Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 08 May 2011 12:06 | #

I was going to put this over at the bin Laden thread, but it’s getting clogged there.

Why do I, a conservative, fight racial dispossession?

First, while the locus of conservative concern shifts over time, depending upon which existential threats are predominant, it should be noted that conservatism is neither coincident with Christianity (or even religiosity), nor with mere tribalism of one sort or another, nor with liberty or capitalism, nor with any single issue, but rather is informed by all of these concerns and influences.

I would argue, roughly with Russell Kirk and Sam Francis, that the true conservative is the man with the disposition to defend his own culture and that culture’s settled way of life, provided that such are neither violative of Christian natural law, broadly understood, nor demonstrably inferior to some other mode of existence (as Burke reminds us: “A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation.”). Put another way, the conservative seeks to defend both that which is a permanent part of a moral order thought either to be a product of God, or best suited to a substantially unchanging (genetic) human nature, as well as what is particular to his own politico-cultural community.

Thus, conservatism’s non-ideological character. It does not offer any specific, ‘timeless’ policy prescriptions because all depends upon historical context. Simultaneously, conservatives are not merely relativists because they will defend the general principles necessary to the maintenance of humane civilization itself, even as they defend the particularity of their own communities.

Second, the chief issue for real conservatives today is nothing less than the survival of Western civilization – that organic unity which has been demonstrably superior to all other human communities in all significant ways, and which is OUR civilization. In other words, this civilization is defensible by conservatives because it is good, and because it is ours (and we would not be who we are without it: it molds our minds, and determines our larger identities).

The first question, then, is what aspect of our civilization is under greatest attack, and second, what is the most efficacious means of repulsing the threat?

Conservatives, depending upon their varying ideological predispositions (Christian, racialist, or libertarian), will disagree on the answers to both of these questions, but I think that the racial threat is undeniably the greatest one. Here at MR, only ‘plants’ and anti-Zionist obsessives will disagree.

Western civ was created by whites. To paraphrase Sam Francis, there is no evidence that this civilization (or any other) could have been created apart from the genetic endowments of the founding (white) race, nor is there any reason to suppose that it will be continued by persons of other racial backgrounds. Indeed, if the manifest failure of America’s experiment in racial integration to assimilate non-whites to Anglo-European American cultural norms is indicative of the future, then there is no hope that Western civ will be preserved in places where whites will no longer comprise demographic majorities.

Thus, we must stop the non-white demographic and cultural and even psychic conquest of the lands historically associated with the West. THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR CONSERVATIVES TODAY – not ending the wars in west Asia, stopping abortion, eliminating the capital gains tax or budget deficit, defeating Obama, or any other secondary or tertiary matter. ALL other issues of conservative concern must, first, be subordinated to the overriding issue of white racial survival, and second, must be judged only in light of whether and to what extent they aid or harm the primary racial objective.

Posted by Can you spell fail? on Sun, 08 May 2011 13:44 | #

You shouldn’t knock a guy for trying, I suppose. But the next time a book is up for review, perhaps GW might consider giving someone else a shot at it. Someone who possesses the skill-sets required for the task.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 May 2011 14:53 | #

Arktos offer us one free book for review.  It’s a first-come-first-served thing.  There’s is, of course, nothing to stop anyone from offering a review for publishing here.

Posted by Silver on Sun, 08 May 2011 17:05 | #

Haller,

That’s a fine response and those are all good reasons to “fight racial dispossession.”  But they’re not the only reasons to, and taking a pro-self racial stand isn’t something only “conservatives” (a vague, even loaded, term) can or should do, which is to say that making race a conservative issue will undoubtedly distance those who don’t really have any other good reason to be distanced. 

But (a) you didn’t address the point I raised about “where does it all end?” and (b) there’s not even a hint there of any concrete proposals (something you’ve taken me to task for).  Fear and uncertainty are huge sticking points when it comes to race.  Shouldn’t allaying those fears form a central pillar of “what race means” at this here point in the 21st century?

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 08 May 2011 18:07 | #

I am sorry Leon, but Conservatism has never been about preserving the racial characteristics of the nation state.

Not in the UK, Europe or the US.

Conservatism has primarily been about ensuring the incumbent ruling class of the nation state stays in wealth and power whilst ensuring the masses, who are from the same racial group as the ruling class, are oppressed and deprived of economic equality and political power.

Conservatives are reactionaries motivated by self interest and class interest not racial altruism.

At least in the real world they are.

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 08 May 2011 20:22 | #

a concise, accurate summary LJB.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 08 May 2011 21:01 | #

There’s is, of course, nothing to stop anyone from offering a review for publishing here.

This is of course, part of the problem with MR and with freedom generally. Thankfully, I’m thoroughly modern and love the chaos that accompanies excessive individual freedom.

In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, Freedom is untidy and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 08 May 2011 23:09 | #

Freedom, Daniel, exists only between your ears. Otherwise, it’s illusion. All of us serve and are slaves for someone.

Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 08 May 2011 23:10 | #

it is only a question of who you serve.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 May 2011 01:09 | #

Put this:

[facetious] [/facetious]

around my last comment…

I’m a theo-philosophical determinist Grim.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 09 May 2011 01:15 | #

I quite like Soren’s rambles when someone can get something out of him.

Conservatism has never been about preserving the racial characteristics of the nation state.

Yeah it has

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

Precisely because of

Conservatism has primarily been about ensuring the incumbent ruling class of the nation state stays in wealth and power

Wise heads in the elite know that the ultimate guarantor of their wealth and power rests on being from the same ethnic group as the masses.

The balance is tipped by outside forces, either physically present or ideological, allying with the greediest and most sociopathic elements of the elite.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf

Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 May 2011 01:20 | #

We know that in America, even as late as Kirk and Weaver, that Conservatism (big ‘C’) had the potential for racial nationalism. It would have been the natural progression of their system of thought. Had the John Birch Society got their hooks in the movement, we could have had a judenfrei Republican party dedicated to ensuring that the state and the economy serve the race. Alas, instead we have Obama…

Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 May 2011 01:29 | #

Freedom, Daniel, exists only between your ears. Otherwise, it’s illusion. All of us serve and are slaves for someone.

Then again, the universality of the predicament is small consolation…

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 09 May 2011 05:08 | #

If you read your links, Wandrin, you’ll discover that the anti-immigration sentiment was driven not by conservatives but by progressives. In that regard, Master Barnes appears accurate.

Furthermore, the settler countries looked to each other for precedents when drafting restrictive legislation. For example, Australian legislation provided a model for British Columbia and New Zealand, and Natal legislation for Australia. These societies might be seen as extensions of an international Anglo-Celt community. Although this was precisely the underlying notion of the British Empire, anti-imperialist sections of the Australian labor movement also expressed this in more blatant racial terms that could include the United States. Thus, “a feeling of loyalty to race rather than governments” underlaid the enthusiastic welcome afforded the United States Navy’s “Great White Fleet” in Australia in 1908.(4)

Another shared aspect of race relations in the Anglo-Celt settler societies was the labor movement’s role in generating racially exclusivist policies. The white working-class motivation for racially exclusivist policies was threefold. First, the notion of class exploitation through the use of nonwhite labor at substandard wages and conditions, which would undermine union standards and unionism itself, was a powerful threat perceived by workers. All of these settler countries experienced unfree labor systems - slavery in the United States, convict labor in Australia, and “coolie” or indentured labor in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and British Columbia. These systems could undermine white labor standards and status, because nonwhite workers were automatically associated with unfree labor systems. Whenever nonwhite labor worked for sub-union wages or conditions, was used as strike-breakers by capitalists, or was praised for its “docility” …

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18167215.html

In this sense a consciousness of Anglo-Saxonism (race as a consciousness of self and its extended ecology) existed that transcended any concept of nationalism.

In contrast we are told of Grant’s struggle to close the Mexican border…

“From 1926 to 1930, the House and Senate Immigration Committees held hearings on
closing the back door. The usual Grantians (Richards M Bradley, Roy L. Garis, Francis
H. Kinnicutt, Demarest Lloyd, James H. Patten, and John B. Trevor) testified, and Harry
H. Laughlin submitted another one of his special reports, showing that ‘‘Mexican immigrants
are making a reconquest of the Southwest/*99
Naturally, many of the same groups that testified in 1924 against European restriction
also showed up to oppose Mexican restriction, including, as the Immigration Restriction
League put it, “racial zealots ... of Hebrew origin” whose “racial interests and
prejudices warp their judgment as to the general interest.” But unlike in 1924, the Jews
were joined this time by a well-organized and well-funded coalition of sugar beet manufacturers,
livestock representatives, produce farmers, railroad executives, and mining interests,
who put up a formidable fight in Congress. Few of them denied that the Mexicans
were racially inferior, but they all testified that further restrictions would result in economic
disaster for the Southwest. And besides, they wanted Congress to understand that
the Mexicans were “timid” workers who always “knew their place” and were willing to
work “all day or night and the next day without ever making a kick.” Certainly the
“wetbacks” were less dangerous to society than the Negroes. The head of the American
Cattle Raiser’s Association, for instance, told the Senate that he always let his three
daughters ride the range with Mexicans, and the girls were “just as safe as if they had been
with me…. Do you suppose we would send them out with a bunch of negroes? We
would never think of such a thing.” 100

Patrician Racist: The Evolution of Madison Grant
by
Jonathan Peter Spiro
B.A. (University of California, Los Angeles) 1982
MA. (Pepperdine University) 1994

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 09 May 2011 07:37 | #

Desmond Jones,

Conservatism has never been about preserving the racial characteristics of the nation state.

The balance is tipped by outside forces, either physically present or ideological, allying with the greediest and most sociopathic elements of the elite.

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 09 May 2011 08:06 | #

Probably should be called, ‘Why We Should Fight’. Because, as of yet, there is no fight-back occurring.

I noticed there was a section in the book titled, ‘America and Islam Against Europe’.

Sadly, this (the title at least) is true.

I would say that the White Race’s three main enemies are
1. jews
2. the United States of America
3. The Expansion of Islam

(of course number 1 and number 3 would be considerably less threatening without the muscle provided by number 2)

Ironically, most Americans have always seen Europe and European Civilization as a shadowy enemy and their eternally-potential #1 nemesis, even though that’s where their language, culture, religion and blood originated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383802/Cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys-U-S-bloggers-slam-Europeans-muted-reaction-Bin-Laden-killing.html

The truth is, and despite having tuned into to watch the Royal Wedding, if US special forces swooped down upon Buckingham Palace and took out the Royal Family in the way they did Bin Laden, many White Americans would be out in the streets celebrating and chanting “USA! USA!”, seeing it as a personal victory,.... for “freedom and democracy” over tyranny and oppression.

This is particularly true now as White Americans are desperate for an exterior threat to take their attention away from the dispossession of their own towns and communities and thus identity and culture. A process quickly unfolding all around them.

The US Census has released the official 2010 demographic statistics for the states. A couple of years ago I showed the then current 2007 estimates for the percentage of non-hispanic Whites by state. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/painting_a_picture/

On average, non-hispanic Whites dropped by about 3% in each state from 2007 to 2010. That’s a percent every 12 months. And that’s in a time of economic stagnation and, supposedly, a slowdown in immigration, legal and illegal.

America is done.

If there is going to be a fight, it will have to be in Europe.

But really, that was inevitable. Europe is all that matters. It is the homeland of our people. All else, America, Canada, Australia and the rest, were fleeting outposts of an bygone era.

...

Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 09 May 2011 08:26 | #

cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys… good name for a band.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 09 May 2011 08:50 | #

I’m really busy right now, but will respond to comments directed my way in a day or two.

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 09 May 2011 14:49 | #

I would say that the White Race’s three main enemies are
1. jews
2. the United States of America
3. The Expansion of Islam

I agree for the most part and have said so here in the recent past.

In order, here is how I’ve listed the White race’s three main enemies and why:

1. International capitalism/corporatism - it knows no loyalty to nations or their people. To them everything is about PROFIT!

2. Jewish Supremacism/Leftism - specifically: the segment of the Jewish Tribe whose cutting edge leftist ideological zealotry is fueled by an extreme animus for Euro-Christians.

3. The spread of Islam.

Of course number 3 would not be occurring if number one wasn’t using number two to make number three a reality.

Solution: We all know what to do with number one and two…......................................FLUSH!

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 09 May 2011 15:33 | #

Note: jewish radical leftism in-and-of-itself would be harmless if not for the fact Euros, in droves, adopt these toxic ideologies for the purpose of satisfying their own selfish interests. Eg. Western women who tenaciously embrace the jewish invented doctrines of second-wave feminism…....

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 09 May 2011 22:36 | #

Wandrin,

Still there is no example provided to contradict Barnes position. Even the anecdote provided by Spiro vis-a-vis Grant’s attempts to close the Mexican border does not imply an alliance between farming, mining and railroad interests and the “racial zealots ... of Hebrew origin”. That opposition stood on its own in rejecting the immigration restriction proposed by the Grantians. Here is a situation where both racial awareness or consciousness of race exists in union with self-interest and yet self-interest prevails.

Few of them denied that the Mexicans were racially inferior, but they all testified that further restrictions would result in economic disaster for the Southwest.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 May 2011 03:48 | #

Narrator,

What version of the Bible are you quoting here: http://signalsfromthebrink.blogspot.com/2011/05/render-question.html

King James dog! Please! Or a literal version (Youngs, LITV, etc).

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 10 May 2011 08:44 | #

What version of the Bible are you quoting

Posted by danielj on May 10, 2011, 02:48 AM

The NIV.

But the word ‘tribute’ in the KJV means tax as well. Or so says Mr. Strong, at any rate.

...

Posted by leejohnbarnes on Tue, 10 May 2011 10:10 | #

Actually chaps the immigration acts of various British Empire nations such as Australia were primarily about keeping the British political elite in power in those societies and the issue of race was based primarily on attracting more Anglo-saxons into those dominions to keep the incumbent anglo-saxon elite in power.

Race at that time meant ‘Anglo-Saxons’ as a race, not whites as a race - hence the KKK hated Irish, Italians and Slavs even though they were white.

When they said race, they mean Anglo-Saxon as they saw the Anglo-Saxons as a race. 

The fact that wikipedia emphasises the racial nature of those laws is because wikipedia has an agenda to associate those laws with racism.

And as wandrin said above - the race based laws at that time were promulgated by the progressives, as opposed to the idiot marxists and socialists of today, who understood that a cohesive and progressive society required an racially / ethnically cohesive society.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 10 May 2011 10:34 | #

This podcast review was certainly not “inconsequential” and as such I think more enlightening to those who would receive it than a written rendering could have been.  Despite what Soren may say, and GW implies, the commentariat and contributors of MR remain the best online contribution to our cause as no where else can be found a comparable confluence of native intellect and passion for the survival of our race.  No where else do others invest so much of themselves in This Thing of Ours.  What they say is truly an expression of who they are and their divergent ‘analyses’ what they would wish the world to be.  This is living, breathing ontology; the observable, sensed and felt will of our people to live.  It is not imaginable that the lightly stilted and slightly rigid offerings at The Occidental Quarterly - flavored with flowery insinuations of a revival of fascism - is of better quality in all the ways that really matter: that it is lived.     

Interestingly, GW is implicitly here revealed to be more cautious and equivocal with regards to his own world view than his written moral rhetoric would give one to believe.  The latter is an expression of his own faith, of what he would wish the world to be.  With his own visceral contempt for faith perhaps it is unavoidable some measure of equivocal doubt creeps in.  And what a pity that would be, for it is arguably the best of all worlds which could be had if only it could made it so.  It is a faith worth having, even if one cannot fully believe.   

With that said I find I have nothing more to say. 

Godspeed.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 10 May 2011 11:39 | #

There is now lots of real evidence that ethnically homogenous societies are much much better for their members. Off topic but look are this self-serving scumbag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8zoiRhIXPE&NR=1

Perhaps he should read some Kevin MacDonald?

Or as no less than Immanuel Kant notes: “The Jews still cannot claim any true genius, any truly great man. All their talents and skills revolve around stratagems and low cunning … They are a nation of swindlers”.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 10 May 2011 12:03 | #

Well done Captain Chaos - a whole post that doesnt descend into the gutter with the sort of language that comes from only nutters or hollywood nazis in the pay of the state.

See you can do it.

Well done.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 May 2011 13:49 | #

The NIV.

But the word ‘tribute’ in the KJV means tax as well. Or so says Mr. Strong, at any rate.

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not disputing the point you are making. The stiltedness of the translation just offends my sensibilities

Posted by anon on Tue, 10 May 2011 15:16 | #

Despite what Soren may say, and GW implies, the commentariat and contributors of MR remain the best online contribution to our cause as no where else can be found a comparable confluence of native intellect and passion for the survival of our race.  No where else do others invest so much of themselves in This Thing of Ours.

Agreed. This is the best thing we have.

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 10 May 2011 15:59 | #

hence the KKK hated Irish, Italians and Slavs even though they were white.

Posted by leejohnbarnes on May 10, 2011, 09:10 AM

Actually the objection to the Irish was primarily over their being Catholic.

The objection to the Italians was that they were Catholic and a bit swarthy and thus not always seen as being White.

The objection to the Slavs was that they were all around different -language, religion etc (and in some cases a bit swarthy).. and that they generally came in numbers, as laborers.

But by the time the KKK came about Southern and Appalachian culture was fairly well established and distinct and so that any outsider was seen as foreign.
In fact in Appalachia and other rural regions the term “foreigner” was applied to anyone outside of your generally immediate vicinity and particularly with a different accent (non-southern, non-hillbilly) and cultural demeanor. Such as, say, the Yankee.

Really, as late as the 1970’s towns that were five miles apart had their own churches, school systems, police departments, fire departments, lodges and so on. Families lived there generation after generation.  Each town was like little independent nations.

So yeah, a Pole or a Sicilian immigrant would stick out, just a bit. The effect of the Civil War was like being raped for many Southerners so the KKK helped not only to re-establish peace and security but to also, perhaps inevitably,  provide a cultural symbol of solidarity and historical identity.
No, not all Southerners were members -far from it- but 99% were glad the Klan was around and were not opposed to it in theory or in practice.

The effect of the Civil War severed to magnify the Us vs. Them reality. At least, for a while.
And of course the North’s continued contempt for all things south of the Mason-Dixon line reinforced Southern Whites view of themselves as being distinct and threatened, even from other Whites.
.
.
.
.

The stiltedness of the translation just offends my sensibilities

Posted by danielj on May 10, 2011, 12:49 PM

I agree. I’m just so used to the “are you one of those of KJV-only types!?” that I just go to the NIV first to save time.

...

By the way, the above post was written after an extended lack of sleep so if its gibberish, just ignore it.

...

Posted by danielj on Wed, 11 May 2011 02:21 | #

I just go to the NIV first to save time.

The NIV is poison. The translation committee had open homosexuals on it. They sometimes intentionally rob Christ of divinity in their translation. The adopted a technique called “dynamic equivalence” during the translation process which is really just interpretation as far as I’m concerned.

Although I’m not KJV only, it certainly is majestic, beautiful and a part of our culture. Reading and quoting it is counterrevolutionary.

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 11 May 2011 06:42 | #

The NIV is poison.

Posted by danielj on May 11, 2011, 01:21 AM |

Like I said, it’s always refreshing to hear that position now days. Of course now days it seems like most Christians just skip the bible completely, regardless of the translation, and just go with Rick Warren books.

I’ve got some booklets somewhere on the NIV controversy. Ms. Riplinger material included. 

One passage that sticks out is Isaiah 14:12

In the KJV it reads How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

In the NIV is reads,    How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Besides removing Lucifer it calls the devil the Morning Star. A title which the New Testament gives to Jesus.

...

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 14 May 2011 12:17 | #

Posted by Lee John Barnes on May 08, 2011, 05:07 PM | #

At least in the real world they are.

That may be somewhat true wrt the history of the Tory party, though obviously not with everyone (eg Enoch Powell). But I am speaking of what it means to be truly conservative, considered philosophically, not merely in terms of historical party politics - though even there I think your view is inaccurate and overly cynical. Of course, conservatism in history has been concerned about preserving racial purity - just look at its history in the US, Australia and South Africa, all of which practiced various forms of racial segregation, anti-immigrationism and anti-miscegenationism.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 14 May 2011 12:36 | #

Haller,

But (a) you didn’t address the point I raised about “where does it all end?” and (b) there’s not even a hint there of any concrete proposals (something you’ve taken me to task for).  Fear and uncertainty are huge sticking points when it comes to race.  Shouldn’t allaying those fears form a central pillar of “what race means” at this here point in the 21st century? (Silver)

I am sorry to be just getting back to this now, but this was a busy week for me.

I’m fine with non-conservatives fighting to save the white race. I hate those “conservatives”, however, who try to remove race as a topic of conservative concern. Racial preservation (not imperialism, or genocide), including the link between people and territory, is at the heart of conservatism, properly understood.

I’m not sure where the “where does it all end?” was raised, or exactly what you mean by it. I have always stated forthrightly that the global WN agenda (or mine anyway) is as follows:

1. Repatriation of all nonwhites from all the nations of Europe (I admit, I’m not sure how Albania and Bosnia should be handled, and am open to suggestions). Illegal immigrants, and recent legal ones (say within the past five or 10 years) must be deported to countries of origin, with nothing more. Longer residing legal immigrants, as well as nonwhites born in Europe, can perhaps be offered certain financial incentives (eg, continuation of welfare payments overseas) to leave voluntarily. If they do not, they will be forced to do so, violent resistance punishable by death. Is that clear enough?

2. In New World countries like mine, the situation is more complex. All nonwhite immigration must be halted, and illegals deported. Immigration of whites should be encouraged legislatively. There should be incentives put in place to encourage white natality, and discourage nonwhite natality. All multicultural teaching in schools, as well as public holidays, must be eliminated. Anti-discrimination laws must be abolished. Interracial transfers of wealth must be terminated. Criminals, most of whom are black, must be punished harshly, and exterminated wherever warranted. The right to bear and use firearms must be restored.

This list is not exhaustive.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 14 May 2011 13:14 | #

Ultimately, what is it you really want, Haller?  Isn’t it a future for your kind, in which it can be safe and flourish, on lands traditionally its own?  Isn’t that enough?  If so, is it really beyond belief that racial others might consider that acceptable and, moreover, appreciate how their own interests could be satisfied under similar conditions?  And if you disagree with that, would you at least agree that it makes tactical sense, as a way of drawing attention to the issues?  (Ie, let’s establish this first; we can always kill each other later.) (Silver)

I’m not even all that much of a racist, though of course I’ve been denounced as such innumerable times is real life, as well as banned for my “racism” from many “conservative” and Christian sites. All I ever point out is that we whites are victims of racial imperialism, through nonwhite immigration + coercive integration laws.

I have stated many times that I am an “Occidentalist”. I wish to preserve Western Civilization because a) I believe it is superior to other civilizations; b) even if a) is untrue, I believe it is worthy of preservation on its own terms; and c) at the very least, it is meaningful to me, especially after having had abundant experience of the alienating and unpleasant aspects of residing amongst nonwhites (or at least having to interact with them on a constant basis) in LA and NYC. I prefer living and working with whites, and would like to be able (and for future generations to be able) to live a truly white existence. Instead, even the little bit of “whiteness” available to me is constantly threatened and diminished.

I worry that if whites do not maintain their demographic majorities in their traditional homelands (or at least somewhere), then they (and by extension, the West) will go extinct, either through miscegenation or extermination, or some combination of the two. This view is informed by extensive reading, especially in history, but also by several decades of observation of all types of nonwhite groups. They are just not as morally decent as whites, and will not treat us with anything like the concern and magnanimity with which we have treated them.

And no, I unfortunately see no arena for “racial reciprocity”. Whites build the world’s most desirable societies, which is why nonwhites wish to dispossess us of them. We also happen to have cornered most of the world’s best real estate. Nonwhites wish to take what is ours. I see no evidence that they care one wit about respecting our ethnocultural interests. They take what we let them have, for as long as we let them have it.

Posted by anon on Sat, 14 May 2011 13:29 | #

Whites build the world’s most desirable societies, which is why nonwhites wish to dispossess us of them. We also happen to have cornered most of the world’s best real estate. Nonwhites wish to take what is ours. I see no evidence that they care one wit about respecting our ethnocultural interests. They take what we let them have, for as long as we let them have it.

That’s one to take to parties and pull out when someone coyly asks if one is “really a racist?” I love your writing Haller, no matter what my buddy Ivan Troll, or the ever-nebbish Grimoire, has to say about you.

However, it’s whit.