|
|
|
Got it in one The Sydney Morning Herald is to be congratulated for carrying a heartening story of academic freedom and truth-speaking. In a letter to the Parramatta Sun Associate Professor Andrew Fraser (reg req) had said what we all know to be true :- “... an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems ... The fact is that ordinary Australians are being pushed down the path to national suicide by their own political, religious and economic elites.” It appears that he then followed this up with an e-mail to a Woollahra councillor, raising some blindingly obvious concerns about the consequences of large-scale Chinese immigration:- “Look at the annual HSC results - the consequence of which is that Oz is creating a new heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will feel no hesitation … in promoting the narrow interests of their co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians.” Finally to the Herald he declared that it was only the “educated middle class” who opposed his views. “I think most ordinary people would find what I’m saying more or less self-evident,” he said. Prof Fraser emigrated to Australia from Canada. One must suppose, therefore, that his is a voice of experience. It looks like he will keep his job in the Department of Public Law at Macquarie University. But good luck to him anyway. He’s a brave man. Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:28 | # He means African. His initial complaint arose from seeing a picture of a Sudanese child in the Paramatta Sun. 3
Posted by Andrew L on Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:34 | # The Abbo’s without walfare a lovely people, certainly not academic, but in hand with Leftoid deseptions in History, The Abbos in part helped save some white communities when in flood areas, they saved 40 50 white asses because they did not listen to the advice of the elders. But that theory is rellivant whilst The Abbo’s are with their enviroment, and the least education as a guide line for conduct. Some go further and assimulate, and do become productive.But that is the Indiginous abbo, The Leftoids product of Ethnic and Race aparthite has made all nations into very toxic formula ,and she is about to blow. If to choose living near an Abbo or Arab, well then understand the word Survive of the fittest, and it would not be the ethnic. Ethnic here is the anti culture of prevailing attitudes, the National attitude will prevale. 4
Posted by Andrew L on Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:55 | # GW, for a Fairfax publication to print this material , must mean some heavy leftoid idiots must have got the sack. I had to double check the source. Fairfax is like the BBC, or ABC, communist propaganda orientated, and indeed slipping away in sales and demand because of it. This is a good sign of turning attitudes. 5
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:39 | # Andrew F, I wish you were down here in Melbourne! There’s now about 20 of us here in Melbourne, mostly uni educated, organised into a conservative network. Our intention is to build up conservative publications and support independent conservative candidates at elections. I’m also in touch with people in Adelaide and Sydney with similar interests. So please don’t think in the coming weeks that you’re entirely isolated in your views or that there is nothing happening politically at the moment. 6
Posted by Andrew L on Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:15 | # Ha Mark, If I lived in Melbourne, Branks would have me in his Gulag, ha. 7
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:31 | # This is unbelievable. This is akin in magnitude to when Professor Rushton came out with his data on black/white/asian differences in intelligence. The press ate him up alive at that time. I am quite curious to see what the reaction to this will be. As for Professor Fraser, he appears to be stepping up as one of the awakened…
8
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Jul 2005 08:44 | # Mark, Brilliant work. I wish you well with that, I really do. Of course organisation is the key. Our whole problem has been that only one brave man at a time, like John Townshend or Chris Brand in Britain, has spoken out. It needs ten, twenty, fifty right-wing, able and informed academics and politicians to plan and act in concert. Numbers offer protection and provide the critical mass to make a breakthrough at national level. They can’t be ignored. The individuals involved don’t have to be committed WN folk, though there is no reason why not. They can be traditional Conservatives, they can be libertarians ... anybody who is concerned for Western Man and wants the truth of his situation to conquer lies. I only wish we could generate something like that here in Blair’s paradise. 9
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:22 | # our whole problem has been that only one brave man at a time has spoken out Exactly. They get knocked down one by one and no institutional progress is made - the next outraged individual finds himself having to start from scratch which is a daunting prospect. 10
Posted by Mark. on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:18 | # What an absolute load of bollocks you lot come out with. Get a life, get an education, travel the world. I’m male, whiter than white, pure anglo-saxon - and I fear no man or woman. I say welcome to anyone who wishes to immigrate to Australia. I’m interested in them and their culture and I’m confident enough in my own beliefs to adopt from others what I wish to (I love a good pasta and a laksa ...and wasn’t crouching tiger a great movie).... Those of you who want to keep Australia male and white obviously do so out of fear .... your cowardice stinks .... I can smell it from here .... open your arms and welcome the world and have enough courage to know that embracing other cultures and identities does not mean that you will lose your won identity ... hell ...you might actualy learn something .... 11
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:42 | # > you might actualy learn something .... Like how to spell? 12
Posted by AD on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:30 | # I’m male, whiter than white, pure anglo-saxon Yeah,you do sound like a typical castrated white boy,no non-white would be so submissive.They laugh at you,just like i do.You’re a parody. Those of you who want to keep Australia male lol??? 13
Posted by AD on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 06:58 | # open your arms and welcome the world and have enough courage to know that embracing other cultures and identities does not mean that you will lose your won identity I guess you havent been to Sydney lately.Whites are a minority there now.It is rare to see one.How can a white person in Sydney ‘embrace other cultures’ any more than they have?They embraced until they became the minority.The logical conclusion of your ‘open armed’ worldview has become reality.Your speech should be aimed at non-white Sydney residents,telling them to embrace and accept the white minority. Something tells me they wont really care what some self-hating white boy has to say. 14
Posted by Mark Richardson on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:56 | # Mark, You are no more fearless or open-minded or well-travelled than anyone else here. You are, at the moment, heavily influenced by a liberal culture which tells you that your role as a white male is to prove how open and accepting you are to foreign cultures and peoples. The problem is that this “embrace” of the “other” has gone so far that it really is undermining the future existence of Anglo-Australians and our national culture. Do you really believe that this tradition will survive when Anglo-Australians have been reduced to a tiny percentage of the population through the effects of immigration and intermarriage? If the current situation continues for long enough then Anglo-Australians will simply cease to exist, as will all the European peoples. This will not enhance “diversity” despite what the liberal culture tells you. It will simply wipe out the Western portion of the world’s ethnic cultures. If you are as fearless as you say you are, you will realise that now is the time to take on your most basic role as an adult male, namely to honourably defend your own tradition, so that it can be safely handed down to the next generation. This is the most worthy task you can set yourself at this point in history - savouring laksas and suchlike is for smaller hearted men. 15
Posted by Splinter on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:04 | # Ok I have seen the TV articles, read the papers, read Stormfront, greenleft and this site. I want to know WHAT RESEARCH this man is quoting. I mentioned googling “black on white homoside” and getting USA statistics. This is not relevant to new Sudanise immigrants as most of the “black” Americans are decendant from the Slaves that were introduced to the Colony. He also refered to some research showing they had lower IQ’s. Can someone provide this reference. As an intellengent person I would like to know the background before agreeing to disagreeing with this. 16
Posted by Splinter on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:07 | # What I see here as the argument is that if we don’t stop we will become the minority and that will be bad. Is that because historically the minority has allways been treated unfairly? Are we afraid of what the new majority may do to us and our society and beliefs? 17
Posted by Mark Richardson on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:40 | # Splinter, it’s not easy for an ethnic group to preserve its existence. At the very least, such a group needs to maximise its cohesiveness by having its own schools, churches, newspapers and associations in which its own cultural identity can be freely expressed and valued. It also needs to have adopted a set of political and religious beliefs in which its own existence is valued and promoted. An ethnic group will do even better if it has its own homeland, so that it has the resources of the state at its disposal and so that individuals are likely to meet and marry people from within the group. We are losing these conditions in the West for our own ethnic survival. It is not just a question of becoming a minority and being treated badly (though this is possible). Even if the new majority were to treat us well, we will have undermined what is needed to keep our own ethnic traditions going into the future. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:48 | # In college they used to have a thing called “prerequisites”—you weren’t allowed to take a course without having taken the prerequisite course(s) first. This was so you have some idea of the basics without which you couldn’t understand the course. You weren’t allowed to take, for example, Calculus of Vector Functions without having taken Elementary Calculus—something like that. Splinter has wandered into a classroom without having taken any of the prerequisites—one of which, Splinter, is the ability to understand that two plus two equals four: it doesn’t equal five, three, sixteen, the square root of minus one, or anything other than four no matter what the race-replacers, leftists, Wall Streeters, self-abnegating Christians, white-Christian-phobic Jews, women voters, members of the Bush family, or your room-temperature-IQ friends “Mark.” above or Danaus in the other thread may have told you (that’s “Mark.” with a period after, not Mark without—Mark without is normal, not a sick, twisted degenerate who richly deserves to be kicked out of Australia, like the first one is). 19
Posted by Splinter on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:14 | # Ok Mark I take your point that to keep a culture you must live within that culture. I also understand that culture is not a static thing and is constantly changing. and I also understand that this is one of the issues Andrew has, that they are setting up subculture sections and areas in our (and their) country. But how far do we take this, should Ireland be split into the Catholic and Prodostants as obviously they cannot live in harmony. Fred, about the prerequisites, that is what I was asking, from the “outside” I cannot see any logic in Andrew’s argument. I think Mark before you did a much better job of expressing his/your concerns. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:18 | # “I think Mark before you did a much better job of expressing his/your concerns.” Mark suffers fools better than I do. 21
Posted by Splinter on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:25 | # Fred, thanks for the explanation. I will remember to seek out patient teachers. 22
Posted by Silverhand on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:35 | # So, Mark Richardson, do you feel any sympathy for how your people systematically tried to destroy the native culture of this country when they arrived? I doubt it. You’re a bigot of the highest order standing up now and whining that you’re losing your cultural identity to migrants. Your cultural heritage (all 200 years of it) is based on exactly what you now apparently oppose, migration and cultural integration. Perhaps if you got some of your lazy white boys and girls off the welfare system, and got them out there working for a living, you wouldn’t be supporting a culture that is effectively killing itself. I’d rather have a vietnamese migrant who works 16 hours a day to make a living and keep this country going, than a lazy-assed white boy who spends 8 hours a day surfing while claiming the dole. You need to get a perspective on what this country is, where it came from, and where it’s going, either that or you need to update your copy of “Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles” because the scratches are starting to show through. 23
Posted by quirky01 on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:38 | # Here we are, gentle people, living in the Twenty-First century. Here we are, citizens in a land where we are fortunate to have a standard of education higher than most other nations on this tiny planet. And here we are, with all the benefits of science and social progress, engaged in a slack-mouthed, genital-fondling debate born of pure superstitious ignorance. Welcome to Australia, circa July 2005, where the white supremacists have learned to hide their bowel-clenching terror at all things different in the soft-sell argument of simply protecting the alleged white ethnic minority. Marvel that the anti-miscegenists have learned the value of political correctness! Welcome, welcome—but only if you’re white; we don’t want any of those… “darkies”... gracing our shores, because, well, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary as expressed by the majority in this forum, they’re less intelligent than we are. And we don’t want any of those inscrutable “slanty-eyes”, either, because, damn it all, they’re smarter than we are, and what this country apparently needs is a significant reduction in smart people. Thank the good white Lord in the caucasion-only heaven above that we have people like Fred Scrooby around to help us reduce intelligence without the need to evict any Asians! Sadly, gentle people, Australia is a 2nd-world country with 1st-world pretensions and expectations. The people you are so eager, so happy to detest—you know the ones? The ones who come here and work hard and study hard and do the jobs we will not do for the pay we will not accept and make a success of themselves—yes, those people—are vital to our struggle to stop our slide into 3rd-world-nationhood. And even more sadly, gentle people, Australia, according to a growing number of scientists, is already doomed. Because of Asian and African immigration? Oddly enough, no. Because of those other “slanty-eyes” (and, gad, they’re filthy Muslims as well!) to our north? Actually, no again. Because of our soil. Soil salination is shaping up to be the single biggest threat to this nation that it has ever faced. And one day in the not too distant future our economy will very likely face a meltdown we will not be able to recover from, as we are forced to buy products from overseas markets that our own primary producers will no longer be able to supply. So, can I have a show of hands of those of you who hate immigrants, who shuddered at the thought of accepting “queue jumping boatpeople” and felt they should be sent back to die quietly (or, at least, back where we wouldn’t have to be troubled by their screams), will be staying behind to stoicly starve to death when we become refugees from our own crisis? Please, please—don’t rush me all at once. Feel free to be ashamed of yourselves. Shame can be an opportunity to learn. For myself, I’m ashamed that I must claim kinship with those who have so much who would actively hope to withhold it from those who have little, or nothing at all. But I will face up to my shame, and I will hope to learn that it is no longer acceptable to allow hate-mongers and extremists to speak out unopposed. What remains to be seen is, what will you learn from the shame you so richly deserve? Anything at all? 24
Posted by john rackell on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:24 | # Silverhand, thanks much for lecturing us bigots on the virtues of hard work. Your Vietnamese working 16-hours a day sure must sure free up a lot of your spare time to write these pieties, on the Internet no less. Tell that lazy-ass “white boy” that all he needs to live the good life is corral himself a stable of immigrant slaves, and you get all the public subsidy you want, you know, the immigrant’s health care subsidized by the taxpayer, free education for his umpteen children, without any sense of shame. Talk about subsidies, Silverhand, you’re as much a pig at the public trough, more so, in fact. Conservatives would like to quash the self-destructive welfare system as much as they’d like to end destructive immigration. But there’s too many self-serving vested interests, like yours, to be making much headway. So are you Australian, Silverhand? You write of Australia as “this” country, yet you sneer at the Anglo-Saxo settlers who built it from scratch, you sneer at Australian beginnings for being only 200 years old. The virtue of people like you posting here is you show what it means to have an ethnic genetic interest: people who venerate their country’s history because of the bloodties to their forebears who made it. We don’t need your sympathy we need to wake up enough of our own people (Anglo-Saxons) to the rot in our foundations. [Apologies to Australians for taking a slightly Australian point of view, but our enemies are all the same] 25
Posted by john rackell on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:30 | # ‘Quirky01’, as a gentle peace offering to you, may I recommend imbibing a few bottles of beano: that is sure some bilious gas you are emitting. But thanks for the reminder of the woolly headedness we are up against. 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:58 | # “But thanks for the reminder of the woolly headedness we are up against.” Exactly, John Rackell. Quirky01 is showing us the enemy—it’s he, and all his misfit ilk. He and they are what we are up against. He’s clearly not Jewish, by the way, but a white gentile—though not everyone is white who has white skin and white parents: whiteness means something, it has a meaning, and what it means is completely lacking in this piece of walking, talking, meaningless, soulless protoplasm. These bizarre organisms, these quirky01s, these Mark.s, these Danauses, these Robert Lindsays can’t be communicated with but only bypassed. Bypass this one, would be my advice. Bypass him completely. You could stand here till Doomsday arguing with this piece of nothingness and get strictly nowhere. Time’s precious, too precious to waste on those who’ve utterly missed the boat in life. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:07 | # Needless to say, the same goes for this “Silverhand.” By the way, ideally these non-entities would say what race they are and whether or not they’re homosexual. (White male homos are among the biggest, most fanatical race-replacement advocates. There are exceptions, as always—Gay Homo who posts here, for example, doesn’t seem to be obsessed with pushing race-replacement—but by and large they’re some of the staunchest supporters of white genocide through race-replacement, white male homosexuals are.) 28
Posted by quirky01 on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:09 | # Hi John, Thank you for your cogent refutation of my comments. Oh, hang on, you didn’t include any! My mistake. Please continue in your ignorance. Oh, hang on, you already are! 29
Posted by Silverhand on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:23 | # John, rather than sneering at history, I’m trying to show you that you are the product of what you are now so vehemently opposed to - migration and cultural integration. Call it irony, call it bigotry. It was fine for your ancestors to come here and dilute or erradicate the extant cultural identity of this country, take over and enforce your goodly white Christian sentiment on all those people who really according to you were so far below us white people that you were really doing them a favour anyway. The sooner we take over and remove all of those commie, pinko, gay foreign queue-jumpers the better. Sig Heil! You seem to be of the opinion that “White is Right”, and if this is the case, God help this country. I for one don’t want to be saved by your righteous holier than thou isolationist fascism. 30
Posted by quirky01 on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 18:42 | # Fred, The funny thing is, you see me as the enemy, while I see you as a disease. You are a virus, and like a virus, you destroy your host, oblivious to the fact that you guarantee your own demise in the process. Let me give you a simple piece of homespun advice. I’m sure you’ll ignore it, because it won’t fit comfortably within the narrow walls of your mind, but someone else may read it and profit from it. “Beware of simple solutions to complex problems.” It’s a wonderful phrase, and has so many applications. In particular, it applies to you and, what was it? Ah yes, your “ilk”... in that if you imagine that the solution to all your petty problems and inadequacies can be achieved through, gee, let’s just make the country white, and white people will never screw me over or will never try to take what’s mine or will never kick over my sandcastle on the beach, or whatever unresolved issue lies at the base of your hate, then you’re more stupid than I give you credit for, and it’s a wonder you know how to turn a computer on, let alone hook it up to the internet. I’m neither Jewish, homosexual, mixed-raced or any other member of your knee-jerk hitlist. I’m a white (whiter than white, in fact—I’m so white you could use me as your surrender flag) heterosexual Australian of well-above average intelligence, and the simple fact is, it wouldn’t bother me to be Jewish, homosexual or mixed-race, if these were things I happened to be, and I wouldn’t give a damn about your drooling, back woods opinions on the matter if I was. And bypass me? Yes, I imagine you wish you could. 31
Posted by john rackell on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:03 | # Silverhand, it’s not that “White is Right”, it’s about where my duty and loyalty resides, both to my own past and to my future, if I can secure it. It is based on blood-ties. Those blood-ties are white and Anglo-Saxon because I am white and Anglo-Saxon. Your attitude to the white youth scrounging on the dole is to replace him with a hard-working immigrant. That is about as wretched a solution as cutting off one’s own arm because it’s gotten infected. I don’t cast the lout out because he’s a bum, I need to try and raise him up because as he goes so goes my own future. Relative to some arbitrary Chinese or Indian that white bum you disdain is my own child. It was fine for your ancestors to come here and dilute or erradicate the extant cultural identity of this country, Yes, ultimately, it was fine. The Anglo-Australians built a prosperous nation both from the good inheritance they received from the mother country, which they carried in their blood, and from their own perseverance against the odds. The Anglo-Australians settled Australia. In as much as other peoples came and prospered it was because of this foundation, which multiculturalism has cast into disrepute. No Afghan, of Sudanese refugee has any claim to the patrimony of the first Settlers and they know it. 32
Posted by quirky01 on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:19 | # Hi John, So let me see if I have this right. People you don’t know—no fault of your own, they died centuries ago—came to this country and carved a nation out of it. And, because they were white, you have a greater right to be here, simply because of the lack of pigmentation in your skin, than someone who is willing to come to our country and work hard at making it a better place to live? This is seriously your point of view? I ask because at first I thought, “Aha ahaha, he’s being funny.” But further reflection has made me suspect that you’re actually being serious. Please tell me I’m wrong. 33
Posted by john rackell on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:25 | # Thank you for your cogent refutation of my comments. Quirky01, the refutation of your arguments will probably come later in this century when the immigrant descendants you’ve allowed in your country devour it from the inside, as the Dutch are being devoured not on the battlefield but in the maternity wards of Dutch hospitals, where more than 50% of the babies are born to Moroccan and Turkish immigrants. How can I refute you when the brutal slaying of a Theo Van Gogh in Holland has no effect on your thinking, not to mention the other crimes of ethnic cleansing in Northern England that are never reported in the press. But I didn’t need the recent mass slaying in London to convince me of the treason of letting other tribes invade our homeland. This site isn’t about disputing what is apparent before our eyes, it’s about formulating an adequate response to it. 34
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:43 | # Quirky & Silverhand, We have, I think it’s fair to say, distilled a threshhold test for discussion of race on this blog. It is this question: Do you concurr that European Caucasians should seek to secure their futures in their own lands? Now, answering this question is not that straightforward because it can’t be answered without an understanding of the actions and effects of ethnic genetic interest. So a race denier, for example, cannot answer it. Instead they can only say: “I am a race denier.” Only if you understand ethnic genetic interest - albeit perhaps imperfectly - are you in a position to answer. For example, you could say: “Although I understand ethnic genetic interests I believe it is the moral duty of European Caucasians to demonstrate liberalism to the world.” You get my meaning? We can discuss this issue racially or politically. But we cannot discuss it through the prism of sour leftist emotions, which is what you are visiting upon us thusfar. Answer the question - don’t dodge it - and we’ll see if there is any chance that enlightenment for either party will follow. 35
Posted by quirky01 on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:59 | # John, You see, you say things like more than 50% of the babies are born to Moroccan and Turkish immigrants as though there was something self-evidently wrong with that. That, I’m afraid to say, is pure nonsense. If those immigrants are law-abiding, productive members of the society in which they now live, then can we do something to increase the percentage? At the same time, what can we do to decrease the percentage birth rate of law-breaking, non-productive members of the society, regardless of race or colour? Sadly, I assume a significant subsection will be white, but we can hardly avoid facing that unpleasant reality, can we? I’d like your thoughts on this problem, in your own time. And where in heaven’s name were you when the IRA was bombing London? Hiding under a rock reciting the “white people don’t hurt white people” mantra? Or is it less offensive to you when whites kill whites, for some reason? And, cough, ethnic cleaning in Northern England? Not reported in the press? I assume this pearl of intelligentsia must then have come from some “we only speak the truth” web site or other, because the press regularly ignore controversial stories that would lead to increases in newspaper sales. Well known fact, that. Mmhmm. Next! 36
Posted by john rackell on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:12 | # People you don’t know—no fault of your own, they died centuries ago—came to this country and carved a nation out of it. And, because they were white, you have a greater right to be here,... Those first Australians were collected and put on convict ships from the same farms and towns as my own ancestors two hundred years. We were of the same blood, spoke the same language, revered the same history. I could walk into an early Australian town and be amongst kith and kin. Just as a Patel born in England can return to his ancestral village in India, never having seen it in 4 generations, and be treated as a long lost relative. Precisely because he is their long lost relative. That is the claim of Ethnic Genetic Interest. It’s also why that same Patel, ‘Englishman’ though he may be, has automatic right of return to India, notwithstanding he’s ‘English’, that no other English Englishman has. That is Ethnic Genetic Interest manifest. You see, it’s not such a minority interest by people like us as you may imagine.
But I’m glad to give you a bit of laughter. You also help me to clarify and solidify my own thinking. 37
Posted by quirky01 on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:20 | # Hi GuessedWorker, We have, I think it’s fair to say, distilled a threshhold test for discussion of race on this blog. It is this question: Do you concurr that European Caucasians should seek to secure their futures in their own lands? Interesting attempt to limit the conversation to your own talking points. Ultimately, either your position will stand up to reason and ration—and thus far no-one has expressed anything remotely reasonable or rational in defense of an anti-immigration, pro-white agenda—or it won’t. And, be honest, ‘ethnic-genetic-interest’ is a buzzword you’re hiding behind because it shelters your world view from criticism and analysis. You’re promoting racism and bigotry, while attempting to hold it forth as some basic right built into your blood. Well, let’s talk about blood. Let’s talk about the fact that every human on the face of this planet shares a common ancestry with one woman—referred to as Mitochondrial Eve—and that this one woman, our grandmother to the tune of 10,000 generations ago was… anyone? Yes, that’s right, she was black. Encoded in your very DNA, good white folk, are the mitochondrial DNA strands of a black woman. But wait! It gets worse! Every living human also shares a common male ancestor, though he lived more recently than Mitochondrial Eve. He is none other than Y Chromosonal Adam and, egad, he was black as well! I know, it simply makes your skin crawl, right? No matter how much you bleach those genes, no matter how much you wish it weren’t so, you have black DNA betraying your Aryaness at every turn. The inherent irony is so breathtaking it makes me want to laugh until I weep. Next! 38
Posted by john rackell on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:21 | # You see, you say things like more than 50% of the babies are born to Moroccan and Turkish immigrants as though there was something self-evidently wrong with that. That, I’m afraid to say, is pure nonsense. As Guessedworker says, that is the threshold of discussing race on this site. We acknowledge it is self-evidently wrong. White Western Liberals have no claim on Moroccan or Turks to become anything other than what their blood is: Moroccan or Turk. Especially no mouthing one world platitudes will make them become cloying multiculturalists. Blood will out in the end. Regrettably for some European countries the end may already be on the horizon. 39
Posted by Silverhand on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:24 | # Tell me John, do you advocate Australia ejecting everyone of non-Anglo heritage, simply because they are the curse of God-fearing white Australians, responsible for all of the attrocities committed in our country, all of the crime, all of the dispicable acts that we read of every day in the paper? Or is it because you feel you have some God-given right to whatever it is you want and these people don’t simply because of your racial and cultural superiority? Isn’t it incredibly ironic then that a large portion of Australians claim heritage from criminals (myself included), white criminals that is John. No surely that can’t be, white people don’t have the predisposition to rape, murder, or steal, surely that was something the Chinese gave us with fried rice, or the Japanese with sushi. As Quirky01 says, be careful of simple solutions to complex problems. I am sure you are convinced that without any foreigners in this country, the hatred amongst whites will miraculously disappear and we will all live out our days in mutual respect and harmony. Wake up! Such myopia is alarming. Yes you need to do something about your “wayward child”, but name-calling and pointing the finger at foreigners as the root cause of any potential self-destruction is easy. Racial reactionism as a basic knee-jerk reaction held by poorly educated and socially inadequate feeling xenophobes. I would have thought by your lucid comments you were neither, but alas I fear I am wrong. Again I say, I am not interested in your radical chants of cultural purification, not when you gleefully reply to It was fine for your ancestors to come here and dilute or erradicate the extant cultural identity of this country, with Yes, ultimately, it was fine. 40
Posted by quirky01 on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:41 | # As Guessedworker says, that is the threshold of discussing race on this site. We acknowledge it is self-evidently wrong. No, no—you believe it is self-evidently wrong. I believe otherwise. That’s the wonderful thing about opinions—you get to have them even if they’re ignorant. And, interstingly, you single out the murder of Theo Van Gogh as being some banner crime for racial purification. When Martin Bryant - a white man - walked into the Broad Arrow cafe in Port Arthur in 1996 and executed 34 people, did you respond by thinking, “we need to evict all the white people from Australia”? I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that you did not. He was just one white guy killing lots of innocent people. But when a representative from an ethnic minority kills white people? Oh, well, you know, that’s different. Next! 41
Posted by john rackell on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:55 | # Tell me John, do you advocate Australia ejecting everyone of non-Anglo heritage, But generally in regards to immigration to the West the very first thing we must do is stop immigration immediately and fully. I think the BNP in England have articulated a reasonable strategy for repatriation. It can’t be coerced it should be incentivized. But if immigrants remain and don’t bring their birthrates in line with the host (white) population then more stringent policies would need to be adopted (apologies to the BNP if this is not exactly their position).
I guess I wasn’t quite lucid enough. Hanging will account for those whites with those predispositions. This is a bit of a strawman on your part. In as much as there is a white person in true need, it is in my own interest to help that white person, he is more likely to reciprocate. The reciprocal obligations I owe to other whites are much greater than I owe to orientals, Africans and likewise vice versa. The rest of what you wrote is a liberal arguing with some liberal bogeyman idea of what I believe. If you are sincerely interested in knowing then I’m interested in telling you, otherwise have a goo’day. 42
Posted by Silverhand on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:57 | # So, answer this then John, is this an ideology that everyone is allowed to adhere to, or just us white folks? Do other nations have the right to repatriate the foreigners in their country? Do the West Indians have a right to repatriate the whites who now live there? Do the Japanese have the right to evict Australians, English and Americans? Do the Black South Africans have a right to deport the Boer’s? I ask because I have this strange feeling that you’ll probably disagree with this, simply because us white folk, culturally and intellectually superior that we are should be welcomed with open arms by these obviously culturally bereft nations who so desperately need some good ol’ white lovin’. And if by some miracle of liberalism you think that indeed these folk do have such rights, would you care to elaborate on the socio-economic collapse of the ‘mother country’ that would result? It’s all good and well to espouse such radical separatism, but would you care to also tell me what such policies would do to world trade? Import? Export? Travel? No man, not even a radical right wing neo-nazi like yourself lives on an island John, but perhaps this is exactly what you want, to take us all back to before the Age of Enlightenment. Perhaps you should go back to the Mother Country John and “Fight the Good Fight” alongside Griffin and his cronies, and when your country is awash with repatriated pure-breds fighting for work and wondering why you can’t agriculturally or economically support yourself, and why nobody in the rest of the world wants anything to do with you, too bad, so sad, have a nice day. 43
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:21 | # Listen to the words of Silverbush and Quippie:
There was no systematic elimination of aboriginals in Australia, the United States or elsewhere. There was killing, fighting on both sides, and intra-group fighting as well. We, the Whites won the wars AND I AM HAPPY ABOUT THAT. We had the technology and power, and I much prefer that it that way. No guilt here. > where the white supremacists have learned to hide their bowel-clenching terror at all things different in the soft-sell argument of simply protecting the alleged white ethnic minority. I don’t soft sell anything. I want white ethnic interests to continue to be paramount. > I see you as a disease. You [Racially Aware Whites] are a virus . I think any white that reads that such things should realize that war has been declared upon us, nobody has said it so clearly
I only wish our Australian bloggers had the fight in them. Where are they? We have to learn to stand up to types like Squiggy and Poopy, take them on wherever they are and never concede and inch, and root them out. 44
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:31 | # Q & S, We have a rule which I impose on everybody in my house and which applies to you: we respect one another’s views, howsoever they differ. This is not a bearpit. In so much as we brawl with one another we do so with ideas rather than cheap, faux-moral accusation. Sometimes the best of us falls below this standard, for sure. But the standard applies. Live up to it and you are welcome here. Now to revert to that threshhold question. You are not going to engage any thinking right-winger on a racial issue unless you can argue from ethnic genetic interest. That is the basis for all honest racial considerations. If you DON’T address it you are, at best, arguing politically. That is a completely different argument which I am quite willing to have with you. But try to understand where one stops and the other begins. At present, it is abundantly clear that you do not. 45
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:39 | # “Encoded in your very DNA, good white folk, are the mitochondrial DNA strands of a black woman.” (—quirky01) Races, species, genera, and so on, have genes in common but aren’t identical to each other because some of their genes aren’t shared. People have nearly identical genes to chimps and largely identical ones to mice but aren’t the same as chimps or mice. Fifty percent of yeast genes are the same as their homologous genes in humans. Humans don’t resemble yeasts, however. Small genetic differences are associated with what are significant differences in physical phenotype and in behavior. People don’t look or act like chimps, mice, or yeasts, and white people don’t look or act like Negro people or Oriental people. The differences in all these cases are partly genetic and there’s no reason they have to imply differences in a large fraction of the genotype. The same thing goes for your “Y chromosomal Negro ancestor”: Negroes aren’t known to have existed 70k to 100k years ago, and second, whites aren’t Negroes but whites, and this difference between the two races is genetic. If whites and Negroes had identically the same genes they wouldn’t be whites and Negroes but all whites or all Negros. Having genes in common doesn’t make organisms the same. You keep trying to prove whites are Negroes by pointing to a common ancestor but if that were proven by that it would prove people are apes, since they too share a common ancestor. 46
Posted by Mark Richardson on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:47 | # John Rackell, Some good posts which Silverhand and Quirky aren’t ever going to get. But maybe some other readers benefited. Just one point to add to: the Aborigine question. Silverhand is of course pushing a double standard here. If it’s so wrong, so “fascist” to want to preserve an existing ethnic tradition, then the Aborigines ought to have welcomed the Europeans in 1788 with open arms as the harbingers of the wonders of diversity and multiculturalism. Furthermore, if Silverhand were to be consistent he ought to condemn all those Aborigines, like Noel Pearson, working to preserve a future for the Aboriginal race. Silverhand ought to ascribe negative motivations to the Aborigines also: fear, hatred, lack of acceptance, lack of tolerance, ignorance and so on. Of course, he won’t do this. He will be utterly inconsistent and insist that the preservation of an Aboriginal ethny is a positive virtue, while attempting to do the same for white Australians is an utter abomination. At least, I as a conservative can be consistent. I do want the Aborigines to gain a homeland within Australia where they can secure a future. But I want the same for my own tradition, a tradition which represents the mainstream ethnic culture of Australia. I know how Silverhand will answer this. He will say that the Aborigines are a special case because they are the indigenous people. But again, he will be utterly inconsistent in this argument. If an Englishman were to claim similar rights in virtue of being indigenous to his own country, Silverhand would still shout him down as an evil racist. Silverhand cannot run a straight argument. He is a victim of a liberal philosophy in which we may only form our identities through self-chosen or individually achieved qualities: identifying on the basis of qualities which we inherit, like race and ethnicity, has simply been rendered illegitimate by this philosophy. And so the natural instinct toward ethnic kinship, which John Rackell so eloquently defends, is thought of as being “beyond the pale” by liberals like Silverhand. 47
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:07 | # Just like Jan Sobieski arriving to save Vienna from the Turks, Mark Richardson arrived to save the honor of Australia! And, as always, you’ve done it right. Anyway, John Rackall, why don’t you submit an article to GW to post on MR. I’m sure you’d do a bang-up job, I’m sure you’ve got some interesting things to say. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:12 | # Notice neither of this pair was willing to answer the question whether or not white-Euros have a right to preserve themselves racially intact into the future. Their attitude is Euro-whites are morally obliged to pass out of existence racially lest their continued existence offend, discomfit, annoy, threaten, or otherwise displease non-whites. 49
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:54 | # Silverpalm, > Do the West Indians have a right to repatriate the whites who now live there? Do the Japanese have the right to evict Australians, English and Americans? Do the Black South Africans have a right to deport the Boer’s? Generally, Yes. I’d argue. BUT > Do the Black South Africans have a right to deport the Boer’s? The Boers (1659) were in Southern Africa before the Bantus. The British brought the Bantus in 150 years later to work in the mines. So, to be consistent, the Boers have the right to evict the Blacks. 50
Posted by john rackell on Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:56 | # Mark, Geoff, thanks. It unsettles them when they realize we can write a coherent sentence and don’t have horns protruding through our locks.
Just broaching an idea and you may or may not be politically aligned with the BNP or have other reservations, but the VoF seems one of the few bright spots in challenging the MSM in the mass market, at least in England and could serve as a model elsewhere. The audience for VoF is probably not committed WN’s, just people who want an unbiased news source and don’t necessarily want to eat a full plate of what is discussed here with their cornflakes, but they would accept small doses along with the sports scores. The BNP has put out appeals for more help from professionals in England to broaden their relatively working class base. That’s why I think anyone who can write would possibly be accepted and would be very influential. Right now liberals set all the terms of the debate through their 100% domination of media. 51
Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:08 | # John Rackall is right. We must support groups and leaders that are fighting on our behalf. I’m only able to glimpse from afar the BNP but they seem very solid on issues. We must start giving money and time to these groups: “build it and they will come.” In the USA political leadership on behalf of whites is NULL. But the race agnostic groups like FAIR are making real progress. Little by little parts of the House and Senate are getting frightened by the anti-immigration lobby. WE MUST SUPPORT: FAIR, NumbersUSA and the others. True they fall far short of what I would want, but it is all we have now. By becoming active in such groups many will become racially conscious. We must act or SilverBush and Quirky will grind us into the pavement: THEY WANT US DEAD! 52
Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:25 | # One more appeal to Americans You heard SilverBush call racially awakened whites a <u>Virus</u> and he wished us dead. We must unite, we only have a few organizations in the USA working on behalf - though not explicitly for - white survival. Please, sign up for their newsletters and find out what is going on, and what you can do to fight. http://www.numbersusa.org Furthermore, the only pro white political movement in the English speaking world is the BNP, subscribe to the magazine and find ought how they do it, maybe one of us can make it work here. http://www.bnp.org.uk/publications/publication_freedom.htm UNITE OR DIE! 53
Posted by Kubilai on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:29 | # “Encoded in your very DNA, good white folk, are the mitochondrial DNA strands of a black woman.” (—quirky01) ROTFLOL Gentlemen, the only person(s) who are White are the commenters “Mark.” and possibly “splinter”. Mark is a misguided Liberal who has succumbed to the dogma and feels guilt for thinking the thoughts discussed here. Splinter is honestly curious though not on this side of the argument, however he does use “we” to describe our plight. The vile cretins named “quirky” and “silverhand” are non-White little pricks. Their posts should be permantly emblazened in Mark’s and Splinter’s mind, as well as all Whites, to understand just how strongly they hate us, want us out of our own countries, and have no qualms in seeing the White race become extinct. GW should place their posts on a special link entitled “these are your model immigrants” because it is this hatred and evil that is hidden from the masses. They have done us a tremendous service by vocalizing the true feelings and intent of non-Whites. Back to “quirky”, get with the times you imbecile. The most up to date information on human evolution has man evolving from Eurasia and it will be only a matter of time before the afrocentric pabulum of “out of Africa” goes the way of the dodo. The funny thing about science and scientists, neither can be suppressed forever. Scientists may buckle for fear of the PC sledgehammer, however they cannot honestly and morally lie forever and that is being proven with each passing day and each passing revelation. The most glorious Liberal lie to have died a miserable death is the “no such thing as race” piece of garbage. Even the most extreme Liberals do not have the temerity to continue that one, though they were hoping it would have lasted a bit longer. LOL Don’t believe me? Look up Bidil and get back to me. As to mtDNA and a “Black woman”, ROTFLOL, that was a good one. Even if Out of Africa, the piece of garbage is correct, ummm Blacks were not present then you moron. The only thing our predecessors may have had in common with a Black is probably an equitable IQ. LOL 54
Posted by Freddy on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:40 | # Err, Silver & Quirky, if “racism” is so wicked coming from white people, doesn’t taht make most non-whites irredemably evil? Racial nationalism & tribalism are the _norm_ among non-whites. Whites are mainly distinguished by their _not_ holding such views. 55
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:47 | # Just wanted to mention for quirky01’s benefit that having descended from a claimed mitochondrial Eve who lived 200k years ago doesn’t make everyone today the same: <u>STRUCTURE OF MONGOLOID POPULATIONS</u> A previous study discovered a near-perfect differentiation of Japanese from Chinese based on autosomal loci, indicating a strong substructure within the Mongoloid race. Now, researchers have performed clustering with 43 diallelic loci, confirming this structure, and discovering that Koreans and Japanese are more similar to each other than to the Chinese. Human Genetics (Online first) Use of autosomal loci for clustering individuals and populations of East Asian origin Jong-Jin Kim et al. Abstract We studied the genetic relationships among East Asian populations based on allele frequency differences to clarify the relative similarities of East Asian populations with a specific focus on the relationships among the Koreans, the Japanese, and the Chinese populations known to be genetically similar. The goal is to find markers appropriate for differentiating among the specific populations. In this study, no prior data existed for Koreans and the markers were selected to differentiate Chinese and Japanese. We typed, using AB TaqMan assays, single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 43 highly selected mostly independent diallelic sites, on 386 individuals from eight East Asian populations (Han Chinese from San Francisco, Han Chinese from Taiwan, Hakka, Koreans, Japanese, Ami, Atayal, and Cambodians) and one Siberian population (Yakut). We inferred group membership of individuals using a model-based clustering method implemented by the STRUCTURE program and population clustering by using computer programs DISTANCE, NEIGHBOR, LSSEARCH, and DRAWTREE, respectively, calculating genetic distances among populations, calculating neighbor-joining and least-squares trees, and drawing the calculated trees. On average 52% of individuals in the three Chinese groups were assigned into one cluster, and, respectively, 78 and 69% of Koreans and Japanese into a different cluster. Koreans differentiated from the Chinese groups and clustered with the Japanese in the principal component analysis (PCA) and in the best least-squares tree. The majority of Koreans were difficult to distinguish from the Japanese. This study shows that a relatively few highly selected markers can, within limits, differentiate between closely related populations. [Maybe Koreans, Japs, and Han Chinese want to continue being Koreans, Japs, and Han Chinese, quirky01? You think that’s at all conceivable? Yes, yes, we know that according to one theory they all descend from mitochondrial Eve, just as whites do, and since Negroes also descend from her, they, we, and Negroes must be related if you go back hundreds of thousands of years. But does that mean we’re not now white, however we came to be that way, or Koreans aren’t now Korean, Japs aren’t now Japanese, Chinamen aren’t now Chinese, and Negroes aren’t now Negroes?] 56
Posted by Kubilai on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:56 | # Oops, maybe I misspoke a bit early. I ask because I have this strange feeling that you’ll probably disagree with this, simply because us white folk, culturally and intellectually superior that we are should be welcomed with open arms by these obviously culturally bereft nations who so desperately need some good ol’ white lovin’. - Silverhand It appears “Silverhand” is a good, old fashioned, rabid anti-White White. LOL What a pathetic, lifeless, cultureless, spineless little sycophant. What dark, mildewy, fungophilic bowels do these sapropytes spawn from? I agree with Geoff, we must ferret out all these self-hating Marxists and expose them for the genocidists that they are. 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:43 | # We don’t need to concern ourselves with the Out of Africa theory: the present, however it came to be, is as it is, and that’s that. We look around us and see that we are white (or whatever color we are), that we like being how we are, and we don’t want to be extinguished, and that’s good enough: we need no further proof, morally speaking, that we ought not to be extinguished. It’s enough not to want it, and that’s that. Those trying to extinguish us keep putting us in the position of having to prove morally and scientifically that we shouldn’t be race-replaced, but we don’t need, morally or scientifically, to furnish any such proof. We have only to say we don’t want to be race-replaced and, morally, they have to back off the instant we say we oppose what they’re doing. If they won’t, we have the right to force them in whatever way we can, including through violence. However whites came to exist, they have the perfect right to protest against their own genocide whether that genocide be by means of bullets and gas chambers as the Nazis used on the Jews whom they rounded up, or by forced race-replacement and its allied policies (anti-white hate-speech laws and affirmative action, and so on) which get the job done as effectively though slower (and which nearly all Jewish organizations in the Western world today support being done to white-Euro Christian populations, apparently as revenge for what the Nazis did to Jews, as well as out of pure Christian-hatred that preceded the Nazis, going back hundreds and maybe thousands of years—it’s hard, at any rate, to see why else Jewish organizations of today would support the genocide of traditional white-Christian populations through forced race-replacement: to want a race or ethnic group extinguished you must hate that group deeply and passionately). Look, let’s say it was discovered and proven to everyone’s satisfaction—proven to the complete satisfaction of all the bloggers and all the regulars at MR.com, proven to the satisfaction of all scientists in the world, proven to everyone’s satisfaction—that the ancestors of all whites in the world were West-African Negroes three generations ago and by some miraculous process hitherto unsuspected the white race was engendered in only that short a time. Would that make white people less entititled to oppose their own race-replacement? Obviously not. Why in the world should it? However they came to be they came to be, and they don’t want to go out of existence. No matter whether the Out of Africa theory stands or falls, all people still came from Africa—it’s just that if it falls, it would mean people came out of Africa earlier than the advent of modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens—they came out of that continent at an earlier stage of human evolution. There’s nothing wrong with being descended from folk who came out of Africa or came out of any other place. None of that—none of it—means we should embrace going out of existence as a race. However we came to be, we are now what we are. 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:47 | # Kub, the other one, quirky01, also claimed to be white. Whether these two are white or not isn’t that important (I suspect both are), since we all know only too well the magnitude of the problem posed by the existence of multitudes of this kind of white. There’s something deeply wrong with these people. 59
Posted by Kubilai on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:26 | # Fred, as usual, you are correct with your most basic premise, that we as Whites have no obligation to walk complacently upon the junk pile of extinct beings littered throughout history. Not only do we not have to oblige, we do not have to sit idly by either. Their stance is one of aggression and hatred. They are not interested in dialogue, though neither am I since what kind of “dialogue” could we have that would convince me that my extended kin deserves to SELF-relegate themselves into servitude and eventual extinction? What kills me is ALL these feculent anti-racists always want for others to come here, here being whatever White country they are in. None of them are interested in pushing this dogma anywhere else and none are interested in going anywhere else that is non-White. As if their rights trump ours for some twisted reason. 60
Posted by Andrew L on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:43 | # If being black Yellow or brown was so good, and if China , India, Africans , Lebonese, Midle Eastern etc are so sophysticated and brilliant, then why are we not migrating to those countries, simply put because they are all stuffed, yes stuffed, and now ours are on the same path of dispare, That is what the good Professor is telling us, but we know that.Race and IQ are related, and assimulation or resentment, are rellevant arguments, Leftism and it’s romantic manifesto with it’s culpable lies and untruths are a crime.Treason yet again. 61
Posted by Andrew L on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:54 | # Geoff, Do not worry about those other over opinionated propaganderist’s, as you can see USA does not hold the patent for academic brainwashed idiots, they will learn eventually, but the hard way. Unfortunitly they have not heard of books and infomation.You should hear some of the absolute conveluted crapp 18 year olds spew out about history, they were plugged directly to the post-modern generator, they might get work cleaning toilet bowls, there intellectual cognitive skills are some what watered down, and flushed away. 62
Posted by Splinter on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:56 | # Just come back to this discussion, after a nights sleep. Seems things have got stired up. Ok as I see it, the term race-replaced is important, and I agree that if a race/culture wants to exist it has the right to that existance. Historically this is correct and supported by your statements, cultures have fought invaders, race-replacers. One thing we also must remember is the might (by technology or other means) has always won. America (north and south), Australia, South Africa and others are examples and people here (eg Fred Scooby and others) have applauded this. What I was originally (and still am) enraged at is that this discussion does not require statements to the effect that other races are inferior or supperior, just that they are different and in all there differences have a right to exist or fight to exist. Accepting the history and the right to exist then there is two options: Unfortunatly human nature and history show us that the first is the only possible outcome, as aggreaved people from the discussion process will always contest the outcome. So if history teaches us anything no culture is safe if there is overwhelming force or numbers. Many would say, for example, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and British culture is under direct attack from the US. This is due to sport, advertising, TV and movies. BUT: This is all based on the assumption that for a culture to service it MUST be isolated. For that isolation to work it would have to include Political and Economic as well as the physical. It also assumes that static culture is good in the long run. However Fred has already stated that he did not think that was the case. He believed that it was a good thing that this has happened in the past. Kubilai is right I “am curious, but currently on the other side of the argument”. I think you need to be able to convince people like me if you are going to have the “force” to have our culture survive. I am yet to be convinced however that the status quo is the correct situation. As a “liberal” (I hate labels, and alignments it simplifies things too much, I am concerned about people the environment and the economy and think ideas and practices from “both sides” have merit) I dislike the forcing of culture onto me (and others) by large corporations primarily from the US. Whether this is inevitable or something we should fight against is a very pressing question for the world as a whole. 63
Posted by Andrew L on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:45 | # Splinter, I think everyone is a greenie, it would be the indoctrination of Marxist type that would sell you otherwise, and people are a important issue, but highlite facts, and not the antiquated leftoid lies. The last 60 years have created a bastadry of Philosophies and reincarneted crapp written hundred of years ago, none of which is logic, but only attempts to redifine the obvious. 64
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:11 | # Splinter, All peoples have, if not a right, then an obligation to themselves, to their past and, most particularly, their future to pursue their racial interest (or EGI). This is human nature at work at the level of racial or group identity. It is not a wild and unforgivable, special sin of heterosexual white men. It is how human beings are (as opposed to how liberals want us European Caucasian ones to be). Liberalism, which did not begin as a global philosophy of EC race denial but has become so, is the greatest enemy we have. There is also, it is true, Organised Jewry (which merely pursues a Jewish EGI predicated on implacable opposition to Western Man and his Christianity). There are the Third World immigrants, our replacers. There is leftist activism, which is the political cutting edge. There is statism. There is global capitalism and the push for global governance, both of which have allied with the aforementioned agencies. But as the dominant ideology of Western politics, liberalism - the singular and secular pursuit of human freedom - has birthed all these agencies (save Jewry) which are busily at work on us. It has got so that in its present advanced stage it will, by any reasonable, historically-rooted definition, destroy us over the next century or so. That’s how I see things. I would be interested in knowing where you disagree. 65
Posted by Kubilai on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:53 | # Welcome Splinter. There are many movements within the WN and they vary. Some advocate more extreme measures and most, this site included, do not advocate violent measures, however if it comes to that then so be it. The spawning of WNs such as the ones you find in Neo-Nazi sites and Stormfront are there due to a complete dearth of places people could have turned to in the past. Whites, due to complacency, marginalized these groups, though now we do not have the luxury to be complacent. This site and others like it have arisen in the last couple of years because of a gradual awakening of sorts by more and more “moderate” Whites who view things changing for the worse. My views are ones that we do not need non-proximate immigrants in our countries, even though I like the ones I am surrounded with because after all they are nice people in general. Let me repeat though, we need NONE. This is irrelevent to me whether I like them or not because they ALL have their own interests and some have significant political clout and are quite vocal in their interests. Their interests do not coincide with mine or with most other Whites. Now you seem to be a decent man and a humanitarian and your shoes are similar to mine in that they have walked along the same path. I too was more “liberal” and do have some liberal ideology still in me, though I began to realize, as I’m sure you have, that things are changing and the world is beginning to call up, down and right, left. I began researching why this was because to common, normal people, the ways of this “New World Order” just did not make sense and nearly EVERYBODY thought it stupid though did not chime up for obvious reasons. Some reasons for this is as follows… 1) Mixing and creating a mass of people/slaves to work for a few oligarch elites running the world. 2) Jewish manipulation to put in place “safe” non-majority environments so they will not suffer any possible future persecutions. 3) Creating civil strife that would enable governments to enact draconian laws to prevent this “strife” and in turn allow number 1 above to come to full fruition. 4) Liberal altruitistic ideology that once we are all “mixed” then there won’t be any more wars. (LOL I know) There may be a few more though this is what came off the top of my head. The truth is probably a combination of the above. Whatever the truth is, the reality is that we have the God given right NOT to be essentially exterminated. That is the reality of what is happening and what will happen over time. I blame the originators and propagators of this ideology more than any immigrant since they are merely pawns themselves. We need to preserve ourselves and our nations of origin and that is all there is to it. I have to run, though am curious of your thoughts. 66
Posted by Cephas on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:52 | # Hoorah! Fraser has just proved that a high IQ doesn’t go hand in hand with logic. Black people are crooks, mmh would that mean white people have small penis’. These are stereotypes that a civilised society ought to overcome. So he immigrated here and being white he should have been allowed in? Can I challenge these redneck to a battle of the minds, he thinks sub-saharan black africans have lower IQ. Would he and those claiming this be prepared to have a head on battle of the minds with myself and maybe a few other dumb black people? 67
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:41 | # Cephas, Perhaps you might use that mind of yours to peruse my earlier comment on this thread about the standards of respect that are required here. If you can’t manage without insults you are not welcome. As for your somewhat fevered request to debate with us the 70-year record of Negroid intelligence testing, personally I doubt whether anyone here will want to trouble you. 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:20 | # “Black people are crooks [is] stereotypes that a civilised society ought to overcome.” (—Cephas) Negroes aren’t crooks, they’re generally fine people like everyone else and of course have their contribution to make, but Negroes living in white countries commit violent street crime at rates much higher than whites in those societies. This is documented all over the place. Not only is it scientifically documented but it’s generally known from simple universal observation and experience on the part of all people living where the two races dwell in proximity to one another. I was born and raised in New York City. There, white people never committed violent street crime. That’s never as in: N - e - v - e - r. They NEVER did. All violent street crime —all of it—was committed by Negroes and Puerto Ricans, something everyone knew and leftists always tried to deny, and Hollywood tried to portray otherwise by casting white teenagers as New York City gang members (something which was non-existent: all teenage gang members were Negro and Puerto Rican), and so on. You were safe in a white neighborhood. You were literally taking your life into your hands walking down a street in a Negro neighborhood, or sometimes even driving down the street in your car in one. In fact, no white person ever walked down the street in a Negro neighborhood because he feared not emerging alive. I don’t know where you live, Cephas, but if you try to deny this I have no intention of debating you, because I don’t have time to waste: I long ago stopped debating two plus two equals four, the sky is blue, and the sun will rise tomorrow. “Can I challenge these rednecks to a battle of the minds, he thinks sub-saharan black africans have lower IQ.” The main objection a lot of us have to what’s going on is in regard to our being forced to submit to our race being changed into a different one, in most cases a radically different one, not even a closely-related one—though we’d object almost as strongly to being forced to change into a closely-related one as well. We don’t want ANY race-replacement forced on us, thank you very much. We don’t want to be changed into different people with lower IQs, higher IQs, or the same IQs. We don’t want to be changed into Chinamen or high-caste Hindus, who have higher IQs, into Negroes, who have lower ones, or into other kinds of whites, who have equal IQs. We are here asserting our right to be permitted to continue racially intact and unchanged if we want, and to demand that governments and their behind-the-scenes string-pullers of the Tranzi, Wall-Street/Big-Business, Communist, Jewish, Catholic, or whatever, stripe stop trying to change the races of our traditional white-Euro communities, countries, and nation-states. We also recognize that other races, ethnic groups, and nation-states than ourselves have the same right, a view amounting to Salter’s “universal nationalism,” which some of us here explicitly espouse as a fundamental guiding principle. Where two particular nationalisms conflict in the world, I personally, as a white-Euro Christian, will support, first, the side which is morally and historically in the right no matter what it’s race or ethnicity is, and second, where both sides of the conflict are equally morally and historically right, the side most closely related to the race and ethnoculture of the nation-state which I consider myself as belonging to. “I agree that if a race/culture wants to exist it has the right to that existance. (—Splinter) Splinter, that’s the basic principle espoused by of some of this site’s regular reader-commenters, me included. All else—all else—follows from that. That and its ramifications sum everything up. Everything. As for the rest of your post, Splinter, I’m rushed at the moment so can’t comment further right now except I want to say you seem to have imputed to me the belief that might makes right. That’s not my view. My view is the Salterian one of “universal nationalism,” meaning I support national existence for all nationalisms. Where conflicts arise from that I decide which party to the dispute I side with on the basis first of morality, then, where both sides’ claims are equally moral and historically justified, on the basis of blood and nation and relatedness to me and the nation I consider myself as belonging to. 69
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:01 | # Silverhand, in another thread Mark Richardson wondered if you were the Steve Silver who writes for Searchlight Magazine. If you are, I’d like to address the comments you’ve posted in this thread. (I don’t think you are he, because you say or at least imply you’re in Australia while Silver’s in England, and furthermore your writing styles are different.) Quirky01, if you’re someone significant instead of just the typical run-of-the-mill anonymous forum commenter as I am, I’d also like to know, so I can reply to you as well. 70
Posted by Silverhand on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:38 | # Alas no Fred, you are correct in your deduction, I live in Australia, Brisbane to be exact and I have no affiliation with Searchlight or any other anti-fascist magazine, probably much to your disappointment. 71
Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:13 | # Alas no Fred, you are correct in your deduction, I live in Australia, Brisbane to be exact and I have no affiliation with Searchlight or any other anti-fascist magazine, probably much to your disappointment. - Silverhand Oh, so you’re not anyone of importance just another stupid, hatefilled, “useful idiot” for idiot Liberals that has lead society to things like this… http://www.sbsun.com/Stories/0,1413,208~12588~2969790,00.html which in turn leads to this… http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18816 And where would be without lovely citizens like this if it weren’t for your ilks “enlightenment” and “tolerance”... And finally (though not all inclusive) if anyone dares to speak up, DESPITE being 100% correct, then we have this to thank you cretins for… 72
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:37 | # Looks like Kub has pretty much summed it up. Good post! 73
Posted by Silverhand on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:06 | # Yep guys, as unimportant, insignificant, and stupid as yourselves I’m afraid. 74
Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:01 | # Yep guys, as unimportant, insignificant, and stupid as yourselves I’m afraid. - Silverhand Well, almost correct. The only changes I would like to make are the following… - If we are so “unimportant, insignificant”, then I fail to understand your logic in spending your “precious” time in posting a multi-post barrage trying to disprove our assertions and prove your point. Maybe it was here that I read it, however the maxim of one does not spend so much energy on points that are worthless is quite valid. It is only those points that are TRUE that one needs to attack. The example used was, no one would give a shit if we were talking about how aliens caused the multi-cult fiasco and simply ignore us as “insignificant, unimportant, and stupid”. You obviously are worried, hence the need to spew vitriol onto to these boards. - We may be “stupid”, yet you subconsiously (or consciously) left out “wrong”. To me, it is clear, though to you it may not be. We are not wrong and you may not like what is spoken here, however disproving it is another matter, isn’t it? 75
Posted by Ken Duncan on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:21 | # I seem to have weighed into this discussion a little late, having only just read Fraser’s comments on another blog which led me here. Having gone through this thread with an open mind, I am interested in hearing from some of you why you would support the ideology of Ethnic Genetic Interest when to me it seems to promote genetic and evolutionary stagnation. I am not a geneticist, nor am I from a scientific background, I am old school, born in the 40’s, but doesn’t an ideology based on maintaing the status quo, which is effectively what EGI is, mean that other races who do not subscribe to this ideology will grow and perhaps evolve to the point where they in turn will do what history has shown always happens - they will invade and race-replace us anyway, by force rather than stealth? Granted it probably wouldn’t happen for several thousand years. Have I missed a crucial point that refutes this? 76
Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:04 | # but doesn’t an ideology based on maintaing the status quo, which is effectively what EGI is - Ken Duncan Hi Ken, I think your premise is incorrect and will attempt to clarify it for you, though there are others here who are head and shoulders above me in their knowledge of this. Having EGIs and wanting to maintain ourselves through conscious and unconscious (genetic) means does not equate to a “status quo”. There is enough genetic “diversity” within our European populations in all respective countries that we need not worry of any ” evolutionary stagnation”. Heck, there is enough genetic diversity in medium sized cities to allow enough intermixing that will not cause any stagnation or genetic “mutation” due to inbreeding for eons, essentially. This is a simplistic explanation and hope it was helpful to you. 77
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:22 | # Ken Duncan, mandatory race replacement as an actual, enforced governmental policy in the white West began in earnest around 1975 to 1980( * ). How did all the white-Euro nationalities manage before then? How do you figure that none of them has any chance of continuing to manage in the same way any longer and all must therefore submit to being changed into another race if they want to survive into the future? Can you explain yourself a different way, perhaps (because you’ve lost me, for one, Mr. Duncan)? ( * The Kennedy-Celler Immigration Holocaust Bill was passed in 1965 thanks largely to forty years of unremitting, concentrated effort by and pressure from organized Jewish groups whose policy seems to have been that replacing the U.S.‘s traditional white-Christian majority with a non-white one was “good for the Jews”) but it wasn’t until the early 70s that excessive incompatible immigration resulting from that stealth-genocide bill started to get underway and it wasn’t until around 1980 or ‘85 that the changing race of the country began to be noticed by the ordinary man-in-the-street of U.S. cities. Since about 1985 it’s been blatantly obvious what’s being engineered: a new racial majority in this country—and of course the ones doing it have only accelerated their efforts and multiplied their successes since then.) 78
Posted by Ken Duncan on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:42 | # Kubilai, as I said I am not a scientist or an expert on genetics so my understandig is from what I have read, or remember from my youth. While I understand there is enough genetic diversity even in a moderate population to ensure genetic evolution, where would you draw the line as it were, and how would you define “purity” for want of a better word? I have read that one of the US presidents, Thomas Jefferson I believe has hundreds of “white” descendants from his black slaves and it is evident that he was not alone. Is it not entirely possible for genetic anomoly, throwback, or recessiveness to appear in your gene pool and thus corrupt it? Fred Scooby states matter of factly above that we are where we are, and my guess is that he feels we should now move forward from today in an effort to ensure our future genetic identity. This is a sound ideal for we cannot change the past, only influence the future. My concern though rests on the current state of our white gene pool, it has already undergone approximately 600 years of dilution. How do we reverse this ethnic dilution, or how do we account for recessiveness? Surely the larger the genetic pool, the greater the likelihood of such anomoly, yet if we reduce the pool size to reduce the statistical chance of it happening we open ourselves up to an inability to genetically evolve. Do we push the anomolies out? where do we put them when they have as much claim to the same Ethnic Genetic Interest as us, or do they? Where does the EGI lie of a person whose parents 200 years ago were mixed and they suddenly express recessive or throwback features now that makes them physically and mentally different from the race in which they were born? Also, what do we do if down the line, a recessive gene becomes dominant that has catastrophic effects on our gene pool - such as a haemophilia? Do we rely on future scientific discovery to overcome it? Sorry for all the questions, I guess you’re not a genetics expert either based on your comment, but maybe some of those who you talk about are. 79
Posted by JW Holliday on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:09 | # Ken Duncan, It would be helpful if you’d look in the MR archives as regards ethnic genetic interests before making comments here about ‘evolutionary stagnation’, since these issues have already been dealt with. Funny, isn’t it, that a rising power like China doesn’t worry about such “stagnation.” No, only Europeans are in “need” of immigration and panmixia to “help” us out. I don’t think so. 80
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:56 | # “how would you define [racial] ‘purity’?” (—Ken Duncan, 5:42 PM) No one here traffics in that concept. “Thomas Jefferson I believe has hundreds of ‘white’ descendants from his black slaves” That was debunked. “it is evident that [Jefferson] was not alone. Is it not entirely possible for genetic anomoly, throwback, or recessiveness to appear in your gene pool and thus corrupt it?” I don’t follow. If you’re asking whether it changes a white population racially (you phrased it as “corrupting the gene pool”) when its whites marry Negroes, obviously yes. But I’m not sure what you’re asking. “Fred Scooby states matter of factly above that we are where we are, and my guess is that he feels we should now move forward from today in an effort to ensure our future genetic identity.” Sorry, I don’t follow your words at all. What I favor is bringing legal race-replacement “immigration” to a halt; ejecting all illegals peremptorily—no games, no appeals, no questions asked, answered, or allowed: “There’s the border. You have exactly five minutes to be on the other side of it.”; repatriating (humanely and with financial compensation) incompatibles already brought in in excessive numbers by the usual suspects who were trying to force the issue by, so to speak, pre-determining the outcome before any proper debate could take place—trying, in other words, to win without debate (which they knew they’d be certain to lose) by placing us all before the fait accompli of a race already replaced so might as well not fight it. We’re going to fight it, and we’re going to undo it and restore the racial/demographic status quo ante. (I put “immigration” in quotes because these are wholesale population transfers, not immigration.) “My concern though rests on the current state of our white gene pool, it has already undergone approximately 600 years of dilution.” I’ll take whatever it was in 1965. “How do we reverse this ethnic dilution, or how do we account for recessiveness?” Reverse race-replacement by humane repatriations. Halt all new race-replacement by sane immigration policies. “Surely the larger the genetic pool, the greater the likelihood of such anomoly, yet if we reduce the pool size to reduce the statistical chance of it happening we open ourselves up to an inability to genetically evolve.” Dunno what you’re talking about. Sorry. Can you simplify it? “Do we push the anomolies out? where do we put them when they have as much claim to the same Ethnic Genetic Interest as us, or do they? Where does the EGI lie of a person whose parents 200 years ago were mixed and they suddenly express recessive or throwback features now that makes them physically and mentally different from the race in which they were born?” Where do their EGIs lie? Dunno, pal—why not ask them? As for the “anomalies,” “throwbacks,” or whatever, I don’t know what you’re talking about but whichever ones of those were around or expected in 1965 are perfectly OK with me. They’re not the ones changing the race of the country from white to everything-but. 81
Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:57 | # Ken Duncan > I have read that one of the US presidents, Thomas Jefferson I believe has hundreds of “white” descendants from his black slaves and it is evident that he was not alone. Just wondering if you are intentionally passing bogus information? And what better way to attack the history of the United States and a key figure in its founding than to claim Thomas Jefferson was the evil slave owner that abused his role of power to impregnate his female slaves. That is the implication in your comment: In fact you have broadened the libel, by inference, to suggest that white Americans are somehow latently half breeds, and thereby hypocrites for wanting to maintain the white European characteristics of the nation. Here is what we know: In fact, the DNA evidence merely showed that Sally Hemings’s youngest son, Eston, was likely fathered by one of more than two dozen Jefferson males in Virginia at the time. ... Furthermore, the oral history passed down for generations by Eston’s descendants claimed he wasn’t Thomas Jefferson’s child but the son of “an uncle.” Jefferson’s paternal uncles died decades before Eston was conceived, but the president’s brother was widely known at Monticello as “Uncle Randolph” because of his relationship to the president’s daughters. ... Three months ago, a distinguished group of more than a dozen senior scholars concluded a yearlong investigation of the Jefferson-Hemings issue with a 550-page report… concluding <u>“Thomas Jefferson was simply not guilty of the charge”</u>. 82
Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:08 | # Ken, Your inquiries and concerns are near absolute affirmations that what we are doing to ourselves, that is the Liberal elites primarily though the Neo-Cons have jumped on this bandwagon for their own selfish reasons, is abhorrent and needs to be terminated IMMEDIATELY with subsequent actions to remedy the harms already done. That is what we (the awoken) have been saying from the beginning. We cannot continue down this untenable path because at some point in the future, European Man will CEASE to exist. That is the eventual reality to all this immigration, “hate laws”, racial propaganda, and “tolerance” that is spewed out on a daily, nearly incessant basis. Once the critical point is passed, the eventual extinction will be a certainty. There is enough genetic variation within European man to keep from “stagnating” and that is the LEAST of our worries. As to your haemophilia concern. You need look no further than the tribal, laser-like focus Ashkenazi Jews took towards their problem with Tay-Sachs, where 1 in 27 Ashkenazi Jews in the US is a carrier. The carrier incidence for non Jews is 1 in 250. Within a couple of decades, it is nearly non-existent amongst Jews. This is the type of solutions one can achieve if one is allowed to maintain their tribal instincts. 83
Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:10 | # Geoff and Fred, I noticed that about Jefferson as well. Ken may or may not be what he states, though it shouldn’t be a problem to give him enough rope, as the saying goes. 84
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:27 | # One of the things that makes conversations about race-replacement difficult is all these people who act as if they lack any concept of quantity or magnitude. Take the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. Its population is, what—half-a-million? A million? Surely not more than a million, if that. Let’s say half-a-million. Imagine some complete asshole in the Grand Duchy government—maybe a communist; maybe a female with no concept whatsoever of race, countries, or how countries work because females in general don’t have those concepts; maybe a Jew who’s obsessed with the need to efface white majorities because since he was a toddler he’s been taught by his Jewish relatives that it’ll be “better for Jews” that way; maybe a self-abnegating Christian moron; maybe a Chinaman who got into government there by affirmative action—let’s say this person decided to throw open the doors of the Grand Duchy to all one-billion Chinamen in China. Let’s say you ventured the comment that that would change the race of the Grand Duchy to Chinese. The very next thing you hear is always, “What’s the matter with Mr. Hong Ching from China who works in my office? He’s a very good worker, minds his own business, doesn’t bother a soul, gets along well with everyone. Why do people like you, Scrooby, always have to insist that good people like Hong Ching must leave the Grand Duchy?” To which I always have to reply, “I have nothing against Hong Ching. Hong Ching isn’t singlehandedly changing the race of the Grand Duchy from white to Chinese. He can stay. But do we have to import all billion of the Chinese living in China, as this other asshole wants to do?” To which the reply always comes, “You’re just a racist, Scrooby. Why don’t you leave instead of Mr. Ching. We’d rather have him around than fascists like you.” These people can’t tell the difference between small and large numbers, small or large quantities. If they won one dollar in the Power Ball lottery they’d jump for joy just as much as if they’d won a hundred-million dollars—they can’t tell the difference between the two magnitudes. They have no concept of magnitude, no concept that there are different magnitudes. This chap Ken Duncan reminds me of these people. 86
Posted by Ken Duncan on Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:25 | # Gentlemen I think its very sad that you cant help but belittle someone who believes he has asked reasonable questions simply because he isn’t as knowledgeable on this subject as you obviously all are. Rather than simply waggling your finger and shouting “fool” at someone looking to broaden his horizons and gain answers to what are ultimately important questions for us all, it would help your cause if you were more willing to help show people why you hold your beliefs as highly as you do. I shall seek the answers to my questions elsewhere. 87
Posted by Kubilai on Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:53 | # Ken, you’ll have to forgive us for being a bit circumspect of your intentions and questions. You wouldn’t be the first to come here misrepresenting himself for all sorts of reasons. You do not have to leave (if your intentions are pure), though you do have to prove yourself, and it does not involve how much you know about racial issues. That you can learn here. 89
Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 22 Jul 2005 03:36 | # > Gentlemen I think its very sad that you cant help but belittle someone who believes he has asked reasonable questions simply because he isn’t as knowledgeable on this subject as you obviously all are. Oh boo hoo. I’m in tears. John Ray holds up well enough to the grilling, if you’re going into the arena you’d better be prepared and ready for action. This isn’t an ice cream social. 90
Posted by Splinter on Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:49 | # Sorry I have been away a day or so. I have been doing a lot of reading. Ok as I see it, this all stems from the argument that we all (should) have this inbuilt urge and “obligation” to protect our own kind. We see this behaviour in history throughout the ages, and is shown most strongly when the groups are under threat from another more powerfull or equally powerful group. The problem I have with this is that I can’t relate to this obligation. I don’t feel an obligation to my countrymen because they are genically like me, I feel an obligation to my Country as I believe in what it stands for. I feel an oblication to my family and friends because they are people I care about. But I don’t feel an obligation to protect the concept of Joe Sixpack because he is genitically like me. Sorry I don’t feel it, and if I can’t grasp, understand or feel that obligation I cannot agree with the logical “solutions” or “actions” that are put forward here. I thank those who spent the time sending links, providing research and assisting me in identifying the core reasoning in this argument. Splinter 91
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:05 | # You’re welcome, Splinter. It’s what we are here for. Don’t give up on the survival of Western Man, though. All that you value is from him, his intelligence, his creativity, his courage. If you need ideas to find love for your own kind, they abound. Alternatively, if the ideas you think you admire are cultural marxist in origin (modern “tolerance”, for example), you could come at the issue from the political perspective. Anyway, I wish you well and I hope we see on the threads again some time. Post a comment:
Next entry: THE HEAT IS ON AT CHEVRON
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 22:12. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 12:56. (View) Manc commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 10:23. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 09:44. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 04:57. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 05 May 2024 02:34. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 03 May 2024 23:04. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 04:26. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) |
Posted by Stuka on Sat, 16 Jul 2005 22:05 | #
A brave man indeed. I wish there were more chaps like him.
”... an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems…”
GW, what does Prof Fraser mean by “black”: Africans or Abbos?