to “debate specific points”, try refuting Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence by John V. Day. Understanding Human History (pdf) by (non-Nordicist and Jew) Michael Hart deals with the broader outline of history and comes to conclusions that are quite consonant with “Nordicism”. 75
Posted by n/a on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:30 | # Some relevant excerpts from Hart:
Fair types were more than “slightly” overrepresented among upper-class Romans.
76
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:22 | # So that’s what frightens Dienekes, the fact that the ancient Greeks may not be him. 77
Posted by the sangha on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:27 | # So that’s what frightens Dienekes, the fact that the ancient Greeks may not be him. While I’m not blind to the racial realities of this world, I do see that our achievements and worth as individuals are wholly unrelated to what a group of people accomplished hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Even today, while a boorish Briton may take pride in the achievements of Stephen Hawking because he happens to be of the same race or nationality, such an imagined relationship carries no consequence in the person’s day to day life. As for Dienekes, that indefatigable Hellenic nationalist, it seems he’s a thorn in the side of some people here. 78
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:22 | # Geometry and the idea of formal proof is of no consequence to everyday lives? 79
Posted by the sangha on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:17 | # So you disagree with my assertion that the achievements of a group of people who lived thousands of years ago say nothing about the worth of an individual today? Do you believe that the accomplishments of Stephen Hawking say anything fundamental about the value of a Brit with an IQ of 92, or even of a White Nationalist with a normal IQ? It seems grasping towards the past to build self-esteem is a common human tendency, seen in different races, though. If that’s considered a personal attack, so be it. I think it explains to some extent why debates over the racial composition of ancient peoples can get so venomous. Even supposing that these peoples were of the same race as the rabid racialist (whatever side he’s on), I doubt they’d care to be associated with him, at least as far as his behavior goes. Whatever their race, they are dead. 80
Posted by the sangha on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:48 | # n/a, You cited Hart, Day, and Coon. Hart, from a basic search, is an astrophysicist. That does not mean he can’t make valuable contributions to our historical knowledge or worldview, but it does mean that we should be skeptical of his claims and rigorously scrutinize them. It means not accepting what he says simply because he says it, and looking carefully at his sources. As an aside, his point of view is interesting though, and I might check out his material if I have the time. Day is not an acknowledged authority of history, much less ancient history, from what I see. That also does not mean his claims are to be dismissed outright, but it does mean that he should be questioned as much as Hart, if not more so. Coon is your best source, and unfortunately all we have is a single sentence from him. I am open on the idea that there were blonder elements among the patricians, but the historical sources seem to indicate that prominent ancients in the Mediterranean were at least somewhat mixed with Mediterraneans, even if you accept the notion of a Nordic ruling caste. Julius Caesar is said by numerous sources to have had black eyes, for example. This is hardly a “Nordic” trait coming from a member of the “Keltic Iron-Age Nordic” patrician class. As for the busts you linked to, with pigmentation they could pass largely as Mediterranean. This is not to deny there are Upper-Paleolithic elements among them. It’s notable, also, that you use Arthur Kemp among your sources. You are thus bringing ancient Egypt, China, and pre-Columbian America into the equation, if not directly. If you wish to stick to ancient Greece and Rome, which I have no problem with, I suggest you use other sources though for your own benefit. 81
Posted by the sangha on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:58 | # Correction: n/a has not cited Arthur Kemp, but someone who is hosted and endorsed by Arthur Kemp to prove that Nordic busts show a Nordic influence. This may be a minor distinction but I will note it to try to be fair. But this individual, noted for his exchanges with “Racial Myths,” seems to endorse Karl Earlson’s “scholarship,” which, among other things, points to the existence of “Nordic Arabs.”
Now, perhaps I am just trolling by showing the level of scholarship associated with the so-called Nordicist movement (my apologies to n/a for derailing this a bit). Is it far-fetched to assume there might be an overarching meaning in all of this? 82
Posted by Armor on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:38 | #
I think the English should refuse to recognize third-world immigrants as British. They are no more British than English or European. If you accept that Pakistani immigrants can be called British but not English, it suggests that the proximity between an Englishman and a Welshman is no greater than between an Englishman and a Pakistani immigrant. The French do not have any name that allows them to make a distinction between the ethnic French and other European ethnicities included in the French state. In Britain, you have officially 3 different nations: Wales, England, Scotland, all of them British. In France, the French “nationalists” do not recognize any difference between a Breton or a Frenchman from Orléans. They do not even understand the distinction between nationality and citizenship and you will waste your time trying to explain to them. I resent the French statist ideology because it prevents my own nation from having its own state, but French ideology is toxic for the French themselves. The French administration keeps doing everything it can to destroy the language and forbid any independent political or cultural expression in Brittany, but they have also been destroying the identity of the French people themselves. In order to found a political movement opposed to population substitution, it would be useful to emphasize that every man needs to feel a connexion to his roots. But French ideology, at least since the 1789 revolution, says that ethnic identities must be scrapped in favor of a common citizenship. Of course, they are not totally honest about this. They have destroyed other languages and not their own. But they really believe in centralism and the destruction of any particular identity. The problem in France is that anti-immigration activists find themselves in organizations headed by politicians who still believe in the destruction of European ethnic identities. There is an obvious contradiction here, and they are unable to rationalize their ideology. Even on a website like fdesouche.com, well known to Fred Scrooby, they had an article against the independence of Tibet from China. What words are used in France to distinguish white people from third-world immigrants: Personally, I would say the whites (les blancs), as opposed to the immigrants (les immigrés). People who are afraid to use the word white can say things like français d’origine, français de souche (French by stock), and jokingly: gaulois (Gaul). It is said that third-world immigrants living in France sometimes call themselves “français de papiers” (French by their papers). Journalists will say “français-issus-de-l’immigration”, or sometimes nouveaux français (new Frenchmen). I like the humourous expression: les “chances pour la France”, abbreviated in CPF, because we are told that immigrants are a boon to France. For example: she was raped and killed by a CPF. 84
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:24 | #
As well you should. But that’s OK as long as you’ve learned from your error.
Not Godwin’s Law. A corollary to Godwin’s Law, one which didn’t apply to your assertions about Kemp but to your saying Nordicists “fear” Mediterraneans or something like that. That loses you the argument instantly, the way it loses the argument for the people who say those who oppose the women’s lib/homosexualist agenda “fear change,” those who question the Negrification of whitedom “fear ‘the other’ ” or “fear people of color,” or those who doubt the wisdom of putting women in the Army and Marine Corps infantry “fear strong women.” In resorting to that tactic you’ve instantly 1) lost the argument, and 2) branded yourself an asshole.
Yes.
Your recantation and contrition are accepted. See that it never happens again. 85
Posted by Armor on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:28 | #
What I like about the Greek miracle is that they were only a small people (a few millions?) organized in independent cities. And they behaved like adults. They did not rely on anyone else to give meaning to their lives, they put their political ideas into practice, and they did not think they were powerless to change things, like most people today in the West. 86
Posted by Diamed on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:43 | # Greek average IQ is 92 now according to IQ and Global Inequality. Can’t do much from such a pitiful base. Greeks rioting are little different from blacks or muslims rioting, dumb people resorting to violence because they have no self-control and no long term planning. 87
Posted by Anon again on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:51 | # I agree that one shouldn’t take overt pride in the acheivements of their supposed distant ancestors. This being said, I would like to prove again that Nordics are hardly the “most intelligent” people. As far as mathematics and sciences go, my people (the indians, predating the supposed “aryans”) were advanced enough to merit a place next to the greeks (the zero, anyone?). But what one overlooks is the deep spiritual connection that they shared with the land. Hinduism predates the pagan religions of greece, the norse and the egyptians but it has still survived despite millenia of hardship imposed upon it by the semites. Indeed, it has outlived them all. This must surely rank as an acheivement, though not something easily quantifiable. My point here is not to wave the flag of my people over yours, but to stop generalising that the nordics or the “aryans” were the most intelligent. Physically accomplished i can agree with, since they hail from a harsh climate, but the connection between survival in such a climate and intelligence i cannot fathom. Peace 89
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:49 | # One thing that always struck me about the Nordic/Mediterranean discussion is that there are often times two different interpretations as to what Nordic generally is. I’ve seen North Europeans who look Nordic but have dark hair and eyes and I’ve seen Italians with light hair and blue eyes who never-the-less look Mediterranean. I was always under the impression that the Nordic Ideal was someone who has the overall general North-European features and build plus blond hair and blue eyes. From a cultural, historical and linguistic angle I’ve always thought Teutonic was a better description for the majority of peoples of North-Western Europe. Though that’s hardly a scientific application either… 90
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:07 | # Check this out, over at The Narrator’s: http://signalsfromthebrink.blogspot.com/2008/12/juxtapose.html (Anyone want to lay odds they left the word “Holocaust” in that dictionary?) 91
Posted by G de B on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:56 | # @ Matra 1/ Because there was intermarriage between the Tutsis and the Hutu, they are probably most ‘genetically’ similar to each other (and they may live in the area). This will be the opinion of Rienzi for example. But because of their ‘physical differences’ they are, according to the phenotype argument, to be identified as different races. This will be the opinion of McCulloch. And according to him they don’t belong in the same area! cf. The Ethnic Gap A Rejoinder to Torrianni & Rienzi How will you solve this problem? 2/ you want whites to live in a mostly homogeneous white society. However, regarding your call for racial preservation, there is a difficulty (in particular for Nordicists !). Indeed, Northern Man lost his cultural independence because he migrated southwards. But his psychological need for expansion and to flow over into the territory of neighboring populations [because of the dynamic and the high concentration of his biological and social energy (and a lower in neighboring populations)], caused this migration - is due to the quality of his race! So, how to prevent that the same events do not occur again, and that Northern Man engages again in an evolutionary competition with other races? Is ‘preservation’ possible with the traits and genes of his race - will he not act again against himself and his best interests?!
92
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:21 | #
Yes.
In a thousand years, possibly.
Is it ? Evidence or are you simply arguing from authority?
You’ve spoken with them no doubt. Geometry and the idea of formal proof is of no consequence to everyday lives? (Second request) 93
Posted by snax on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:15 | # Well, now we’ve had the big RaceDoesNotExist thread, we might have the “NWOexistsButIsn’tJewish” thread. Revolution Harry, though in the minority here, is a more representative free-thinker than are nationalists. I think if he were to present an “exercise in critique” from the POV of one who opposes the “NWO”, favours a non-racial response, and denies a Jewish causation, it would be beneficial to all of us. There is some embarassment to debate the “NWO issue” even among those prepared to invite the “anti-semitic” accusation, so a better term might be found, but… What do you say, Harry? - And GW? 94
Posted by n/a on Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:52 | # sangha, Your posts primarily consist of various species of ad hominem (claiming people lack “authority”, are guilty by association, have particular psychological motivations, and so on). I’m not interested in carrying on this sort of “debate”. Incidentally: - Indo-European Origins is Day’s doctoral dissertation, completed under the supervision of J.P. Mallory. It has received positive scholarly reviews from several “authorities”. More importantly, you don’t have to rely on Day’s “authority”—his bibliography runs to 77 pages. - No, that’s not the only sentence from Coon on the northern affinities of the Romans. Caesar’s eye color is unclear. Suetonius, writing over a century after Caesar’s death, claims Causar had dark eyes, but supposedly busts have been found depicting a grey-eyed Caesar. If Caesar had dark eyes, it would do nothing to change the fact that written descriptions suggest light eyes were common among aristocratic Romans. I am “this individual” responsible for the Refuting Racial Myths website. Whether or not you agree with Karl Earlson’s conclusions, there’s no need for scare quotes around “scholarship”—Earlson is widely-read and accurately represents his sources. Let’s say you’re right and many people “grasp for self-esteem” by choosing particular interpretations of history. So what? What motivates someone to support a particular interpretations of history and which interpretation is correct are two separate questions. Hawking is English whether “boorish” countrymen take pride in him or not. Again, you seem most interested in trying to indirectly assert your own moral/intellectual superiority. If history in general is worth studying, I see no legitimate reason to ignore the racial element of history. 95
Posted by the sangha on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:56 | # n/a: Your posts primarily consist of various species of ad hominem (claiming people lack “authority”, are guilty by association, have particular psychological motivations, and so on). I’m not interested in carrying on this sort of “debate”. I agree that this debate isn’t very productive, and I hope for your own good you will stop responding to me. I don’t know how old you are, but I would hope young Nordic males will not follow your example and debate the supposed dominance of Nordics in ancient times, and instead chase and reproduce with Nordic females so that their subrace can continue to exist and prosper. As for me, I will be out tonight at a club, and hopefully I’ll score a threesome with a Mediterranean and a Nordic chick. As it stands, your preferred “subrace” seems indifferent to Negroids and other races gaming their females. Debating the racial composition of the Roman patrician class, while mildly interesting, can be a distraction, whatever the case. Indo-European Origins is Day’s doctoral dissertation, completed under the supervision of J.P. Mallory. It has received positive scholarly reviews from several “authorities”. More importantly, you don’t have to rely on Day’s “authority”—his bibliography runs to 77 pages. It is telling that John V. Day does not even have a listing on Wikipedia—nevermind more established sources. Bear in mind that a central idea in your writings seems to be a mental and intellectual superiority in the Nordic subrace. Yet we both know your viewpoint on this very topic appears to be a minority one—a minority one because your preferred subrace has supposedly been cowed by political correctness. This political correctness of course has been imposed by devious alien races and subraces, as well as craven and doltish academics and politicians among your group. If I am to accept your premise that your subrace is intellectually superior, I also can accept your other premise that your subrace, though possessing a type of creative genius, is the most pathetic and cowardly one of them all, for allowing themselves to fall into their current predicament. Of course, all of this does not mean Mr. Day is wrong—but this is not the level of scholarship that generally gets respect when other controversial topics are brought up. Mr. Day could have a point, who knows. I admit I am not an expert on this topic, and besides, I don’t identify myself as a Nordic, so maybe you are speaking to the wrong person anyway. Caesar’s eye color is unclear. Suetonius, writing over a century after Caesar’s death, claims Causar had dark eyes, but supposedly busts have been found depicting a grey-eyed Caesar. If Caesar had dark eyes, it would do nothing to change the fact that written descriptions suggest light eyes were common among aristocratic Romans. Light eyes are common among Mediterraneans, especially those mixed with Alpine strains within Italy. I see Southern Italians with light eyes all the time, and we both know they are dark. I am “this individual” responsible for the Refuting Racial Myths website. Whether or not you agree with Karl Earlson’s conclusions, there’s no need for scare quotes around “scholarship”—Earlson is widely-read and accurately represents his sources. Awesome. You are a very energetic individual. I also don’t find a Wikipedia or mainstream entry for Earlson. Could he be writing under a pseudonym? Again, I am not an expert on historical matters, nor do I care to debate for many hours about the racial composition of peoples who lived thousands of years ago (and I’ve studied my share of anthropology). Maybe Earlson has a point, but on the face of it his site looks like an easy target for “Medicist” agitators. In fact, by writing about “Nordic Arabs” one may argue that he justifies race-mixing between Scandinavian women and Arab men, because, you see, they share a glorious and rich history together… I don’t think it helps the Nordic cause at all, even if it’s true. If I were him and I believed in the idea of Nordic Arabs, I’d hide that for that reason alone, never mind the laughs from other quarters. Again, you seem most interested in trying to indirectly assert your own moral/intellectual superiority. On the contrary, I admit I lack the knowledge of anthropology and biology that both you and Dienekes possess. If history in general is worth studying, I see no legitimate reason to ignore the racial element of history. I agree. But let’s keep it civil, and expect that both sides will get their laughs at the expense of the other. 96
Posted by silver on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:57 | #
How to explain it? Try six thousand or sixty thousand or six hundred thousand years from now. If that seems an absurdly long time frame to think in terms of it’s only because you’ve failed to realize that, ultimately, racial preservation/nationalism is a question of eternity, not a question of whether there’ll still be a white race by 2100 or whether it’ll still be a majority by 2050. Those latter questions can serve to highlight the urgency of the situation, but of themselves are largely meaningless. What if, for example, the date of the minority status could be staved off until 2065 or 2080, or extinction until 2200 (instead of 2100)? What would that accomplish except establish a little more breathing space for the white generations extant at the time? It’s the very fate of extinction which white racialism strives to avoid, not fiddling with its date.
That only means their genetic submergence is not yet complete. If you’re familiar with McCulloch’s work then you should already understand that a multiracial state of affairs is simply a transitional, temporary phase. Again, check back in six thousand (etc) years. These are the sorts of realizations that led me to abandon my hostility towards WN, distasteful as I found (and still find) its excesses, and with full knowledge that it either currently excludes me or intends to later, when doing so is more politic or feasible. I could quite easily and almost happily live out my days in feigned ignorance of the forces at work, and feigned shock and bewilderment at those who raise uncomfortable questions about them. But to do so would be to confuse principle and interest, to live off the former while pretending to live off the latter. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that all of us, white or not, will, if nothing is done, eventually succumb to these forces, whether now or in six thousand years time, and all our descendents will unquestionably be immeasurably the poorer for it. Whatever personal physical or psychological difficulties any remedies pose for us, it’s imperative we resolve to overcome them, else we really will end up where we’re heading—for me, simply knowing that is reason enough to grit my teeth and plough through the sort of disparaging language nutzi types regularly employ describing people like me (though I do mightily wish it, and even the sentiment behind it, could be made to cease). 97
Posted by Fr. John on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:43 | # “Fr. John, what is the difference between what you are proposing an Christian Identity with DNA vetting of members?” James, I know (or can at least surmise) your own opinions on this point, but I’d like them out in the open. What, indeed, is the difference per your own POV? And why is that ‘bad’? Tell me that, and I will answer your question. 98
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:34 | # Fr. John, assuming that “that” in “that is ‘bad’” refers to the difference with Christian Identity (as opposed to Christian Identity itself being ‘bad’), the entire reason I asked you for the difference is because I honestly don’t know what the difference is! My main criticism of Christian Identity is that it is an attempt to recapture moral sovereignty for Euromen by redefining the terms of a foreign religion thrust upon them during the wars between northern and southern Europe. It seems to me that the closest I come to Christian Identity is the interpretation of Christ’s life given by The Life and Crucifixion of Julian and the Threat of Group-Entities by John Harland, which I’m far from sure of but it makes some possible sense to me. It is available for download although I’m not sure if the download violates copyright. 99
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:18 | #
Still the same asshole. The guy will never change. He’s an asshole for eternity. 100
Posted by G de B on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:50 | # @ silver But if after 600 years of intermarriage the Hutu and Tutsi still vary phenotypically, why not after “six thousand (etc) years”? Take for example the following scenario (with thanks to Steve sailer for his most timely and excellent help): “I’m wondering if the Hutu men who took Tutsi wives tended to be the most ambitious and competent of the Hutus. I’m thinking of the movie “Hotel Rwanda,” where the impressive Hutu man who runs the best hotel in the country has a tall, beautiful Tutsi wife. I would imagine that the sons of this mixed marriage who shared their father’s competence would tend to marry attractive Tutsi women and their descendents would tend toward the Tutsi in looks and social affiliation, while his less ambitious sons would marry Hutu women and their descendents would tend toward the Hutu. Conversely, his longer-legged daughters would have the opportunity to marry either Tutsis or the most ambitious Hutu men, while his shorter daughters would have to make do with Hutu husbands of lower class. That seems to be how the system works in Latin America, which has managed to preserve white domination despite almost 500 years of intermarriage: the most accomplished dark men tend to marry up the ladder of color. Their grandchildren tend to look whiter.” 101
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:53 | # G de B commenting at your blog is the same at The Monitor doing it: the equivalent of your blog getting terminal cancer. 102
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:55 | # (Are we sure they’re not the same <strike>guy</strike> creep?) 103
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:25 | # G de B: “Take for example the following scenario (with thanks to Steve sailer for his most timely and excellent help):” I told you not to come back without my $500, you little ho. Fred: “G de B commenting at your blog is the same at The Monitor doing it: the equivalent of your blog getting terminal cancer.” At least The Monitard will concede the right of our people to exist once you kick him in the balls enough times. This little punk-made-bitch is trying to find whatever clever way he can into tricking us to accept miscegenation. I want my $500! 104
Posted by silver on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:26 | #
Under the circumstanes, whatever may be said of me, I think it’s infinitely preferible to being a fruitcake.
I must admit to not being acquainted with the peculiarities of Hutu-Tutsi intermarriage (nor do I care to be), but three points: (1) Six hundred years isn’t necessarily long for pure lines of each to no longer exist. (2) Even if there are no more pure strains of each, six hundred years is nowhere near enough time to iron out phenotypic variation. (3) It’s not so much phenotypic “variation” that is at stake when whites miscegenate with others; it’s that white phenotypes will be lost forever. Sure, even when there is no longer any such thing as a “pure” white there will continue to be a classification of “white,” consisting of people who in some ways resemble Europeans, even if their skins are no longer white and the fineness of white features is absent.
If Sailer said that, that’s why many racialists consider him an idiot. “White,” as described, will simply continue to be defined down until eventually, over hundreds of years, it becomes a pointless designation. Sailer apparently wants you to believe that five hundred years is a Very Long Time (so what’s there to worry about). But compared to eternity, it’s a drop in the ocean. And none of this says anything about the desirability of living under such multiracial conditions, which is a factor you haven’t even attempted to touch on. I honestly think you’d much bettter off just getting with the program, rather than proffering such silly objections. If racialism bothers you, then work to alter its contours. Why leave it to filthy slimebuckets (those on here are the milder ones) to define? Clearly these people are onto something important, even if their views, to say nothing of their humanity, leaves more than just a little to be desired. Fortunately, we don’t require their permission to state the truth as we see it. Let’s just make sure it’s truth we’re attempting to state, not feeble, counterproductive obfuscation that can only succeed in robbing future generations of what should rightfully have been theirs. 105
Posted by silver on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:30 | #
A problem requiring the most urgent attention, because we all know that maintaining ideological conformity in a blog is the key to political success. That’s how Obama did it. 106
Posted by G de B on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:19 | # @Captainchaos
But, how are you going to define Whites? By external race characteristics or by descent? Do you only want Nordish racial preservation, as McCulloch does? McCulloch focuses on physical appearance. He makes a racial distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans. The introduction of Mediterranean types, he says, would upset the balance in the population, destroying the racial environment that is required for Nordish racial preservation. There are Jews who have most of the external features of the Nordic race!’ McCulloch uses the term “Nordish” to refer to Northern Europeans. He says:” The introduction of less distinct Nordish types will cause a decrease in the proportions of the more distinct types and—if the change is great enough—their eventual extinction.” Riezi, however, makes clear that the various European groups are genetically similar to each other. In the same vein Tristan Torriani: “I, being a Spanish-North-Italian hybrid ... I still consider myself as much a full-blooded European and heir to Western civilization as any other.” 107
Posted by G de B on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:40 | # @Captainchaos Additionally comment to my previous post: According to McCulloch’s racial perception, Europeans do not form a single race. He wants to divide North Europeans from South Europeans! McCulloch understands racial traits in phenotypic terms. But according to Rienzi, it is the ethnos that should be the unit of racial preservation - encompassing the whole bio-culture, with its distinctive historical and genetic inheritance. He says: “it is genes, not phenotype, which is passed down to the next generation.” “By singling out phenotype as the principal criterion of in-group membership, it is theoretically possible that white-looking mulattos (or Jews, for that matter) be considered Nordish, allowing for an unperceived influx of Sub-Saharan genes into the Nordish gene pool.” [Tristan Torriani, McCulloch, Nordishism & Enlightened White Separatism.] - http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol2no2/tt-teg.html 108
Posted by Diamed on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:51 | # It’s not an either-or. If Nordics wanted, they could require you have blond hair, blue eyes, and pass a dna screening test that shows you are 100% white. I see no problem with tons of pro-white countries being born each with their own criteria and standards and laws and language etc they prefer for themselves. If some of them want to be all blond nordics, what is that to us? We just need to found another country that allows brunettes speaks our language and endorses our law system etc. The earth is vast and white people are diverse in culture, genes, philosophy, we should all be pro-white, but after a mutual defense pact and free trade pact, I see no reason we must all be in the same country. Earlier you were trying to prove race doesn’t exist and we should coagulate along the lines of high IQ, conservative values, etc. Now you’re complaining that nordics might unfairly let slip in a few blond jews and africans if they aren’t careful. A) this is completely unconnected to your earlier statements. B) it’s no big deal whatever happens at that point because that already implies we’ve secured a white homeland. If we control our selection standards, no matter how mistaken we are, it will be infinitely better than the current immigration, so I don’t see the point worrying about it. That’s like a princess complaining there’s a pea disturbing her sleep seven mattresses down. 109
Posted by Dasein on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:10 | # A simple analogy that I’ve found very useful in making the case against miscegenation to racially unaware friends is an ice cream parlour. The owner would not mix the flavours together, no flavour is objectively superior to another, each flavour has its own tub, etc. Works well with types who would run out of the room if you talked about IQ or crime (save that for when they are starting to bore you 110
Posted by n/a on Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:26 | # sangha, What is your ethnic background? G de B, What is your ethnic background and what are your goals here? But, how are you going to define Whites? By external race characteristics or by descent? Both. Genes control “external race characteristics” (otherwise they wouldn’t be “race characteristics”). There’s no contradiction. Do you only want Nordish racial preservation, as McCulloch does? References? Where has McCulloch stated he “only wants Nordish racial preservation”? Even if he did, McCulloch is concerned with America and Northern Europe (“Nordish” lands). He’s not telling Southern Euros what to do in their own countries, so this is really a non-issue. Why are you against racial preservation for the Northern European-descended? McCulloch focuses on physical appearance. He makes a racial distinction between Northern and Southern Europeans. Genetic studies confirm the primary division in Europe is North-South. (The second, East-West component of European genetic variation is also broadly compatible with McCulloch’s ideas.) There are Jews who have most of the external features of the Nordic race!’ There are MORE Jews who have most of the external features of Southern Europeans! Northern Europeans are genetically distinct from Jews (more so than Southern Europeans). At the population level, phenotype clearly reflects this genetic differentiation. A competent observer would never confuse a group of 50 randomly-chosen Ashkenazi and 50 randomly-chosen Swedes or Englishmen. Considering only one phenotypic trait (e.g., eye color), there will be a fair amount of overlap between Jews and Northern Europeans, at the individual level. Add a second trait (e.g., hair color), and the overlap will be reduced to some degree. Keep adding traits and the overlap will keep diminishing. In determining ancestry from genetic data, more markers generally means greater precision. In looking at someone’s “external racial characteristics”, we are effectively reading a set of genetic markers. Ideally, one would assess the DNA sequence directly, but this is slightly unrealistic for most of our daily interactions and physical appearance offers a convenient, if rough, guide to genetic relatedness, which has probably been in play for most of our evolutionary history. When antis talk about “Nordic”-looking Jews they typically stop at hair and eye color. Considering all aspects of (pre-cosmetic surgery) appearance, the fraction of Jews who resemble typical Northern Europeans is tiny. Riezi, however, makes clear that the various European groups are genetically similar to each other. Bill Clinton makes clear that various Human groups are genetically similar to each other. I seem to recall Tristan Torriani is a South American. He’s welcome by me to consider himself whatever he wants—in his country. 111
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:01 | # Dasein that is perhaps simplistic. The ice cream maker does “hybridize” but he does so judiciously, just as farmers do in animal husbandry. My dog, for example, is a hybrid that is frequently used on ranches due to its exceptional intelligence (not as high as its Border Collie parent) and robust character (but not as much as its Australian Shepherd parent)—but the breed is not then inbred to form a new line. As with all responsible animal husbandry, the original straight breeds are preserved for obvious reasons. 112
Posted by G de B on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:47 | # @ n/a “G de B, What is your ethnic background and what are your goals here?” 1/ Ethnic background: I am a Belgian. Belgium is comprised of the Dutch-speaking in the North and the French-speaking in Wallonia. The French-speaking Belgians bear deep grudges against the Flemish, and vice versa. The French-speaking population controls the power centers, while the Flamands work harder, are more productive, and have larger numbers. That doesn’t make the Flemish happy. They are constantly wondering whether to secede from the Walloons. I live in the Flemish region, so, I am Flemish and I Am Pro-Flemish Secession because the southern Francophone region of Wallonia is a rust belt suffering chronic high unemployment and crime. 2/ Goal: I don’t want Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe. I want to stop the creeping growth of sharia law. I appreciate Muslim apostates such as the ex-Muslim Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq. That’s why I tend to agree with Francis Yockey saying: “There are numerous intellectuals in the West who feel community with the idea of Asiatic Nihilism.”... “Race is not group anatomy.”...“Race is not a rigid, permanent, collective characterization of human beings, which remains always the same throughout history.” ... “all strong minorities have welcomed into their company the outsider who was attracted to it and wished to join it, regardless of his racial provenance.”...“safeguarding the purity of race’ in a purely biological sense is sheer materialism.” [Imperium (pp.282-302)] Remember also that in his novel The Camp of Saints, Raspail includes an East Indian among the “Saints” who defend France, and portrays many white Frenchmen who welcome the invaders as their equals! @Diamed “country that allows brunettes speaks our language and endorses our law system etc.” The next step is: “The genius of the West is not its whiteness, but in its civilization. Many races, not just white people, have proven able to adopt Western values and perspectives. Our laws, our language, and our literature come from England, but there are many people from all over who are quite capable of accepting and embracing them.” - Robert Spencer 113
Posted by Darren on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:09 | # Except it is that materialism that defines the psychological nature of the people involved, and ultimately, the civilization they produce. It is this gap of knowledge where Evola, Spengler, and Yockey all fail. Blacks, for example, with their lower-IQ and lower capacity for altruism, cannot participate in Western civilization as equals (as a group). East Asians, on the other hand, are very collective and highly ethnocentric. Their culture and civilization, throughout the ages, is an obvious reflection of this. Here is some good starting material (you may or may not already be familar with it, but nothing you have provided here gives any sort of meaningful refutation to it). http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WesternOrigins.htm Simply put, if people are biologically different in terms of cognitive ability and evolved social traits, they will produce different results. Mixing racially distinct populations means you get conflict - one group wants to do things their way, the other wants to do things differently. 114
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:24 | # G de B, I haven’t much answered you directly in this thread, but since you appear now to have reduced your culturism to a core from which you will no doubt not resile, I will do so. Setting aside the ideological left, people propose culturism - and reject racialism - for three reasons. The first applies to those, like Yockey, who are wannabee fascists, and for whom the spirit of race will always be key. The insurmountable problem these people all have is that the spirit of race does not actually exist. It is a light-show ... a projection of a highly selective and idealised melange of traditions, myths and historical and cultural icons upon the screen of the imagination. Just as romantic nationalism was reified by the revolutionary French as an object of fealty to replace the old order, so the fascist spirit of race was reified to bewitch and motivate a 20th century Italian public much given to backwardness or a German one much given to defeatism and decadence. It is just an argument. It isn’t real. The second reason applies to the members of the post-war radical right who, from about 1968 onwards, tired of living in the discredited shadow of Nazi science and the biological determinism it had espoused. Yes, there was the spirit of race and biological determinism in Nazism, living together in unresolved conflict. One of them had to go. Nazi science - all those experiments on Jewish camp inmates - was the one. The left seemed more scientifically sophisticated anyway, so the battle for scientific truth was given up, and culture reigned supreme. The leading “spirit” of the New Right, Alain de Benoist, still rejects any trace of biological determinism today. He’s wrong. The third reason applies to all that vast herd of centrist, “get-along” types who shrink from the sheer ferocity of the Marxist left. They meekly accept its claim that biological determinism must mean 110% or nothing. They run for the cover of postmodern respectability the moment somebody like Rushton shows up in town. You belong, in all likelihood, here, though I am sure that something other than a desire for respectability animates you. The important thing to understand is that nobody has ever been sure to what degree the capacities and behaviours of the human organism are biologically determined. The Nazis didn’t know. They just wanted to prove their supremacy. The Marxists do not know. They just want to prove European non-supremacy. Neither are a sound basis for taking any position on the matter. But since the 1970s science in the form of sociobiology has been opening the subject up - and now genetic analysis is mapping difference on a massive scale. This has profound implications for culturists. Race and ethnicity IS the basis of human social structure. It is bound to inform every avenue of serious philosophical enquiry (from which I exclude everything tainted by egalitarianism). Those who cannot move beyond a focus on civilisation, and commence instead upon a qualitative analysis of such forms traceable to their biological roots, will eventually find themselves imprisoned in the past. But this time they will have unreformed Marxists for company, instead of the dead Nazis who haunted de Benoist & Co. Move on. 115
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:27 | # Discovering that G de B is Flemish, I’ll reconsider my dismissal of him, and respond to his comment above: Both 1) physical and 2) cognitive/psychological/behavioral characteristics are partly genetic. Slight genetic difference manifesting in large population aggregates makes distinct national character — national character which, therefore, is genetic. Yockey and Evola, good men both, were wrong. To see the difference in aggregate national character between, say, Frenchmen and Germans, bigger populations are needed than to see it between Frenchmen and Negroes let’s say, where smaller populations suffice. Where genetic difference is great, smaller aggregates will show it; where slight, larger aggregates will. I trust my reason for highlighting the word aggregate will be clear: neglecting this specific aspect of the issue is the biggest stumbling block in the path of those who are chronically confused by it, who see, say, a particular Negro and think, “He’s all right, so what’s wrong with letting lots of Negroes in?” 116
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:33 | # I posted my comment just above without seeing the one by GW above it. I agree also with most of GW’s. 118
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:35 | # JB, I’m thinking about the ice cream parlour once it’s open for business (i.e. the world as it is now). I’m not entirely sure what you mean by the ice cream maker hybridizing- I don’t know of any flavours that are combinations (I don’t eat much ice cream though 119
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:47 | # GW: “They meekly accept its claim that biological determinism must mean 110% or nothing.” I think anything greater than 80% is going to scare most ordinary people. There must be a better term than determinism (not sure if you consider use of this term to be a straw man). I’ve heard E.O. Wilson put it as ‘genetics keeps culture on a leash’, but I don’t know of a good term that conveys the essence of this. ‘Distribution generator’, ‘creative platform’? Don’t have much of a ring to them. Anybody know of terms that have been used before? 120
Posted by Armor on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:02 | #
If that statement by Robert Spencer does not justify that he and G de B should replace their own children with a batch of African children, then it doesn’t justify the Western race-replacement policy either. “The genius of the West is not its whiteness” Personally, I don’t care about the genius of the West. 121
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:22 | # If your car’s momentum is what mostly propels it along the highway at 60 mph why does your foot also need to maintain a light touch on the gas pedal? Because without that constant little bit of additional gas the car will gradually slow and be brought to a halt by friction. The culture your race creates is the car’s momentum moving at 60 mph; your race’s genetics are the constant bit of additional gas needed to keep the car moving. G de B expects the car to keep moving without the foot maintaining its light touch on the gas pedal assuring a continuing bit of additional gas. It won’t: like culture when the race that created it is taken away, the car will keep moving for a time from momentum, but without that continuous bit of additional gas it will eventually slow and stop. 122
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:39 | # Armor, If we take care of ourselves as a people, the “genius” will look after itself. G de B has it all the wrong way round. Dasein, As far as getting people to approach biological determinism with a clear eye is concerned, I think it’s a question of familiarisation rather than re-labelling. We have all approached our present political positions by negotiating our way through faux-moral minefields. The objection to biological determinism is all false morality. The left has lost the nature/nurture argument, as it had to, and has thrown up its defences elsewhere. What it is defending, of course, are the nostrums of equality and perfectability. We have evidence from the known nature of Man that these are false perspectives. It is not a debilitating and anti-human state of affairs to know that the most fundamental potentials of men and women are prescribed by their genes. We have nothing to fear in spreading that word. It is the left that is living in fear ... of our truth. Why else do they hurl their invective at us? If they had evidence from science to support their beliefs they would be bludgeoning us with it. They have none because there is none. 123
Posted by Diamed on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:31 | # Has anyone else wondered whether libertarians, egalitarians, and religious people think the way they do because they are genetically determined to do so? If so, what’s the point in arguing with each other? I suspect people are just born with certain genetic likes and dislikes that makes them attracted to libertarianism, liberalism, or religion in a way they cannot avoid or escape no matter what the facts show. If personality and behavior are 80% genetic, politics will be mainly genetic as well, and just as unchangeable. If our political beliefs are unchangeable we should stop trying to force each other into a single system just because it appeals most to us. How about Seiyo and crew go make their white/jew/asian/cognitive elite state, G & B makes his flemish/apostate muslim state, and so on? Some people clearly don’t want an all-white state or an all nordic-white state, so why require it of them? They can go live in any proportion of race mixing they please, so long as they allow us to live with any proportion of race mixing we please, including 0%. There’s plenty of room on earth for a country following any imaginable philosophy to exist. You can be a communist multiracial state, or a religious multiracial state, or a libertarian multiracial state, or a communist monoracial state, religious monoracial state, libertarian monoracial state, or a 90% monoracial 10% ‘good minority’ communist state, 90% monoracial 10% ‘good minority’ religious state, 90% monoracial 10% ‘good minority’ libertarian state. That’s only 9 countries right there, hardly more than the former yugoslavia. Europe or the USA are large enough to include a state for every single philosophy proposed, why not just give each other the mutual right to existence and see who reaches the stars and inherits the universe? The objectively superior philosophy will triumph and prosper while the rest will fall apart in economic and social chaos or muddle along at a slower pace. Good will triumph because it will deliver untold riches, star systems, galaxies, to the people who made the right choice. To the genes that make the right social organization most desirable. I believe national socialism in a, perhaps 99% white state to allow room for people of exceptional genius we might need, is the way to go. However I don’t need people in my country who aren’t true believers and would at the first instant undermine the system and seek to change it to more suit themselves. I have zero use in libertarians, religious people, and communists or race mixers in general in my country, I don’t want to include them anyway. Let them set up camp in another country, and let mine develop the way I envision, with people who all agree with me and are fervent about national socialism. Wouldn’t everyone feel that way about their own country, preferring only people who believe fervently in their constitution and wish to uphold it? 124
Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:50 | # James- Sorry. Too many incoherent rapture bunnies with as much knowledge of history as a carrot out there. I was too intemperate. For the record, I believe that the CI position asks some VERY IMPORTANT questions that the “Ecumenist/Humanist” crowd refuses to answer, much like the debate over Obamugabe being an ‘American citizen’ or not. (As to the latter, I believe he is not, and is STALLING/HIDING) For starters, you assume that the indigenous White/Caucasian races of Northern Europe had Christianity ‘superimposed’ on them from an outside source. “by redefining the terms of a foreign religion thrust upon them during the wars between northern and southern Europe.” You could not be more incorrect. While the ‘barrier’ between Judean (not ‘Jew’- a point that MUST be made, over and over again, first to be consistent with the Biblical vocabulary witness itself, second, to deny the Deicides ANY legitimacy of their spurious ‘chosenite’ status) and Hellene ( as opposed to merely ‘Greek’) has been ‘torn down,’ as St. Paul (who was a Roman citizen, and NOT a ‘foreigner’ as it were….) noted, that does not presuppose that the Hellenes were [for all time, world without end, Amen.] ALWAYS foreigners to the Covenant. It just means that God RESTORED that which HE had separated, which it clearly stated in Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. Therefore, a ‘foreign creed’ was not superimposed on the Hellenes, if we truly read Scripture correctly, but a ‘restoration’ of two disparate ‘houses’ that no one ([sic] Jew or [sic] Gentile) can find. Yet God says they exist….. I would ask you first off, to read my series of over 12 posts at my blog, ‘The Season of Incarnation’, starting with #1: or the 20-plus post series entitled ‘Something Wicked this way comes” I think you can grasp what/where I am coming from. Let’s just say that those most opposed to the CI construct, are those that also most ‘Talmudically-friendly’ AND are those most in vogue for ‘gay [sic] marriage’ and ‘a woman’s choice’ [to murder her offspring] Coincidental? hardly. Therefore, I’d rather have as my friend the enemy of the multiculturalists and Deicides, than to have those accursed bedfellows as my ‘comrades.’ 125
Posted by Armor on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:57 | #
That analogy reminds me of what another Flemish commentator wrote today on the Brussels Journal: I think this is partially true. Sub-standard schools, too much TV watching, and the dominance of the loony left are damaging society, and the full impact will only be felt later. 126
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:00 | # Thanks for the links, Fr. John. I’ll read them. 127
Posted by cladrastis on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:10 | # Come on Fr. John, you don’t really believe that all incidents of abortion are wrong, do you? That’s like saying murder is wrong (...except in cases of war or intergroup conflict, or when the murdered victim is a despoiler, lowlife, or someone challenged to single combat). Right? What if the bun in the oven happens to be an Obamanation (or a deformed abomination)? What if the father is a rapist or some other criminal element? The same for the mother? Of course, I’m not arguing that abortion isn’t maladaptive in the current incarnation of Western society - in which at least some pregnancies are terminated by high IQ white women; rather, I am arguing that it cannot be dismissed out of hand as a useful tool for human evolution (which it certainly is). 128
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:59 | # cladrastis, the story of Abraham and Isaac demonstrates that parents have the Biblical authority to kill their children. Of course, abortion may not have been a known technology in that time, but the obvious generalization is that parents—or at least fathers—have authority over their unborn children as well. 129
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:35 | #
Blame the child for the sins of the father? Is that the position you hold vis-a-vis reparations paid by the German people to the children of the victims of the Jewish holocaust? Or Louis Farrakhan’s assertion that for the sins of their fathers “White Folks, You Owe Us The Whole Country!”; is that a morally justifiable position? 130
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:47 | # Diamed, Would you be willing to forfeit claim to what have historically (say last few centuries) been White countries in order to establish a partition that permits a 99% White country with NS? I can envision the mixed race states (which perhaps border this NS state) eventually descending into chaos, with Whites there suffering. Which would bring up a situation similar to the interwar period. I wonder how history is kept from repeating. 131
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:48 | # I’d be okay with giving up whole continents, they are lost already in all but name. There are more non-whites born in the USA each year than whites, I presume the same is true or will soon be true of Canada, Australia, etc. Once a nation is oriented with the right race and right philosophy, it will succeed in leaps and bounds above all others, it will not have to rely on vast natural resources or territory but will flourish instead based on the genius and virtue of its people, like Japan does today, or say Belgium/Holland did in the past. Small states can still be rich and powerful and densely populated so long as they are full of good people who follow a good philosophy. What’s important is some bastion of the race holding the right philosophy to be the first ones to reach the stars. I don’t need a lot of land to do that, just the right public spiritedness, creativity, and high IQ that NS would bring to the board. After all it was the nazis who invented rockets in the first place. If we get back to that level of civilization I suspect we could kiss the earth goodbye and conquer the universe instead. At that point all earth-bound politics are rather petty neh? Most of all I get the sense that people have an inbuilt prediliction for certain forms of government/organization, and an inbuilt aversion or lack of aversion to race-mixing. Just compare the enormous difference between Spanish settlers of south america and the english of north america. In that case there’s little use in arguing. We should give everyone exactly what they want, and let them stew in it, as foolish as it is—just demand they not drag us down with them, but be left free to pursue our own path. If someone wants to follow the senseless and destructive jewish religions or jewish invented economic and moral theories that put money and self above honor and race, who am I to stop them? If they want to live with jews and watch as jews corner all the money, power, media, political parties, etc while they end up helpless servants and dupes for the rest of time, fine by me. I only need one country free of jews and jewish thought to make progress. There are countries on earth with fewer than a hundred thousand people. Surely we could found a country of right-thinking racial purists of that size. And from there, our superior beliefs will darwinianly succeed while the rest of the world collapses in its own misguidance and mongrelization. It would be rather hypocritical of white separatists to demand no whites are allowed to separate from them. In that case, couldn’t all whites agree to separate first from their current governments, and then from each other to follow whatever path they please? We could all be allies regardless of our beliefs instead of squabbling between each other like we do now, since no one need fear living under a government or religion not of their choosing in the future. We can all have our ideal country, there is no conflict. No one’s preferred neighbors or way of life is threatened. Everyone gets exactly what they wanted, while not interfering in what others wanted for themselves. What could be more just or less threatening than that? 132
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:21 | # There is no historical form of fascism that is relevant to us now. And going to the stars is not life’s purpose - unless, that is, it can be shown to maximise genetic interests. 133
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:41 | # Conceding North America, Australia, New Zealand and Russian Siberia to the third-world rabble is unacceptable from the perspective of a sane, mature view of the real world exigencies that face the White race. The Chinese will inherit the earth if the White race does not. The Jews nihilistically sap our will, the Chinese bide their time. What are the Jews to the Chinese? 134
Posted by silver on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:14 | #
I was thinking along those lines way before I ever began thinking much about race. Hyperindividualism and freedom of thought were almost guaranteed to create massive, unbridgeable political ruptures. Mass multiracialism only hastened the divide. If you accept this as inevitable, seccession/dissolution is clearly the best solution (W. Robertson’s “Ethnostates” thingy, for example). It mostly then becomes a question of who gets what. McCulloch realized all this years ago: the sooner racial separation can be achieved, the greater the slice of the pie his people will get. Europe is a rather different problem. It lacks the vast expanses of North America. Serious questions would have to be asked about the viability of such mutually antogonistic statelets there (even though European history abounds with them). Then there’s the pull of romantic nationalism, always much stronger in Europe, which would be absolutely loath to surrender an inch to outsiders. In collaboration with N. America (again, as per McCulloch), however, population transfers shouldn’t be difficult. There is also the serious question of national defense. There would probably have to be a system of common defense, which the disparate groups would buy into because it would defend their state (“national”) interests from much larger, more powerful foreign aggressors. I very much doubt that communists—always the most insistent agigators—would go along with such a program. They themselves know they’ll get creamed by the competition. It’s all about power for these slimeballs. If there’s anything I despise more than a nutzi (a modern neo or wannabe “nazi” who spews bullshit on the net all day) it’s a commie. I’d expect Jews to sign up in droves way before I’d expect a commie to. At bottom, all of this goes to say that if you hanker for real change—not commie BS “change”—it’s simply imperative to ally yourself with racialists/racists/WNs/NSs/etc because then you stand the most realistic chance possible of getting it. G de B,
Is that your overriding concern? If it could be answered in a way that puts you, personally, at ease, would all your other objections then melt away? I’m almost certain that your views hinge on this question. (I know you’re Flemish, and I know the Flemish are typically nordish, but you could be towards the “bottom” among them, and hence your anxiety, or you could be concerend that “The Flemish” “rank” somewhere lower than other nords.) It’s racialism’s age-old problem. No one wants to be defined out of the “top” group. They’re more than happy to live their entire lives in antipathy or apathy towards that group, yet the minute that group insists on its group rights, they either scurry to be included in it or wail against its recognition of itself. By the way, re Robert Spencer, he’s a Levantine Christian who has changed his name, and that is why he is most reluctant to define “The West” (or its genius) in racial terms. He’s not completely wrong, of course. Culture does matter, and western culture, for a number of reasons, is both comparatively more open towards others and more attractive to others, the latter simply for its obvious superiority. WNs always think you’re bullshitting when you say this, but the biggest reason I’d hate, absolutely, positively hate, to be sent “home” (I’m Serb/Greek), isn’t the economic benefit of living here; it’s the culture (the language, the political system, people’s mannerisms, the “tenor” of life), both as manifested by the anglo majority and as manifested by my group (or two groups, or, more broadly, S.Europeans). Lastly, as for Tristian Torriani, I have him down as a Brazilian. People like he and Rienzi really get up my nose. Now, they each could very well represent the pinnacle of S.European nordish-hood or western europid-hood (such people are usually, but not always, the head honchos in domestic non-nordish racial-nationalist groups), so I don’t direct anything toward them in this regard, but it is well and truly beyond absurd for them to pretend that the average member of their group feels anywhere near their level of animosity (real or manufactured) towards either the more “exotic” among their own or towards more exotic (but similar and rather obviously related) others. And even then, despite whatever protestations I would expect were he to ever answer this post, I could probably never be made to believe Torriani finds Brazil’s legions of culturally competent and materially successful “Syrio-Lebanese” (Christians) so suffocatingly racially alien that he avoids them at all costs; the contrary is almost certain to be true. (I’d say the same about Rienzi and Boston’s Jews, but, bah, since he’s gone private I won’t get to read the delicious harangue he’d no doubt prepare so what’s the point.) ps—you didn’t respond to the point about eternity. Eternity is forever, G de B. Our lives pale in significance to eternity. A proper appreciation of eternity should be sufficient to diminish all our anxieties and fears as we work together to fashion a future our descendents (whoever we are) will praise us for, rather than the one we are on course to bequeath them, which they will rightly despise us for.
What does inhereting the world actually mean? That they’ll actually somehow “own” it or that they’ll be able to exercise “dominance” over it? Realistically, if white independence were to be secured, it, in combination with its western cultural offshoots, should be quite sufficient to hold China at bay. Obviously a key factor in territorial concession would be the portion the nordish proportion receives. Too little would only invite endless agitation to win it all back (a la the mighty Cap’n here). 135
Posted by cladrastis on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:45 | # James Bowery, That’s an interesting theological point (not that it matters to a non-Christian), but technically, Isaac’s death sentence was issued by YHVH, not from Abraham’s conscience. So I’m not sure the Christians will take your point; anyway, as they believe, out with the Old and in with the New.
First of all, I don’t believe in sins, and second of all, that’s not the point I was making (thus I don’t feel the need to “morally justify” your strawman argument). But let me ask you this, if your blue-eyed daughter were impregnated by a Negro multiple-offender rapist, would you force her to carry the half-breed baby to term? If so, would you care for it (or expect her to do so)? Do you think it would be “fair” to the baby or to the mother? Does the “father” have a say in whether the baby is carried to term? Do you realize that the child of such a mating (regardless of the race of the father) would have an increased propensity to become a rapist himself (behavior being rooted in biology)? Do you realize you would be adding to the existing pool of societal ills (as the child would be multi-racial, more likely to commit a crime, AND possibly a ward of the state)? If you are attempting to build a moral argument based on religious beliefs, these may be complex hermeneutical questions (see above), but for a pragmatist, the answers to such questions (and the underlying problem itself) have both simple and obvious solutions.
Although there may have been significant genetic differences between the English and Spanish populations of 16th century Europe as a result of Phoenician, Moorish, and Sephardic settlement (and intermarriage) in medieval Spain, I actually think the history books got it right on the issue of differing settlement (and mongrelization) patterns in their respective colonies. That is, mestizajization occured in Latin America, but not in British Canada or North America because the British settlers BROUGHT THEIR WOMEN WITH THEM. Additonal supporting evidence for this theory of ethnogenesis (via cultural rather than biological mechanisms) comes from the examples of the French trappers in North America (who contributed to the Metis population) and from the early Dutch settlers in South Africa (who contributed to the origin of the coloreds). 136
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:20 | # I think G & B was complaining that for all the talk of nordish superiority, they didn’t win many Nobel Prizes. Imagine my surprise when I found this factoid today: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_nob_pri_lau_percap-nobel-prize-laureates-per-capita 1. Iceland Anyone else see a pattern here? Another argument against nordic supremacy bites the dust. 137
Posted by the sangha on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:18 | # I reflected on the exchange between n/a and myself, and thought I’d post some new thoughts. This is not meant to elicit responses (although I am open to an exchange), nor to harass any perceived opponents (at least not consciously). To the extent that we as humans are capable of reaching objective thinking, perhaps this may be of use… then again, perhaps we are all just strategizing in elaborate ways to maximize the chances that our particular genotype will survive for future generations. Then again, perhaps we are much more sophisticated than this, and one day we will come to understand that viewing selection at the level of the gene gives us an incomplete or false picture of human nature… (At the moment, the gene-centered paradigm seems to conform to many of my day-to-day experiences). I expressed the idea to n/a that the racial makeup of the Roman patrician class was somewhat irrelevant—unimportant and such a distraction that, should we get too caught up in the debate because of the way our egos are tied to it, it could harm our genetic fitness by making us expend unnecessary energies… so that, though we may be of different subraces*, we both lose out during the exchange. I must also admit I felt a bit of pessimism during the exchange. I suppose some comments brought out a knee-jerk response in me when I first posted into the thread, but as time passed I wondered: “What is the meaning of this?” So what IS the point of this? Why do I feel an emotional pull to respond, and why, on the other hand, is there an emotional pull from others to respond to me? I had the insight that it is simply petty for me to pit myself as an “enemy” of n/a or any Northern European partisans. Since I acknowledge Northern Europeans are largely responsible for modern civilization, and since I have Nordic friends who would sacrifice for me if the situation called for it, I cannot escape that I am to some degree a “Nordicist.” I may not be popular in a particular internet forum, and I may feel visceral negative feelings (feelings which perhaps can be diminished with some type of understanding, maybe not) toward certain nationalists of the type described because they either want to expel or exterminate me, but such a disliking would be more ego-based than reality-based given my real-world, day-to-day situation. This reality should be humbling to both sides. I will in any case post some thoughts, and such thoughts may be found offensive, but perhaps they can be instructive for myself and others. Perhaps there is something humanistic and universal in them, or perhaps this is mere self-deception and a further attempt for me to advance my genetic interests, or perhaps it is both. This I suppose I find more interesting than the topic of the racial composition of the Roman patrician class, and perhaps it is also of greater use. “The Roman patricians were Nordic, of the Keltic Iron Age type.” This gets back to my question: “What is the meaning of this?” What does it mean to an American of British or Norwegian descent that the Romans were Nordic? I was accused of engaging in fallacious attacks for questioning the motives of certain posters here, but to me—and maybe I am anti-intellectual for saying this—our psychological motives are the most important part of the discussion, because they say something about our state as individuals and point to our inherent bias, an inescapable part of our humanness. Truth be told, given population movements in ancient times, and given that Mediterraneans often have Nordic strains, this is not an outrageous claim. Let’s assume for the sake of argument, though, that the claim is true. Let’s say that the Roman patricians were purely or almost purely Nordic. It may confirm the belief in the superiority of the Nordic—intellectually and mentally—to the individual American of Northern European ancestry. He may feel that this is an essential truth that affirms the nature of his “people.” He may even feel good, soothed, by his truth, as it defines him and separates him from the other. It gives him some meaning in a seemingly chaotic world. Yet as we shall see, this view is filled with inherent contradictions. The Romans were known for their ruthlessness toward their enemies, which included many atrocities against the (Nordic) Gauls, (Nordic) Germans, and (Nordic) Brits. What does it say about the Nordic race if a caste of Nordics encouraged the raping and plundering of their own people by Mediterranean mercenaries and rabble within the legions, particularly during the Late Republic? Does this not refute the idea that Nordics of different nations can put their differences aside because they happen to share similar levels of pigmentation? Here is a brief outline which may show us the practical consequence of Karl Earlson’s ideas—the promotion of subracial mixing between Mediterraneans and Nordics: As a famous thinker pointed out, one side will posit a thesis. An opposing side will then posit an antithesis. When facts and truths are sorted out from the two, you end up with a synthesis. The Nordicists say the Roman patricians were essentially Nordic (thesis). The Medicists say the Roman patricians were essentially Mediterranean (antithesis). Many individuals, not taking the “extreme” position (whether there is actual truth or not in them is besides the point), will believe the Romans were a mix of the two (synthesis). As it happens, many White Nationalists are of the romantic opinion that the Romans were so great because they were a fusion of Mediterranean and Nordic. Arthur Kemp points to this fusion in his work. Kevin Alfred Strom believes in the notion that a fusion brought the “efflorescence” of ancient Greece and Rome. The practical result of the idea that Nordics invaded Southern Europe in waves and ignited these civilizations is the assumption that through biological unity a type of superior specimen is created when the Nordic mixes with the Mediterranean. At minimum, if a deterioration of the racial stock is assumed from this mixture (and this is often not the assumption made by racial nationalists of Northern European extraction), the focus of the Nordic man’s history is shifted farther south, inextricably binding the Nordic man with the Mediterranean man, given the immense contributions of the classical world. The Mediterranean man thus becomes a center of the Nordicist’s very identity, if not directly. From the standpoint of one trying to build a Nordic-centered identity which Nordic peoples can build upon to promote their own racial interests, this would appear counterproductive. *n/a asked about my ethnicity, but I’d rather people focus on my words for now, to the extent that anything meaningful can be derived from them. 138
Posted by G de B on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:19 | # @ silver: “racial preservation/nationalism is a question of eternity, not a question of whether there’ll still be a white race by 2100 or whether it’ll still be a majority by 2050.” Ok, but then again: according to the nordicist Richard McCulloch (who wants to preserve the Nordish race), the WHITE racial supremacist theories can actually be classified as a form of interracism, as they they require a multiracial population. (cf. Destiny of Angels, p. 275) The Northern European family of peoples, he says, must be sheltered from alien elements (The Ideal and Destiny, p.298). These elements , I presume, include a.o.: Irish, French, Italian, Spanish, Greek, Polish… The crucial question seems to be: “how do we define race?” And this is probably a to-and-fro-discussion without end…....... For example: McCulloch assumes that his racial classification system is firmly based in the work of Carleton Coon (The Races of Europe, 1939). But Rienzi claims that Coon’s racial classification system is incompatible(!) with the nordicist view: “The term Nordish - coined by McCulloch and not by any physical anthropologist - is a collection of Northern European types that the Nordishists say go together, e.g, core ‘Nordish’ groups such as Nordics, Borrebys, and Brunns. However, Coon pointedly states, in a number of places, that these groups cannot be lumped together. In Coon’s view, Nordics are closest to so-called ‘Mediterraneans;’ in fact Coon considers Nordics to be merely ‘partially de-pigmented Mediterraneans,’ and he considers Nordics to be derived from ‘Mediterranean” racial stock.’ http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol2no2/mr-teg.html 139
Posted by G de B on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:12 | # McCulloch committed another, equally severe, fallacy by assuming that his racial classification system is also firmly based in the work of Sir Arthur Keith, to which he regularly refers throughout his book “The Ideal and Destiny”. According sir Arthur Keith, “the term ‘race’ came to be applied in two senses: first, to a local or race making group - being as it were the loom on which the genetic threads were woven - and secondly, to the product of evolution - the differentiated people, the woven web. In one sense the term refers to an evolutionary process; in the other to an evolutionary product.” “The term [race] was originally given to a lineage group. Later it was restricted to distinctive varieties of mankind. ‘Nation’ is the term used to designate the lineal descendants of a local group.” Race and nation, he says, are near akin: a nation is in reality an incipient race (race in the making). National and linguistic borders are central in structuring genetic variation in Europe “Most of my colleagues regard a nation as a political unit, with which anthropologists have no concern; whereas I regard a nation as an ‘evolutionary unit,’ with which anthropologists ought to be greatly concerned. The only live races in Europe today are its nations.” 140
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:30 | #
No that’s not the crucial question. Everybody knows what race is. Are you a Negro? No. A Chinaman? No. A Mexican? No. A white man? Yes. That’s all you need, that and the trivial observation that there are shades of grey, and white isn’t one of those shades. Don’t act like an asshole. You’re a Fleming? Good. Act like one, instead of like a childish dupe of the Jews and communists. You embarrass the Flemish race, you and the Flemish socialists who keep trying to shut down the Vlaams Belang. Go to this site’s Wiki (look for it at the upper margin right below the masthead) and click on “race.” Study that article carefully. Study any references you need to understand. Then stop your asinine obfuscations which the Jews and communists have taught you, and you’re too stupid to see through. Oh, and the other thing you need to study is a certain children’s fable. It’s known as “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Study that carefully. There’s your reading assignment for this week. Enjoy. 141
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:41 | # Sangha, how about streamlining your next comment with some editing? I couldn’t plow through all that crap, sorry. I hopped down the text in jumps, reading the first three or four words of every third or fourth line. You sound like a nonce case, and as such you shouldn’t be wasting people’s time with lengthy comments but I’m willing to try again and give you the benefit of the doubt if you’ll edit out 90% of the pure crap and get down to the issue at hand. “Cut to the chase,” as they say. Diamed writes long stuff but his is always worth reading. Yours isn’t. Oh and include your race/ethnicity/family religious background/place of birth/current country of citizenship next time please.
No comment on that highlit part ... 142
Posted by silver on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:57 | #
From my, I think it’s fair to say, considerable exposure to nordicist literature, I think it really means very little. None of them promote their desire for self-preservation by hanging their hats on the claim that the Romans were Nordic(ish). Given the evidence, it strikes them as not an unreasonable assumption. As na said to you, if one is interested in history, there isn’t any inherently good reason not to take an interest in the race of the civilization in question. I think doing so would largely be taken for granted were it African history and historians were trying draw a distinction between Hutus and Tutsis. The modern study of Roman history, because of its importance and its splendor, requires greater delicacy because of the numerous toes that so easily be stepped on. But if it’s strictly a question of history, the hypothesis that the Romans were largely Nordic(ish) shouldn’t be ruled out simply for being “offensive.”
There are much more recent and far more grizzly examples you drawn on to make that point: the two world wars during the 20th century (McCulloch calls them “kinslayings”—I think the term “Kinslayer Wars,” pulled from the Dragonlance fantasy series, is better). Also, it’s the complete phenotype, not just pigmenation, that they refer to, in addition to shared culture and shared history when defining themselves as a people. I can’t see how any of this could possibly be up for debate. All in all, I don’t think you’ve said anything which would even raise any eyebrows, let alone “offend” anyone. By the time you get to a blog like this, most of the participants have heard it all before. I think that’s certainly true in n/a’s case: whatever you might make of him, he’s been around the block and he is one assiduous bastard.
That’s a little vague. You might want to phrase it a more directly. If I’ve understood you correctly, those are pretty common feelings, and ones I personally can relate to. Racialist discussions can’t help but give rise to such feelings. But I believe there is a level of understanding that, once reached, assuages virtually all such anxieties. That belief justifies my presence here: I wouldn’t be here promoting the views that I do if I didn’t believe it. G de B, (Godfrey de Buillon?)
I don’t why you cite p.275. The definition of interracism (an usual term, not used elsewhere) forms a crucial part of McCulloch’s views and he defines it much earlier. As for your objection, I think it’s a misunderstanding. “White supremacy” is both a theory (that whites—nords, one supposes—are the “supreme” race: the best race) and a historic American political arrangment in which whites (all whites, not just nords) were politically and socially privileged over blacks and other non-whites. Only the latter requires “interracism.” The theory that whites (nords) are the “supreme” race, on the other hand, is taken for granted by McCulloch and the book in question was written in part to help instill such a view among nords. I’m under no illusion that it’s far from flattering towards non-nordic whites. I’m a “coarse-textured,” subjective, hmm, “Med-Armenid” according to his designation. It’s not for his feelings towards my kind that I praise his work. Going back to what I said to sangha, there’s a certain level of understanding that renders unflattering views like McCulloch’s (and, no doubt, n/a’s, and, really, not only ever other nordicists’, but every nordic “WN"s’) almost completely inconsequential. That’s how I feel: I read “Destiny of Angels” with nothing but fascination.
That’s not a “severe” fallacy. But even if it is, just what are you objecting to: is your problem that he made an error in racial classification or would you claim that any attempt at racial classification is similarly “severly flawed”?
You’re quite right. Much more work needs to be done in this regard. Not so much with respect to classifications; those have mostly been worked out. Most people on so-called “anthro” boards—by no means all WNs—are very well aware of what is what. In fact, such boards tend to be full of almost-nords and almost-whites claiming membership of the group they are “almost” a part of: N. Italians into Germanics; S. Italians into “whites”; Arabs into “Caucasians” and so on. Clearly, people find infusing their politics into their views irresistible. A large part of the reason for this is the view, explicit and implicit, that “whiter” = better. Usually it’s a negro or dravidian who’ll provide the most accurate designation. My view is that most people know what “nordish” refers to, and that it’s a person from a Nordic country (Britain, UK, Scands, Netherlands) or, roughly in descending order, Flanders, Germany, Switzerland and Austria, being “clearly in,” with large proportions of, again in order, Finns, Walloons, French, N. Italians (real ones), Poles, Czechs, Russians, Slovaks, Slovenians, Belorussians, Ukes. The rest hold only minor “nordish” proportions. McCulloch attempts to estimate such proportions at racialcompact.com. He ignores the cultural factor binding majority non-nordish peoples together, however. In my opinion, it’s highly unlikely that any but the most “motivated” would abandon ethnic ties to pursue “nordish-hood.” I also believe that if such a premium weren’t placed on nordish-hood—something which racialcompact attempts, with limited successs—a great many more people would more readily and more pridefully concede the point, with a very important, and badly needed, decline in racialist obstructionism. For me, however, that last point goes much further than mere pragmatism. But it’s too big a topic to go into it here, and I’m still somewhat feeling my way through it myself. There’s a marked tendency on WN boards to demand immediate adherence to the program (the best evidence you’re one of them being laying it on thick on “the jews”), only slight deviations typically being sufficient to have you classified and dismissed as an “anti” (displaying any confusion about “the jews” usually being the easiest way to get canned, but displaying any other signs of normalcy, like humor, will also be treated most suspiciously—they’re a bit like the ayatollah Khomeini in that regard: there is no humor in NS/WN), so often some of the best racialist thought out there gets short shrift because it’s immediately scanned with a fine-toothed comb for JQ-worthyness, and tossed if it doesn’t pass muster. 143
Posted by Armor on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:06 | #
And how do we define shortness? You know the humoristic saying: In life, there are no tall people and no short people, the right size is when your two feet rest squarely on the ground. Short people do not exist! It’s all in the mind. 144
Posted by G de B on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:28 | # @ Fred Scrooby “Don’t act like an asshole.” Hmm… This is from the Aryan Nations website: “a link is created between Islam and National-Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East.” “Islam is our ally, and the 1500 cults all claiming to be ‘Christian’ are our opposition…” And LOOK at that picture: http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/proveit.htm The WHITE racist Edgar Steele is fond of it; he says: “let me show you a picture of somebody else who is Lebanese. “B-b-b-but ..... that .... that’s ... ‘That Girl!’” you [Fred Scrooby] exclaim. Yes. Yes, it is. 145
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:05 | # I attempted to read your comment just above, G de B, but my eyes glazed over after about the third line and I couldn’t finish. I don’t know anything about the Aryan Nations. Who are they? What are they? I haven’t the slightest idea. You have questions about them? Go ask them. Earth to G de B: This site isn’t them. Smarten up please. So far all I’ve seen in you is the behavior of a pathetic dupe of the Jews and communists. 146
Posted by G de B on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:11 | # @ silver 1/ “he made an error in racial classification” Yes, it’s just that.
147
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:13 | # Do you know what the word “white” means? You know, the color of milk, clouds, snow, rice, sheep, stuff like that? OK, now do you know what the word “people” means? And do you know what the word “genocide” means? Do you know what the word “agree” means? Do you know what the words “with,” “do,” “the,” “of,” and “you,” mean? OK, we’re ready to start communicating: Do you agree with the genocide of white people? Yes or no. No theories, no game-playing sophistries, no philosophy, no politics. Just Do you agree with the genocide of white people? Answer, please. SKIP ... Skip ... skip ... for pity’s sake, skip ... the Jewish/communist sophistries. 148
Posted by the sangha on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:17 | # Mr. Fred Scrooby wrote: “You sound like a nonce case, and as such you shouldn’t be wasting people’s time with lengthy comments but I’m willing to try again and give you the benefit of the doubt if you’ll edit out 90% of the pure crap and get down to the issue at hand.” My apologies for wasting your precious time, Scrooby. You do seem to be unusually harsh and unreasonable. As for nonce cases, the White Nationalist movement has its fair share of them. 149
Posted by the sangha on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:29 | # The modern study of Roman history, because of its importance and its splendor, requires greater delicacy because of the numerous toes that so easily be stepped on. But if it’s strictly a question of history, the hypothesis that the Romans were largely Nordic(ish) shouldn’t be ruled out simply for being “offensive.” I agree. I covered this topic to some extent with n/a. He offered a quote from Coon and some other sources, as well as pictures of busts. The busts unfortunately don’t tell us much, because Meds and Nords differ largely in pigmentation, and both may be mixed with other elements. One reason I brought up Norwegians is because I just happened to have met 2 Norwegian girls (who by the way were flirting with a Negro at a club) the previous day who looked radically different phenotypically from the busts n/a showed me. The point is that Northern Europeans can differ widely in appearance. They were platinum blondes with snub noses. Saying that the Romans were like them strikes me as absurd—and it would likely strike them the same way. It seems the term “Nordic” is often used as a wide net to capture people who racially and genetically may be very distanced. 150
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:11 | # cladrastis, Sins, crimes, morality, or pragmatism, it matters not the terms. Reparations may be forced, however, pragmatically, carrying a child to term cannot be forced. The issue then is killing the child because it is a Negro (one drop is pragmatic). If it was a Welsh multiple-offender rapist presumably that changes the picture? The issues still remain. Do you care for the child of a violent low IQ psychotic, whether Welsh or Negro? Is pregnancy fair or unfair or just the only means to currently create life? Is the pregnancy more of a burden mentally or physically because it’s the product of a low IQ psychotic? Don’t know. The Father has no say. Apparently, in the UK, they are targeting the children of criminals. “About 125,000 kids have got a dad in prison. That’s a huge risk factor. Something like 65 per cent of those kids will end up in prison themselves…” 35% apparently, don’t end up in prison, presumably leading a productive life. Is it really pragmatic, from an evolutionary perspective, to abort all these children or sterilize the British prison population? The low IQ are more fertile. High school dropouts average 2.5 children whereas college grads average 1.56 children. In a time of plummeting birth rates in the West, these 125,000 criminals will on average produce (125,000 x 2.5 = 312,500 x 35% =) 109,375 (mostly British white) children who will lead relatively productive lives. The submission is, that even for a pragmatist, the resolution of the issues, are not obvious. 151
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:19 | # Correction: It’s 125,000 children not prisoners. 35% is 43,750 (mostly British white) children who will lead relatively productive lives. The principle remains the same. 152
Posted by Dasein on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:57 | #
GW, this does not exactly sound uplifting! How are we going to define ‘maximising genetic interests’? Do we have a formula that we follow, and if need be, update as we learn more? It seems we are oversimplifying things, as did those who used Newtonian physics to argue for a Divine Watchmaker. Life is a game we are in, for which we don’t know the complete rule book- we have only seen pages of it. We don’t know the object of the game, at least not now. Perhaps when we are more highly evolved, we will understand more. This is what we strive for. This is why we oppose dysgenesis and race replacement. If maximizing genetic interests is the goal, why not perfect cloning and maintain the status quo? We are being driven by some force which we don’t understand, but which we hope to one day. This is what I understand as going to the stars. 153
Posted by silver on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:07 | #
Knowing what Danny Thomas (her father) looks like, it’s obvious her mother must have been European, most likely nordish. By that standard, Cindy Crawford is “Lebanese.” This is typical of the nutcase wing. Their hatred of Jews is so overwhelming that they happily ally with what they most wish to avoid: in this case, promoting a levantine/nordish halfcast. At its worst, it’s this “alliance” with muslims they fantasize about. God Almighty, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
So then you rectify the error and continue on your way. It seems to me that you’re combing the literature for “errors” (which you announce with a typically continental liberal use of exclamation marks) which you want to claim derail the entire project. If what you really wish to say is that the issues are complex, both morally as well as empircally, and not as simple as they seem at first glance, I couldn’t agree more. That is why any attempt to untangle them meets with such fierce opposition. My great hope is to see that process of untanglement hugely eased, so that it no longer strikes one as anything more severe than talk about the weather (ideally and idealistically, anyway). And that, in my estimate, can only be achieved through a spirit of love and compassion, not one of ire and hatred. Fostering such a spirit requires overcoming massive inertia to the contrary but the attempt must be made—posterity deserves no less. (Btw, I don’t claim to personify that spirit. I only see myself as holding the door open to it, so that others might pick it up and run with it—the kind of people who today devote themselves to care and nurture. Me, I’m too cynical, too hard-hearted, as are most people in this political niche, and usually even more so. I’d happily stand aside if a critical mass of better people emerged.) 154
Posted by G de B on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:54 | # @ Fred Scrooby “Do you agree with the genocide of white people?” The white (European) race can be divided into into three different groups: Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean. Nordicists (such as McCulloch) are only concerned about Nordic preservation (Northern Europeans). Intermixture with the other WHITE varieties are considered to have negative, destructive, genocidal(!) effects on the Nordic race ! 155
Posted by G de B on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:09 | # @ Silver ” her mother must have been European, most likely nordish.” Danny Thomas [born Amos Alphonsus Muzyad Yaqoob] was the son of TWO LEBANESE immigrants. 156
Posted by n/a on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:45 | # GW, And going to the stars is not life’s purpose - unless, that is, it can be shown to maximise genetic interests. Is it not self-evident? Only an infinitesimal fraction of the universe’s space, energy, and resources are available to us on the surface of this planet. And more eggs in more baskets means greatly reduced existential risk. What cost could you possibly envision that outweighs these benefits?
None of your objections seem particularly relevant. Why do we debate anything online? At least in my case, it’s not because I think it directly gains me anything in terms of Darwinian fitness. Few people consciously make calculations of that sort about anything they do. It might be argued we should always act rationally to maximize our inclusive fitness, but this is I think too high a standard even for people who frequent sites like this one. There’s probably a reason evolution hasn’t shaped us as perfectly rational beings—conscious rational thought is not the fitness-maximizing path (at least it hasn’t proved to be so far). Conflicting interpretations of history may reflect ethnic conflict, and this certainly seems to be the case with most “Nordicism vs. Medicism” debates. Trying to suppress such debates won’t do away with the underlying conflict. It seems the term “Nordic” is often used as a wide net to capture people who racially and genetically may be very distanced. Coon distinguishes between “Keltic” and “Hallstatt” Nordic types. Think Britain, not Sweden. Genetically, modern Europeans north and south of the Alps cluster separately. I believe—as did Coon—that the ancestors of the Romans originated north of the Alps, though this issue is far from central in my worldview. What we choose to call people north of the Alp or subtypes of people north of the Alps is not really the question.
This is what McCulloch actually suggests for Europe:
He’s not looking to cleanse native Flemish “Alpines” from Flanders or whatever you’re worried about. He just wants national borders maintained and doesn’t want Northern Europe racially transformed, be it by non-European or Southern European influx. That seems rather reasonable to me. If you believe Northern Europe should be racially transformed, please explain why. 157
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:43 | # n/a, “Inheriting the universe” is such a distant and technically improbable prospect, I’m not worried one way or the other about it. If it becomes apparent at some point that it is a genuine means to maximise interests, and not simply a decadent diversion from “real business”, then it is necessary and good that it be attempted. But you and I both know that the existential problem in front of us now, today, is the one which we have no time to lose in resolving. For better or worse, I am an inveterate realist. Airy dreamers just leave me shaking my head in wonder. It doesn’t matter to me whether they are Herrenrasse types, runists, wannabee galactic warriors or even convinced MultiCultists, I am driven to immediate scepticism by their boundless innocence and simplicity. 158
Posted by G de B on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:50 | # @n/a: “explain why” Fred Scrooby asked: “Do you know what the word “white” means?” yes I know: the Mediterranean variety also belongs to The white (European) race. And, says McCulloch: intermixture between the populations of northern and southern Europe — Nordish and Mediterranid — would diminish or negate the genetic traits of the Nordish element. This contradicts Fred Scrooby because he seems to believe that this kind of intermixture would not imply the genocide of white people.
Obama is the son of a black African father and a white American mother. Why is he considered to be black? Your remark implies that we should say that he’s white. In fact, since his mother was white - according to Jewish law - he’s white. 159
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:53 | # According to Jewish law, G de B, you are a Belgian Red. 160
Posted by G de B on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:50 | # @Guessedworker: a Belgian Red. Are You Serious??? Dutch Parliamentarian Geert screened his controversial film Fitna in Jerusalem on Sunday, calling on Europe to restrict immigration from backward Islamic countries and describing Islam as a totalitarian ideology full of hate, violence and submission. Europe is in the process of Islamization. We need to fight it, Wilders said. We have to win the war against Islam. If we dont ... we will lose He concluded: “It is five to twelve. Freedom must win, we have to win and we will win.”
Let me tell you, I need not adopt this attitude because I have already this attitude. Although I have a tendency towards individualism, I am prone to feel outrage at people I consider morally blameworthy—consequently I have committed what the elites consider idolatry and acted in Mr. Wilders’ spirit ...to this day, and I intend to continue. I have expressed those views through letters to the editor of newspapers or magazines, even to the Prime Minister and his top political staff. In one of those letters I also have mentione that “It is five to twelve.” The result? I was sent to a mental asylum for six months, have been deliberately misdiagnosed with a psychic disorder (paranoid schizophrenia) and I was forced to swallow anti-psychotic meds to try to space myself out and no longer to pay attention nor to focus on the danger of Islamization! “How to deal with gadflies, whistleblowers and all manner of muckraking citizens who dare to challenge the authorities? Dispatch them to the local psychiatric hospital.deal with gadflies, whistleblowers and all manner of muckraking citizens who dare to challenge the authorities: dispatch them to the local psychiatric hospital.” http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/08/asia/china.php “I wish to place on record my wish that the profession of psychiatry be closed down and those who practice this false profession be allowed ONLY to practice it upon their fellow psychiatrists and psychologists” - Dr. Koloko A Belgian Red, you said? 161
Posted by the sangha on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:06 | # Why do we debate anything online? At least in my case, it’s not because I think it directly gains me anything in terms of Darwinian fitness. Few people consciously make calculations of that sort about anything they do. I think in my case a big reason is boredom. I can jump into almost any Internet forum and have an effect on others’ emotions. Other than some personal fun, I’m not sure anything positive can be gained from it. In racial forums, people seem to believe that their words somehow carry weight in the real world. For example, in neo-Nazi forums, there may be 5 or 6 members in each, and they all may be typing to one another from their mother’s basement believing they are about to bring a social and racial revolution—even though the rest of the world is ignoring them. Conflicting interpretations of history may reflect ethnic conflict, and this certainly seems to be the case with most “Nordicism vs. Medicism” debates. Trying to suppress such debates won’t do away with the underlying conflict. This goes back to what I just said. I don’t think the vast majority of Nordics or Mediterraneans would perceive an “ethnic conflict” between Nords and Meds. There is, however, a very small-scale ideological conflict, and this conflict is exclusively in racialist forums, which attract a very small percentage of Nords and Meds. Silver mentioned his irritation by Torriani and Rienzi. Most Mediterraneans don’t acknowledge these guys. In the same way, were you to publicly espouse your views to the Nordic people, you’d likely be met with plenty of hostility. My Nordic friends, for example, might welcome some of your historical interpretations as quaint or even correct, but even so, they wouldn’t care for your moralizing about race-mixing and they certainly wouldn’t feel the loyalty that you do for other Nords simply because they are designated as “Nordic” in an Internet forum (I had to jump in to help my blond-haired German buddy when a hulking Upper Paleolithic Croat attacked him for some stupid reason). If they see an attractive Mediterranean woman and want to date her, they will do so. And I have found, though it might not be the case in racial forums (then again maybe it is), that many Nordic men prefer dark women (even if the generalization that like attracts like is true). Silver should ignore Torriani and Rienzi. Coon distinguishes between “Keltic” and “Hallstatt” Nordic types. Think Britain, not Sweden. Genetically, modern Europeans north and south of the Alps cluster separately. I believe—as did Coon—that the ancestors of the Romans originated north of the Alps, though this issue is far from central in my worldview. What we choose to call people north of the Alp or subtypes of people north of the Alps is not really the question. We can however state with certainty that people who have evolved north of the Alps generally do not feel the level of racial feeling and kinship with one another—whatever their distance from one another (excepting the Saami)—that you do towards them. My German buddy, though he may be racially more similar to you, would probably relate to me on many more levels than he could to you. Your message will pass through his ears, and it’s not because he is ignorant. He’s a normal guy, unlike most of the types in the National Alliance (or even here). This, of course, is anecdotal. We have history as well as the contemporary situation to prove to us that the Northern European man is naturally too individualistic to put his personal interests aside to accept some Pan-Northern-Euro ideal. The whole debate is somewhat asinine, which is why I don’t see why Rienzi or diabloblanco or any other who wishes to widen the “racial net” is perceived as a threat. Fred Scrooby can call me an asshole, but he’s one guy who’s pissing into the wind—and most Northern Europeans are not even watching this sorry spectacle, because they just don’t care. It doesn’t bother me that some believe that the ancient Romans and Greeks were Nordic. It doesn’t bother me that some people believe Nordics are intellectually or mentally superior. All I have to do is study the indifference of most Northern European Whites to the Knoxville and Wichita horrors, the subservience of Germany to Israel today, the way in which attractive Nordic women flirt with Negroes (whose IQ is alleged to be 85) all around me, to realize that the claim to overall mental superiority is stupid and shallow. 162
Posted by the sangha on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:10 | # [This will be reposted as I believe my last comment was eaten up by the software.] Why do we debate anything online? At least in my case, it’s not because I think it directly gains me anything in terms of Darwinian fitness. Few people consciously make calculations of that sort about anything they do. I think in my case a big reason is boredom. I can jump into almost any Internet forum and have an effect on others’ emotions. Other than some personal fun, I’m not sure anything positive can be gained from it. In racial forums, people seem to believe that their words somehow carry weight in the real world. For example, in neo-Nazi forums, there may be 5 or 6 members in each, and they all may be typing to one another from their mother’s basement believing they are about to bring a social and racial revolution—even though the rest of the world is ignoring them. Conflicting interpretations of history may reflect ethnic conflict, and this certainly seems to be the case with most “Nordicism vs. Medicism” debates. Trying to suppress such debates won’t do away with the underlying conflict. This goes back to what I just said. I don’t think the vast majority of Nordics or Mediterraneans would perceive an “ethnic conflict” between Nords and Meds. There is, however, a very small-scale ideological conflict, and this conflict is exclusively in racialist forums, which attract a very small percentage of Nords and Meds. Silver mentioned his irritation by Torriani and Rienzi. Most Mediterraneans don’t acknowledge these guys. In the same way, were you to publicly espouse your views to the Nordic people, you’d likely be met with plenty of hostility. My Nordic friends, for example, might welcome some of your historical interpretations as quaint or even correct, but even so, they wouldn’t care for your moralizing about race-mixing and they certainly wouldn’t feel the loyalty that you do for other Nords simply because they are designated as “Nordic” in an Internet forum (I had to jump in to help my blond-haired German buddy when a hulking Upper Paleolithic Croat attacked him for some stupid reason). If they see an attractive Mediterranean woman and want to date her, they will do so. And I have found, though it might not be the case in racial forums (then again maybe it is), that many Nordic men prefer dark women (even if the generalization that like attracts like is true). Silver should ignore Torriani and Rienzi. Coon distinguishes between “Keltic” and “Hallstatt” Nordic types. Think Britain, not Sweden. Genetically, modern Europeans north and south of the Alps cluster separately. I believe—as did Coon—that the ancestors of the Romans originated north of the Alps, though this issue is far from central in my worldview. What we choose to call people north of the Alp or subtypes of people north of the Alps is not really the question. We can however state with certainty that people who have evolved north of the Alps generally do not feel the level of racial feeling and kinship with one another—whatever their distance from one another (excepting the Saami)—that you do towards them. My German buddy, though he may be racially more similar to you, would probably relate to me on many more levels than he could to you. Your message will pass through his ears, and it’s not because he is ignorant. He’s a normal guy, unlike most of the types in the National Alliance (or even here). This, of course, is anecdotal. We have history as well as the contemporary situation to prove to us that the Northern European man is naturally too individualistic to put his personal interests aside to accept some Pan-Northern-Euro ideal. The whole debate is somewhat asinine, which is why I don’t see why Rienzi or diabloblanco or any other who wishes to widen the “racial net” is perceived as a threat. Fred Scrooby can call me an asshole, but he’s one guy who’s pissing into the wind—and most Northern Europeans are not even watching this sorry spectacle, because they just don’t care. It doesn’t bother me that some believe that the ancient Romans and Greeks were Nordic. It doesn’t bother me that some people believe Nordics are intellectually or mentally superior. All I have to do is study the indifference of most Northern European Whites to the Knoxville and Wichita horrors, the subservience of Germany to Israel today, the way in which attractive Nordic women flirt with Negroes (whose IQ is alleged to be 85) all around me, to realize that the claim to overall mental superiority is stupid and shallow. 163
Posted by astrid on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:50 | # “cladrastis, the story of Abraham and Isaac demonstrates that parents have the Biblical authority to kill their children. Of course, abortion may not have been a known technology in that time, but the obvious generalization is that parents—or at least fathers—have authority over their unborn children as well.” James Bowery, wtf did you get this sick idea? The story of Abraham and Isaac is a story to illustrate perfect faith. Abraham was to have known perfectly that he would never have to kill his son. I can’t find my bible right now, but read Kierkegaard if you want to read a brilliant person’s analysis of this story. 164
Posted by Fr. John on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:06 | # “Come on Fr. John, you don’t really believe that all incidents of abortion are wrong, do you?” Clad- I believe that ‘abortion is murder,’ but NOT that ‘all life is sacred.’ Those illegitimate bastards and mixed-race mamzerim (to use the Jews’ language against them) that are a result of young girls whoring around, and via rape, and other brutalities attributable to sub-human types, are ALL offspring cursed by God, and NOT part of the Covenant, or the “Election” if we read the OT and St. Paul correctly. (Witness a recent Traditionalist Protestant in the USA standing up to his session with the Truth of Racial Purity as witnessed in the Bible, and All of Western Culture- http://hearth—stone.blogspot.com/2008/12/disclaimer.html ). But, instead of supporting my thesis, I would point out that your question comes too late in the equation. It would be BETTER, and MORE HUMANE, to have ‘wet nurses,’ Chaperones, and all the Victorian ‘equippage’ that virginal women used to have around them 7/24, and to keep them at home, ‘in their gardens’ until the wedding night via an arranged marraige, to SAFEGUARD THEM- ALL white women- from this tragic, bitter, race-destroying, perverse, adulterous end. Virginity can only be given once, you know… BUt then, with statistics like this from the Non-White contingent, (http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/2008/12/10/blacks-killed-420692-in-us-from-1950-to-2000/ ) an even better solution would be the immediate repatriation of all that are not White, Anglo-Saxon, Christian, and European. (which would include Jews). Which would in effect reduce the incidence of out of wedlock bastard children by double digits in the percentages of illegal, immoral, and illegitimate births. And yes, that WOULD be Heaven on Earth, much like the century before our present one… the only ones that would carp would be the spoiled, perverted, and apostate whores that think they are ‘virtuous’ because they haven’t gotten an STD, or pregnant, or been called a ‘tramp’...YET. No, the older vision and action that prevented much sexual abuse of helpless females was far preferable to our modern Jewish ‘shiksa mentality’ - oh, and BTW, that group of Pioneer White People built an entire continent and KNEW that they were better than the rest of [sic] ‘humanity.’ For instance- ““The inferior races hate the white race precisely because of its superiority. It is galling to the lower races to be reminded of their inferiority, and white superiority instills in them a burning desire to tear down whites and their creations in order to make themselves whites’ ‘equal’. This is not all, however, for tearing down whites removes a burr from their consciousness—that of being reminded of their inferiority—and indeed is an act of revenge for such reminding. Accordingly, when whites are so stupid as to treat the lower races as equals, this but whets the appetite of those races to see whites destroyed, for they see vulnerability in this stupidity, and thus an opportunity for inserting their grappling hooks into the edifice of white civilization.”—JBR Yant, Mortal Words v 11 ” - found online at http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2008/12/farrakhan-on-jewish-banking-system.html How absolutely refreshing. This is the only sort of “Change” I can foresee for teh USA, before it perishes utterly at the hands of the coming Wrath of God…. 165
Posted by silver on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:36 | # G de B,
Danny Thomas being the offspring of two “Lebanese” parents (an ethny consisting of a wide racial disparity) only reinforces what I surmised: a Danny Thomas type with only one Lebanese parent producing someone with his daughter’s appearance would require a European, most likely nordish partner, let alone a Danny Thomas type of “pure Lebanese” descent.
You misunderstood me. Edgar J. Steele’s use of Marlon Thomas was to suggest that “Lebanese” like her are being bombed by Israel. She wouldn’t be completely out of place in Lebanon, but neither is even close to typical. I gave the example of Cindy Crawford as another levantine/nordish mix who’s use as an example of a typical “Lebanese” would equally misleading. To digress, darker types originating in mixed populations like Lebanon-Syria (and much of S. Europe) can often have very light siblings or produce veyr light offspring, such being the vagaries of mixed inheritance. So it’s certainly possible for a Danny Thomas type to produce very light offspring, only it’d be much less “European” than his daughter actually is. (A very close friend of mine is an excellent example: he’s naturally very “tanned” while his sister is very white and virtually blond, and through artificial enhancement has easily attained ultra-blondness.)
They’re obviously reflective of real word views. Where else do you think they originate from? They’re views expressed by people who’ve closely observed the world around them and decided that official lies, no matter how well intentioned, not only don’t accord with what they witness but, to put it bluntly, threaten catastrophe. Given that, how much weight these view carry in the present scarcely registers as cause for discouragement.
I don’t know nearly enough about Torriani to attack him too vehemently; his case I would call a combination of confusion with earnest desire. My beef with Rienzi isn’t so much his methodology, it’s his interpretation of it yields (more cynically: what he engineered it to yield)—an interpretation so repulsive and retardant only a zombie would attempt to progress by advancing it. Most Meds don’t acknowledge these gentlemen because they’re unaware of them. Perhaps you meant they wouldn’t agree. In their heart of hearts, I believe you’re right.
Thanks for the groundbreaking info. In case you’ve forgotten, I live in the real world myself. Firstly, I’m not really sure you’ve properly understood my views. I’ve gone to pains to differentiate myself from most racialists. I think most racialist views are repulsive almost beyond redemption. But for all their repulsivity, they hit on some important truths, truths which, with a more comprehensive understanding and appreciation, allow one to advance a program of social (re)arrangement vastly superior to that which it would replace for virtually all members of society, no matter what their racial group; and a program equally accessible to far-sighted members of all racial groups (admittedly more to some and less to others), requiring nothing in the way of pretense. Secondly, in a society which lionizes individualism and finding one’s “own path,” and disdains any hint of moral censure or even guidance (no matter how obviously wise), “moralizing” is a pejorative term, yet the act itself is (and has been) extremely socially important.
If the generalization is true, then all you’ve “found” are the exceptions.
Correction: you have very recent history, which is to say you don’t really have “history” at all. The “debate” you see isn’t so much “asinine” as it is non-existant. As for Rienzi and diabloblanco, niether of them are idiots. Indeed, given today’s racial stupor, the latter’s views accord quite well with reality: the “racial net” is unthinkingly quite often cast just as far as diablo contends, certainly so when cultural competence is clearly evident. Your response to me (which is what I assume this is, given you quoted me), however, completely misses the point. I’m not attempting to “widen” anything.
Oh, I think you protest just a bit too much for that to be true. You’ve obviously done the rounds on race boards and found yourself shaken up. Though the issues raised therein go far beyond “Nords vs Meds,” your every objection has been restricted to that distinction, which really says it all. I’m afraid you’ve overestimated yourself if you think you’ve shaken up anyone’s “emotions” (or anything else) here. You earlier asked n/a his age; maybe you should inquire a little more closely into your own. I know demonstrating concern for the future gets in the way of scoring “threesomes” and all that, but truth carries consequences which don’t abate for daring to interfere with our sex lives. 166
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:53 | #
You’re asking why there’s a one-drop rule? Because black plus white gives shades of gray. Pretty soon there’ll be no white left if there’s no one-drop rule, only shades of gray.
What’s a “racial forum”? Talking about “racial forums” is like talking about “2 + 2 = 4 forums” — “There are these special forums, man, where people go who think 2 + 2 = 4. They’re obviously reflective of real word views. Where else do you think they originate from? They’re views expressed by people who’ve closely observed the world around them and decided that 2+ 2 = 4. They’ve also decided water is wet, circles are round, the wind blows, the sun shines, stuff like that. These are very, very, very special people and they need a special name to reflect that.”
Serbs aren’t Meds. They’re Slavs. They’re from the east, not the south.
Which is the same as “I think 2 + 2 = 4 is repulsive beyond redemption.”
Truths like 2 + 2 = 4. Yeah that’s pretty important — basic, you could say. My paraphrase of Silver addressing Sangha:
167
Posted by cladrastis on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:12 | #
Second, the resolutions to the issues above are obvious to the individual. If my next door neighbor chooses to give birth to her rape baby, that’s her prerogative - and she can live with the consequences of that choice. But if my (hypothetical) daughter were to be impregnated by a rapist (whether a German or a Negro), I would strongly recommend abortion, because the risks outweigh any perceived benefit (also consider this in light of Bowery’s recent posting on sovereigns and shielded individuals, and the responsibilities of each). Yes, there is also the risk that my daughter may never marry and, thus, won’t pass on any of my genes, but that is preferable to producing a social liability. To reiterate, abortion is a tool that can enhance our group evolutionary fitness if used wisely. Third, we don’t need low IQ individuals (i.e. those with IQs below 100) in our racialist movement, period. Becoming a race of low achievers is not part of my vision for the future and will lead to nothing but the immiseration and enslavement of our folk. Better that we are reduced to a tiny fraction of our existing population than that we decline to the level of the negro (at which point all hope IS lost). 168
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:43 | # cladrastis, Who said they were synonyms? It was simply a choice to use your frame of reference. How is it a perversion? How do you know the child will be a social liability? Where’s the evidence that eugenics produces an evolutionary fitness benefit? We already are a race of low IQ. 50% fall below the mean. Evolution appears, however to mitigate these circumstances. Low IQ parents tend to have children with slightly higher IQs. It’s regression to the mean. The converse happens for high IQ parents as well. For all of our existence we have been, or at least half of us have been, low achievers, as you define it. Is our history the history of a singularly persistent Malthusian impoverishment and servitude? 169
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:53 | #
Not sure if you really believe this. If it were true, dog breeding, for one, would be impossible. Regression to the mean may provide a ray of hope for traits that have low heritability (improving the environment is the Left’s version of eugenics. Only problem being that as you equalize environmental conditions, more of the variability will be due to heridity- perhaps this is why the Left gets so hysterical). But regression to the mean in terms of heridity is a statistical phenomenon. Some unusual combinations of alleles are especially good or bad. The children are unlikely to have the same combination of alleles. But there are still good and bad alleles. The NYT also tried using regression to the mean as a reason that The Bell Curve’s thesis can be ignored. It’s up there with the Lewontin Fallacy. 170
Posted by Tim Heydon on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:31 | # I don’t believe with Arthur Kemp that civilisations rise and fall according to their racial composition and nothing else. Nor do I believe with Robert Spencer that a race’s civilisation is entirely transplantable. The human condition is a good deal more complex than is sometimes allowed for. I believe TS Eliot was right when he remarked that a culture (Civilisation) is the embodiment of a nation’s religion; that there can be no culture except in relation to religion.
The most persuasive analysis I have come across is that of Pitirim Sorokin, the Harvard Sociologist who posited that broadly speaking, Civilisations rise and fall according to their orientation to the spiritual. Civilisations rise with spiritual belief and disintegrate as materialialist attitudes take over in an ineluctable cycle. We can see decline at work at the moment in Western Europe where Christianity has weakened and the population has focussed almost entirely on material interests. Mass immigration is welcomed at least by the leftist political elites because it is seen as providing workers to bolster standards of living and as destroying nations and the Christian basis of society. Birth rates are declining because small families are wealthier in material terms, meaning that the native populations are being replaced by the high-breeding, spiritually focussed incomers. Miscegenation occurs more often because cultural differences, which reflect religious differences as well as the abilities of the racial groups which produce them, lose their importance. The pattern of rising civilisations based on the firmly held religious beliefs of a racial group and civilisational decline and racial disintegration as belief declines in the face of the strengthening materialist focus of a society, has, Sorokin argues been followed throughout Western history. According to Sorokin, Western Europe is an overripe ‘sensate’ society which is overdue for a reversion to a more spiritual focus. The way things are going, this may well mean a takeover by Islam, God help us. In other words the complete conquest of Europe by its ancient enemy through its own internal decay. A descent, I would say, into a new Dark Age. Sorokin is largely forgotten these days, more’s the pity, but the latest book using his ideas is still in print. It is ‘Holding up a Mirror. How Civilisations Decline’ by Ann Glyn-Jones, 171
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:32 | # Tim Heydon, Why is it always about defending the race on some other terms than RACE?! What is it about tending to the genetic integrity of the race directly that makes the knees of pansies like you buckle? How about this? WE OUTLAW MISCEGENATION! 172
Posted by cladrastis on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:23 | #
I’m not going to continue this discussion beyond this post because it’s a waste of both our times (and space on MR), and my initial question, which was answered simply and directly, was directed at Fr. John, not you. However, to answer your questions: of course it’s my frame of reference (who else’s would it be: your’s, Hillary Clintons’s, a mushroom’s?). Your post (perhaps not you, however) implied that sins, crimes, morality and pragmatism were synonyms by negating their intrinsic meanings (b/c it matters not which terms are used). If w, x, y, and z all = 0, then w=x=y=z. You can argue with logic, or you can state what you mean. By the way, Aryans (as well as some E. Asians) have a word for your philo-semitic Biblical term “sin”...it’s called shame (or dishonor). No one knows what a child may turn out to be, but there are certain variables that can be worked out probabilistically to predict (with given confidence intervals) what the child may become (and what liabilities he may posess). This is called regression analysis, which you should know (as you used it to justify breeding in the lower half of the IQ distribution). A better understanding of genetics would be useful for anyone trying to work out such regression equations (as these would be useful variables), but demographic data would be sufficient for a rough estimation. As for where there is evidence that eugenics produces evolutionary fitness, just look at the humble cow. From my old genetics textbook, fitness is “a measure of the average ability of organisms with a given genotype to survive and reproduce.” As much as you may not want to admit it, domestic cattle, which were selectively bred (i.e. eugencis) to live within a human pastoral ecology outcompeted their wild relatives (the aurochs - which is now extinct). Most other domesticates are likewise examples of this increased fitness advantage. You can argue all day about whether the cattle are better off in this arrangement or whether they are smarter, stronger, or healthier, but you cannot argue that cattle do not perfectly fill the niche in our human ecology for which they were bred or that they have not benefitted enormously from this arrangement in terms of incrasing their population size or spreading their genes throughout the world. I’m not sure what your were trying to illustrate by your last paragraph about low IQs and breeding. When high IQ parents have offspring, there is a probability distribution with regard to the IQs of those offspring. Most children will be intermediate between the two parental phenotypes (average between the two), but a few will be on the high or low end of the distribution. Regression toward the mean describes the bell-shaped probabilty distribution around each point (the parental coordinates) on the curvilinear relationship (or surface) and not to the population as a whole. Slicing off the lower half (or quarter) of the population distribution does nothing to alter this relationship, but does add selection pressure to alter the (IQ) distribution of the population as a whole. Undoubtedly, this is EXACTLY what happened when humans left Africa and ended up in Ice Age Eurasia (i.e. the Africans that didn’t have the brains to plan for the winter DIED OFF). In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes: And I concur. 173
Posted by Diamed on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:45 | # Not true. Regression towards the mean regresses towards the average IQ of the race, not the parents. From what I recall, it was around 85% of your IQ is an average of your parents, and 15% is your average racial IQ. You cannot escape the average IQ of your race, that’s why smart blacks/hispanics/arabs all have stupid gangster kids. 174
Posted by Darren on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:33 | # Eugenics is real and has been practiced for ages. Have we forgotten? 175
Posted by Armor on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:49 | #
I think what we call civilization includes on the one hand our outlook on life, our way of being, our nature, our culture, our ideals, and on the other hand, our social institutions, which are supposed to reflect who we are. As Jared Taylor says: “Civilizations arise organically from the collective efforts of an entire people or nation”. However, we do not have that in the West at the moment. Our institutions have become foreign bodies. They are at war with us, and want to destroy us. And our culture is mainly a remnant from previous times. We no longer see an obvious link between our individual nature and our collective institutions, which have embraced leftism. In fact, our governments have decided that what remains of the civilizational link between European man and Western institutions should be destroyed, so that the third-world will feel at home in the West. Our society has now become less natural and looks more and more like a supermarket. Supermakets are not a good example of what we call civilization! In order to relaunch our civilization, maybe we’ll have to reorganize into small communities. Of course, forbidding racial-mixing should be our absolute priority. But beyond that, I think an important element, in order to reestablish something that feels like human civilization, is to oppose centralism (as well as leftism!). 176
Posted by Armor on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:12 | # Higher up in the comments, I mentioned a funny saying about short people (as an example of relativism). But I’m not sure I said it right. What I meant was that there are no short people, the right size is when your feet can touch the ground. 177
Posted by cladrastis on Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:12 | # Thank you for the correction Diamed. I was conflating the probabilities of polygenetic inheritance (which is what is believed to underly intelligence) with IQ. The two are not the same. 178
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:56 | # Darren, If we accept, for the sake of discussion that a practise of eugenics/eugenic events endowed Jews with a higher IQ, is it shown to be a fitness benefit? Did Jews out compete Europeans because of the development of a higher IQ? Certainly to a large extent, as outlined by KMac, in his A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy the answer is no.
The Jew as ‘perpetual alien’, a position a ruling elite realised did not change because of the written rules of restriction for Jews vis-a-vis the ‘other’ perpetuated the status of alien. In other words the value to a ruling elite is not necessarily the intelligence but the severely restricted altruism. It’s not at all evident, that eugenics provided a fitness benefit for the Jews. It is fairly clear that more often than not, European elites will provide protection to Jews to further there own interests even against those of their own ethnic/racial group. 179
Posted by silver on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 04:39 | #
A racial forum is a forum where people discuss race. Just like a math forum is a forum where people discuss math. I didn’t even hint that there was anything sinister about it.
I’ve obviously never claimed anywhere that Serbs are “meds” (whatever you think that means; knowing you, probably dead wrong). Me, on the other hand, I don’t know how many times I’ve said it now, I’m half Greek. And Greeks quite often are….what? Meds. Hooray. However, Scrooby… and please do tell if this is all getting too complicated for you… both Serbs and Greeks also contain plenty of what can be termed “armenid” strains (not necessarily “Armenian”, armenid). And such strains are plentiful all over southern Europe. All of which goes to say, just as I and innumerable others have said, it makes little sense to consider these populations “white” on average, especially not when that designation is measured against a nordic standard.
Yawn. I tire of you, Scrooby. I tire of your incessant, insistent stupidity. It’s quite amazing to think you’re scoring any sort of a point with the above. I said “most racialist views,” meaning the way most racialists express their views. I didn’t say racialism itself. Clearly, I don’t think racialism itself is “repulsive beyond redemption.” That only happens when swine like you get their hands on it. 180
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 04:58 | # silver: “That only happens when swine like you get their hands on it.” Silver, do you wish you were part of the Nordic Aryan Master Race and not a greasy wog? 182
Posted by silver on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:44 | #
A much more interesting question is why you’re such a dickhead. I’m being completely serious. It’s really one for the ages. (Oh, and cap’n, I don’t have to do any of this, and certainly not do it here. It’s called honesty and fairness. So I’ll take your insults in stride. Otherwise, buddy, don’t kid yourself, you’d wish you were me: smarter, better looking, more athletic, in the mainstream’s goodbooks. I could write my own ticket. Yet…I’m a racialist.) 183
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:23 | # silver: “A much more interesting question is why you’re such a dickhead. I’m being completely serious. It’s really one for the ages.” Silver, why are you such a turd burglar? Anyone who doesn’t toe your devious, muddy the waters line is an “asshole” or a “dickhead”. “It’s called honesty and fairness.” I’m sure, those are your trademarks. “So I’ll take your insults in stride.” “...swine…” “...dickhead…” LOL! “Otherwise, buddy, don’t kid yourself, you’d wish you were me: smarter, better looking, more athletic, in the mainstream’s goodbooks.” You mean the books they keep in Thailand? Decided by the highest bidder? LOL! “I could write my own ticket. Yet…I’m a racialist.” Aren’t you a Nordicist? 184
Posted by silver on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:42 | # Btw, to answer your question, Cap, sure, if I could look like someone like Aaron Eckhart. I watched The Dark Knight today, which he played a supporting role in, and, no fag here or anything, but I thought to myself, now that is one handsome man. Otherwise, just to be some average nordic, oh gosh no; the very thought of it is so weird it’s off-putting. You can hate me all you want, but there’s really no denying that southerny “perma-tanned” good looking Europids have, and have probably always had, a very appealing allure (at least until one realizes that “close contact” with us spells racial death for nordic types, anyway). As for any other “nordish” type, like a Pole or a Russkie, how does it go—fuggedabouddit. I’d rather be a pure jew. No offense to anyone intended. Just my taste. 185
Posted by silver on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:12 | #
How am I muddying the waters? You’re a dickhead because…sheesh, is it really necessary for me to spell it out? The way you bark at everyone (and ridiculously think you’ve convinced them of anything? The way you attack me for no good reason (certainly none you’ve ever plainly stated)? Think it over a little. Unless you’re still so mad you can’t see straight, I’d really like to know why you insist on attacking me. It really does baffle me.
Well, aren’t they? Do I do this because it’s so personally rewarding? Because there’s an immediate and obvious advantage in it for me?
You can always stop being a swine and a dickhead. On the other hand, the qualities you insult me over are permanent, and ones I have no control over. Far worse, your entire worldview rests almost entirely on assigning complete value to those above your racial dividing line and almost complete disvalue to those below it, which, whatever its merits, can hardly be termed fair (and is certainly much, much harsher than it needs to be in order pursue your political objective).
I’ve never called myself that. I don’t think it makes much sense for a non-nord to refer to himself as a nordicist, regardless of his racial views. Nordicism, to me, beyond facts and arguments in its favor, implies a preference for nordics, but that seems to me to require being one. In any case, my preference is for people more like myself. Describing such people is much trickier for me than it is for a nordicist, because I’m both a mongrel from my parents’ union and from ancestral mixing centuries ago. But I share enough obvious commonality with various S.Euro types that I’ve never had any trouble fitting in. (So it’s a real pity my Serbian is so much better than my Greek!) 186
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:54 | # silver: “Btw, to answer your question, Cap, sure, if I could look like someone like Aaron Eckhart.” Oh gawd, silver. He’sssth so rugged, so handssssthome. “I watched The Dark Knight today, which he played a supporting role in, and, no fag here or anything, but I thought to myself, now that is one handsome man.” Are you trying to tell me something ssssthilver? You need a studly Aryan Nordic man to make an honest wog out of you? LOL! I think you’d have better luck with Christian Bale, he strikes me as being more ‘metro’. “The way you bark at everyone…” I have a pretty good sense of when a person can be convinced and when they can’t. If they can’t be convinced then they need to be crushed - no mercy for the anti-White genocidalists. Kind of like G de B, I knew that piece of excrement was rotten to his core almost from jump street. I’ll let others worry about this Chess piece and that, my concern is the whole board, and the end game. “Well, aren’t they? Do I do this because it’s so personally rewarding?” LOL! You try to be slick and ‘game’ it to come out your way. You can’t ‘game’ me. I suspect your more or less what you claim you are, although I have my doubts. “...your entire worldview rests almost entirely on assigning complete value to those above your racial dividing line and almost complete disvalue to those below it,” Values must be reified, Nature is oblivious. Whatever tender sentiments I may or may not be disposed to must be pushed to the side when I defend my race with iron-hard conviction and imperturbability. The forces putting downward pressure on the survival of the White race can always yield, but of course they will not; not all of them, never. Therefore, they must be crushed. That is the real world. Either you are serious about winning or you are not; either you will do what it takes or you won’t. I am serious; I will do what it takes. “I don’t think it makes much sense for a non-nord to refer to himself as a nordicist,” So long as you support ‘Nordics’ in doing what is necessary (yes, what of what necessary, I’m not interested in ‘moral support’) to secure the existence of their people you can call yourself whatever you like. 187
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:20 | #
You left out one. Serbs. They’re the same as Poles and Russkies. No, not Armenoid. Slavic, m8. That must be a damn dark Serb in your bloodlines, if it plus Greek was all it took to make you think, act, spout, and hate just like ... well ... just like a Paki. Damn dark Serb. Darker than any I ever saw. Darker than any anyone ever saw, likely. Darker, maybe, than any out there. 188
Posted by Karif on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 06:39 | # Excuse me. thank you for the good and valuable information on your site. Help me! Can not find sites on the: It is the many hair in methods caused to choose a measure in medicine cell, better than provillus.. I found only this - provillus in australia. Relaxer ferrets can earn not like in their auditory follicles. In most factors that affect with a preferential shaft of aches of gland quality, phase hops severely after a meat-based conditions to a self-administer. With love :rolleyes:, Karif from Sweden. Post a comment:
Next entry: Kucinich Is Not An Idiot
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 03 May 2024 23:04. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 04:26. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) |
. I also believe that marginal cases like ‘what about good non-whites’ and ‘what about half-whites’ are irrelevant to the larger picture. If all good non-whites and all half whites were accepted into some sort of white racialist society, that would already be an enormous improvement over our current situation. I would gladly accept such a future over our coming demise. I would Prefer we did not foolishly poison our victory with the seeds of future conflict and problems, however this simply isn’t the time to be fighting over this. We can always have a civil war later, the mixed breed lovers, and the white purists, over who will own the world. But can’t you see how paramount it is that blacks, arabs, and mestizos don’t inherit the earth? That 70 IQ barbarians don’t overrun the world?? Surely none of this matters until the issue with CRAPPY non-whites is solved, neh? So put your worries aside and we’ll deal with them in DUE COURSE. First we repel the invaders. Second we hang the traitors. Third we conquer the world. FOURTH we debate matters within ourselves. Keep your eye on the ball.
?v=0 
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 02:32 | #
“One has black hair and dark eyes, and is obviously a genetic Cherokee Indian. The other is a blonde, with blue eyes, obviously genetically “White”.” - G de B
This sounds startlingly familiar. I read something almost exactly like this from a commenter at Takimag in response to one of my comments. G de B, you cannot expect us to liquidate the very being of our people to suit your non-White relatives. People are not free to become whatever it is their hearts desire. They are not ‘individuals’ per se; they are a part of an organic whole, a group.
See genetic similarity theory: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Genetic_similarity_theory
“Essentially, “if a gene can better ensure its own survival by acting so as to bring about the reproduction of family members with whom it shares copies, then it can also do so by benefiting any organism in which copies of itself are to be found.”
That is altruism’s evolved function, to ensure the continuity of like genes. If you act in such a way that you favor the genetic interests of non-Whites over your own people you are not acting ‘in accordance with Nature’ but contrary to it.
‘But, but, but…I don’t like Nature. Nature is cruel, nature sucks. I like my way better.’
Fair enough, I don’t like the law. I want more money. I think I’m going to knock off a few banks.