|
|
|
Collective Wisdom By The Narrator The following is a “meat and potatoes” type of list illustrating some basic concepts and counterpoints to arguments we commonly see. We’ve all had experiences linguistically dueling with others, so, by all means, add your own talking points to the list. 1. Don‘t waste your time converting atheists. It has been said that C.S. Lewis’s classic Christian Apologetic, ‘Mere Christianity’ never converted a true atheist but convinced a multitude of agnostics to finally come off of the fence into the believer’s camp. In regards to the issues surrounding race there are similar divisions of people. Those being, True Believes (us), Racial Agnostics and Racial Atheists. And as with Lewis’s work being most effective at moving the agnostics, likewise we should concentrate our efforts and arguments towards the Racial Agnostics instead of Racial Atheists, who are likely to reject Racialism no matter how compelling the facts presented. You can generally distinguish between the two through basic conversation. 2. Basic facts. Most people have no idea about the demographic predicament the White race is in. So tell them that Whites today are in fact no more than around 13% of the world’s population and dropping fast. And what that means is that minorities (non-Whites) are nearly 90% of the worlds population and growing. Who is the minority here? Now if they reply with, “Yeah but non-Whites are a minority in The West (or specific countries therein),” you can point out that that argument is simply compartmentalizing the issue. Two can play that game. Blacks are a minority in the United States … yeah, and ... Whites are a minority in the Americas. Hispanics are a minority in America …. yeah, and … Whites are a minority in Chicago, New York, etc … And often along the same lines we hear that, “It’s an ever-changing world.” Well, no. New Technological toys aside, large swaths of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the middle-east (where the majority of humans live) have seen very little to no change in the last one hundred years (or more). Only in The West is the ever-changing world, ever-changing. Other areas have been able to integrate new technologies into theirsocieties without much alteration to their day-to-day lives. 3. Pointing out the hypocrisy. We all know this one but it needs repeating to keep it in mind. On the one hand we hear, “I believe race is a social construct. There is no such thing as race,” and on the other hand, “Racially mixed people are more attractive,” or some such comment. Obviously if they argue that there are is no such thing as race then they can’t un-hypocritically claim that there are racially mixed people with whom to compare “bland” un-mixed White people. With this also comes the, “I judge the individual,” types. When it comes to the topic of, say, black crime, this type always says, “Yeah, well, I judge individuals not whole groups. It isn’t fair to demonize an entire group for the actions of a few.” This very same type will then turn around and suddenly wax collective with such hypocritical zingers as, “White people sure have done the Indians bad.”
Ever heard someone talk about minority/majority relations in a historic context? About how the Indians were treated by Whites in the early years of colonization in the New World? Here is the obvious counterpoint; For at least the first century that Whites were in the Americas THEY WERE THE MINORITY GROUP! The same is true for the British in India and Africa and the Spanish and others in Asia and Latin America. Also, along similar lines of rebuttal, we often here about the historic stereotyping of minorities in media. Of course the truth is that minorities were indeed stereotyped in films throughout the 30’s 40’s and 50’s. Only, they were stereotyped as almost universally innocent, naïve, often helpful and only occasionally, accidentally, threatening goofballs. How many films prior to the 1970’s portrayed blacks as thieving rapists and/or thuggish murderers? Even with Cowboys and Indians films the main antagonist was almost always a White guy manipulating the hapless natives into going after the good guys. In fact the overall positive portrayal of Indians ( as wise-noble warriors) can be witnessed in the number of White Americans who lay claim to them as distant ancestors. 5. Understanding the definition of words. Prejudice is a word that is slung around as an insult quite a bit. What does prejudice mean? It means,
It literally means to PRE-judge. If, for example, you declare your dislike of Pizza before ever having tried it, then your opinion is prejudiced. But, if having tried it, you declare your dislike of Pizza, then your opinion is not prejudiced. The same goes with race. If you have had personal contact with members of another race, have read literature about them and studied the opinions of other who have as well, then your opinion of them, be it negative OR POSITIVE, is hardly prejudiced. Rather, it is a verdict. I add the positive above because the inverse is true as well. If someone declares a person, place or thing as being good without having any knowledge of that person, place or thing, then there positive opinion is, in fact, prejudiced. 6. ‘Here’ is not always the same place. When conversation on illegal immigration arises we often here the cry,
Or,
To this I usually reply with the fact that none of my own ancestors immigrated to the United States, legally or illegally. You see there was no United States prior to its creation in the 1770’s and 1780’s. And all of my ancestors arrived long before then. They were British colonists moving from one part of the empire to another, who, along with other such colonists, created the United States from scratch. The United States of America is an original social/legal construct created by, for and in the image of, Whites. The VERY FIRST Americans were White. So no, the Indians were not here first. That would be like saying that Indians were the founders of the Microsoft Corporation since they once roamed the land where its headquarters currently resides. Or that Geronimo should be listed amongst the historic rosters of the Arizona Cardinals football team since “he was there first.” 7. Other peoples contributed. Yes, blacks, Asians, Hispanics and others assisted along the way. But does that intimately tie them in with American identity and basic history? Let alone critical decisions about the future course of the nation? No. Just think of all the people in your own life who assist in keeping your family going. Dentists, Doctors, Carpenters, Plumbers, Mechanics, Accountants, Police, Lawyers, Ditch Diggers, Road Construction Crews, Janitors, Vendors, Farmers, Coal Miners, Truck Drivers, Fisherman, etc … All people who are often critical to the continuation of you and your family’s quality of living. Yet how many people feel the need to call up ‘Murray the Plumber’ and get his vote on where the family should vacation this year? How many people would call up the guy who dry-walled their living room last year to hear his side in determining whether grandma should be unplugged from life-support? 8. “I believe in treating everybody equally.” We’ve all heard that one. Yet nobody who ever utters that nonsense believe in it or practices it. It just sounds good to them. A good (and comical illustrative) rebuttal to that one is:-
9.You can’t judge a book by its cover. No, but you pay more for a hardback than a paperback, don’t you? Apples and Oranges are both fruits, yet I can tell one from the other by looking at their skins. Maples and Oaks are both trees, yet I can tell one from the other by observing their outward covering, their bark. 10 White Privilege. Isn’t it comical how the left implies that there is something sinister or out of place about White people socially and culturally dominating in nations where they were historically 90% (or more ) of the population? How come we don’t hear about “Asian Privilege” in China. I mean, what else could explain the lack of Ethiopian and Ecuadorian heads of state there? No doubt “Asian Privilege” explains why Japanese people dominate Japanese business … Of course there was historic White Privilege in America. Just like there was English Privilege in England, French Privilege in France, Japanese Privilege in Japan or Jewish Privilege in Israel. Talking about White Privilege in traditional America is about as necessary as talking about “Henderson Privilege” in the Henderson’s household. After all, why do the Henderson kids automatically get to go on vacation with Mr. and Mrs. Henderson? Why does Mr. Henderson only give his own kids an allowance? Why is it always Mrs. Henderson who gets an anniversary present on the Henderson Wedding Anniversary? Yes, there can be no doubt that a bigoted and insidious force known as “Henderson Privilege” is at work in the Henderson household. That’s it. So now it’s over to you ... The Narrator blogs at Signals From The Brink. Comments:2
Posted by apollonian on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:07 | # Racial-Cultural Analysis Is NOT Impossible, Given Reason Excellent posing of polemical problem, thanks. As Christian, this problem of race, its proper expo and analysis, is simple for me: for is there truth (in accord w. Gosp. JOHN, 8:32, 14:6, and 18:37)?—yes or no? Is reality objective?—otherwise how would there possibly be truth?—as Gosp. JOHN 18:38. So, given the objective premise/assumption we observe like scientists and conclude to the obvious Jew dictatorship financed/funded and enabled by means of that amazing COUNTERFEITING fraud called US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed)—see RealityZone.com for expo/ref. Further then, note reality (socio-biology) is cyclic in accord with “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler: Jew parasite disease-of-opportunity must eventually kill the host/victim, Jews then falling-out with one-another—as indeed we see by Walt-Mearsheimer CFR-Bilderberger conspirators (ck TheNewAmerican.com for expo/ref.) pt-ing “finger” at “The Israel Lobby.” CONCLUSION: So to conclude this expo, observe thematic problem is readily analyzed (again, see above); issue now is what to do and how to proceed? And again, my recommendation (see also further Apollonian expo at NewNation.org, under “commentary” heading) is to make use of Christian aesthetic with specific notation that it, Christianity, has been much mis-construed, quite deliberately by Jews and their gentile suck-alongs in their pay. Never forget then, New Test. literature is quite powerful. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian 3
Posted by Armor on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:43 | #
I agree with both Ryder and The Narrator. Maybe The Narrator’s method is more convenient on the Internet, and Ryder’s method (calling BS at once and taking the moral highground) is best suited for a real life exchange. It also depends whether or not we have more than half a minute to speak our mind.
With most people in real life, mentioning genocide is too hardcore. It sounds like an exaggeration. But we can tell them that they are racists if they go along with the race-replacement policy. 4
Posted by B Sears on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:09 | # As long as you are talking about talking to people who are unaware of what is going on, we’ve run into the http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g17.htm This only works if you have the time and place in which to have a discussion. And it helps to understand the concept of “market dominant minorities”: http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g21.htm Lacking those elements of time and place, the best thing is to compare “privilege” on a country by country basis (as above), or to simply label the person who says it as a left-wing racialist, hateful, and bigoted because he or she believes there is no variety among the diverse white American peoples, just like Obama’s label for us, “typical white persons.” And don’t forget humor. Someone on the other side once said, “A joke is a little revolution.” How true. We also believe it is better not to use a vocabulary that is inherently already corrupted, so we use terms like demographic instead of race, and whenever possible make our attack back from the left or, as Fred points out above, from the tribal concepts embedded in multiculturalism or deconstructionism. They work for us, too. 5
Posted by Armor on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:33 | # Two examples given by The Narrator: From the same TV set: From the same person: ————————————————— • Immigration (By the way, if immigrants are the same as us,
(sometimes we are told #1, sometimes #2 —it’s entirely whimsical.)
• Multiculturalism is good… • Proposition Nations / Civic Nations Arguments that keep changing over time: • Mentioned yesterday by Guessedworker in another thread: Here is a cartoon that says the same thing. Cartoon caption:
In other words, what matters is the nation, that is to say the people, not the territory. Even if journalists insist that anyone who sets foot on US territory becomes an American, that person has nothing to do with the descendants of the people who used to call themselves Americans 50 years ago. 6
Posted by Mark in Ark on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:52 | # Demographics won’t mean anything compared to wealth and the willingness to use violence. The economic chaos is just getting started; this is a great opportunity for a general house-cleaning. I’m for open borders because it means more men to work for us cheaply and more women to seduce. A great world is coming if you prepare yourself. 7
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:08 | # Mark in Ark - whats the point of your stupid (in my opinion) comment? 8
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:30 | # Mark in Ark: “Demographics won’t mean anything compared to wealth and the willingness to use violence.” Neo-feudalism? LOL! The ultra-wealthy gentile race traitors had better watch their backs if it ever comes to something like that. What’s the point of a revolution if you’re not going to clean house? At least, the wealth and holdings of the race traitors should be confiscated for the people. Time to tear down the Bastille. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:31 | # Either Mark wants to liquidate the wealthy and raise himself to the station of a new slave-owning class or he’s a fed troll, I suppose. 10
Posted by Mark in Ark on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:59 | # Power doesn’t go to the suckers who vote, dummies. Power goes to empowered individuals. Most of Obama’s henchmen will be white. All you fat, keyboard commandos need to get rich, fit and ready. Most whites will always hate you, so don’t bother with this fantasy of revolution and confiscating my stuff. White men like me can still dominate, but the cursed government won’t be involved. 11
Posted by Mark in Ark on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:00 | # Also, anyone who isn’t a libertarian by now deserves poverty and starvation. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:06 | # Mark, I think the point is that your “stuff” will be of no more value to you than your faeces. “Stuff” ceases to be any sort of defining point in a meaningful revolution. Ideas are what wield power for men, Mark. Ideas make and remake the world, Mark. If you don’t have an idea, you are no one, Mark. Who are you? 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:31 | #
Likewise if you belong to no tribe, incidentally: you’re no one. (Just thought I’d throw that in.) 14
Posted by danielj on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:41 | # Very excellent piece Mr. Narrator.
Sometimes, I find I will win an argument in a bar or coffee shop if I’m just baritone, noisy and insistent. I can scare a lot of people into submission with an initial burst of anger and uninterrupted soliloquy which psychologically preps them for the insertion of facts and reasoned argument into their softened skulls. This technique works particularly well on women when they see it applied on weaker men. That is, if they observe you do this to other men they will respond positively. I think we just have to adapt depending on the situation we are in. 15
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:42 | # GW: ““Stuff” ceases to be any sort of defining point in a meaningful revolution.” You get the lemmings on board by promising them stuff. That is what they care about. Deliver the goods and your revolutionary authority is imbued with credibility. Then, you can use the stuff (the carrot) as an enticement to get the lemmings to go along with your revolutionary program of renewal. “Ideas are what wield power for men,” At least for the revolutionary vanguard, the lemmings can be gotten to parrot ideas; but that is about it. “If you don’t have an idea, you are no one, Mark.” Mark is a lemming. “I think the point is that your “stuff” will be of no more value to you than your faeces.” Mark would have to hire mercenaries to protect his stuff. Once he had no more stuff to pay them with, I doubt they would accept his feces as payment. When all his stuff was gone he would be off no use to his mercenaries. And then… 16
Posted by Ryder on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:46 | #
(Armor) Yes, it’s a judgment call. It needs to be tailored to the situation, and you are right that it would be easy to jump the gun with it. I try not to do that. For example, it might take the form of saying something like “Let me get this straight. You are fine with whites being reduced to a tiny minority and ultimately mixed out of existence? Isn’t that a form of genocide?” You are asking a question, and you are showing them where their policies ultimately lead. You are also wrong footing them, but leaving them an out as well. This may be more effective than a direct accusation, at least with an opponent who is remotely fair. But for a vicious and slandering opponent? I’ve learned to go nuclear, and make it abundantly clear that the blood is on their hands. I’ve almost never had to do this in real life, because I rarely run into strong opposition in real life. No need to alienate someone who is giving us a fair hearing. There is also a difference between the person who is uninformed and mistaken versus the person who is malevolent. Again, it’s the nuclear option. But if delivered appropriately, it can be very effective. I’ve found that the important thing is to attack the anti-white policy, and not the person spouting the policy unless absolutely necessary. It is less toxic that way. But if I am reasonable with someone, and yet they stubbornly cling to the moral high ground - claiming I’m a bad or evil guy because I simply want my people to exist - I’m going to knock them off it one way or another. If I have to go nuclear, I will, but that’s not normally necessary. The important thing is to gain the moral high ground, and not play defendant to their prosecutor. Going nuclear is a harder call. 17
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:52 | # Mr. Sears and Resisting Defamation appear quite ready to throw “Americans” to the wolves of white privilege in order to preserve his/their precious diverse white America.
Too funny. 18
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:15 | # Mark - how’s it working out for those tough no-nonsense libertardian white guys in South Africa right now? Or do you figure there will be a different deal for whites in the future USA, how do you expect to hold your new masters to that deal? 19
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:42 | # The race replacement that shall not be named: British (Total) 2,500,000 62.5% (included English, Scots-Irish, Scottish & Welsh) 2000 U.S Ancestry British (Total) 33,700,000 11% (included English, Scots-Irish, & Scottish) Meanwhile Mr. Sears “marginalized and subordinated white American ethnic groups” (including the famine Irish Catholic from County Kerry is it Mr. Sears?) have done quite well for being “marginalized”. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:51 | # Desmond, in going after Bo you’re really picking the wrong target. Stop and think: given all that’s going on, is this man really your adversary??? 21
Posted by Ryder on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:06 | #
(Lurker) Good point. This is typical of “tough” white libertarians. They are only able to pursue their individualistic lifestyle as a result of living in a white context. The white tribe provided the cultural, legal, racial and technological foundation for the libertarian lifestyle. Had they been born as a Bantu in some godforsaken village, they would have spent their lives turning over rocks and searching for grubs. The white tribe has provided them with every opportunity that they have. The rational response would therefore be to appreciate the white tribe, and to seek to sustain it. This, of course, is not the libertarian response at all. Instead, the libertarian denounces any recognition of the white tribe as horrible and mindless “collectivism.” Oh, the horror!!! In the libertarian mind, the white tribe is owed nothing, not even gratitude. Preserve it? Why do that? All that matters is individuals. In other words, the libertarian is merely a petulant child living off of an inheritance, an inheritance that he is more than happy to squander. The white tribe paid in blood to provide him with a nation and a civilization in which he could prosper. And the amazing thing is, the child won’t even acknowledge that he received an inheritance at all! He simply claims that he earned it all himself. Such a “man” is hopelessly deluded and, if the fates had been more just, would have been limited to turning over rocks looking for grubs to eat. Instead they were born into a tribe that they will not defend, and therefore do not deserve. 22
Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:24 | # Desmond Jones on 12/29/08 at 2:52 AM claims: +++++++++++++++++++ Mr. Sears and Resisting Defamation appear quite ready to throw “Americans” to the wolves of white privilege in order to preserve his/their precious diverse white America. These are the members of the marginalized and subordinated white American ethnic groups (e.g., Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Slavic, and Greek), national-origin groups (e.g., Ireland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Italy, and Russia), Too funny. ++++++++++++++++++++ His comment may be interpreted on several levels, but the context of the quote has to do with working toward a definition or description of the class system within the diverse white American peoples, how some have doors opened for them and some have doors slammed shut in their face. The latter people we call “the members of subordinated and diverse white American ethnic groups.” You may read about it at: http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g35.htm Bo PS: Thanks Fred. 23
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:26 | # Desmond Jones: “Too funny.” At least you’re not a filthy, greasy wog; at least you have that going for him. “Mr. Sears and Resisting Defamation appear quite ready to throw “Americans” to the wolves of white privilege in order to preserve his/their precious diverse white America.” You mean the WASPs? The ones the faileocons at Takislag want to bilk some money out of? Am I a WASP if I don’t have a trust fund? Or am I just another cracker? “These are the members of the marginalized and subordinated white American ethnic groups (e.g., Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Slavic, and Greek), national-origin groups (e.g., Ireland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Italy, and Russia),” But I thought you wanted to preserve the “diverse European peoples”, don’t you? Bo just may be handing you a gift, on a silver platter; pulling arcane references out of your ass is no substitute for thinking. “1790 U.S Ancestry” German: 280,000 Dutch: 100,000 See? I told you my ass was covered. Here is the reality, Desmond: Most “White” people just think of themselves as genetically White - if that. Show the lemmings a Russo-Pollack mix and a Kraut-Irish mix and they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. Put any of the above in the ghetto of Detroit and the brothas wouldn’t be able to tell the difference either: we’re all crackers to them. Nevertheless, I agree with you in that I want to protect my genetic interests: German-Dutch-English-Scottish. Getting there is the hard part. 24
Posted by bongoparty5 on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:36 | # Number 2 is good. It’s true that very few common-folk even have an understanding of the basic demographic situation. I wouldn’t doubt if most whites think 30% of the world is of European ancestry. The true racial circumstances are never spoken of in the mainstream, they live perennially in 1964. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:46 | #
That’s no accident: there’s a very good reason for it — today’s mainstream are the ones who gave us 1965, and naturally they don’t want the alarm sounded until it’s too late to do anything about it. “Pry open the immigration doors to non-whites then keep the lid on what’s happening so the goyische Kopfs won’t suspect anything till it’s way too late politically to reverse the new demographics. Before you know it we’ll FINALLY be rid of the Eurochristians, the bane of our existence for two thousand years, FINALLY RID OF THEM FOREVER! THEY’LL BE ON THE ROAD TO DEMOGRAPHIC EXTINCTION!” That’s how the other side’s thinking goes. That’s no joke, by the way: that’s how their thinking goes at the most private innermost level. And the goyische Kopfs are too stupid to figure it out, exactly as the other side have planned on from the start. 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:52 | # The statement at his blog, ResistingDefamation.org, which Bo links to a few comments above this merits pasting into the thread. It’s a definition of the term, “subordinated & blue-collar white Americans.” Here it is (to view the material at the numerous links embedded in the original text, click on the original at the link below):
27
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:52 | #
That’s true. I phrased it past-tense though making the argument that Whites indeed did dominate socially, economically and culturally in Western nations in the past and that that was a good and normal thing. “White Privilege” doesn’t exist today in most western nations….but it should. Just as the Henderson kids should receive top priority in the Henderson household.
That is a good one.
Yeah, I guess that’s why groups like La Raza, the ADL, NAACP, etc… are so ineffective and powerless.
Of the people I’ve directly asked, most have guessed that Whites are around 50 to60% of the world’s population.
Sad, but true.
28
Posted by Homelander on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:16 | # I have found that the Achille’s Heel of any race-denying liberal is the World Population Crisis, in general. Get it stipulated in the discussion that the world is heading toward a population of nine-to-ten billion, and can only realistically support 2-4 billion at a standard of living from the 1850’s to the 1950’s…and the rest is easy. Suddenly, the most hippy-dippy New-Agers starts sounding like Himmler and Heydrich! What sense does it make to cull population among the cultures which are the most productive (per capita), best-educated, most adaptive and most environmentally conscious? As opposed to culling millions and billions from cultures where birth-rates are highest, and where lives are already blighted by insurmountable ignorance, poverty and warfare? Who could you most easily cull? Those who resemble you most? Who live in close proximity? Whose existence contributes the most to your future well-being? Or people who are both distant and/or problematic? To cap it, point out what most are only vaguely aware of - that populations are already declining in industrial societies…while the tropics are still racing to Armegeddon, and shipping the ever-replenished excess to us. Of course you never convert anyone in a single session. But you damn sure won’t LOSE the argument. 29
Posted by Armor on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:20 | #
I’m even more perverse than that. It’s not enough for me to play the defendant’s role. What I usually do on a forum discussing race-replacement is help the leftist prosecutors refine their prosecution against me. After all, I need to know what the accusation is before I can reply. But most of them are lazy and not very good at making arguments and choosing the right words. They will use words like “racist”, for example. What does that mean exactly? I’ll try to help them improve their choice of words. Alas, leftist prosecutors are impatient and not really interested in discussing finer points. 30
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:35 | # Thanks, Narrator, these are some good suggestions. Related to point 3, I like to ask people whether they would consider my views racist if the continent in question were Africa and I were black. (BTW, an important point to have at the ready is that the Bantus were still hundreds of miles from the Cape of Good Hope when the Dutch arrived). One thing that I’ve found fun in the past (especially in a pub when talking to people who are very drunk) is to take an insanely leftist position. For example, recommend that the population of Darfur be transferred to the UK until the crisis can be sorted out. Call their objections racist, adopt the race is a myth position, mention hard facts about IQ and crime and shabbily refute them. It’s wonderful to see their confused expressions as they realize they are breaking PC taboos by making sensible objections to lunacy. 31
Posted by apollonian on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:39 | # Most Incisive Info Is Point For Anti-Semitic Success, Historical Culmination, Victory, Jew-Expulsion Entire pt. to blogging and dialectic is information, this for purpose of successful action—which then, for this historic CYCLE is Jew-expulsion, logical CULMINATION thereto. “Winning” or “losing” arguments is pointless by itself—information is the pt., again. Successful action is the pt. Jew-expulsion then is necessary goal/end (culmination, again). Thus info is usually CONCLUSION to a logical process, or a clarification, which begins in observations and includes definitions which are substantial. “White,” for example, is an dependent abstraction (generalization) which is often useless and meaningless for racial-cultural purposes without strict, careful definitions. Problem for humanity presently is success of CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY (see TheNewAmerican.com for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy), especially COUNTERFEITING (see RealityZone.com for expo/ref. on US Federal Reserve Bank [Fed] fraud), which is ALWAYS masterminded by Jews and their cohorts, historically. These Jews and conspirators then succeed as they’re foremost subjectivists, hence liars (Gosp. JOHN 8:44), and especially MORALISTS (Pharisaists) who succeed as they lead people who believe they’re achieving “good,” overcoming “evil.” Thus we see “good-evil” delusion/fallacy/heresy (Pelagianism) so much animates and motivates so many people, consumed in guilt and moralism, so willing thus to sacrifice themselves, hoping and pretending to create reality, hence “good.” Anti-dote to this horrific, suicidal hereticalism is objectivity and especially HONESTY which understands there is no “good-evil,” etc. Thus historical CYCLE may be calculated according to success of the COUNTERFEITING conspiracy, pinnacle of all fraud activity, and its ability to animate the masses of people, cyclically over-populated. Jews then are parasite disease-of-opportunity which naturally preys upon such over-population and hubris of poor, deluded people. Present cyclic activity seems to be winding down for counterfeiters and associated criminals, esp. the Jew element who become evermore isolated and desperate. Thus Jew masterminds at top tend to work to BETRAY the lower-level conspirators, including even their own Jews, looking to use lower-level bolsheviki-types to create warfare diversion as masterminds seek to escape and abscond. Christian-rationalist orientation is most useful for integrating and uniting the anti-semitic element seeking to resurge fm cyclic “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler. Thus Christian HONESTY works to prevail over formerly successful “good-evil” delusion of HUBRISTIC, over-populated gentiles who become depopulated as they’re expended by Jew and associated masterminds. CONCLUSION: Thus presently most useful Christian prosecution is in emphatic info for the people regarding the necessarily anti-semitic nature (anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13) of real Christianity which Jews mask and hide by means of overwhelming funding/financing, subversion, lying, propaganda, etc., involved in “false-prophecy,” which must eventually yield diminishing returns for success. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian 32
Posted by Armor on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:26 | #
While the media are stuck in 1964, many young whites do not realize that, in 1964, the city where they live today used to be a safe place and would have felt like home. Or they think 1964 was 5000 years ago. They may not realize that the combination “white oldsters + non-white youngsters” indicates race replacement, not diversity. They may not realize that it is a very unstable situation. At least, older people remember they used to live in a white country. 33
Posted by n/a on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:29 | # The “Subordinated & Blue-Collar White Americans” excerpt, apparently aimed at promoting grievances against founding-stock Americans by “ethnic” types, is an example of exactly the sort of “white” identity politics that have long been seen as politically correct and beneficial to the left. You’ll find the myth of the evil WASP and the oppressed Irishman and Eyetie widely promoted in “the institutions of higher learning like the University of California and the Ivy League colleges”, in Hollywood movies, and on PBS. If this is where Bo Sears stands, then, yes, he is my adversary. CC, Again, you need to shut the hell up about WASPs. You are severely lacking in knowledge and perceptiveness. Here is Gottfried trying to butter up rich WASPs earlier this month:
Oh, wait. Am I a WASP if I don’t have a trust fund? Or am I just another cracker? You’ve obviously got some class issues to work out. Have you ever met anyone with a “trust fund” (much less a “WASP” with a trust fund), or have you just internalized from television that rich WASPs are bad people who look down on you because you’re poor. 34
Posted by Armor on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:31 | # They may not realize that it is a very unstable situation. 35
Posted by n-tard on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:58 | # The n-tard’s behaviour is quite the comedic show. He’s a Nordic caricature of Archie Bunker for fuck’s sake. If WASPs are a mere fraction as vile and blatantly hostile as n-tard’s alter ego on these boards is, then there is no further question why they, meaning WASPs, are “despised” or ganged up on, especially by the Jews. Do your peeps a favour, n-tard, and shut your pie as they are on the edge of the precipice and are not in need of your “gentle” pushes. 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:40 | # Apollonian is spamming, and not contributing to this discussion. Insomuch as these things work at all, I have excluded him. 37
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:52 | # n/a: “Again, you need to shut the hell up about WASPs.” Oh? Not shut the “fuck” up? “You are severely lacking in knowledge and perceptiveness.” If you’s says so boss. I’s be good. “Here is Gottfried trying to butter up rich WASPs earlier this month:” I won’t bother going into the (many and varied) ways Gottfried changes his tune, obfuscates and slimily slips along to his next career venture. I will say this: I was there, I saw, I know; and you were not. Facts don’t speak for themselves, they need to be spoken for (Christ, I hope I don’t sound like Richards - no, I don’t think Eisenhower was a Jew, no I don’t think the Jews took Lindbergh’s baby - and I doubt he does either). All I can tell you is: I was perceptive enough to pick up on Gottfried/Spencer’s plan to filter Nietzsche through the prism of Mencken - weeks in advance - due to subtle hints they made. Trust me in this; and if I am wrong, oh well, I’ll concede your point. “Oh, wait.” Yessa, boss. “You’ve obviously got some class issues to work out.” If you’s tess me boss, I’s believe. “Have you ever met anyone with a “trust fund” (much less a “WASP” with a trust fund), or have you just internalized from television that rich WASPs are bad people who look down on you because you’re poor.” Listen, you ascribe to me pettiness falsely. I’m perfectly well aware that “WASPs” with “trust funds” put on their pants one leg at a time, and that “death is the great equalizer”, and all of that. I’ll continue to call it like I see it and if I am wrong I will retract my pronouncements - after having seen how events play out. Got that? I will confess: I do enjoy applying crude, gallows and hyperbolic humor, hopefully, to rhetorical effect; it is my way, maybe because I’m a “cracker”. I hope you will henceforth bear no ill will towards me for I bear none towards you. Alright then. 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:24 | #
Not at all: you’ve misunderstood its purpose, which is to protest against the other side’s (the pro-race-replacement side’s) denial of the rich diversity already inherent in the broad European group, a denial implicit in their insisting Euro populations badly need injections of “diversity” while ignoring that we’re already diverse, diverse ethnically, diverse culturally, diverse religiously, diverse linguistically, etc. We’re highly diverse. Bo’s purpose there is to affirm that the diversity already inherent in the very diverse Euro group is quite sufficient thank you very much all well-meaning race-replacement advocates: we can get along perfectly fine without your attempts to “diversify” us, just trust us on this: we don’t need your infusions of “diversity” meant solely, we’re sure, we’re absolutely certain, to help us and with only our very best interests in mind. That’s Bo’s purpose: to reply to those people (and tell them where to get off and to stick their nose out of our affairs). 39
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:55 | #
By James Fulford
40
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:14 | # Martin Scorsese participated in Q&A;discussions following a December 4 screening in New York and a December 15 screening in Los Angeles of his latest film, Gangs of New York. Director Steven Spielberg moderated the discussion in Los Angeles, returning the favor of Scorsese moderating a discussion with him about Catch Me if You Can in New York. What follows are highlights from the Los Angeles discussion.
41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:12 | # Martin Scorcese is filth and so’s Steven Spielberg. So’s “The Gangs of New York.” They’re all irrelevant filth. I nearly always read Desmond’s comments with profit, but this trio? I can’t see why he’s soiling this blog’s pages with this stuff. In consecutive posts, yet. Do the makers of “Taxi Driver” and “Schindler’s List” have aught to teach us? 42
Posted by n/a on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:55 | # Gottfried’s loyalty is not to whites of any type. This is why he can talk shit about “WASPs” one day and (correctly) point out that many Catholic paleocons hate America, the next. if I am wrong, oh well, I’ll concede your point. You are wrong. And if you were right—if Paul Gottfried were secretly plotting to milk billions from “WASPs with trust funds”—this would justify your attacks on “WASPs” how? Listen, you ascribe to me pettiness falsely. So how many “WASPs” with trust funds have you met? 43
Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:07 | # The Departed kicks ass. I’m not the greatest film critic and I’ve yet to see “Gangs of New York” but I think there is a mile of difference between the The Departed and Schindler’s List. Taxi Driver sucks but that is because it is self indulgent and has a way too happy ending. 44
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:06 | # n/a: “Gottfried’s loyalty is not to whites of any type.” His loyalty is to “the [j]ews”. He figures that if the White West is diminished and if Jewry’s more obnoxious actors are not checked Jews will be in a bad way. He’ll ally himself with whom he has to - and to advance his career - to achieve his objectives. “You are wrong.” I believe I am right. Listen to Gottfried’s latest Political Cesspool interview and then tell me what you think. “And if you were right—if Paul Gottfried were secretly plotting to milk billions from “WASPs with trust funds”—this would justify your attacks on “WASPs” how?” Gottfried said the faileocons will need billions of dollars for their own media (where do you suppose this money will come from?), on the Political Cesspool. In a comment he made, which I believe has been deleted now, he touted the virtues of Richard Spencer (his lisping hand puppet) as a “WASP”. They are looking for yuppie coffee house intellectuals for their Mencken Club. Put the pieces together. Why don’t you tell me precisely what “WASP” means to you. Protestants of English descent? Or is it the general northwestern European founding stock that assimilated into “WASP” culture? If the latter, then I am a “WASP”. So no biggie. “So how many “WASPs” with trust funds have you met?” A few, some were of low character (or at least very “messed up”) and some were solid people (no, I did not enquire into their precise ancestry, so if there was a Kraut in the woodpile, I don’t know). 45
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:55 | # Just had a wild idea, what if Desmondism (sorry Des, but I associate it with you) provides the ultimate Trojan Horse for WNism? Isn’t intra-European identity and animus a nice cheap way of going viral? Europeans begin thinking about themselves and other Europeans in explicitly genetic ways, how long does anyone think Bantus are going to fly under the radar? Just a wild idea, mind you. 46
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:54 | # Svigor just above is exactly correct. Desmondism is the most powerful form of (what Svi calls) WNism (as everyone knows, I avoid that term). The Jews trot out their “whites don’t exist”? OK but they can’t say Swabians don’t exist, or Catalans don’t, or Poles don’t, or Maltese don’t, or Ruthenians don’t, or Welshmen don’t, or Ulstermen don’t, or Lusatians don’t, or Tuscans don’t, or Albanians, or Yorkshiremen don’t, or East Anglians don’t, etc. Jews, Negroes, communists, and degenerates can’t get around Desmondism with their sophistries that fool all the clueless women voters and the feebleminded goy college professors like See the Boring Disgrace (C. Loring Brace). “That Negro’s a Britisher!” “Oh he is, is he? Well that may be, I wouldn’t know — but he sure as hell isn’t an East Anglian: I know what East Anglians are, I know what they look like, I know what their history is, I know what race they are, and that Negro sure as hell ain’t one. And the same goes for Cornishmen, Kentishmen, Yorkshiremen, Scousers, Manxmen, in fact the whole lot of the men making up England, Scotland, Wales, and Ulster: ‘British’ he may be, if you insist, but he’s none of those others. So take your crap and go peddle it elsewhere please — to Israel preferably, since that country’s kinfolk are the ones principally trying to ram it down everyone else’s throat! Let them have a taste of their own medicine for a change!” Svigor’s got it exactly right. And notice how viewing things in this way dovetails perfectly with Norman Lowell’s Regionalism, as the solution for the future of Europe. 47
Posted by Armor on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:46 | #
They will say that swabishness all comes down to values, not race. Swabia is a proposition region. In fact, Swabian Jews have the highest claim to Swabian values, as they have been living in Swabbia for generations, and you cannot question their patriotic regionalism. They are the most Swabians of the Swabians, and not in a narrow nationalistic way either. They are also in good terms with Israel, which is a fascinating example for every downtrodden minority in the world. They have been able to resurrect a language that had been dead for more than 2000 years. I think the Scottish National Party, the Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru, the Parti Québécois, and other similar parties now support the replacement of their own people. At least, I think their leaders officially support the idea, and their members are afraid to dissent. What a betrayal! They see the difference between a Desmond and a normal white person, but they say they can’t see the difference between a Bantu and a white man. (Go figure…) There also exist reasonable separatists: the best example is the Vlaams Belang. 48
Posted by n-tard on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:00 | #
To add to Armor’s rebuttal, we already have all the science and righteousness on our side that we will ever need. More science, though welcomed, is superfluous. The genocidalists or mass murderers, which ever you prefer, will move along, unabated, until something stops them dead in their tracks. Another irritating scientific fact is not it because one cannot derail an ideology with facts. Destardism and n-tardism is simply small minded axe grinding. Yes, let’s all jump on the that “Eyetie” and “Tacky” bandwagon shall we. That will lead us to Valhalla alright. 49
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:55 | #
What Armor says is basically accurate. However, of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England, it is the English that received the brunt of the onslaught. Ditto for Quebec. It is English Canada and more specifically the Greater Toronto Area, the region that was most affected by mass ethnic European immigration, that is most recently changed by the mass non-European immigration. Quebec, especially outside Montreal (which again was originally Anglo dominant and received mass ethnic European immigration,) is still overwhelmingly ‘pure laine’ Quebecois. 50
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:11 | # Armor, n-tard, what “they” say isn’t the problem. The problem is that people believe them. But how long are people going to believe them when intra-European racism has warmed up? The point is that anti-racism doesn’t protect whites. So intra-European racism could percolate and serve to erode race-denial without setting off alarm bells. And the anti-racists would have to stoop to defending whites to counteract this. Just food for thought. 51
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:15 | # I was reading a few Dienekes comment threads when this occurred to me; I noticed that the WNs were attacked, but the Polack Nationalist wasn’t. Whites simply aren’t trained to protect one another, and this might be a good way to get the foot in the door. Or it might be a potential disaster, I dunno. 52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:49 | # Svigor, The concept has born fruit. Haider was an example in Austria.
Interestingly, here is the ADL defending Poles, Russian and Slavs as well as Turks. It appears to be a rising theme especially in light of the recent Holocaust ‘greatest’ love story a hoax.
Still, the Austrians at the time, supported Haider in numbers that would make the BNPs head spin. Italy’s Northern League used the crime of the Roma to target all Romanians and the Greeks, according to HRW, display ‘systematic’ failure to protect migrant children, particularly Albanian. 53
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:46 | # Yeah, sounds like a winning scenario; whites bash other whites but wind up as ethno-nationalists. Or more accurately, wind up as unashamed ethno-nationalists. Love the hoax. Europeans have a hard time understanding how a whole ethny could be so different as to do what they themselves find incompehensible (collectively gin up a self-serving big lie). 54
Posted by Armor on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:32 | # About the strategy of bashing other whites: - I think it has not been a problem for the media in Britain to encourage defiance against continental Europe while cheering the replacement of the English by non-whites at the same time. - The anti-EU propaganda is always ambiguous. We don’t know if it is anti-European propaganda in the old English tradition, or if it is a rejection of the relatively recent race replacement ideology of the EU. - I think it is funny how Margaret Thatcher sent the navy to the Falklands and allowed a few hundred European sailors to end their lives at the bottom of the ocean, while she was afraid to stop immigration from the third-world to Britain. English nationalism is not very useful if it only applies against other whites. - The western media do a lot of anti-American and anti-Russian propaganda, while the neocons do a lot of anti-European and anti-Russian propaganda. I think it all boils down to anti-white propaganda, much of it of Jewish origin, and I think it is an obstacle to racial awareness. - English journalists are allowed to criticize the immigration policy through the particular case of Polish immigration. It could be a good thing, but it also results in more propaganda to deny that we are white people. 55
Posted by Bill on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:01 | # Armor on December 31, 2008. About the strategy of bashing other whites: 06:32 PM. My take on this is it is the strategy used by the media to deflect attention away from focussing on third world non white immigration. Whilst the stupid British are preoccupied with bashing Polish plumbers - then they are not focused on the other. To even allude to, or discuss negative connotations with non white immigration is seen as a heinous crime (discrimination) and could earn the transgressor a hefty prison sentence. This double standard is so transparent to the awakened it is risible, but to the Kev’s and Sally’s it passes them serenely by. In Britain there is a relentless media war against whites. It comes in two forms, subliminally visual and in your face disgust. The target is the white working class dumb fatso. (trailer trash) I don’t watch television as a rule, but I do make a point of catching the major BBC news bulletins. Again, the methods are so transparent, the all white prison population being supervised by guess who? the non white warder boss man. Positive education reporting, straight to a black face. Negative reporting, straight to white face. In most instances of signifier of authority, it is the non white face (often female) who is head honcho, dishing it out to the stupid white male. The media is also rewriting history, the next Fryer Tuck (Robin Hood character) is to be a non white. It is obligatory that every children’s programme is headed by a non white authoritarian figure, my grandchildren accept this as natural as they have never known it any different. Again, the negative consequences of eating the ‘wrong’ food - straight to a white face, often haranguing tones being direct at the target. Single parent families? Why, whites of course, never the other. Bashing social benefit recipients is in fashion at the moment, Guess who? Never the other! Why go on? you get the drift, suffice to say the television media elites are engaged in total war against the the host nation male - championing the race replacement agenda. Black is good, white is bad. Our people are so saturated with this stuff that their eyes glaze over - I despair, I really do. 56
Posted by n/a on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 03:37 | # Why don’t you tell me precisely what “WASP” means to you. Protestants of English descent? Or is it the general northwestern European founding stock that assimilated into “WASP” culture? If the latter, then I am a “WASP”. You’re the one who needs to define exactly who you’re attacking and why you’re attacking them. I generally don’t find “WASP” that useful a term, and people throwing it around on the internet tend to be confused. “WASP” was created as a pejorative to describe people who before would simply have been called “Americans”. 57
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 06:30 | #
It’s the whole point, even if the immediate post war (WWII) period is examined. The English continued to desire cheap Irish Catholic labour. Ian R. G. Spencer, British Immigration Policy since 1939: The Making of Multi-Racial Britain (p.82)
58
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 07:54 | # “Many considerations counted against the adoption of legislative restrictions on ‘coloured’ immigration in November 1955.” - Spencer, British Immigration Policy since 1939 “It is right and good that we should rule our empire for our own benefit.” “But many of our subjects are not White, is that why we are able to rule over them? Is that why we should rule over them?” “No. We aim to make them their better selves.” “Wouldn’t they be more able to become ‘their better selves’ if they could come here and learn amongst us?” “Of course not!” “But why not?” “Because then they would be here! We do not want them here.” “But why?” “Because there are so many of them more than us. Having lifted the floodgates they would one day be our masters; and not us theirs.” “So we are their ‘masters’?” “Yes, of course.” “But why should we be their masters?” “For the reason that we are the better men; this arrangement is to their benefit and ours.” “So it is better to be the master than the underling?” “Of course.” “Then it is better to continue to be the master and foolish to give up being the master?” “Yes!” “So even if the underling will one day be capable of mastery it is foolish for the master of present to allow him to do at the expense of himself?” “Yes…” “So granting our subjects were to be one day capable of being our equals it would be foolish to let them come ‘here’?” “Yes! As I have said.” “You also said they would become our ‘masters’; why not our equals and citizens?” “They are not us! That is why.” You mean there are differences between them and us?” “Of course!” “Are those ‘differences’ the differences that better equip us to be the master and not the underling?” “Yes, now that you twist it out of me.” “But then why do we maintain the pretence of making them our equals if they cannot not be, nor if they could, would it be desirable that they be?” “My young friend, you have much to learn of the world.” “But how will I learn but that I ask and am told by men with more experience than I?” “I have grown tired, and your questions are beginning to bore me. It is best we not discuss this in future. Good day!” LOL! Nutty Brits. 59
Posted by fascist on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:48 | # A strategy of “bashing other whites.” “Majority Rights” finds its way at last. About the strategy of bashing other whites: 06:32 PM. My take on this is it is the strategy used by the media to deflect attention away from focussing on third world non white immigration. Whilst the stupid British are preoccupied with bashing Polish plumbers - then they are not focused on the other. Some sense. As the whites “bash each other,” the Bantus will be flying in under the radar. There’s a reason why “Polack nationalists” are not attacked on Dienekes’ threads, and why “WN’s” are. The same reason why the American establishment allows some degree of white ethnic activism and organization, but becomes hysterical about any race-based activism or organization. The latter is seen as a viable threat. The former is not, and rightly so. Divide and conquer, and atomized opponents are dealt with in turn. If they “bash each other,” so much the better. The Russians would have had an easier time against the Wehrmacht if the Prussian, Bavarian, Saxon, etc. members of the latter had been “bashing each other” rather than opposing the enemy as an integrated unit. The Freedom Party in Austria (which as far as I know is still not in power, despite recent electoral success) of course opposes Eastern European immigration into Austria, and rightly so. Why a policy of “Austria for the Austrians” needs to be equated with “bashing other whites” I’m not quite sure, since my understanding of the Freedom Party’s overarching ideology - similar to that of other nationalist parties in Europe - is that they want an Austrian Austria in a European Europe. They are Austrian politicians, speaking to an Austrian electorate, so their prime concern is the well being and character of Austria. However, as far as I am aware, they support other Europeans defending their own nations, and would view negatively, for example, if Russia were over-run with Muslims (or Chinamen). Salter’s concepts in “On Genetic Interests” accept, for example, that a person will invest more time in their personal and familial interests than in the ethny, but that they should prudently invest something in the ethny, and when the ethny is threatened, levels of investment at that level should increase. But “ethny” need not be monolithic. Austrians need to invest in their ethnic ethny, but not forget about Europe/the West as a whole. An Austrian Austria would not survive for long buried within a non-European Muslim Europe. Strache knows this, I’m sure, as I am equally sure Haider knew it as well. The idea that the only two options for Austrian nationalists are 1. bash all non-Austrian whites, wish them ill, act against them, and hope they are destroyed, or 2. eliminate all distinctions between Austrian and non-Austrian whites and welcome 10,000,000 Russian immigrants to Austria - is a false choice. That’s absurd. There’s a huge middle ground between those two extremes, ground fertile for political explorations. Fred of course misses that Lowell’s regionalism is balanced by something else. But that’s the whole point. Ethnic nationalism and racial nationalism are not mutually exclusive. They can be, and should be, complementary. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:00 | # Desmond’s excerpt from Spencer a couple of posts above explains at a glance why the British royal family have consistently taken a firm position in favor race-replacing the British peoples with non-whites: all their training has always told them the Commonwealth must be supported almost at any cost, to the point where they place the Commonwealth above the nation in a sense. Desmond’s excerpt explains how according to the thinking of the day, the mid-1950s, the kind of race-based restrictions on immigration that friends of MR.com, let’s say, consider in retrospect would have been perfectly normal, fair, humane, and simply without alternative if one wished to avoid national suicide, were unacceptable because by amounting to racial favoritism they risked 1) stoking Commonwealth-weakening racial resentments, and 2) inviting retaliation against British overseas business interests (and as the excerpt explains, they couldn’t implement non-racial across-the-board restrictions as a way of keeping Jamaicans out, because that would deprive them of cheap Irish labor from the Republic). The British royal family still doesn’t see the error of its ways unfortunately, even at this late date, when everyone with eyes is staring the worst Euro catastrophe in ten thousand years right in the face: the British royal family still firmly supports the race-replacement of Britain. For this reason the Queen, Prince Philip, and Prince Charles have to be considered as much in the enemy camp as David Aronowitz, Ted Cantle, David Milliband, and Johan Hari. They’re no different. They are the mortal enemy of the British people now. 61
Posted by January 1st Obituaries on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:40 | # In my judgment the British royal family are dupes along with the rest of us goyim. Something tells me they’re no more knowingly complicit in the annihilation of the White race than John McCain or George W. Bush is. 62
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:58 | # About the notion of “whites bashing each other”: in supporting Svigor’s idea I wasn’t supporting “whites bashing each other” by doing the sorts of jaw-dropping Euro-sticking-it-to-Euro crimes we’ve all seen, along the lines of the Walloons and the Quebeckers deliberately filling Montreal and Brussels full of French-speaking non-whites just to bolster French-speaking numbers for the war against, respectively, the Flemings and the Canadian English-speakers, and lots of other crap that has been pulled in intra-white wars. As Armor has reminded us, there’s also the example of Sinn Fein supporting massive non-white immigration into Ireland, and as Desmond and n/a have often pointed out, the “ethnics” who’ve immigrated into Canada and the United States, groups such as the Ukes, Italians, Greeks, Poles, Portuguese, and others, have too often aligned themselves with the Jews in favoring the complete destruction of the European societies around them merely as a way of striking back at what they see as an oppressive Anglo-Saxon societal heritage (actually it’s not oppressive at all of course, it’s just that it makes them feel self-conscious for standing out as dagoes — which they are, but if they would just shut up and get on with it, behave themselves, comport themselves right, strive to adopt the ways of the country they’re in, no one would hold it against them or even notice: in any event, the Jewish strategy of trying to inflict death and destruction on the surrounding dominant societal matrix just because they feel self-conscious for standing out “as Jews” is flatly the wrong, in fact the worst conceivable, approach to solving the “problem” of being a dagoe or Jew in white society and the non-Jewish “ethnics” are of course extremely ill-advised to align with or ape the Jews in this). I wasn’t endorsing Euro-Euro “bashing” but Euro identity on a sub-national level of the type Lowell refers to as the proposed foundation of his “Regionalism” which I strongly support as the future for Europe. I do think that would be the strongest form of what others here call “WNism” (a term I prefer to avoid the way I would avoid calling all who are free of tuberculosis “non-tuberculars” or something: no, they’re not properly called “nontuberculars” — as if “tuberculars” are one form of normalness — but “normals,” there being only one normalness, not two, and “tuberculars” aren’t it). 63
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:23 | # My comment just above was a partial reply to the concerns expressed by “Fascist.” As for Dienekes, like GW I for one was accidentally taken in by his log entry listing his proposals for according Greek citizenship. I thought they were race-based in part and therefore sane. It turns out there was a loophole in them — leaving off the final S on the word parent — a loophole which, when considered in its full implications, totally removes race as a consideration since unless “parents” in his formulation is plural, infinite dilution is possible. There’s something wrong with Dienekes: his logical faculty is clouded, completely disabled even, by precisely the thing “Fascist” opposes above, namely intra-Euro enmity, enmity so strong (against northern Euros in Dienekes’ case) that he feels no Eurowide racial solidarity and is without fail filled with Schadenfreude whenever a Euro group to the north of Greece’s northern border is threatened with demographic catastrophe through immmigration or what-have-you, and not only that, his intra-Euro hatreds are so deep-seated that he publishes formulations that promise to destroy even the Greek race if ever implemented, and actually persists in defending such Greek-destroying formulations when challenged explicitly on those ground in his comments thread!!! This man is not completely sound mentally, but allows hatreds to gravely cloud his judgement. 64
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:33 | # The kind of ginned-up ethnic intra-European nationalism that places other European ethnicities on a par with non-Europeans is clearly insane - both strategically and factually. Factual it is not. Strategically it may place Europeans back at each other’s throats if brought to its logical conclusion. “A strong Europe of strong nations” is the way to go. Healthy rivalries that reaffirm national/ethnic identities are best left to the football field (and to the football hooligans). 65
Posted by Armor on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:48 | #
In a normal world where people accept as a matter of course that any invasion from the neighboring nation must be opposed, you would expect them to understand that a third-world invasion must also be avoided. In Brittany, a few years ago, bills were posted along the highways with the message: “Brittany for the Bretons”. It is ambiguous as it can be interpreted as a slogan for self-rule, as an anti-French slogan, or as a stand against our replacement by third-worlders. Some of the Breton separatists will argue that it doesn’t matter if our immigrants are old-style French or if they belong to the new model of French citizens, since both groups will deny our identity anyway. Saying that is a great way to annoy the French stato-nationalists (who do not like us). It is also a way to repel accusations of racism. But some people will find that “Brittany for the Bretons” sounds like a slogan for knuckledraggers, even if they basically agree with it. I think it has now been cast aside for a softer one: “Breton, Maître chez toi” (master in your own house). There was also another one I liked: “For a Breton Brittany, in a European Europe”. I know that in the USA, a European-American club would be denounced as an abomination, whereas African, Chinese, or Korean clubs are all right. Is it any easier to have a Polish-American club? Maybe a Polish-American club would accept other whites?
From what I understand, the said Walloons are members of the Socialist Party, and they are importing voters. But I guess most white people in Wallonia are against immigration, even though they vote for the wrong politicians. In Quebec, I don’t know who came up with the bright idea to import French speakers from Haiti, but I don’t think they were a big help in the referendum for independence.
In Brittany, French immigrants do not exactly consider themselves as dagoes, and I don’t think many of them are immigration enthusiasts, but they will still resent any affirmation of the Breton identity, and they will back the French state and its citizenist ideology that leads to population-replacement. In the same way, Bretons who move to the Island of Corsica may not support the Corsican identity.
You could say: the anti-genocidalists. (it sounds awful, but the meaning is right).
I think “race” is much worse that “white nationalism”. Proposals for according Greek citizenship should be based on your nationality/ancestry, not race-based. (It basically says the same thing, as there is no way you can belong to a European nation if you belong to an exotic race). “Blood” should be avoided too. If you say that proposals for according Greek citizenship should be based on jus sanguinis, it makes you sound like a vampire. 66
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:59 | # Armor, Quebec’s import of Haitians was engineered by a Catholic missionary, Jacques Couture: http://www.amren.com/ar/1991/03/ After the separatists lost the last referendum for separation in 1995, the head of the Parti Quebecois (Parizeau) said that the vote was lost because of immigrants and Anglo-Quebecers. Stating the obvious (from exit polls) got him in trouble, but he shrugged it off in impressive fashion. French descendants in Quebec have among the lowest birth rates in the Western world. I think the separatists realize their dream is over now. Thanks to the foolish immigration policies of the separatist party itself. 67
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:25 | #
But Armor, “blood” in this context is naught but the old word for “genes.” I like that word. Furthermore, you’re saying you feel “blood” shouldn’t even be used in its Latin version??? But doesn’t Latin “sanitize” the word? Are you sure??? I’ve come to think of “blood” in these contexts as pretty tame, both in English and in Latin! 69
Posted by Armor on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:05 | # “I like that word.” Me too! I come from a race of sailors, and the ocean is in my blood ! 70
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:34 | # Was Time Magazine Jewish-controlled in 1969, n/a? I think it was. That article you linked fairly reeks of Jewish-style tribal attacks on Euros, Jewish tribal attacks skillfully camouflaged as “objective reporting.” 71
Posted by Mark in Ark on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:53 | # Brits are beyond saving and beyond redemption. Americans need to cut them off and only ignore or mock them. They aren’t worth our time. Also, the chavs deserve contempt, just like Muslims and blacks. 72
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:00 | # Mark in Ark contributes zip. Just like last time he showed up. Things a little slow around Richard Warmann’s office, Mark? Killing time here? 73
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:03 | # n/a, Most illuminating. From the article you provide: “Purists like to confine Wasps to descendants of the British Isles; less exacting analysts are willing to throw in Scandinavians, Netherlanders and Germans.” This is consistent with the spectrum of definition I have been operating under. The common element of the peoples listed is that they are Germanic. It is important that the genetic interests of these founding Germanic elements be protected. Mostly, to my knowledge, they adhere to certain regions; with eastern and southern Europeans adhering mostly to other regions. So I don’t think pushing the panic button is regards to inter-“WASP”-“WOP” “miscegenation” is in order. A reaffirmation of identity (For some this word is a sticking point, but it is the abuse of a perfectly good word that is the problem: “The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group.”) that is objectively valid is in order. “Although it is possible to exaggerate the decline of the Wasp, who has never really left the center of U.S. power, he is indisputably in an historical retreat.” The “historical retreat” has taken on the proportions of “WASPs” being water-carrying shabbos goys for the you-know-who’s. We’ve gone from Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent to the Ford Foundation. I understand the Jews can be tricky, ruthless power players, but come now, that is just ridiculous - and unacceptable. If I have an “axe to grind” with “WASP-elites” it is that. “The big change came with the waves of migration from Europe in the 19th century, when many of his citadels—the big cities—were wrested from his political control.” The loss of our cities, not so much to the Irish and the Italians, but to non-Whites, is one of the great tragedies for those of us alive now, and those to be born. City life in New York, as portrayed in, say, the movie King Kong (Peter Jackson), was magic. It is the vision of things like that which motivate me to “take it all back”. A palingenetic dream I suppose, oh well. “Jews stand out sharply in the nation’s intellectual life, and Jewish novelists are beginning to overtake the fertile Wasp talent.” LOL! I tried reading Norman Mailer’s The Naked and the Dead once. It was like 700 pages too many of the Saving Private Ryan script. Garbage. Saul Bellow (I read his Ravelstein) is nothing much above mediocre is my opinion. A much better read regarding the underbelly of “WASPdom” is anything by James Ellroy. Why is it that the Jewish writers don’t do depth? “Scarcely a single Wasp is a culture hero to today’s youth; more likely he is the bad guy on the TV program,” Well, we’ve got Agent Jack Bauer risking his tail for the genetic interests of sub-Saharans. Oh, wait, that isn’t much better. “Such is the hostility to the Veiled Prophet parade, an annual Wasp event in St. Louis, that the queen and her maids of honor last year had to be covered with a plastic sheet to protect them from missiles tossed from the crowd.” And now the queen (I recall seeing her speech about the blessings of divershitty in her last visit State-side, I believe a few years ago) is like, “Screw you crackers.” Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson can go get bent as well. Here would be a good project for Jonathan Bowden: write some history to counter their pro-globalization, race-replacement drivel. What do you say, Bowden? Do you think Ferguson is smarter than you are? I don’t know man, Ferguson’s got an awfully big brain. Why not get in the game and see what you can do - just saying. 74
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:39 | # A PERSONAL MESSAGE TO JONATHAN BOWDEN! Write a pro-White history of the Anglosphere, you know, slyly slanted so as to proclaim our unique racially endowed virtues and why we ought not be genocided. Now that is some news we could use. Here it is dude, it’s all in the book, BUY THE BOOK. Or else we could commission “Mark in Ark” and “apollonian” to hammer something out. GW, why not get Bowden on the horn and run it past him? Or do race traitors like Fergie and Robberyts get the final say? I know, I know, very presumptuous on my part. But… 75
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:33 | # Parizeau said ,
It translates as, and Fred can feel free to differ, money and the ethnic vote, the meaning of which in Quebec, differs significantly from immigrants and Anglos.
76
Posted by Bill on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:06 | # From longish piece by Auster over at VFR 1.1.2009
In brief, the Jews’ support for Israel is based on liberalism, and their support for Muslim immigration is based on liberalism, and they cannot resolve the contradiction between these two liberal positions. Any takers? 77
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:44 | # There’s nothing new in Auster’s position. It’s not liberalism but what best serves the interests of Jews that is the motivator. He will never admit it. The amusing thing is that he continues to assert that the answer is particularism. Israel clearly defines what particularism is for them. However, Auster never defines what American particularism means. Most certainly, it does not exclude Jews, not even the Postville Lubavitchers. 78
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:10 | #
That works great till the moment Jamal Mulattoesskie walks through the clubhouse doors.
Calling all White people “Anglos” is like calling all Asians “Koreans”. ... 79
Posted by Bill on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:14 | # Here’s something I’ve been sitting on for quite some while now, don’t know whether I should throw it in here or not. (Puzzle) Our risk averse politically correct media elites go banging on alarmingly, (intentionally of course) about the certainty of another terrorist attack, whilst at the same time allowing millions of likely lads in through the back door. (None discrimination – tolerance – cognitive dissonance) 80
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:19 | #
Auster is a Jew, thus Auster is not White. Of course jews support muslim immigration into The West. The Arabs are their cousins. Who do you think facilitated the muslim invasion of Europe in the middle-ages?
. 81
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:19 | # Desmond, you are right. I’d forgotten that it was money and not Anglos that he mentioned. At the time of the referendum, I remember the national press making a big deal out of how multi-ethnic Montreal was voting majority No. The message: Algerians and Haitians who have moved there have made our country better (of course, no mention of Jews). I don’t live there anymore, so rarely follow its politics. Canada is a weak proposition nation. Hockey, a goofy love of flag (which must be sewn onto all travel luggage and clothing when heading abroad) and unquestioning love of diversity. 82
Posted by Matra on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:54 | # After the separatists lost the last referendum for separation in 1995, the head of the Parti Quebecois (Parizeau) said that the vote was lost because of immigrants and Anglo-Quebecers. Stating the obvious (from exit polls) got him in trouble, but he shrugged it off in impressive fashion. DJ is correct. Nor did he just shrug it off ‘in impressive fashion’; he resigned a day or two later. Most Quebec nationalists distanced themselves from the remark. Although Deputy Premier Bernard Landry was later accused of blaming Jews and Americans for the narrow referendum defeat. In the case of the Americans that’s a reference to Bill Clinton’s support for a united Canada. Hockey, a goofy love of flag (which must be sewn onto all travel luggage and clothing when heading abroad A history teacher told my class that if you wore a maple leaf Europeans would be nicer to you as they’d know you’re not American! All Canadians seem to think its true. Just last week someone said so to me. Europeans think its comical. Poor Kiwis always get confused with Aussies and their flag doesn’t help as its virtually identical Australia’s. 83
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:25 | # Hockey - Yes this years world junior entry is very colourful. The great Canadians/Canadiens are virtual absent from today’s team. At least there are still “Americans” who are playing the game. A goofy love of flag- except in Quebec. Of course, it wasn’t always that way. 84
Posted by Matra on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:31 | # Likewise if you belong to no tribe, incidentally: you’re no one. That’s the problem for Anglo-Saxons in North America. They’re good loyal ‘Canadians’ and ‘Americans’ when everybody else puts tribe first. Already at a disadvantage as they miss the benefits of tribalism what happens to the Anglo-Saxons when other tribes divvy up control of the police, courts, and good jobs? I’ve found that getting them to think about such things is more effective than any philosophy, genetics talk, and, of course, racial animus. Add in lack of reciprocity, of which there are examples every day, and even citizenist Anglo-Saxon Canadians start to think more tribally. The problem is getting them to think about such things in the first place when we have no direct access (media, schools) to their brains. 85
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:36 | # The links appear broken.
86
Posted by Bill on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:12 | # The Present Belongs To The Devil “The madness is an amorphous beast, and it is still remarkably unaffected by the awful financial and economic reality. It has many names—multiculturalism, one-worldism, tolerantism, inclusivism, antidiscriminationism—that demand engagement abroad and wide-open doors at home. Both abroad and at home, the impulse is neurotic; its justification, gnostic. It reflects the collective loss of nerve, faith, and identity of a diseased society, producing a self-destructive malaise that is literally unprecedented in history.”.....read more http://signalsfromthebrink.blogspot.com/ I call it the madness of postmodern Liberalsim. 87
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:00 | # I just read that whole SignalsFromTheBrink blog page (not just the single entry) at the link Bill posted above. “The Narrator” is a very good thinker: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. A good man! 88
Posted by Bill on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:25 | # Fred - just above 02.20pm. After I had posted (above) 10.12am I returned to Signals From the Brink blog and discovered my taster had been excerpted from another article in Chronicles. The original article, published in Chronicles is entitled ‘Le dernier mot: Washingtonian madness’ I apologise if I/ this misled you - my bad. However, I do agree wholeheartedly with your endorsement of ‘The Narrator’ he has a fine blog. The essay by Srdja Trifkovic is excellent too. 89
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:40 | #
That’s my fault for not making it clearer there. The “exerted from here” as the source at the bottom is meshed in with the quote and is hard to see. The Srdja Trifkovic essay is well articulated. I didn’t add any comment to it because of that, and because I had a long week and I’m having trouble putting two sentences together today anyway. And thanks for the encouragement.
Thanks again Fred.
Post a comment:
Next entry: Britain, centre of world terrorism
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:00 | #
Good piece. Good job!
“White privilege” isn’t a “left-right” variety of political attack mounted by “the left” on “unfairly privileged Caucasians” but a tribal attack mounted specifically by Jews or the Jewish tribe specifically against Europeans or the European tribe. What you’re seeing is a salvo in a tribal war, exactly like between the Hutus and Watusis. Looked at in this way the attack makes perfect, consistent sense.
“Leftists attacking rightists,” or some such, is the wrong way to look at it. “Jews attacking Euros on a tribal basis” is the right way. Then it makes crystal-clear sense and you’re not mired endlessly in trying to comprehend miasmas like po-mo liberalism that are basically non-existent.